*1 BOOTH MARYLAND Argued No. 86-5020. March 1987 Decided June *2 Court, Brennan, Powell, J., opinion the in which delivered White, J., Stevens, JJ., joined. Marshall, Blackmun, filed a and Rehnquist, J., and opinion, in C. and O’Connor dissenting which Scalia, J., dissenting opinion, joined, post, p. 515. JJ., filed a Scalia, O’Connor, JJ., joined, post, Rehnquist, J., and White and C. in which p. 519. petitioner. argued
George Jr., Burns, E. cause for Doyle H. Murrell and Julia him on the were Alan brief With Bernhardt. Attorney Mary Deputy II, General O. Monk
Charles respondent. argued him on the cause for With land, Attorney Joseph Curran, Jr., General, and J. were brief Attorney General.* Cloutier, Assistant V. Valerie opinion of the Court. delivered the Powell Justice pro- question presented the Constitution The is whether considering a “victim statement” from hibits capital sentencing phase during murder trial. of a I—I 75, Bronstein, Rose, and wife were 78, In Irvin Baltimore home. The and murdered their West robbed Reid, entered the murderers, Booth and victims’ John Willie * III, Chambers, Boger, L. John Charles Viv- Julius James M. Nabrit Berger, Anthony G. Amsterdam filed a brief for the Legal NAACP ian and Fund, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal. and Educational Defense Foundation, Inc., Louis J. DiTrani filed brief Stephanie Roper as amicus curiae urging affirmance. stealing money buy purpose apparent her-
home for the neighbor Bronsteins, of the knew that the Booth, a oin. elderly couple identify were could him. victims bound repeatedly gagged, then the chest with a stabbed days later knife. The bodies were discovered two kitchen son. the Bronsteins’ guilty first-degree
juryA found Booth of two counts of robbery, conspiracy to commit two counts of murder, robbery.1 penalty, prosecution requested the death jury in- his sentence determined Booth elected to have 413(b) § judge. Art. Code, See Md. Ann. stead (1982). sentencing phase began, Divi- Before State (DPP) presentence compiled a of Parole and Probation sion background, report that Booth’s education and em- described *3 history, Maryland ployment and criminal record. Under presentence report felony statute, the all cases2 also must (VIS), describing include a victim statement the effect family. of the crime on the victim and his Md. Ann. Code, 4-609(c) (1986). § Specifically, report Art. shall: 41, “(i) Identify offense; the victim of the “(ii) any by Itemize economicloss suffered the victim as a result of the offense;
1 Reid, accomplice, and sentenced Booth’s Willie was convicted to death principal degree as a the first murder of Mrs. Bronstein. His currently conviction was affirmed and his sentence is under review. See (1985). State, 501 A. Reid v. 305 Md. 2d it was unclear When statute was enacted whether a VIS was 4-609(c)(2)(i) (1986) (VIS § capital in a case. required admissible See if injury, misdemeanor, required victim suffered whereas for a VIS if victim injury death); State, 691, 761, suffers or Lodowski v. 302 Md. 490 A. 2d (1985) (Cole, J., concurring), grounds, vacated on other 1983, Maryland Assembly S. 1078 In General U. amended the provision provide VIS that: any penalty requested presen-
“In ease in which the death is ... investigation, including impact statement, tence a victim shall be com- Probation, pleted by by the Division of Parole and be shall considered jury separate sentencing proceeding the court or before whom the is con- ducted_” §4-609(d) (1986).
“(iii) Identify injury any physical the vic- suffered along seriousness result of the offense with its tim as a permanence; “(iv) any change personal wel- Describe the victim’s relationships offense; of the fare familial as a result “(v) Identity any request psychological services for family by the or the as a result initiated victim victim’s offense; “(vi) any im- information related to the Contain other family pact upon the or the victim’s of the offense victim §4-609(c)(3). requires.” that the trial court Although compiled DPP, the information the VIS §§ supplied by family. 4— the victim or victim’s See (d). 609(c)(4), during may be read to VIS sentencing phase, called or the members be testify as to the information. in Booth’s on interviews with the
The VIS case based granddaughter. daughter, son, son-in-law, and Bronsteins’ Many outstanding emphasized of their comments the victims’ deeply personal qualities, noted the Bronsteins how parts of the VIS described the would missed.3 Other personal problems the members have emotional and example, said son, as of the crimes. The faced a result 3 The VIS stated: fifty- reports parents been married for son had
“[T]he victims’ *4 relationship, spending day years enjoyed very close each three and had hard all life and had together. states that his father worked his He years. mother a woman who eight He describes his as been retired lady. taught like herself young an old She was at heart never seemed The play she in her seventies. victims’ son relates bridge when was cen- parents amazing people who the senior citizens’ that his were attended many App. devout friends.” 69. ter made members, loving par- family Bronsteins “As their were described family important to them. Their grandparents ents and whose most history Home largest of the Levinson Funeral funeral was the cards, from total sympathy over thousand some received one Id,., strangers.” at 63. sleep depression, that he suffers from lack of and is “fear- App. ful for the first time in his life.” 61. He said that in opinion, parents his were “butchered like animals.” Ibid. daughter The sleep, said she also suffers from lack of and that since the murders she has become withdrawn and distrustful. longer She stated that she can no watch violent movies or being look at kitchen knives without reminded of the mur- daughter ders. forgive concluded that she could not person “[n]ever murderer, and that such a could be rehabili- Finally, granddaughter Id., tated.” at 62. described wedding how the deaths had ruined the of another close fam- ily place days member that took a few after the bodies were ceremony reception discovered. Both the and the were sad leaving honeymoon, affairs, and instead of for her the bride attended the victims’ funeral. The VIS also noted that the granddaughter counseling had received for several months eventually stopped after the incident, but had because she help concluded that “no one could her.” Id., at 63.
