Better juries than judges.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, must impose death sentences. Now, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has applied that ruling by changing the death sentences of more than 100 inmates in Arizona, Montana and Idaho to life imprisonment without parole because judges, not juries, imposed those sentences.

The 9th Circuit, on a vote of 8-3, acted retroactively. The court lifted the death sentences of inmates who had been sentenced by judges before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of who should impose such penalties.

The 9th Circuit's retroactive application of the high court's ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court. If there is no appeal, or if the retroactive application of the high court's ruling is upheld, the inmates in Arizona, Montana and Idaho will still remain in prison for the rest of their lives. The decision affects 124 inmates in Arizona, 16 in Idaho and six in Montana.

In Oregon, juries must make the final sentencing decisions in capital cases. The decisions are made in separate post-conviction proceedings. There is an exception: If a defendant in a capital case waives his or her right to a jury trial and sentencing procedure, then the judge may impose a sentence of life with or without the possibility of parole.

If the 9th Circuit's ruling stands, the states affected conceivably could hold new penalty-only proceedings to allow juries, instead of judges acting alone, to decide life or death for the defendant.

While the court's ruling affects only the death row inmates in Arizona, Montana and Idaho, two other states not under the court's jurisdiction - Nebraska and Colorado - also have allowed judges acting alone to impose the death penalty.

Juries are generally more lenient in imposing the death penalty than judges, most of whom are elected and fear being labeled soft on crime by opponents. In at least one of the Arizona capital sentencings, the judge imposing the death penalty - Judge Philip Marquardt - had admitted to heavy marijuana use. "If the allegations concerning Judge Marquardt are true," wrote 9th Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas, "(the defendant's) fate was determined by a drug-impaired judge."

Both the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit have recognized that juries are an inherent safeguard against injustice - and that in death penalty cases, above all others, defendants are entitled to that safeguard. That safeguard should not be available only to people sentenced after the Supreme Court made its ruling. The 9th Circuit's decision to apply the high court's logic retroactively should stand.