Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 156, 43 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  Next

198

RAMDASS v. ANGELONE

Stevens, J., dissenting

of parole." Simmons, 512 U. S., at 177-178 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). The statistical data bear this out. One study of potential Virginia jurors asked: " 'If a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for intentional murder during an armed robbery, how many years on the average do you think that the person would actually serve before being released on parole?' " The most frequent response was 10 years.23 Another potential-juror survey put the average response at just over eight years.24 And more

than 70% of potential jurors think that a person sentenced to life in prison for murder can be released at some point in the future.25

Given this data, it is not surprising that one study concluded: "[J]urors assessing dangerousness attach great weight to the defendant's expected sentence if a death sentence is not imposed. Most importantly, jurors who believe the alternative to death is a relatively short time in prison tend to sentence to death. Jurors who believe the alternative treatment is longer tend to sentence to life." 26 Consequently, every reason why the Governor's commutation power at issue in Ramos was not required to be put before the jury leads to precisely the opposite conclusion when it comes to the issue of parole ineligibility. That is exactly why Simmons is an exception to the normally operative rule of deference established in Ramos.27

The plurality—focusing exclusively on one of the many sources cited—criticizes at length (ante, at 172-173) these "so-called scientific conclusions" that merely confirm what

23 See id., at 1624, and n. 101.

24 See Paduano & Smith, 18 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev., at 223, n. 34.

25 See Hughes, 44 S. C. L. Rev., at 408; see also Finn, Washington Post, at A6 ("[O]nly 4 percent of Americans believe that convicted murderers will spend the rest of their days in prison").

26 See Eisenberg & Wells, Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases, 79 Cornell L. Rev. 1, 7 (1993).

27 See Simmons, 512 U. S., at 159, 170, n. 9 (plurality opinion) (discussing above data).

Page:   Index   Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007