Revisiting the Decision of Death in Hurst v. Florida.

The United States Supreme Court has considered the question of whether a judge or a jury must make the findings necessary to support imposition of the death penalty in several notable cases, including Spaziano v. Florida (1984), Hildwin v. Florida (1989), and Ring v. Arizona (2002). In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the subject in Hurst v. Florida Florida Statute § 921.141 allows the judge, after weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, to enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death. Before Hurst, Florida's bifurcated sentencing proceedings included an advisory sentence from jurors and a separate judicial hearing without juror involvement. In Hurst, the Court revisited the question of whether Florida's capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment, which requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death in light of Ring In an eight-to-one decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. The role of Florida juries in capital sentencing proceedings was thereby elevated from advisory to determinative. We examine the Court's decision and offer commentary regarding this shift from judge to jury in the final imposition of the death penalty and the overall effect of this landmark case.
(© 2016 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)