The DPP officialwho conducted the interviews concluded by writing: the VIS increasingly apparent
“It became to the writer as she talked to the members that the murder of Mr. and shocking, painful, Mrs. Bronstein is still such a and dev- astating memory permeates every aspect to them that it daily they of their lives. It is doubtful that will ever fully tragedy able recover from this and not be memory haunted of the brutal manner which their loved ones were murdered and taken from them.” Id., at 63-64.4 suppress ground
Defense counsel moved to the VIS on the unduly that this information was both irrelevant and inflam- matory, capital and that therefore its use in a case violated complete reprinted Appendix VIS is opinion. to this
501
Eighth
Amendment of the Federal Constitution.5 The
Maryland
ruling
jury
trial court denied the motion,
that the
“any
was entitled to consider
and all evidence which would
[sentencing decision].”
bear on the
at 6.
Id.,
Booth’s law
yer
requested
prosecutor simply
then
that the
read the VIS
jury
testify
rather than call the
members to
be
jury.
fore the
Defense counsel was concerned that the use of
inflammatory
live witnesses would increase the
effect of the
prosecutor agreed
arrangement.
information. The
to this
sentenced Booth to death for the murder of
imprisonment
Bronstein
Mr.
and to life
for the murder of
appeal, Maryland
Mrs. Bronstein. On automatic
Court
Appeals
affirmed the conviction and the sentences. 306
(1986).
rejected
172,
Md.
We certiorari to decide whether prohibits capital sentencing jury Amendment from consid- Eighth provides: Amendment “Excessive bail shall not be re quired, imposed, nor excessive fines punishments nor cruel and unusual in prohibitions Eighth flicted.” The apply Amendment to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Rob California, inson 370 U. S. *6 (1986).
ering impact 479 U. 882 victim evidence. S. We does, and reverse. conclude that it now
I—I i—I jury’s impose It that a is well settled discretion to the “suitably death sentence must be directed and limited so as to wholly arbitrary capricious minimize risk of and the action.” (1976) Gregg opinion Georgia, (joint v. 428 U. 189 153, S. of JJ.); v. Stewart, Ramos, California Powell, Stevens, (1983). Although normally 463 U. S. this Court will 992, 999 legislature’s defer to a state determination of factors what sentencing are the decision, relevant the Constitution places g., some limits on this discretion. e. See, id., Specifically, jury said that 1000-1001. we have a must make an “individualized whether determination” the defendant question be based executed, should on “the character of the of individual and circumstances Zant crime.” v. (1983) Stephens, (emphasis original). U. 862, S. 879 (1982). Eddings See also v. 455 U. Oklahoma, S. And while Court said this has never that the defendant’s record, characteristics, and the circumstances of the crime sentencing only permissible are the considerations, a state requires statute that of other consideration factors must be bearing scrutinized ensure that the evidence has some “personal guilt.” responsibility on the defendant’s and moral Florida, Enmund v. U. S. do other- To wise would create the risk that a death sentence will based “constitutionally impermissible that are considerations totally sentencing process.” Zant irrelevant See Stephens, supra, at 885. provided jury types
The VIS this case with two personal First, information. it described characteristics of the and the emotional of the crimes on victims family. opinions Second, it set forth the members’ characterizations the crimes the defendant. For find that below, reasons stated we- this information is capital sentencing a and that its decision,
irrelevant to admis- constitutionally unacceptable risk sion that the creates arbitrary may impose penalty capricious in an the death manner.
