VOTE NO ON #2!
It's Overkill!

What Florida's Newspapers Say
About Amendment #2


The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
The Gainesville Sun
The Miami Herald
The Orlando Sentinel
The Orlando Weekly
The Palm Beach Post
The St. Petersburg Times
The Tallahassee Democrat
The Tampa Tribune

The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel 10/23/98

NO. 2 DEATH PENALTY

Vote YES on Amendment No. 2. It is designed to ensure Florida can continue executing condemned criminals in other court- approved ways if courts someday rule the current method of electrocution is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

It says that if courts invalidate use of the electric chair, the inmates death sentence will continue in effect and cannot be reduced. Once a new method of execution is instituted by lawmakers and upheld by courts, the amendment would let it be carried out.

Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Major Harding says that Florida statutes only provide one method of execution, and if that method is invalidated, then the court's only alternative may be to impose life sentences on all inmates currently sentenced to death.

The Amendment also requires state courts to conform their decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishment to U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the same issue.


The Gainesville Sun: 10/13/98

Revision 2: Preservation of the Death Penalty: NO

Contrary to what lawmakers would have you believe, the death penalty is alive and well in Florida.

This "celebrate Ole' Sparky" amendment is simply a politically driven piece of mischief that could end up backfiring on a state that is as bullish on capital punishment as Florida.

Ostensibly, this amendment is needed in case the Florida Supreme Court decides to outlaw death by electrocution as the state's means of capital punishment. If some future court decides the method is impermissibly cruel and unusual, the Legislature could quickly move to designate another method, presumably lethal injection, in its place.

But the proposed amendment does much more than is advertised. To begin with, it pre-empts the Florida Supreme Court from determining what constitutes "cruel and unusual," and it would force the state court to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court's definitions in such cases.

Why? Simply because at this point in history, the U.S. Supreme Court is deemed to be more pro-death penalty that the Florida Supreme Court. But what happens in, say, 10 or 12 years if the pendulum swings and the U.S. Supreme Court goes soft on the ultimate sanction? Must we change our constitution again to restore backbone to Florida's high court?

Moreover, Florida has been one of the more successful states in carrying out executions. Its capital punishment system has already been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The very adoption of this proposed amendment could trigger a new constitutional review process and raise new challenges to the state's death penalty law.

"This is a dangerous amendment and it should be defeated," says the Florida Catholic Conference. "It is a radical attempt to change several provisions of the Florida Constitution under the guise of 'preserving the death penalty. In reality, the death penalty will remain regardless of the vote on this amendment."

Last week, the London-based human rights group Amnesty International referred to Florida's frequently malfunctioning electric chair as "a political campaigning tool," and observed, "while it is unconstitutional for the state of Florida to administer electricty or to torture a prisoner, it remains acceptable, even a vote winner, to do so to cause death."

Voters would be well advised to vote no on this misguided amendment.


The Miami Herald: October 20, 1998

The Herald recommends: On revisions of the Florida Constitution

Amendment No. 2

Over the years Floridians consistently have indicated their approval of the death penalty for murder. The Herald favors it as well, for particularly heinous crimes. Thus a decision on Amendment No. 2 to the Florida Constitution should be relatively straightforward for most people.

Amendment No. 2 would ensure that the death penalty is continued even if the method of execution eventually is changed in Florida. Although that rationale is clear, debate about the issue has been anything but lucid. That may be, in part, because some opponents of capital punishment see the amendment as an opportunity to gain through confusion.

Critics suggest that the amendment will result in unnecessary delays and expense. They say that it threatens Florida's death penalty because it replaces Florida language against `cruel or unusual treatment'' with the federal prohibition against ``cruel and unusual punishment.'' Mainly, though, opponents see as unacceptable Amendment No. 2's guarantee that the death penalty will continue to be an option regardless of the fate of the state's electric chair.

These objections don't hold up. True, the amendment is modeled on federal statutes, but those laws have been tested and held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. What isn't certain is whether Florida's electric chair, which narrowly survived a 4-3 Florida Supreme Court test last year, will survive. To preserve the state's option to impose the ultimate penalty for the worst crimes by lethal injection if need be, The Herald recommends a YES vote on Amendment No. 2.


The Orlando Sentinel:

"Amendment 2 would prevent the Florida Supreme Court from declaring the Death Penalty unconstituional in Florida unless it is prohibited by the US Constitution. Florida's death penalty already has survived numerous, exhaustive court challenges. This is not needed, Vote NO."


