The Military Death Penalty And The Constitution There Is Life After Fman

• Author: By Captain Michael E. Pfau and Captain Eugene R. Milhizer
• Pages: 02

1. INTRODUCTION

   In the landmark deciaion of Furman u. Georgia,' the Supreme Court 1s.

   sued a sweepingper curtom order that "the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in [the cases under rev~ew]eonshtute cruel and un.usual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amend. ments "'

   Although two-thirds of the states enacted new death penalty statutes within four years of that decision,' Congress has not mended the pertinent provisions of the Cniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) in the more than ten years which have passed Since Fur-

   * The opinions and CO~C~YJIO~J

   expressed m thli article are those of the authors and da not necessarily reprenanf the Y L ~ W of The Judge Advocate Generays School. the Depart-mentof rhei\rmy.ar any other gaiernmenfalagency

   *' Judge Advocate General J Corps, United States Army Asrlgned to the Government Appellate Divieion ti S Arm) Legal Seruear Agency FaUr Church. Vvginia, since Jan-YW 1380 CPT Pfau is asmgned BS Gorernmenf Appellate Coweel in Unbted Stole8 IMatthou B A .bumma mmmn lavda PhiBitaKappo.Palitica1 %me, 1076, Univerbity of Cinevlnati, J D , 1073. Baston College, LLhl Candidate. 1981-Preaenf, Georgetown Umversity Completed the 91it Judge Advocate Officer Banc Course 1070 Nlember af rho Barr of the Tax Court of the United State the Supreme Court of Cannectmr, the Corn af Mhtary Appesli and the Amy Cowf ai Mliitary Review Captam Pfau 10 c o author ai Eiiectice &le oi For/airuiei Adjudged m Capatof Cases Rrcrzring Pay on DrathRoii,The ArmyLawyer.Feb 1083.st27.sndauthorafThi TrvrhfulThief.lTna1CoundForm No 41Nau 10821

   '" Judge Advaate General I Corps. United State3 .Amy Asswed fa the Gaverdment Appellate Division US Army Leea1 Serusei Agency Falls Church.

   Motlhrm B A , with huh distmction, Political bience. 1916, tin1J D , 1973. Univeraty of Michigan Completed the 02d Judge AdCourse, 1380 Member of the Bars of the Tnmd States Court of Clams the United Statere Eaafem Diitiiei of Ylchwn. the Supreme Court of hllchigan. the fMlltar) Appeals,andtheUnitedStatesArmyCavrtafM?htag Rer 18 ca-author of Efiectne Dale oiFarfeituirr m Capiral Cares Ra- ceiuing Pay m Deolh Roe The Army Lsayer Feb 1983. at 27, and author ofEfiecliie Proisiufian Folioring App~llntr Reurrsol Puffing h r l h znfo the Second Bits of the Ap. pls.IITrialCounselFarvmSo 41Apr 19821

   1380 CPT ~ l i h ~ ~ ~ aaslgned ~~~~~~~~t A ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~

   cornsel

   ~ F U ~ S D V

   'Id. atZ33-40

   a Grwg Y ~eargla.

   428 US ij3.173-80 (1076)

   ' Unrform Code of Milsary Justice BIW 1-140, 10 U S C 56 801-940 (1076)berem- after cited ~f U C M J I

   G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ U B U S

   MILITARY LAW REVIEW [VOL. 97 man.' The United States Army Court of Military Revtew ended the uncertainty with respect to the constitutionality of the military death penalty when it ruled that the imposition of the death penalty for pre. meditated murder does not violate the Eighth Amendment ' prohibition against cmel and unu~ual punishment.*In this art&, the authors con.clude that the military capital sentencing system fully comport8 with the concerns enunciated in Furman and its progeny and that the Imposi. tion of the death penalty for premeditated murder does not violate the Eighth Amendment.e

   11. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY FURMAN Prior to Furman, the few Supreme Court decmions construing the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause interpreted that provision as a limitation upon the method of execution ID

   or upan

   the proportionality of the sentence and the offense.'z Wxh Furman.

   Death II ewrenrly an authorved puthment under the following h t & s of the U C M J 86 (desertion yl time of UBI), 90 lassaultmg or wafully dlaabeymg ~upernor commissioned officer ~n tunc af war), 94 lattempted mutmy mufmy, sedltlon fadwe to suppress or repon mmmy or sedrtml: 99 imrabehavhor Wore the enemy). 100 isubardl-mate compdh"g surrender). 101 Improper use of a eounterrgn) 106 (elplanage m rime of wrl. 113 misbehaviai of ion7me1 m rme of war). 118 ipremrdltated murder and felony murder), 12OIrapl Theeovrrsafmihtarsrevierforboththo ArmylUnrted Sfatesv Mat.