A part greater description of the is devoted VIS personal trauma and the emotional suffered The State claims that this characteristics victims. evi- dence be considered a “circumstance” of the crime should be- cause it reveals the full extent the harm caused Booth’s *7 view, direct, In the there actions. State’s is a foreseeable family, nexus the and the harm the between murders to “arbitrary” jury thus the it is not to consider these conse- quences deciding impose penalty. in to death whether Although impact” aggravating not an factor “victim under Maryland by knowing law,6the State claims that the extent
6 jury may impose capital sentence, Before the it must find that at following aggravating present: least one of the circumstances are “(1) was a law officer The victim enforcement who was murdered while performance in the of his duties. “(2) murder The defendant committed the at a time when he was con- any in fined correctional institution. “(3) in escape The defendant committed the murder furtherance of an or escape custody, arrest, attempt an from or the lawful to to evade or deten- guard tion of or officer or an correctional institution or a law enforcement officer. “(4) attempted in taken or to be the course victim taken of a .was abduction, attempt kidnapping kidnap or or an or abduct. “(5) § was a in 2 The victim child abducted violation of of this article. “(6) pursuant agreement The defendant committed the murder to an or promise contract for remuneration or the of remuneration to commit the murder. “(7) engaged employed person to The defendant or another commit the pursuant agreement murder and the murder was committed or an con- promise tract for remuneration or the of remuneration.
“(8) At the time of the murder defendant was under sentence of imprisonment death or for life. “(9) The more than one defendant committed offense murder degree arising first out of the incident. same 504 severity impact upon family, and the of the loss to the “ jury ‘gravity aggravat to assess the better able ” ing quality’ Respondent (quot of the offense. Brief for 1254).
ing Lodowski State, Md., 741-742, 490 2d, v. A. at range consequences the full While of foreseeable of a de- fendant’s actions be relevant other criminal and civil agree unique contexts, we cannot that it is relevant cir- capital sentencing hearing. of a In cumstance such a case, it sentencing jury “express is the function of the the con- community question on the science ultimate of life or Witherspoon death.” Illinois, U. S. carrying required
When out this task the to focus “uniquely bein[g].” defendant as a individual human (1976)(plu- v. North Carolina, Woodson 428 U. S. JJ.). rality opinion of Stewart, Powell, Stevens, of a VIS, however, focus is not on the defendant, but on the reputation character and of the victim and the effect on his family. may wholly These factors unrelated to the blame- particular worthiness of a defendant. As our cases have shown, defendant often will not the victim, know knowledge therefore will have no about the existence or family. characteristics of the Moreover, victim’s defendants *8 rarely select their victims based on whether the murder will anyone person have an effect on other than the murdered.7 “(10) The committing defendant committed the murder while or at- tempting arson, robbery, rape, to commit a or or sexual offense in the first 413(d) (1982 1986). degree.” Code, 27, § Supp. See Md. Ann. Art. and Because the statutorily the crime on the victim is not a defined aggravating circumstance, sufficient, standing alone, it would not be to 413(f). support capital § sentence.
7 Asone state court has noted: think it culpability depends “We obvious that a defendant’s level of not on composition family, fortuitous circumstances such as the of his victim’s but may choose, on circumstances over which he has control. A defendant decline, premeditate, callously, victim, to to act to attack a vulnerable probation, commit a crime while on or to amass a record of offenses. . . . contrast, family In irredeemably fact that a victim’s bereaved can be rely
Allowing in therefore could result on a VIS imposing of factors about which the death sentence because and that were irrelevant unaware, the defendant jury’s thus could divert to kill. This evidence decision background away record, defendant’s from the attention the crime. the circumstances of con- in certain cases some of information It is true that the defendant before in a will have been known to tained VIS recognized, As we have a defend- he committed the offense. knowledge probable consequences degree of his ant’s culpability may in increase his moral a constitution- actions ally significant Arizona, manner. Tison v. 481 U. S. See nevertheless find that because of 157-158 We in a it VIS, information contained creates the nature of the capital sentencing impermissible that the decision will an risk arbitrary in manner. made an in case, the full text of the VIS this see As evidenced opinion, family Appendix members articulate to this were grief expressing persuasive in their and the extent of the victim will not leave behind their loss. But some cases may family, be less articulate in or the members a describing though feelings their sense of loss is their even imposition equally The fact that the of the death severe. danger may illustrates the sentence turn on such distinctions Certainly allowingjuries this information. to consider willing express degree and able to to which a its grief whether a defendant, is irrelevant to the decision who penalty, live or die. the death should See 306 merit (Cole, concurring part 2d, J., 507 A. at 1129 Md., (concluding arbitrary dissenting part) that it is capital sentencing VIS, on a “which make decisions based than his commission of act of will of the defendant other attributable to no damages in relevant to place. in the first Such bereavement is homicide *9 sentencing action, relationship proper purposes of it has no to the civil but 516-517, Levitt, 500, 203 People App. 156 3d in a criminal case.” v. Cal. (1984). 276, Rptr. 287-288 Cal. 506
