S.718 - Eric’s Law (119th Congress)
Summary
S.718, also known as Eric's Law, proposes an amendment to Title 18 of the United States Code. The bill addresses scenarios where a jury fails to reach a unanimous decision regarding sentencing in death penalty cases. Specifically, it mandates the impaneling of a new jury if the initial jury cannot unanimously agree on a sentence.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of Eric's Law would be to require a new special hearing with a new jury in cases where the original jury deadlocks on recommending a sentence in a death penalty case. If the second jury also fails to reach a unanimous decision, the court would be required to impose a sentence other than death.
Potential Benefits
- Ensures a more thorough consideration of sentencing in capital cases.
- Provides an additional safeguard against potentially unjust application of the death penalty.
- Could lead to fewer death sentences and more life imprisonment sentences.
- Addresses concerns about the finality of death penalty decisions when juries are divided.
- May reduce appeals based on jury deadlock.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could increase the time and resources required for capital trials due to the possibility of needing to impanel multiple juries.
- May not fully eliminate the risk of unjust sentencing, as a unanimous jury can still make errors.
- Could be seen as undermining the role of the jury in the sentencing process.
- Might lead to inconsistent sentencing outcomes depending on the composition of different juries.
- Could prolong the emotional distress for victims' families.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the Constitution is complex. While it aims to ensure fairness in death penalty cases, potentially aligning with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, it could also be argued that it infringes upon the traditional role of the jury, as outlined implicitly in Article III and the Sixth Amendment. The requirement for unanimity could be seen as reinforcing due process, but the repeated jury impanelment might raise concerns about efficiency and finality.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).