No, she has removed the option by stating that she won’t ever employ it. It’s like Henry Ford’s saying the American driver can have any color they want, as long as it was black.
If the people of Florida want to have the option of the death penalty, and this state’s attorney refuses to give them the option, then the people don’t have the option anymore.
Fortunately the governor does want to do what the people want.
Regards,
Shodan
By way of context, Eric Holder’s “Smart on Crime” initiative included simply refusing to prosecute people for crimes whose mandatory sentences they believed to be excessive.
It was on hold due to a SCOTUS decision, but now that Florida juries must vote unanimously to impose the death penalty, it’s back in play.
Assuming I understand your question, that’s how it works in general.
If prosecution isn’t sought, a judge & jury can’t just decide to put someone on trial.
If a crime isn’t included in the charges, a judge & jury can’t just convict someone of it.
The court doesn’t generally have unilateral power (things like contempt of court notwithstanding, of course).
I would interpret that she has temporarily removed the option with her revelation that she won’t employ it. It’s like Burger King saying 'Yeah, shakes are on the menu, but during this heat wave the machine broke down."
Meanwhile, if you want a Big Mac you can either go without the shake or see if another franchise can sell you both [Yeah, that’s where this analogy breaks down, sorry.]
The point is that, eventually, that shake machine will be replaced with another (the People of Florida can vote in another State Attorney) – or, in the analogy of the special prosecutor, the franchise might be able to rent a shake machine from a concessions supply company until then.
I think the governor is right to use the special prosecutor if he wants the death penalty in this case. If she’s voted in he can’t outright fire her, can he? So then he and The People must simply wait out her term and vote based on their agreement with her overall performance.
I think she’s right, too, by the way. From the facts of the case as noted in this thread, I wouldn’t want M Loyd to get the automatic appeal that comes with a Death Penalty conviction.
I think the governor and state attorney – in any state – should be expected to consider a lot more than just the demands of the crowd.
–G!
She said she was never going to pursue the DP. It’s like a person being hired at Burger King, and then announcing that she won’t sell shakes to anyone because they’re bad for you.
Regards,
Shodan
If the death penalty is not a required punishment, no AG is then obligated to seek it. If Florida residents don’t like their AG’s choices, they can vote for someone else next time around.
It’s more like voting for someone to manage the Burger King, giving them a menu which includes shakes, but not mandating that they serve them. If serving shakes was so important, you should have written “must serve shakes” into the job description instead of “can serve shakes.”
The public very much wants the DP in this case. So it is like hiring a Burger King employee with the understanding that shakes are on the menu, someone comes into the BK and orders a shake, and the employee says, “No, shakes are bad for you, so I won’t serve you one.”
Or like a county clerk who won’t issue a gay marriage license. Sure, it’s an option - you just can’t have it.
Regards,
Shodan