The Rompilla case marks a low point in the annals of American jurisprudence.
........................................................
BIZZARE DEATH PENALTY RULING (THE SUPREME COURT AND SOUTER)
Sierra Times ^ | 9/29/2005 | Gerald McOscar
The Supreme Court issued several bizzare rulings this past term, but none more so than its June 20 decision reversing a Pennsylvania death sentence.
In the underreported case of Rompilla v. Beard, the Court by a 5-4 margin ruled that defense lawyers were remiss for not digging deeply enough for mitigating factors that might have spared Ronald Rompilla, now 57, the death penalty for the 1988 murder of an Allentown tavern owner. Curiosity prompted me to dig deeper.
Writing for the majority, Justice David A. Souter begins with a disturbing account of Rompilla’s violent life. On the morning of January 14, 1988, James Scanlon’s body was discovered lying in a pool of blood in his Allentown bar. He had been stabbed multiple times, including 16 wounds around the neck and head. He also had been beaten with a blunt object, and his face had been gashed with shards of broken liquor and beer bottles found at the scene. After he had been stabbed to death Scanlon’s body had been set on fire. Rompilla was convicted of murder and related offenses and sentenced to death.
Nor was Mr. Scanlon the first victim of Rompilla’s murderous impulses. At sentencing, the prosecution offered his “ significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence...” as an aggravating factor in justifying a death sentence, including the 1974 brutal robbery, slashing, mutilation and rape at knife point of a female tavern owner.
Justice Souter’s laboring to rationalize reversing Rompilla’s death sentence is outrageous.
The Rompilla decision is chock-full of junk science, wishful thinking, second guessing, and in the words of dissenting Justice Anthony Kennedy, “ misguided analysis. ” Bereft of common sense, critical thought and sound judgment, it is a textbook example of all that is wrong with the American justice system.
Justice Souter first chides Rompilla’s defense attorneys for failing to uncover what he deigns to be “ a range of mitigating leads ” about Rompilla’s childhood, mental capacity and health, and alcoholism hidden deep in the 1974 rape file. He cavalierly dismisses their commonsense strategy to seek mitigating material by interviewing the defendant, members of his family and consultation with three mental health experts before opting to beg for mercy rather than risk drawing the jury’s attention to his violent past.
Next, Souter anoints these purported “ mitigating factors” with a weight far disproportionate to their relevance. A guilty verdict establishes beyond reasonable doubt the degree of culpability underlying a crime. Once guilt is established, it’s fair to ask what further investigation is necessary. Sentencing is a time for accountability, not for excuses about someone’s “ childhood, mental capacity and health, and alcoholism.” It is the time when equal justice under the law is meted out to men who are created equal.
Turning this Constitutional principle on its head, Justice Souter suggests that justice demands that the Rompillas of the world be less accountable for their conduct than those from good homes, good schools and supportive parents. Furthermore, with fewer “ mitigating factors ” in their backgrounds, his skewed logic suggests that the “ privileged” are more deserving of death sentences for capital crimes than their less fortunate brethren.
Souter bends over backwards to lather Rompilla with gobs of misplaced compassion while wholly ignoring Rompilla’s victims and will of the people of Pennsylvania. He also stigmatizes the vast majority of men and women from similar backgrounds who choose to live productive and law abiding lives rather than use their hardships as excuses to rob, rape and murder.
The majority’s concerted effort to turn Rompilla’s irresponsibility, and depravity into “ mitigating factors ” that if known might have steered the jury away from the death penalty” is a dazzling display of legal legerdemain, wishful thinking, or both. Essentially, it is a measure of the majority’s deep-seated animus toward the death penalty.
The Rompilla case marks a low point in the annals of American jurisprudence. Justices Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer should be ashamed to call this justice. |
