Louisiana House Bill HB836

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Report Pass: 3/28/12
• Engrossed: 4/4/12
• Refer: 4/9/12
• Report Pass: 4/24/12
• Enrolled: 5/7/12
• Chaptered: 5/11/12
• Passed: 5/11/12

Caption

Provides relative to the appearance by the Board of Pardons at certain sentencing hearings

Impact

The impact of HB 836 on state laws centers around the procedural aspects of how capital cases are managed. By eliminating the necessity for Board of Pardons members to attend sentencing hearings, the legislation potentially accelerates the court process for capital cases. The bill emphasizes the authority of the governor in granting reprieves, pardons, or commutations, indicating a shift in focus towards executive intervention rather than judicial oversight of these critical decisions.

Summary

House Bill 836 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to address the requirements for the Board of Pardons during sentencing hearings in capital cases. The primary provision of this bill states that members of the Board of Pardons are not required to appear at these hearings. This change streamlines the process and reduces the logistical burdens associated with having board members present for every sentencing case, which proponents argue can lead to more efficient judicial proceedings.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HB 836 appears to be supportive among legislators who view the bill as a practical adjustment to current procedural requirements. By simplifying the process and recognizing the governor's role, supporters argue it enhances the efficiency of the legal system. However, there may be underlying concerns from those who believe that the presence of the Board could provide necessary checks and balances during the sentencing phase. Overall, the response seems largely favorable without significant opposition noted during its passage.

Contention

Notable points of contention about HB 836 may arise from concerns regarding the implications of removing the Board of Pardons from sentencing hearings in capital cases. Critics might argue that this could diminish the oversight and deliberative process associated with life-altering decisions, such as death sentences. While the bill aims for efficiency, advocates for including the Board during these hearings may contend that their absence could lead to less informed jury decisions about the severity of sentencing and the use of executive clemency.