Alabama Senate Bill SB216

Alabama 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/19/23
• Refer: 4/19/23

Caption

Relating to sentencing; the amend Sections 13A-5-46 and 13A-5-47, Code of Alabama 1975, to require a unanimous vote of a jury to impose a death sentence in a capital murder case; to require a majority vote of a jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole; to add Sections 13A-5-46.1 and 13A-5-47.2 to the Code of Alabama 1975, to provide for resentencing for certain defendants sentenced for capital murder; to repeal Section 13A-5-47.1, Code of Alabama 1975; and to make nonsubstantive, technical revisions to update the existing code language to current style.

Impact

If enacted, SB216 would significantly alter the procedural landscape for capital offenses in Alabama. The requirement for a unanimous jury decision aligns with the standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which emphasizes that such weighty decisions as capital punishment should reflect the consensus of the jury. This shift could lead to fewer death sentences being imposed, as the threshold for sentencing would become stricter. Furthermore, the option for resentencing could provide relief to those previously sentenced under less stringent standards, highlighting a movement towards a more equitable justice system.

Summary

SB216 aims to amend Alabama's sentencing laws in capital murder cases by requiring a unanimous jury vote to impose the death penalty. Currently, a sentence of death can be imposed with a vote of at least 10 jurors. The bill also stipulates that a majority vote is necessary for sentencing a defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Additionally, SB216 introduces provisions for resentencing individuals who were sentenced based on non-unanimous jury verdicts, effectively allowing them to have their cases reviewed and potentially re-sentenced according to the new requirements.

Contention

While supporters argue that SB216 enhances the fairness of the judicial process by ensuring that a capital sentence reflects a full agreement among jurors, opponents raise concerns that it may lead to unintended consequences, such as an increase in life sentences instead of the death penalty in cases where jurors could not reach unanimity. The bill may also initiate discussions around the broader implications of sentencing reform, revolving around the moral and ethical dimensions of capital punishment in the state. As the bill addresses a fundamental aspect of criminal justice, it is likely to spur vigorous debate among lawmakers and the public alike.