Before the Kentucky Supreme Court is the issue of whether a criminal defendant may waive trial and sentencing recommendations by a jury and be sentenced to death after a guilty plea.  Although many defendants have chosen to waive appeals after being found guilty by a jury, this case is different because in this case, the defendant, Marco Allen Chapman, entered a guilty plea and requested to be sentenced to death by lethal injection.  In December 2004, a Kentucky judge granted the defendant’s request.

Chapman’s attorneys have argued that the defendant suffered from depression during the sentencing hearing, and have asked for a new sentencing hearing after Chapman has been treated for depression.  However, Chapman has been evaluated for competency and has been found competent to proceed by several doctors.  Some criminal law scholars suggest that allowing defendants to make these types of decisions would eliminate many of the safeguards that ensure competent, guilty people are punished.

I’m not so sure that we have to worry about the errosion of legal safeguards if defendants are allowed to waive trials and request a death sentence.  The suggestion by some law professors seems to be operating on the assumption that most competent people would not waive trial and choose death.  If experts in the field of forensic psychology find a defendant competent, then why should the legal system save a defendant from himself? 

One suggestion in the article is that we should only allow a defendant to choose death if the desire to be sentenced to death is motivated by accepting responsibility for one’s crimes.  But what if a defendant is competent and guilty, but wishes to simply end his life?  To some extent, most people who waive appeals after a death sentence must wish to expedite their sentences.  We allow defendants to waive appeals.  And how do we determine a person’s motivation?  Many commentors on the article, as well as many former jurors believe that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a worse punishment than death.  It’s the “I want you to sit in your room and think about what you’ve done” routine.  People who espouse this belief assume that the defendant is remorseful and will suffer the rest of his life as he regrets the wrong he’s done.  I think that view overlooks the fact that many people who commit such horrible crimes do not regret their actions or show remorse.

As a criminal defense attorney, I must daily resist the urge to attempt to save my clients from themselves.  They accept pleas to probation, but from experience I know many will violate soon after.  They have a good case for trial, yet they decide to accept the state’s plea offer.  I have many clients who want to demand a speedy trial unprepared or go to trial on a dead loser of a case.  I do my best to advise my clients, and even to urge them to make what I believe to be the right choice, but I do not prevent their cases from proceeding as they wish because they have to live out the consequences of their choices.  The only exception is if the client is or if I have suspicions that the client is incompetent.  The criminal justice system as a whole, although it should provide safeguards to ensure only competent people are punished, should not attempt to save competent defendants from their own decisions.