Legal Definitions - proportionality review

Proportionality Review is a legal process conducted by a higher court, typically an appellate court, to determine if a death sentence imposed in a criminal case is fair and consistent with how similar cases have been handled within the same legal jurisdiction.

When performing a proportionality review, the court carefully examines whether a death sentence is:

• Arbitrary: meaning it was imposed randomly or without a clear, consistent reason.
• Capricious: meaning it was unpredictable or based on whim rather than established legal principles.
• Excessive: meaning it is unduly harsh or severe when compared to the sentences given in similar cases.

To make this determination, the court compares the specific details of the case in question with a comprehensive collection of other cases where the death penalty was either upheld or overturned. This comparative analysis helps ensure that the ultimate punishment of death is applied consistently and justly across the legal system.

Here are a few examples illustrating how proportionality review works:

• Example 1: Assessing Excessive Punishment

  Imagine a defendant is sentenced to death for a murder committed during a home invasion, but there were no additional aggravating factors like torture or multiple victims. An appellate court conducting a proportionality review would meticulously examine other home invasion murders within that state. If the court finds that in the vast majority of similar cases, especially those without extreme aggravating circumstances, the death penalty was not imposed, they might conclude that the sentence in this particular case is excessive and therefore disproportionate. The court would then likely commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.

• Example 2: Identifying Arbitrary Application

  Consider a scenario where a young defendant, with no prior criminal record and who acted as a reluctant accomplice under significant duress in a murder, receives a death sentence. During a proportionality review, the appellate court would compare this case to others involving accomplices or defendants with minimal criminal history. If the court observes that defendants with similar roles, backgrounds, or levels of culpability typically received life imprisonment, the death sentence in this instance might be deemed arbitrary. This suggests that the sentence was not applied consistently with established sentencing patterns for comparable situations, indicating a lack of fairness.

• Example 3: Ensuring Jurisdictional Consistency

  In a state where the death penalty is legal, a defendant is sentenced to death for a particularly heinous crime in a rural county. The state's highest court performs a proportionality review. They compile a comprehensive database of all death penalty cases and similar non-death penalty cases across the entire state. If their analysis reveals that death sentences are imposed significantly more often in that specific rural county for certain types of crimes compared to other counties, even when the facts and aggravating circumstances are similar, it could raise concerns about the capricious application of the death penalty. Such regional disparities might lead the court to find the sentence disproportionate, ensuring that the ultimate punishment is applied uniformly across the jurisdiction.