vary greatly depending upon ability from case to case express grief”). member to any justification permitting there
Nor is such a deci- perception sterling sion to turn on the victim was a community question- member of the rather than someone of type provide character.8 able This of information does not “principled way distinguish [cases] in which the death penalty imposed, many from the in cases which it was Godfrey Georgia, (opinion not.” v. 446 U. S. (1980) 433 420, Skipper of Stewart, See also v. South Carolina, 476 J.). concurring judgment). S. (1986) U. 14-15 1, (Powell, J., impossible— We also note that it would be difficult—if not provide opportunity a fair to rebut such evidence without shifting sentencing hearing away the focus of the from the problem defendant. A threshold is that victim in- easily susceptible Presumably formation is not to rebuttal. right the defendant would have the to cross-examine the de- rarely he clarants, but would be able to show that the exaggerated degree sleeplessness, members have de- pression, or emotional trauma suffered. Moreover, if the permitted per- state is to introduce evidence of the victim’s qualities,9 sonal it cannot be doubted that the defendant also implication We are troubled that defendants whose victims community were assets to their deserving punishment are more than perceived those whose victims worthy. course, are to be less sys Of our justice tem of does not tolerate such distinctions. Cf. Furman Georgia, (1972) J., (Douglas, concurring). 408 U. S. 3, supra. Maryland sentencing See n. expressly statute does not permit community evidence of the victim’s character in status to be Maryland Appeals, however, cluded the VIS. The apparently Court only has determined that the statute establishes the minimum amount of provided. information that must be Consideration of other information in subject judge’s State, VIS trial discretion. See Reid v. 811, 820-821, Md. 490 A. 2d type unique This of information is not to the VIS in Booth’s In case. State, Lodowski v. the trial court admitted a VIS based on an interview part: with the victim’s wife that said *10 given
must be to chance rebut this See evidence. Gard- (1977) (opinion ner Florida, S. 349, U. of Ste- J.) (due process requires given that defendant be a vens, presentence report). chance to rebut See Md. also Ann. 413(c)(v)(1982). § Putting strategic Code, 27, Art. aside the attacking jury, risks of the victim’s character before in appropriate presumably per- cases the defendant be would put mitted to evidence that the victim was of dubious unpopular, moral character, was or was from ostracized his family. prospect aof “mini-trial” on the victim’s char- simply unappealing; acter is more than it could well distract sentencing jury constitutionally required from its task— determining penalty appropriate light whether the death in background particu- and record of the accused and the reject lar circumstances of the crime. thusWe the conten- presence tion that the or absence of emotional distress of the family, personal victim’s the victim’s characteristics, are proper sentencing capital considerations case.10 perfect family person, totally “[The victim] was he was devoted to his family. It was like a something miracle find a man like him —we had very special. anything We had created a love that could withstand in life. only wife, Md., 766, We were not husband and but best friends.” 302 at 2d, (Cole, J., concurring) 490 A. at 1266 general in Lodowski court found that VIS evidence not constitu-
tionally proscribed, and capital sentencing is relevant to a determination. Id., 2d, at 490 A. at 1259. disapproval phase Our of victim sentencing statements capital mean, however, type does case not that this information will in any never be types may relevant context. Similar of information well they directly be admissible because relate circumstances of the may crime. Facts about the victim and also be relevant a non- capital Moreover, criminal trial. there times that the victim’s personal argument an characteristics are relevant to rebut offered See, 404(a)(2) g., e. (prosecution may defendant. Fed. Rule Evid. show peaceable of victim rebut charge aggressor). nature that victim was course, judge, primary The trial responsibility continues to have the deciding sufficiently legitimate when this information is relevant to some
B presented in the type of information The second opinions and characterizations members’ VIS was example, stated son, for The Bronsteins’ of the crimes. he and that animals,” like parents “butchered were *11 something anyone like able to do should “doesn’t think App. also noted away 61. The VIS get it.” with that and daughter Bronstein’s that the killing parents] [her anyone forgive that for never
“could anybody could do that way. that can’t believe She daughter animals states that The victims’ someone. perpetrators] [The kill didn’t have to do this. wouldn’t looting. stop . . . them from no one to there because anger. the killers’ of the viciousness murders show people ever who did this could the feel that doesn’t She them to be able to want and she doesn’t be rehabilitated family through put again Id., this.” another do this at 62. anger grief can understand
One there is no case, murders this the brutal caused feelings. generally But jurors of these are aware doubt by can presentation information State of this the formal jury purpose and divert it inflame the than to no other serve concerning deciding relevant evidence case on the from any deci- noted, have As we the defendant. crime and appear impose be, “be, must death sentence sion to caprice or emotion.” Gardner than rather on reason based J.). (opinion supra, The ad- at 358 Florida, Stevens, charged opinions emotionally as to what these mission of clearly from the evidence draw should conclusions any outweighs admissible, probative value its and when to be consideration Evid. 403. Fed. Rule effect. Cf. prejudicial decisionmaking require with the reasoned inconsistent we capital cases.11 Ill We conclude that the introduction at the sen- VIS tencing phase capital Eighth of a murder trial violates the Maryland Amendment, and therefore the statute is invalid requires it extent consideration this information.12 Maryland Appeals The decision of the Court of is vacated to capital that it extent affirmed the sentence. case is proceedings remanded further not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered. APPENDIX THE TO OPINION OF COURT
