NCJ Number
111124
Journal
University of California Davis Law Review Volume: 18 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1985) Pages: 1433-1480
Date Published
1985
Length
48 pages
Annotation
In Pulley v. Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the eighth amendment does not require State appellate courts to compare the sentence in a capital case with those in similar cases to make a determination of proportionality.
Abstract
The Court concluded that the California capital sentencing system provides other procedural safeguards sufficient to satisfy constitutionality requirements. This opinion sends a clear message to States that so long as they have proper procedures in place, the Court will not scrutinize these procedures to determine if they actually work. An analysis of the statutory framework of appellate review and the Georgia Supreme Court's implementation of that framework shows that the Court has failed to develop any coherent method for distinguishing between those who should receive the death penalty from those who should not. In their reviews, individual characteristics of the defendant and the crime are ignored in favor of general categories. The Court has fashioned only two rules for proportionality review: if the defendant received a life sentence in an earlier trial, a death sentence may not later be imposed on the basis of the same evidence; and if a jury has imposed a death sentence in a remotely similar case, the court will not reverse the sentence. Results cast doubt on the U.S. Supreme Court's faith in current appellant procedures and suggest that proportionality review is indeed unnecessary because it is an insufficient safeguard when practiced in a mechanical and formalistic manner. 233 footnotes.