It is quite obvious that Judge Pfeifer’s view on
the Death Penalty has changed since he participated in the writing of Ohio’s
Death Penalty Law 30 years ago. It is
not unusual as [the Ohio Law] has undergone a few changes since then from other
legal actions. Regardless, as the
article pointed out that it is not uncommon for ‘sitting’ judges to change
their minds when it comes to the Death Penalty, the only thing that makes this
situation so unique is that this judge is now opposing the same law he helped
to write.
The article relates that he is not completely
opposed to the use of the Death Penalty, inferring that he feels that
prosecutors are ‘over seeking’ this sentence.
Judge Pfeifer’s position on this sentence is that it should be “reserved
for those committing what the state views as the most heinous of murders” but
the article does not go into what Ohio classifies as ‘most heinous’ crimes.
The two cases cited in the article, in his opinion
did not warrant the Death Penalty. Based
on my understanding of Ohio Laws regarding what constitutes a Death Penalty
sentence, these cases were neither aggravated nor particularly gruesome. These are the elements of the homicides which
I believe are the reasons why he opposed the death penalty in those particular
cases.
The article further relates that in 2001 Judge
Pfeifer disagreed with the death sentence in two cases and upheld the sentence
in five other cases although he disagreed on certain aspects of the sentences
in four of those five cases. The fact
that he does support the death penalty in cases where it is clearly ‘viewed as
the most heinous of murders’ was demonstrated in December of 2012 where he
actually set the execution date and signed the order for a man who raped and
killed his girlfriends’ three year old daughter. The age of the victim in this case is what
established this crime as ‘most heinous’ in the eyes of the court.
As a judge on the Supreme Court it is his job to
make decisions and to take positions that are intended to make the laws
better. Following every murder trial,
regardless of what state or how high the case moves through the court system,
all Supreme Court Judges will release an ‘Opinion’ which can be compared to a ‘summary
view’ of the case that will always make references to previous cases. These opinions serve many purposes such as
establishing the legal facts of the case and whether the actions of the court
were in conjunction with current laws governing such a decision or ruling. These opinions also lay the groundwork for
new laws such as was seen in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona which now
requires that every person who is arrested must clearly understand their rights
under the constitution.
Judges, regardless of their position within the
court system are entitled to their opinions just as anyone. It is only when they allow their personal
opinions to influence their decisions.
Judge Pfeifer has apparently been successful in the legal aspect of
keeping his personal opinion out of his decisions based on the fact that Ohio’s
Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has stated that she is comfortable
that Pfeifer is following the law and not showing his bias. This fact is demonstrated in the cases where
he upheld the death sentences even though he did not agree with the totality of
the cases.
My personal opinion regarding these facts when it
comes to Judge Pfeifer and his position on the death penalty is that when the
jury convicts and recommends the death sentence, if the law allows him do to so
then Judge Pfeifer will opt for the life without parole over the death penalty
in cases where the crime was not by legal definition a ‘most heinous’ crime.
That is why I posted that although juries may recommend
the death sentence, judges have the option to not follow that
recommendation. There have been cases in
the past where the jury has recommended life without parole and the judge has
gone with the maximum sentence of death.
In fact, Ohio judges have gone against the jury recommendation of the
death penalty seven times since the sentence was reinstated back in 1981. So it goes both ways.
Read full story on The Huffington Post:
No comments:
Post a Comment