‘VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [The Impact prepared Victim Statement in this case was by Maryland Division Parole n. 2, and Probation. See ] *12 supra. problem by presented summary by The same the VIS written the might
DPP that representing viewed as views 500, supra, State. As noted at writer concluded that the crimes had a “shocking, painful, devast[at]ing” family, effect on and that “[i]t they fully is doubtful App. that will ever be able to recover.” 63-64. See Appendix opinion. to this note, however, today guided by We that decision our the fact death sanctions,” “punishment is a all different from other see Woodson North (1976) Carolina, 280, 303-304, opinion Stewart, 428 U. S. (plurality Powell, Stevens, JJ.), and that therefore that in considerations sentencing form the decision be different from those might that be rel liability punishment evant to other determinations. At least States permit the use of victim contexts, reflecting statements in some legislative judgment a that effect of on the crime victims have a should place justice system. Organization in the criminal See National for Victim Assistance, Rights Legislative Directory A Victim and Services: 32-33 (1985) (chart); McLeod, Participation Sentencing, Victim at 22 Crim. L. Congress provided Bull. and n. 22 also has for vic participation tim in federal criminal cases. Fed. Rule See Crim. Proc. 32(c)(2)(C). imply opinion We no as to the use these statements in noncapital cases. daughter, son-in-law, and son, and Mrs. Bronstein’s
“Mr. purposes granddaughter for Victim interviewed were grandchildren Impact other There are also four Statement. parents reports family. that his had son victims’ very years enjoyed fifty-three close for married been day together. spending relationship, states that his He each retired all his life and had been worked hard father had eight years. as a woman who his mother He describes lady. young like an old She never seemed at heart and was taught play bridge was in her seventies. when she herself amazing people parents that his were son relates victims’ many and made de- citizens’ center attended the senior who very par- to his that he was close He indicates vout friends. every day. The victims’ to them that he talked ents, and spent daughter of time with them. also lots parents the last time alive for “The son saw victims’ They having May manicured and their lawn 18th. were on spring. He called them on the the onset of were excited evening phone made no answer. He had and received May They up arrangements pick 20th. Mr. Bronstein wedding granddaughter’s were both to be ushers going pick up at the their tuxedos. When he arrived were parents’ May that his car wasn’t 20th he noticed house on neighbor him seen the car A that he hadn’t there. told something wrong. days He went and he knew several parents’ He called and found them murdered. to his house right crying her to come over because and told his sister parents happened something were both had and their terrible dead. daughter recalls that when she arrived
“The victims’ *13 police parents’ television were officers and house, there her everywhere. cold. was not felt numb and She She crews neighbor’s go went to a into the house and so she allowed to reporters everywhere people and all There were home. daughter her older cold. She called could feel was she get daughter happened. told her had She told her what younger daughter her husband and then her tell what had happened. daughter younger The was to be married two days later. granddaughter reports just
“The victims’ that before she telephoned received the call from her mother she had her grandparents and no received answer. After her mother happened told her what she on the turned television and reports reports heard the news about The it. victims’ son grandparents that his children first learned about their death reports. from the television religion marriage
“Since the Jewish dictates that birth and important granddaughter’s wedding are more death, than proceed May looking had to 22nd. She had been forward eagerly, people crying. to it but it awas sad with occasion normally reception, The which would have lasted hours, very day, going honey- was brief. next instead of on her grandparents’ moon, she attended her funerals. vic- wedding, son, tims’ who was an at usher cannot remem- coming being going parents’ ber there from his funeral day. granddaughter, the next The victims’ on the other vividly every days following hand, remembers detail grandparents’ Perhaps her death. she described the tragedy eloquently most when she stated that it was a completely devastating altering experience. and life only par-
“The son victims’ states that he can think his day, ents the context of he how found them and he can p.m. feel their fear and horror. It 4:00 when he dis- covered this their bodies and stands out his He mind. always p.m. day, of when each aware 4:00 comes when even up he is not near a He clock. also wakes each 4:00 a.m. morning. The victims’ son states that he from suffers lack sleep. pass He is drive unable to on the streets that near parents’ driving past his home. He also avoids his father’s supermarket parents restaurant, favorite where his shopped, constantly parents. He etc. reminded He coming parents’ synagogues, sees his father out of sees his *14 people. very he sees old feels sad whenever car, and parents killed, not were were but feels that his victims’ son anyone should be like He doesn’t think animals. butchered get away something He with it. is like that and do able sleep very angry and not so de- he could feel and wishes pressed He is for the first time his all the time. fearful lights checking putting fre- on and locks life, all quently. for for him concerned His are scared children day. They phone At him times a health. several approach a to the whereabouts time he takes fearful same every day. He states He also calls his sister his children. frightened by he do he his own reaction what would is if him or a member. He doesn’t know if someone hurt again. he’ll ever be the same daughter and her husband didn’t eat dinner