The Orlando Weekly

"To amend or not amend? It depends"

Preservation of the Death Penalty. What it does: permits any method of execution not prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court. Would reduce Floridians' constitutional right to be free from "cruel OR unusual punishment" to the U.S. standard "cruel AND unusual punishment."

Who is for it: Death penalty advocates worry that the electric chair's penchant for setting peoples' heads on fire could be ruled "cruel" if not unusual. Some death penalty opponents note that the proposed revision opens several avenues for litigation. Critics, like Amnesty International, say the revision preserves nothing and needlessly diminishes all Floridians' constitutional protections.

Orlando Weekly October 29-November 4, 1998


The Palm Beach Post - 10/20/98

Reject the misguided 'Death' amendment

Revision 2

Revision 2 in the Nov. 3 election would turn Florida's Constitution into a political document, violate the separation of powers and cause untold unintended consequences. Aside from that, it's fine.

The Legislature, which worries that voters will see anything but blind love for capital punishment as softheartedness, placed this horrible amendment on the ballot. It is called Preservation of the Death Penalty, but lawmakers might as well have named it "Let Us Keep Using Old Sparky."

In March 1997, the electrocution of Pedro Medina went wrong. Flames shot from Medina's head and smoke filled the execution chamber. Lawyers for the next killer on Death Row then challenged the use of the electric chair. After the usual bizarre "tests" of Old Sparky and legal arguments, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the use of the chair, but the ruling was only 4-3. Three new justices will be on the high court by next year.

So the Legislature, which already tries to run every school and prison in Florida, created Revision 2 to block any action by the Florida Supreme Court on the death penalty. It would change language in the state constitution to conform with the United States Constitution. State law would change from banning "cruel or unusual punishment" to "cruel and unusual." State Rep. Victor Crist, R-Temple Terrace, who sponsored the amendment, says Revision 2 "will require our state courts to follow rulings of the United States Supreme Court regarding whether an execution method is constitutional." In other words, if the Supreme Court approves the chair, state courts can't disagree.

There are plenty of upright reasons to oppose Revision 2. Florida's Constitution is supposed to be a framework for government, not an Etch-A-Sketch for the legislative branch. The amendment would infringe on the judicial branch's power.

But here's a self-serving reason for death penalty supporters: Revision 2 would backfire. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment in 1972, the justices allowed Florida to resume the practice because, among other things, new laws allowed state courts to review each case. Any change would lead to new challenges and result in longer appeals, not shorter.

The only thing worse for the state than Revision 2 on the ballot would be Revision 2 in the constitution. Floridians should vote NO.

Originally published in The Palm Beach Post on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 1998. Copyright © 1998


The St. Petersburg Times 10/18/98

AMENDMENT 2: NO

The Amendment would change Article 1, Section 17 of the state Constitution that currently prohibits "cruel or unusual" punishment, to "cruel and unusual," parroting the language of the U.S. Constitution. It would also dictate that any method of execution that is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution would be legal in Florida. And, for all crimes, even non-capital offenses, the amendment would take away the discretion of Florida courts to decide what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Our courts would be consigned to follow the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court

Due process would be damaged because the federal courts offer almost no protection against disproportionate sentences. Yet the Florida Supreme Court routinely reviews death penalty cases to make sure the punishment has not been imposed in an unfair, uneven or disproportionate way.

The court's review also prevents different regions of the state from using disparate death penalty standards. Amendment 2 would eliminate this process.

The amendment is on the ballot because lawmakers got spooked after a 1997 decision by the Florida Supreme Court barely approved, 4-3, the continued use of the electric chair, after it malfunctioned. For pro-death penalty legislators it was too close for comfort; a one vote change on the court could mean the electric chair is history. Amendment 2 was designed to keep the decision out of our courts' hands.

However, voters need to know that if Amendment 2 is rejected, not only would the death penalty remain viable, but the electric chair would still be legal.

Down the road, if the Florida Supreme Court invalidated the use of the electric chair, lethal injection would be automatically substituted. A state law passed this year endorses the use of lethal injection in that eventuality.

Amendment 2 attempts to perpetuate an antiquated form of execution and would weaken the ability of Florida's courts to make sure sentences are fair. For these reasons the Times recommends that voters say no to Amendment 2.

The Tallahassee Democrat

Weds., Sept. 16th, 1998
Our Opinion

DON'T BE FOOLED BY AMENDMENT ON DEATH PENALTY Misleading ballot proposal could halt executions.

