Members of the Florida House of Representatives spent more time the other day getting Heisman Trophy winner Chris Weinke's autograph than they gave to a debate on the death penalty. That was unfortunate as well as embarrassing, as the subject is overdue for serious discussions comparable to those taking place in Illinois, where the governor suspended executions; in Maryland, where the House has proposed a moratorium; and even in Texas, whose Legislature is moving at long last to provide defendants with reliable representation.

But in Florida, the legislative priority is to write the death penalty into the state Constitution, just to be sure -- or so they say -- that the Florida Supreme Court won't find some way to declare it unconstitutional. Legislators would do that by amending Florida's prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment to read the same as the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("cruel and unusual") and to require our Supreme Court to read it precisely as the U.S. Supreme Court does.

The amendment is grotesquely unnecessary. Its real purposes are to demagogue the issue and to put down the Florida court for having tossed out a similar amendment, after the voters approved it in 1998, for the good reason that the ballot language was misleading. The Legislature's main motive that time was to protect the use of the electric chair, a moot issue now that the law prescribes lethal injection.

If the Constitution is to be amended, however, it should be taken as an opportunity to reform the death penalty in at least four ways that would honorably reduce Florida's 73 percent reversible error rate:

Require a unanimous, or at least a supermajority, death recommendation from the sentencing jury. Most states do.

Forbid execution of the mentally retarded, as 13 other states do.

Establish a modern, scientific definition of mental illness, and prohibit death in those cases also.

Spare juveniles, as 15 other states do.

These steps, especially the unanimous or supermajority jury recommendation, would eliminate most of the cases now consuming half the Supreme Court's time and make it more likely that those reaching its docket are sustainable. Robert Shevin, attorney general when the law was passed, has urged this. So has Tom Warner, current solicitor general.

But as the constitutional amendment resolution came to the floor, no one was willing to sponsor a unanimous jury amendment. Motions were offered to exempt juveniles and the mentally retarded, but the House voted on party lines to table them with scarcely any debate. Only one Republican, Larry Crow of Palm Harbor, broke ranks.

It was a different story when the House took up separate legislation to set 17 as the minimum age, a concession to criticism that the constitutional amendment would void a Florida Supreme Court decision exempting 16-year-olds. By voice vote, the House adopted a bipartisan amendment raising the minimum age to 18.

"I encourage members to vote their consciences," said Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor, floor manager for the bill. For once, members did, and Florida can thank Bilirakis for that. But members should have been allowed to do so in the context of the constitutional amendment. There is no guarantee that either the minimum age bill, or separate Senate-passed legislation to exempt the retarded, will become law. The issues remain on the House calendar for final action this week. On the Christian calendar, it is Holy Week. What sublime timing.

Back to Perspective

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page