“The victims’ discovery days following Bron- of Mr. and Mrs. three for day They together every four cried stein’s bodies. day. every she She states that months and she still cries part sleep through single night a her and thinks doesn’t reports parents that she too when her were killed. She died joy anything powers con- and her find much doesn’t good. as if her over- aren’t She feels brain centration daughter out relates that she had clean load. The victims’ parents’ it took several weeks. She saw the her house and bloody carpet, knowing parents had there, that her been getting rug holding like on the her mother. she felt down happened her how this could have be- She wonders ordinary daughter they’re just people. The victims’ cause noticeably reports de- had withdrawn and that she become making pressed be more out- work and is now an effort to at emotionally going. tired because she that she so She notes tendency asleep sleep night, has to fall that she doesn’t parties dinner or the attends social events such as when she daughter symphony. wherever she The victims’ states that happens every parents. goes her This she sees and hears being day. look at knives without re- cannot kitchen She *15 away minded of the and from murders she never it. She stabbings that she can’t states watch movies with bodies or any it. She can’t tolerate reminder vic- of violence. The daughter very trusting, tims’ relates that she used to be but any longer. rings not When the doorbell she her hus- tells very suspicious people not band to answer it. She is of way was never that before. daughter
“The victims’ attended the defendant’s trial and that of the because she co-defendant felt someone should be represent parents. there to her had She never been told parents’ exact her details of death and had to listen report. point, to the medical examiner’s After a her certain stopped hearing. mind out she blocked states that She parents repeatedly her were stabbed with viciousness and forgive anyone killing way. could she never them that anybody She can’t do believe that could that to someone. daughter The victims’ They states that animals wouldn’t do this. stop didn’t have kill to because there was one no to looting. given any- them from Her father would have them thing. The murders show the viciousness of killers’ anger. people feel She doesn’t that who did this could be ever rehabilitated and she doesn’t want them to be able to again put family through do this another this. She feels of that lives her members will never be the same again. you granddaughter experi-
“The victims’ states that unless something you ence like this can’t how understand it feels. You are months state shock for several and then a ter- depression angry in. are rible sets You so and feel such rage. only image She states that she dwells on the of their thinking grandparents. death when of her For a time she hysterical would become whenever she saw dead animals grandparents’ road. her She is not able to drive near go neighborhood house and never be able their will to into granddaughter tendency again. has a The victims’ also lights goes panic if turn on all the in her into a house. She coming used to be from She home work. husband is late her mysteries, never but will be able reader murder an avid again. or T.V. when turn off the radio has to them She read reports they hit too close on because come violence gets newspaper reads the comics she When she home. every- away. it is the small that the rest She states throws always constantly day things will. She haunt her that stopped because she months but for several a counselor saw help her. that no one could felt thing granddaughter whole states
“The victims’ wedding very Her anniver- on her too. hard sister has been memory always sary and tainted bittersweet will *16 year grandparents. happened This on her anni- to her what quietly versary went out of town. and her husband she granddaughter is unable to look finds that she victims’ picture wedding pictures. her has a She also her sister’s away pain- put grandparents, it too it because was but had to it. ful to look at family the note that the trials of members
“The victims’ delayed suspects charged for these offenses have been with very postponements year have been hard and the over a keeps emotionally. family he The victims’ son notes that reports parents’ seeing murder which show about news police removing their bodies. This is a and the their house family thing him. The wants whole reminder to constant just they like to see swift and be over with and would to punishment. family members, their Bronsteins
“As described family parents grandparents loving whose were largest important Their funeral was the to them. most family history re- Levinson Funeral Home and the sympathy cards, some from total one thousand ceived over personally. They attempted strangers. to answer each card family ex- Bronstein were that Mr. and Mrs. states fly. tremely good people a hurt Because who wouldn’t put their lives and has been into loss, a terrible void their every day just get through. is still a strain It became in- family creasingly apparent to the writer as she talked to the members that murder of Mr. and Mrs. Bronstein is still shocking, painful, devastating memory such to them permeates every aspect daily that it of their lives. It they fully doubtful that ever be will able to recover from this tragedy memory and not haunted of the brutal manner loved which their ones were murdered and taken App. from them.” 59-64.
