Court ruling spares pain of resentencing
Having a death penalty means expecting that each case will be exhaustively tested and retested up through the appeals process. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision Wednesday upholding the death sentences of Kansas killers Reginald and Jonathan Carr and Sidney Gleason was that system at work – imperfectly perhaps, but necessarily.
The strongly worded decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, overturned the Kansas Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling vacating the lower courts’ death sentences, finding fault with the state justices’ conclusions related to the joint sentencing and jury instructions in the Carr brothers’ case.
“Joint proceedings are not only permissible but are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events,” Scalia wrote, aptly describing the Carrs’ crimes as “acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity.”
As for the jury’s sentencing instructions, Scalia concluded: “Jurors would not have misunderstood these instructions to prevent their consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.”
The most important result of Wednesday’s decision was that the victims and survivors of the horrendous crimes will be spared the pain of resentencing proceedings.
Wichita won’t have to endure a re-examination of the Carr brothers’ 2000 spree, which took five innocent lives and epitomized evil. Nor will Great Bend see another day in court for Gleason, convicted of murdering a couple in 2004 to cover up the robbery of an elderly man.
The ruling will fuel partisan criticism of the state’s highest court, which is under fire for its handling of school finance and other issues. Kansans likely will hear about the latest overturned ruling from now through November, when five of the nine justices will be on the ballot for retention votes.
Gov. Sam Brownback used the decision to renew his call for a constitutional amendment changing how state Supreme Court justices are selected – a step that could make the court partisan and less impartial.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, also jumped in, accusing the state court of placing “its political agenda above the rule of law.”
But a capital punishment statute comes with the responsibility to ensure it is fairly and constitutionally applied – every time.
It’s the job of the state Supreme Court to call cases as it sees them, and to respect the rights of even the worst of the worst defendants without regard to public opinion. And it’s the job of the nation’s highest court to tell the state’s highest court when it’s wrong.
This story was originally published January 20, 2016 at 6:08 PM with the headline "Court ruling spares pain of resentencing."