defendant of first degree murder. First of all, premeditation means that “the act was thought out beforehand for some length of time.”
“Deliberation means an intent to kill carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an
unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by lawful or just cause or legal provocation.” Both
elements are hard to prove because they involve the mind of the criminal, they have complex definitions, and they can usually only be proven
by circumstantial evidence. However, this is only the beginning of the complex legal maze that prosecutors must get through to get a
conviction. Some other things prosecutors must consider in proving murder in the first degree are that “defendant’s emotion must not have
disturbed his faculties or reason,” whether or not the killing occurred during the course of a quarrel or scuffle, previous hostile feelings and
prior assaults, nature and number of wounds, unseemly conduct toward and concealment of the body, vicious and brutal slaying, whether or
not the defendant consumed alcohol beforehand, and many other limiting factors. Due to the complicated process, a trial for first degree murder
lasts approximately six weeks.
First degree murder trials are long and expensive and the appeals process is long and expensive. According to the Attorney General’s Office, a
capital case (a trial for first degree murder) usually takes about six weeks and constitutes between 3,000 and 5,000 pages of court record.(30) The
trial itself is costly, but the court record has to be considered on every appeal made by attorneys on both sides, as well as by the appeals court
and the judges involved. Because so many pages are involved, the appeals process takes several times the length that an appeal for second
degree murder would. This is a major reason that murderers spend between 10 years on death row before being executed. (31) (32)
Under the Homicide Reform Act (see appendix A), first degree murder and second degree murder will be considered the same
crime and will be punished by death or life imprisonment. Murder will be defined as unlawful killing of a human being with
malice, express or implied.(33) In effect, this means that first and second degree murder will be combined under the title of
murder and will have the standard legal definition of murder.
Even with those convicted of first degree murder, the death penalty is not a common occurrence. The reason is that right now
the death penalty statutes make life imprisonment the rule for first degree murder cases. The death penalty is the exception to
the rule. The Capital Punishment Reform Act (written in appendix B) will make the death penalty the standard punishment for
murder. The purpose of the Capital Punishment Reform Act is to reform the capital punishments statutes to make the death
penalty the standard punishment for murder. Although life imprisonment shall be an option for the jury to choose for anyone
convicted of murder, the grounds for life imprisonment are much more limited than before. This bill asserts that murder deserves
the death penalty. Under this bill, if a person is convicted of murder, the jury must show that there is one or more substantial
enough mitigating circumstances to call for the lesser sentence of life imprisonment. Otherwise, the murderer would get a
sentence of death.
Under our current death penalty statutes, life imprisonment is the standard punishment. In order to give a sentence of death, the
jury has to prove that there are one or more sufficient aggravating circumstances that the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt,
and that there were not any mitigating circumstances that outweighed the aggravating circumstance. If the jury finds both of
these conditions to be true, it can issue the death penalty. The Capital Punishment Reform Act reverses the trend. The death
penalty is the standard punishment. In order to give a sentence of life imprisonment, the jury must prove that there are one or
more sufficient mitigating circumstances that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the aggravating circumstance is
insufficient to outweigh any mitigating circumstances. If the jury finds these conditions to be true, it can issue a sentence of life
imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
Under our current death penalty statues, all twelve jurors have to concur on the punishment. If a single jury member disagrees
with the other eleven, the murderer is automatically issued a sentence of life imprisonment. We live in a world of many different
ideologies, thoughts, and philosophies. If one person out of a group of twelve can stop the death penalty from happening, the
death penalty will never be the standard punishment for murder. Under Section (b), my bill provides that only nine of the twelve
jurors must issue the punishment.(34) If nine jurors (three-fourths) agree that the person deserves to die, he deserves to die. In
addition, if nine of the jurors cannot agree on a sentence, the judge shall decide the sentence as he deems fit. However, in most
cases nine of the twelve jurors would be able to come to a decision themselves.
Under the current death penalty statutes, a sentence of death is subject to automatic review by the state Supreme Court, while
a sentence of life imprisonment is not subject to automatic review. When the Supreme Court reviews the case, it must consider
whether or not the death penalty was too harsh in addition to any other areas assigned to it on appeal. This is yet another law
that hinders the death penalty. The jury has already decided that the aggravating circumstance has outweighed any mitigating
circumstances. The only thing the Supreme Court should be doing is checking to see if any mistakes or errors have been made
in trying the case. It is not necessary to automatically review the sentence of death. The defendant should have the right to
appeal and the Supreme Court should review the matters assigned to it on appeal. Under the Capital Punishment Reform Act,
the defendant has the right to appeal to the state Supreme Court, and the state Supreme Court shall review any matters
assigned to it on appeal.
Under the current death penalty statutes, there is a limited number of aggravating circumstances that must be considered in
order to give a sentence of death. The jury has to show that at least one of them is true in order to issue a sentence of death.
This fact, in and of itself, makes life imprisonment the standard punishment. If the death penalty is to be the standard punishment
for first degree murder, than murdering should be the only aggravating circumstance necessary. Under the Capital Punishment
Reform Act, murdering another human being is the aggravating circumstance. Thus, there will always be an aggravating
circumstance because everyone convicted of murder has murdered another human being. All of the other aggravating
circumstances are not needed and are taken out.
Under the current death penalty statutes, mitigating circumstances are numerous and wide-ranging. In addition, “Any other
circumstances arising from the evidence which the jury deems to have mitigating value,” is itself a mitigating circumstance. If the
death penalty is to be the standard punishment for first degree murder, the range of mitigating circumstances must be limited.
Many of the mitigating circumstances are removed. (1) “The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.” What
this says is that it is okay to murder someone in the first degree if you have not done anything wrong in the past. This ruins the
whole deterrence effect of the death penalty. It has to be removed.
(2), (3), and (4) are kept for obvious reasons. (5) Premeditated murder is wrong and needs to be punished whether or not
someone else pressured you do it. Someone pressured to murder will have greater reason not to murder if the death penalty is
the standard sentence. (5) has to be removed. (6) If the mitigating circumstance in number 6 is really true and substantial
enough to be taken into consideration, it will already be covered by (2). (6) has to be removed because it opens a lot of
loopholes. (7) Age is important! Keep in mind