Justice with whom The White, Justice, Chief Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.
“[T]he
capital punishment may
appro-
decision that
be the
priate
expression
sanction in extreme cases is an
of the com-
munity’s
griev-
belief
certain
that
crimes are themselves so
humanity
only adequate response
an
ous
affront to
that the
penalty
Gregg Georgia,
be the
of death.”
428 U. S.
(1976)(joint opinion
Stewart,
Powell,
Ste-
JJ.).
humanity
The affront
of a brutal murder such
vens,
petitioner
as
committed is not
its
limited to
on the vic-
community
injured,
tim
also
victims; victim’s
and in
particular
grief
the victim’s
kind
suffers shock
of a
imagine
even
difficult
those
have not
who
shared a sim-
Maryland’s legislature
ilar loss.
has decided
testimony
have
should
the victim’s
in order to
*17
weighing
degree
it in
the
assist
of harm that the defendant
corresponding degree
punishment
has caused and
the
that
judgment
particular
be
This
should
inflicted.
is entitled to
appropriate sentencing
determinations of
deference;
consid-
“‘peculiarly questions
legislative policy,’” id.,
erations are
(quoting
v.
357
States,
Gore United
U.
S.
(1958)),
recognize
‘“[i]n
and the
should
that
Court
a demo-
society legislatures,
cratic
not
are constituted
courts,
to re-
spond
consequently
to the
moral
will and
the
values of the
people,’”
(quoting
Georgia,
at 175
428 U.
Furman v.
S.,
(1972)(Burger,
dissenting)).
S.
I
J.,
U.
C.
cannot
agree
anything
that there
“cruel or unusual” or
other-
legislature’s
to
decision
use
about
unconstitutional
wise
hearings.
sentencing
capital
in
statements
victim
premises
judgment
that the
on the
is based
The Court’s
family does not in
a victim’s
causes
harm
a murderer
that
only
general
and that
evi-
blameworthiness,
reflect on his
capital
going
sen-
is relevant
to
dence
blameworthiness
Many
jurors, however,
tencing
will
if not most
decision.
they appreci-
favorably
capital
when
a
defendant
on
look less
including the
harm he caused,
of the the
ate
full extent
nothing
family.
in
There is
aberrant
victim’s
harm to the
only
juror’s
not
a murderer accountable
to hold
a
inclination
committing
disposition
but also
crime
for
internal
his
many if not most
caused;
he
full extent of
harm
for the
agree,
example,
persons
for
someone who
would also
recklessly through stoplight
a
unintention-
car
drove his
punishment
significantly
ally
pedestrian
more
killed a
merits
recklessly through the same
car
drove his
than someone who
pedestrian
stoplight
hit.
was there
be
at a
when no
time
not overturn a sentence
I
the Court would
am confident that
merely
pun-
because the
automobile
for
homicide
reckless
for reckless driv-
the maximum sentence
ishment exceeded
hope
ing;
not overturn the
I
that the Court would
and would
judge mentioned,
if
as relevant to
a case
sentence
such
sentencing
a mother
the fact that the victim was
decision,
noncapital
punishment can
if
be enhanced
or father. But
irrespective of
the of-
caused,
the basis of
harm
cases on
specific
I
cause
fail
see
harm,1
intention to
such
fender’s
crime
its victims a relevant sen
1 Congress considers the effect of
Thus,
pursuant
reports prepared
presentence
tencing consideration.
32(c)(2)
include “information con
of Criminal Procedure
must
Federal Rule
financial, social,
physical
harm, including
psychological, and
any
cerning
by any victim the
. . . .”
harm,
to or
suffered
offense
done
loss
caused
an offense
also indicate that
harm
This Court’s cases
specific
lacked
intent
punishment
if the offender
basis for
even
Feola,
See,
g.,
The Court is “troubled
that defend-
community
ants whose victims were assets to their
are more
deserving
punishment
per-
than those whose victims are
worthy,”
system
ceived to be less
and declares that “our
justice
does not tolerate such
Ante,
distinctions.”
at 506,
encourage
n. 8.
