•  
  •  
 
University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy

Abstract

Justice Thurgood Marshall argued, “There is certainly nothing irrational—indeed, there is nothing novel—about the idea of mitigating a death sentence because of lingering doubts as to guilt.” For the first time in the history of the United States, polling shows a majority of Americans prefer life in prison over a sentence of capital punishment. Capital punishment is a hotly debated national issue—recent polling shows 60% of Americans prefer a sentence of life in prison without parole when compared to the death penalty.

In 2023, Florida stepped into first place among the states in adopting the lowest capital punishment sentencing threshold. The Florida legislature amended the state’s death penalty statute, lowering from twelve jurors to only eight the vote required to condemn a defendant to death. This new standard raises several concerns among commentators, such as whether the lower threshold will increase the number of innocent defendants sentenced to death row, and whether an already death-qualified jury will be less likely to listen to jurors arguing against a sentence of capital punishment. To ensure just results under the new eight-juror standard, the Florida Legislature should raise the burden of proof required in the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial to that of “beyond a residual doubt.”

Part I of this Note reviews the jurisprudence of federal death penalty legislation. Part II explains the history of death penalty legislation in Florida. Part III outlines the policy rationale behind the new Florida legislation. Part VI analyzes the dangers of a non-unanimous jury requirement for capital punishment. Finally, Part V argues for the beyond a residual doubt burden of proof and advocates adopting it in the death penalty sentencing phase of Florida’s death penalty cases.

Download

Share

COinS