   J 501. 615, 519 LAC hl8 1 (en bane). mondoioi) OPPP~I docketed. 13 M J 198211 and the Ar Farce (cmted Statel Y MeReynalds. 9 MJ 881 198011 have held that the pmv1sm in Arflcle 120. U C M J whwh authornap the death penalty far the offenee of w e . has been effectively mvahdated by the Supreme rowt'sdecisianInCakerv Gmrgla 433 U S 684 119771

   *During the precedmg years, "lbltaff iudga advocates adursed mmenmg suthontlea not to refer cemm offenses a6 capital. commentston ssaerted thst v ~ d a ~ m a of the Umform

   Code of Mltary Justrce that are pvnishsble by the death penalty no-, fall and mposht~on of capital punishmenr purmant to any of them 18 YnCOnslltutiOnail, and a dlilnaiy COWL af review abseried that firman 'raise8 doubts BS V, the validity af mpaslng the death enfence under my ~ m m a t m ~ e ~ . " '

   Enghah, The Can~filulior~il~lyof the Caurt.Moilinl

   Death Smlmir. 21 A F L Rev 552 I19791 Ifoatnotes omittedl. bee also Ruinlburg. The U I X A Death Penally A Conatilutional Asaisanont, 13 "he Advrrste 74 118811. Trogolo,CopilolPunrahmlnf Wder fha LrC.MJAfarFuiiimm 16A FL Rer 86119741

   ' US. Cansf amend VIUlUnnedStatesv Matthewa.supmnote 6-This article focuse. upon the praeedwal p r ~ m t m a m the mlhrary capital aentencmg system and the cmsfitutmnahty of the death sentence far premeditated murder The question of whether thre penalti may conatitvtlanslly be mpoied for the ofher offenses for w h h it rs authorme3 under he Umfom Cadeof lilrbbr). Jmree lmnote 5a~p.pm)>s out.

   side the scape of tha aTtB1e Thus, the authors exprese no opinmn 88 to "[wlherher the Su.

   prime Cowt would uphold m mandatory death pemlty ~n wartime. based upon mll~taary ex,. ggncyarsomeatherapecra1luswflcatlon"UnlredStatelr Mstthews 1351 J af525n 16me e # , U C M J srt 106 (mandatory death penalty for wartme &mg). w e pnrmli ee InreKemmler, 136U S 436.l1890):Rllkeraanr Utah, 99u S 13011879) rblHarry1Y hwmmn.431US 633119721p v Dulles. 356 LT S 86 (19581. \Yema v -emom 144 US 323, 339-41, 370.71,ssenimgl, see dm Robmaan j, Cshfarnla,

   370US 660119621

   leszl MILITARY DEATH PENALTY however, the Court initiated a new doctnnal concern for the procedures used in adjudging the death penalty L1 Although the five members of the Furmon majority did not join in a single rationale. three of the justices concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibits impasition of the death penalty under statutes which confer unlimited discretion upon sentencmg authonties in capital cases or under which the death penalty is rarely imposed.'" In assessing the constitutionality of the capital sentencing systems which were enacted after Furman, the Supreme Court has facused upon the provisions for consideration of evidence in extenuation and mitigation. in aggravation, and for appellate review of death en. tences. Each of these aspects of the military capital sentencing syetem sstmfies the concerns enunciated inFurmon and its progency."

   1. EXTENUATION AND MITIGATION

      The Supreme Court has instructed that "the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the senteneer . . . not be precluded from can. sidenng, m a mitLgoting factor, any nspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers 88 a basis for B sentence less than death." IE

      The Supreme Court has mandated that the sentencing bady be free to assign "independent mitigating weight" to matters offered by a capital accused The Su-preme Court has never demanded that state legislatures interfere with the traditional role of "the jury ta diepense mercy on the basis of factors t w intangible to write into a statute."

      " L e ~enemiiy Radm. Crud and L'nuuaiFznuhmon! ondRaapscr foiPersons. Super Dueprocees ofDroth, 53s Csl L.Rev 1143(19801,sraoiea C S Canst. Amend.XV

      "See Furman I Gwrgla, 408 U.S at 217 (Douglas J eoneurnng), Id at 309-10(Stewsrt. J , eoncwnng), id st 313 (Whne. J.. eoncurmgl The two remshg members of the msimty reasoned that capits1 puniehmentprr m v~olatea the Elghfh Amendment Id at 257 ( @ r e m .

      J , concurnngl, id at 368 Marshall. J , eancurvlgl l h s

      Istm YLBW WBB

      mhsequently rejected by B msimty of the Supreme Court m Gregg v Gearma, svpm note

      and aecompanymg text) m ~ W O

      CWB Fmt, 8; akeady no& fh. Couf d e d rhaitha

      Eighth Amendment proiubite mwasifiiin of the death penalty for the offense of rape See Cokir Y Gearma. ~vpmnote 6 AddXionaIly. the Court held that Bs death penalty could not be imposed upon B nontnggermm felony murderer who Ld not kill. attempt to kill, or vltend to iull L e

      Bnmund I

      Flonds. 102 S Ct 3368(19821 Thee decalone only mdumf-IY afleet the Court'a view of the ormedud B P ~ O a1 B eaoitd aentencma livsfem and a

      The Eighth Amendment does not require that a capital sentencing statute either provide an illustrative list of matters in extenuation and mitigation or assign relative weight to such matters." Certain capital sentencing statutes, which have been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, do provide an illustrative listing of extenuating and mitigating circumstanees.le Conversely, other capital sentencing stat. Utes, which specify no mitigating or extenuating circumstances, have likewise been approved by the Supreme Court Thus, while some statu. tory guidance regarding extenuating and mitigating circumstances will be constitutionally tolerated, Furmon and its progeny require that a capital accused not be precluded from presenting any relevant matters in this regard As the "centrist plurality" 12 noted in their favorable re-view of the Georgia statute, "it 18 preferable not to impose restrictions [as to the presentation of evidence in extenuation and mitigation]. We think it desirable for the pry to have as much information before it as possible when It makes the sentencing decision." *'

      The military capital sentencing procedures fully satisfy the constitu...