Can anybody explain this?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've finished John Grisham's The Chamber and I'm wondering about one thing that never been explained in the book. A man committs a capital crime in 1967. After two earlier trails, ended with hung juries, he'd been charged again in the early 80s and was sentenced to death.

But here's what I don't understand. The 1972 Furman v. Georgia struck down death penalty statutes across the country, including Mississippi of course, and, effectively, commuted all death row inmates sentences. This is why Byron De La Beckwith, a man who killed Medgar Evers in 1963, was ineligible for death penalty in 1964, when he was prosecuted again (two previous attempts ended up with hung juries as well).

Can anybody explain this?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Grisham was writing a novel and not a documentary.  Never let a minor detail stand in the way of a good story. For all I know, in the Grisham universe, Furman either never happened or was decided differently.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Grisham was writing a novel and not a documentary.  Never let a minor detail stand in the way of a good story. For all I know, in the Grisham universe, Furman either never happened or was decided differently.

I know and he's a great storyteller as always. If it was required for a plot, then I understand (Like King's Green Mile is full of innacuracies, but it doesn't change anything). I've just been curious, since Furman was mentioned in the book (but yes, without adressing this matter).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can think of a real-life case, though. One Ernest Dobbert in Florida who in 1972 killed his nine years old daughter. Time is a crucial factor here, as it happened before Furman, but he wasn't prosecuted and convicted until after the Furman. Dobbert was eventually executed in 1984.

The Supreme Court ruled it was not an ex post facto law, but I still don't get it. Logic would say he was ineligible to get the death sentence, since the relevant statute was struck down and charging him under a new one, that wasn't in the books at the time of offense, seems inconsistent. In his opinion Rehnquist wrote about "Florida having to draw a line somewhere", but I still don't get it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just remembered another case from Florida, a very famous one. J.W. Buchanan was sentenced to death for murder, but between the crime and the verdict Florida switched from hanging to electrocution and Buchanan's lawyer, future Senator Claude Pepper (and it was his first moment of fame) argued Buchanan can't be hanged, since hanging was no longer a law, neither can he be electrocuted, since his sentence perscribed hanging. Though Buchanan's death sentence stood, he was never executed, since no Governor decided to sign his death warrant and he just roamed around Raiford Prison until he died.

We've seen one instance of Florida actually bypassing the thing by hanging a man, despite electric chair being adopted in meantime.

In more recent years we've seen states freely switching from one method to another without affecting standing death sentences. Some switched outright, some provided those sentenced before with alternative (like South Carolina, where people sentenced before 1994 are still sentenced to the chair, but can choose lethal injection. If they refuse to make a choice, they'll be electrocuted by default. There was a similar case in Arkansas.) Mississippi passed lethal injection, but "grandfathered" those sentenced before to gas chamber anyway.

I'm mentioning this because the challenge to the latter law was a major plotline in the novel.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You just provided what I needed to answer you. From Dobbert v. Florida 432 U.S. 282 (1977):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I see the reasoning. Still seems quite arbitrary for my taste, though. It wasn't just a case of "we've changed procedure a bit". The whole death penalty statute was invalidated and there were a couple of months Florida has no death penalty at all.

IMHO it's illogical people on death row got their sentenced automatically commuted, but Dobbert was still eligible for death penalty, because he wasn't tried before. Old statute couldnt've applied to him, as well as the one which was yet to be passed.

I suppouse things would be a bit diffrent if the crime was committed in between Furman and Florida enacting new death penalty laws.

Btw, thanks for replies.