While the judgment does go some way to outline fundamental flaws in current capital schemes, the decision turned specifically on the demonstration of inordinate delays in California - deemed unlawful by the Privy Council two decades earlier (1) – rather than on wider issues on a national scale. Holding prisoners on death row for prolonged periods without a realistic and reasonably hopeful chance of ever sealing their fate, the Chappell Court held, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.
In spite of abolitionist optimism, which is to be expected after such a shift within a federal district known for an activist appeals court (the Ninth), the decision does little by way of opening the door for nationwide abolition, even if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the decision.
Chappell focuses on but one factor to the detriment of other potentially fatal issues in Californian capital sentencing, including but not limited to: the scramble for lethal injection drugs; harsh confinement conditions; erroneous executions; the ‘death row phenomenon’ associated with long stays on death row;
(2) and arbitrary application of sentences based on race – all issues which the 9th Circuit should take into consideration.
(3)
Though the District Judge was perhaps misguided by basing its judgment principally on the instance of excessive delays, the 9th Circuit could yet however offer one ray of hope for inmates on the six other death rows in the circuit (WA, ID, OR, MT, NV, AZ)
(4) if it upholds the decision, which spectators expect it to (LA Times July 17). By providing these inmates with a platform upon which to demonstrate that their own sentences are too drawn-out, inordinate, and therefore arbitrary this judgment and potential agreement from the 9th could open the gates to realistic chances that many state sentencing schemes may well be unconstitutional. That fight begins in the South West, though there are a lot of questions left unanswered and points missed.
.
-- Op-Ed by
Charlie Eastaugh, July 17, 2014. Mr Eastaugh is a PhD Researcher and Associate Lecturer at the University of Surrey, UK. His research focuses on contemporary standards of decency within issues of capital and non-capital punishment in the US, pertaining to the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standards test.
___________________
(1) Pratt and Morgan v. AG for Jamaica [1993] 4 All ER 769 (Privy Council).
(2) This was the basis on which Pratt and Morgan (ibid) relied – a missed opportunity for the 9th Circuit.
(3)
It is unlikely that these issues will be cited on this occasion, but
should the 9th Circuit rule in favour of the state, they are issues
which should be considered in future appeals.
(4) Though not all are active, Alaska is the only state in the 9th Circuit which does not provide for capital punishment.
