In one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed a bill to get rid of Alabama’s judicial override law, the rule that formerly allowed judges in Alabama to go against the recommendation of a jury and impose the death penalty on defendants in capital murder cases. The change was long overdue.

Alabama was the only state in the nation that still had judicial override on its books by the time Ivey got a chance to erase it. It likely would have been stricken down by the Supreme Court eventually, just as Florida’s version was last year. Alabama courts were unwilling to declare the law unconstitutional, so this bill was much needed. It is a great step forward for the state, but there is still work that needs to be done on Alabama’s death penalty scheme.

While Alabama is no longer alone in having judicial override, it is still the only state where jury decisions do not need to be unanimous to sentence someone to death. Only 10 of 12 jurors need to be in agreement. There is no compelling reason why this should be the case. Some say it is to ensure that a single juror isn’t able to “spoil the pot” and show mercy to someone by being unwilling to put them on death row. If someone is truly evil, if what they’ve done is so heinous that they deserve to be put to death, it seems likely that everyone on a jury would reach the same conclusion and vote accordingly. But if one or two jurors have doubts then surely there is no reason to allow that person to die. It’s not as if the defendant will be cleared of all charges and allowed to walk free; for capital murder cases in Alabama there are two options, the death penalty, or life without parole.

The decision to put someone to death is not the same as other decisions in our criminal justice system. It’s not about time or rehabilitation, it’s about justice, vengeance and closure. The people who have faced and will face a jury that has the power to end their life have done horrible things, but just because they have killed does not immediately justify their own death at the hands of the state. We as a society hold human life as the most sacred thing. If a group of us is to decide the put someone to death there should be no doubt, no disagreement. There should be every opportunity to deliberate and give us pause before we make a decision that we can’t take back. Allowing a non-unanimous decision gets rid of some our capacity for mercy and leaves the door open for groupthink to overpower individual voices.

The new law also does not reverse the sentences of the people who are on death row due to a judicial override.

Getting rid of judicial override was a big move in the right direction. Hopefully this opens up the discussion to other things in the Alabama legal system that need to be updated and changed.

Mason Estevez is a junior majoring in 
economics and journalism. His column runs biweekly.