NCJ Number
176574
Journal
Thomas Jefferson Law Review Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Dated: Summer 1998 Pages: 207-276
Date Published
1998
Length
70 pages
Annotation
This article analyses the capital punishment review procedures used by the Missouri Supreme Court to determine that the death sentence in a particular case is not excessive when compared with cases that are similar in both the crime and the defendant and concludes that an inadequate review process should not be shielded from constitutional attack.
Abstract
The analysis used an empirical model to examine the comparative proportionality of Missouri cases and concluded that defendants have been executed whose sentences were disproportionate. However, the Missouri Supreme Court has affirmed 97 cases and reversed only 1 sentence. The Court appears to use comparative proportionality review in a formalistic and mechanical manner that does not result in a meaningful review process. A State's ineffective use of comparative proportionality review raises jurisprudential issues. The process could be improved by using a larger pool from which to take comparison cases, examining more evidence than a common sentencing factor, and using a frequency approach for the case comparison method. These approaches would provide a framework for a meaningful proportionality review. The Eighth Amendment does not require comparative proportionality review, but an inadequate process should be subject to constitutional challenge. Tables, footnotes, and appended list of Missouri laws on aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors