Why is a unanimous verdict needed in death penalty sentencing?
The question is faulty in that it implies the guilty verdict subsumes the sentencing, or put another way, the question presumes the premise it purports to prove (begs the question). Paraphrased, the question is as follows: “Given that one has been proven worthy of the death penalty, why is a majority vote required to sentence that one to death?” (Logic error of inclusivity.) The guilty verdict is unqualified (declared from an absolute perspective) and therefore does not and cannot subsume the sentencing which is necessarily subject to further considerations. That is, there are in effect two trials contained within the one trial: 1. Trial-the-first-part: “Setting aside mitigating circumstances, is the defendant guilty of intentionally killing?” (This considers the act from an absolute perspective, and constitutes the necessary and primary/foundational adjudication.) 2. Trial-the-second-part: “Assuming an affirmative to the above, was the ‘intentionality’ unassisted (no mitigating circum
In the American judicial system, the jury vote (for a guilty or not guilty verdict) must always be unanimous for a criminal case. If there’s one person who dissents, it’s a hung jury and there’s a mistrial. The accused can opt for a judge to decide the verdict, but most choose to be judged by a jury. The same standard is used for the death penalty because it’s just as important as a guilty or not guilty verdict.