State lawmakers who sought to preserve the electric chair by amending the state constitution have created a monster that could delay executions almost indefinitely.

How? This poorly conceived constitutional amendment opens new avenues by which to challenge the death penalty. Inmates and others looking for appeals should love it.

On all counts, "Amendment 2" deserves a "no" from voters on November 3.

Put on the ballot by this year's Legislature, the proposed amendment attempts to ensure that no state court has the power to overrule the electric chair as the preferred method of execution. Yet the amendment doesn't protect the chair and, in fact, doesn't even mention it.

STATE AUTHORITY WOULD BE LOST

Further, the amendment suspends the Florida Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the death penalty and gives it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The saves Old Sparky from death by state justices. Lawmakers were hoping to avoid another close call, such as happened in 1997 when the Florida Supreme Court voted 4-3 to uphold the use of the electric chair in the death penalty.

Contrary to good state policy, the language of this proposed amendment opens the possibility that federal judges could overrule our state's death penalty. And not only that. The amendment would allow federal judges to overrule sentences on all crimes that are challenged as "cruel and unusual."

Troubling too, is the fact that the amendment could strip the state Supreme Court of its power to review death sentences. How? By substituting "and" for "or" in constitutional language prohibiting "cruel or unusual punishment." In legal terms, where every word counts, the "or" enables the state Supreme Court to review death sentences to ensure that they are just and evenly applied in all counties.

The irony is that in 1976, the clause ensuring state Supreme Court review of death sentences was the major reason the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Florida's death penalty.

REDUCING STATE JUSTICES ROLE

State justices can reserve death sentences for the most aggravated, indefensible crimes. But this amendment would preclude Florida justices from reducing death sentences to life in prison. Reduced sentences are merited in some cases such as when the defendent has a very low IQ or when it is established that a murder was not premeditated.

Finally, the amendment would enable the method of a death sentence to be changed retroactively. Retroactive justice in any form is not fair justice.

Amendment 2 is not worthy of being added to our constitution. Voters should firmly say "no."

The Tampa Tribune

10/23/98

Death sentences and the electric chair

In Florida, the Legislature enacts penalties intended to punish criminals for their misdeeds. When miscreants are convicted of a capital felony, the law says they can be sentenced to death in the electric chair.

In a recent state Supreme Court case, three justices let it be known that they believe ``Old Sparky'' is antiquated and amounts to ``cruel or unusual punishment,'' which is prohibited under the state constitution. These minority opinions shook some lawmakers so much that they decided to send a message to the court in the form of proposed Amendment 2, which carries the disingenuous title ``Preservation of the death penalty.''

The death penalty is in no serious danger of being banished from Florida. Those justices known to oppose electrocution as an execution method have followed the law and allowed that form of punishment to proceed. Furthermore, even if new justices were to decide that electrocution is unconstitutional, the death penalty itself would remain legal.

It seems highly unlikely in a state where there is overwhelming public support for capital punishment that judges who face a retention vote would find the death penalty unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, several religious leaders asked the state Supreme Court to keep the measure off the ballot. That case is pending.

Proponents of Amendment 2, including Rep. Victor Crist of Temple Terrace, a sponsor of the measure, say the death penalty itself is under siege in Florida. Their proposal would ensure that if electrocution were ever determined by a court to constitute cruel or unusual punishment, the sentence of death would continue in force until execution by another method was instituted. They worry that criminals sentenced to death would have their sentences commuted or that defense lawyers would use a change in methods to delay an execution.

But the Legislature this year approved lethal injection as an alternative execution method if electrocution is declared illegal. Their argument has little merit.

The proposed amendment would change the ``cruel or unusual'' prohibition language of the state constitution to the more stringent ``cruel and unusual'' language of the U.S. Constitution and would allow for any method of execution not prohibited by the high court.

Proponents argue that this part of the proposal would prevent our courts from using the state constitution to give more rights to convicted murderers to challenge an execution procedure. Our constitution does not give more rights to criminals; it protects their rights, and its guarantees are meant to prevent injustice.

State judges who sit through a trial and hear testimony are in the best position to decide whether the punishment fits the crime. Under this amendment they would lose their discretion to decide what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in a particular case. This would be unfair to a defendant.

Passage of the amendment would amount to an inappropriate delegation of state authority, and it could backfire on its supporters: If forced into conformity with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the state might one day find itself contending with case law less friendly to the death penalty than Florida law.

It is the Florida Legislature's responsibility to decide the forms of execution the state will allow. This amendment has no place in the constitution. We urge a no vote on Revision 2.