The Sampson Sentencing Considered
Much has been written regarding December’s sentencing of Gary Sampson to death. For those who did not follow this federal case, Mr. Sampson had pled guilty to two murders in Massachusetts, and because each murder involved a kidnapping, the federal government intervened to insure that the sentencing jury could consider capital punishment.
The 1972 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia found capital punishment unconstitutional as then practiced, with judges having total latitude in sentencing, often relying on race and/or class as the determining factor. In response, states and the federal government constituted a system, called a bifurcated trial, whereby after a finding of guilt, the jury would then make a determination of sentence by weighing “aggravating” and “mitigating” factors. An example of an aggravating factor might be a murder committed while the murderer was attempting to avoid recapture having escaped from prison. A mitigating factor could be a murder committed while a gun was pointed at the murderer’s head by another party. Every state determined its own listing of factors.
At least one of the jurors was reported as supporting execution because Sampson had no family or friend to plead for him. He appeared to be a man without a community of support. The absence of a community of support should not factor into deliberations; the presence of such a community is not a mitigating factor. On the other hand, Stephen “the Rifleman” Flemmi, responsible for more than a dozen murders, all equally horrific, was able to plea bargain during the same past season with the same federal prosecutor’s office for life in prison. Flemmi had the necessary community of support, at least some of whom are employed by the law enforcement community. (That support was developed when the Boston office of the FBI was running Flemmi and Whitey Bulger as informants on overly long chains. Flemmi murdered some of his victims while an FBI informant.)
Of course, the presence - or lack thereof - of a supportive network can influence the subjective decision making of government prosecutors regarding whether to seek the death penalty. Calculations based on such ephemeral factors regarding when to call for the death penalty raise serious doubt about executions actually being about the public’s well being, which the current administration believes to be the case. If Flemmi’s victims’ families are expected to achieve a sense of safety with Flemmi in prison for life, how is it that Sampson’s victims’ families are accorded an execution?
The Jan 13th Boston Globe carried a story from the LA Times ( The Green River Killer ) reporting that defense attorneys in the State of Washington are raising this very issue in light of last month’s plea bargain of that state’s Green River serial killer, who was sentenced to life for dozens of self confessed murder, while other murder defendants, on trial for a single murder, are facing a sentence of execution if convicted.
Finally, it is sufficient to note that juries picked for capital cases are “death qualified” – jurors must have no absolute resistance to voting for execution – for us to realize that nothing can be discerned from the Sampson sentence regarding the desire of the Massachusetts’ citizenry for a state death penalty statute. Of more consequence will be the findings of the Governor’s Council on Capital Punishment, appointed on September 23, 2003, and charged with constructing a death penalty statute, narrowly applied and using science to assure the highest standard of proof in identifying the guilty. Will the aforementioned prosecutorial discretion be under examination by that cluster of scientists?
