Florida | Troubling new questions cloud death penalty: Editorial

The process by which Governor Ron DeSantis decides who will be the next prisoner executed in Florida remains an enigma, as opaque as a "black hole." Despite attempts to bring transparency to this system, the Florida Supreme Court recently approved another execution, marking the state's seventh this year, with an eighth still under review. 

The court's denial of Thomas Gudinas' appeal was its 140th consecutive ruling against a death row inmate, consistently dismissing arguments as either repetitive or procedurally barred by rules favoring the executioner. 

Gudinas' appeal largely focused on his mental and emotional maturity at the time of his crimes in 1994, arguing he had the development of a teenager despite being 20. Such arguments, however, rarely sway the court.

A significant legal argument in Gudinas' case, unique from previous appeals, centered on attorney Ali Shakoor's demand for documents that could explain why DeSantis chose Gudinas for execution on June 24th, especially since 111 men have been on Death Row longer than his 30 years. 

Shakoor's appeal raised a troubling question: Is DeSantis targeting a specific subset of death row prisoners, particularly those represented by Shakoor? 

Shakoor noted this was his fourth death warrant case since last July, accounting for half of the eight pre-execution appeals heard and denied by the court in that period, calling it an "unusual fact pattern."

Shakoor, one of 14 lawyers at the state-established Capital Collateral Regional Counsel for the Middle Region—an agency representing death row inmates after initial appeals—argued that his disproportionate number of death warrants "defies statistical probability." 

With 61 lawyers practicing post-conviction death penalty law in Florida, Shakoor’s four cases in less than a year, coupled with the governor's office serving notice on him for three other cases he doesn't represent, suggests a "peculiar and concerning" concentration on him. 

While Shakoor made no direct allegations, these circumstances strongly imply a disturbing question: Is the governor's office selecting inmates for execution based on who their attorney is?

Governor DeSantis' spokesman, Bryan Griffin, has not responded to inquiries or a public records request for relevant correspondence.

The Florida Supreme Court has consistently held that executive clemency is solely at the discretion of the executive branch, beyond open government laws or judicial review. While the governor technically needs "yes" votes from two cabinet members to grant clemency, DeSantis has never granted it in death penalty cases, thus never initiating the process. 

Historically, clemency hearings were public, but none have occurred in decades. No death row prisoner has received commutation since 1983. This disuse of clemency means successive governors have abandoned their historical power to correct miscarriages of justice or temper harsh sentences with mercy—a function the courts are failing to perform.

Adding to these concerns, the Supreme Court of Florida, once the last resort for the condemned, has renounced its long-standing practice of reviewing death sentences for fairness, now focusing solely on guilt. 

The court also declared it would no longer consider whether equally culpable co-defendants were spared execution. Only Justice Jorge Labarga dissented in this ruling. 

The court's clear bias towards death sentences, combined with Governor DeSantis's silence on his selection process, further erodes trust in the death penalty system and strengthens arguments for its abolition.

Source: sun-sentinel.com, Sun Sentinel Editorial Board, June 23, 2025

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."

— Oscar Wilde