It is no doubt true that the State
not
rely
the sentencer to
on a factor such as the victim’s race
determining
penalty
appropriate.
whether the death
McCleskey Kemp,
Cf.
v.
of statements victim capital a defendant must facts this case. No doubt to the in evidence rebuttal to vic- to introduce relevant be allowed Maryland impact has in no but wise limited statement, tim regard. right in Petitioner introduced of defendants this probably he evidence, considered, because no rebuttal such wisely, At in interest to do so.3 bot- that it was not his best it unfair to be that is somehow the Court’s view seems tom, loss with an account his delib- to confront a defendant society. family I do not erate act has caused the victim’s unwilling I im- if I did would be to view, share that but even differently. pose it on that see matters States grief anger of that the a victim’s The Court’s concern large jury,” in ante, “inflame at is based will part its that the loss which such survivors suffer is view punishment view with which I irrelevant to the issue —a expressed disagreement. already my To the extent have inappro- it determines that this case was Court express opinions priate their allow victims’ petitioner example, could rehabilitated, whether on, impact obviously an inherent fault all victim that is not practice admitting no reason to declare the statements and possibility jury that the be distracted rebuttal evidence would no It purely hypothetical, petitioner introduced such evidence. since (as offending) distracting opposed to would disad also unclear how defendant, why, disadvantage if vantage the there were some statement, victim pressing too hard rebuttal to a he defendant consequences of tactical complain decisions. should be heard sentencing capital hearings per such statements at se uncon- respectfully stitutional. I dissent. whom Scalia, with
Justice The Chief Justice, Jus- join, dissenting. tice White, and Justice O’Connor “‘punishment The Court holds that because is a death dif- (quoting ferent from all ante, other sanctions,”’ 509, n. (1976) Carolina, Woodson v. North S. 280, U. 303-304 *20 (plurality opinion JJ.)), Stewart, Powell, of and Stevens, ‘personal considerations not relevant to “the defendant’s re- ” sponsibility guilt’ and moral cannot be taken into account in deciding eligible whether a is defendant who the for death penalty (quoting ante, should it, receive at 502 Enmund v. (1982)). Florida, 458 U. S. It me, seems to how- I and, to most of think, mankind—that the amount of ever— upon “personal harm one causes does bear the extent of his responsibility.” may away We take the of license a driver goes who 60 miles an hour on a but residential we street; will put jail manslaughter though guilt him in if, his moral greater, unlucky enough during no he kill to someone escapade. despite says today, depart
Nor, what the Court do we from principle capital punishment this where is concerned. The opinion explain why eligibility Court’s does not a defendant’s (and does) always upon for the death sentence can turn con- guilt. siderations not to relevant his moral If a bank robber gun guard, pulls trigger, target, aims his his and kills may put gun unexpectedly he to If be death. misfires, guilt not. he His moral in identical, both cases is but responsibility greater. in the former is than Less two ago, planned months we held that two who brothers and as- escape prison sisted in their from father’s could be sentenced escape to death because the course of the their father and accomplice couple an murdered a married and two children. Arizona, Tison U. S. 137 Had their father put live, allowed victims to the brothers could not be may. but he death; kill, because decided to the brothers and death for these two defend- between life The difference “wholly the[ir] a matter unrelated blame- ants was thus per- it to their Ante, at 504. But was related worthiness.” they degree responsibility, e., of harm that i. to the sonal principle upon which the Court’s sum, In had caused. capital punishment imposition opinion of is to rests —that the guilt solely not of moral determined basis —does nor in his- Constitution, in the text of the exist, neither society, opinions practices nor even of this toric of our Court. outpouring popular years an concern
Recent have seen rights” phrase “victims’ has come to be known as for what —a proponents its feel is the failure of courts that describes what sentencing justice in their decisions to take into account mitigating guilt, only the defendant’s moral not the factors mem- the amount of harm he has caused innocent but also society. Many have found one-sided and citizens bers parade unjust the criminal trial which witnesses hence testify pressures beyond normal human comes forth to experience crime, that drove the defendant to commit his *21 authority lay sentencing the full re- no one to before the with ality suffering produced of human the defendant has —which alone) (and society guilt one of the reasons deems not moral worthy prescribed penalty. Perhaps act of the these sen- sufficiently temper justice mercy, not with but timents do through proc- question decided the democratic that is a to be people, decrees of this esses of a free not Court. nothing that dictates the answer, There is the Constitution capital punishment in the than elsewhere. no more field mitigating require, have, as that all factors which To we penalty particular capital punishment a harsh in the render sentencing authority, placed before the while simul- case be today, taneously requiring, that of much as we do evidence sup- suffering the defendant has inflicted the human appropriate- pressed, prescribe in effect to a debate on the capital penalty pen- one side If with muted. ness alty is constitutional, repeatedly as we have is, said it it remotely to me permit seems not unconstitutional to both pros particular and the cons in case be heard.