A new execution law that better zeroes in on the most heinous murders. A state panel to review cases eligible for Georgia's death penalty. More money and staff support for prosecution. New sentencing options.

These were among the reforms suggested in reaction to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The newspaper's study, published over four days last week, found the state's death penalty remains arbitrary three decades after an overhaul aimed at making the punishment more uniform.

State Sen. William Hamrick (R-Carrollton) said Friday that the Legislature might address disparities by narrowing the death penalty law to cover fewer crimes and focus more on the worst cases. The newspaper found prosecutors sought death in only one-fourth of the murders in which they could.

"It seemed like one of the ways of going about it that was pretty obvious," he said. "Just making sure that when the death penalty is sought, it's in the worst cases."

He also said he's open to other ideas, including creating a central panel to review cases that are eligible for the death penalty before prosecutors seek it. "If you support the death penalty, you want it to be applied in a way it's meant to be applied," Hamrick said.

But Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) said in a prepared statement that he's not convinced any new legislation is needed. Disparities are due to individual prosecutors and different community standards, he wrote.

The newspaper found wide variation in how often — and why — prosecutors in different circuits sought the death penalty. Some district attorneys rarely or never pursued a death sentence. Others pushed aggressively for capital punishment even for crimes such as fatal armed robberies, which many circuits routinely passed over.

As a result, some of the state's most heinous killers avoided a capital trial, while others with less aggravated cases landed on death row.

The newspaper found other inappropriate factors at work as well. Statewide, prosecutors were more than twice as likely to seek death if the victim was white, for instance.

The state Supreme Court is supposed to be on guard for arbitrary sentencing, but the newspaper found it has repeatedly justified death sentences by comparing them to other sentences that had already been overturned, the newspaper found.

Some experts say the state Supreme Court should track overturned cases more rigorously, so its so-called proportionality review wouldn't consider them when assessing new death sentences.

But Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland) said the findings raise the question of whether Georgia should eliminate the proportionality review. The U.S. Supreme Court does not require it.

"Given the tenor of this Legislature, I think we would probably look at it with a view of doing away with the proportionality review," Harp said.

Adopting a federal idea

Another idea for legislative change came from the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Leah Ward Sears, in an e-mail to the newspaper earlier this month, suggested creating a centralized, statewide body to decide when to seek death, or when to drop death and accept a plea in exchange for a life sentence.

Legislative action such as that, she wrote, would be "perhaps the most effective way" to make sure death sentences are in line with punishments given for similar crimes.

The federal death penalty uses such a process. U.S. attorneys explain why they are requesting a death sentence. A central committee considers it before the U.S. attorney general decides whether to sign off on it.

Federal prosecutors' decisions not to seek death are also reviewed.

In the federal system, defense attorneys present their case, too, to the Justice Department's review committee. Stephanie Kearns, who heads the federal defender's office in Atlanta, said a state review panel could help weed out arbitrariness in Georgia.

"One would think you would reduce the number of death cases and the ones that are prosecuted as death would become more similar factually," Kearns said.

Certain court circuits in Georgia are "hot spots" with more capital prosecutions than others, Kearns said, which "very much has the appearance that it's driven more by the politics of the local community rather than just the facts of the case."

The federal process tries to balance consistency with deference to the local U.S. attorney, acting Deputy U.S. Attorney General Craig Morford said in a recent interview.

"We'd never want to get into a situation where we're taking weaker cases in Texas but not taking stronger cases in New Jersey," he said.

Problems predicted

But Alan Cook, director of the Prosecutorial Clinic at the University of Georgia's law school, said that because Georgia district attorneys are elected, they probably wouldn't like reporting to a central panel. They view themselves as best representing their communities' interests, Cook said.

Prosecutors would see such a move as suggesting they cannot make good choices, he said. Legislators would also face a challenge deciding who to put on the committee, he added.

"I'm not saying that it couldn't be done," he said. "I foresee problems pushing that through."

James Acker, a professor and death penalty expert at the State University of New York at Albany, said a review panel would ruffle feathers more in a state system than in the federal one.

"But the other perspective is it's a state law that ought to be administered consistently throughout the state," he said. "If there are problems, this is the only way to straighten that out."

The newspaper's analysis found 56 percent of all murders — more than 1,300 from 1995 through 2004 — were eligible for the death penalty. Only 4 percent of convicted killers who were eligible landed on death row.

Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter said he'd oppose any attempt to supplant district attorneys' decision-making role with a review committee.

But he said the state court system should make changes to address the public's concerns about fairness. He said he would support requiring district attorneys to provide more explanation for why they seek death in certain cases.

"I think there is a perception of unfairness that is probably not entirely warranted," he said. "I think more willingness by D.A.'s to make decisions and justify those decisions in some sort of transparent way would be better for the system."

One option likely to come up in the 2008 Legislature is allowing prosecutors to seek life without parole without seeking the death penalty. Now, life without parole isn't an option unless a prosecutor seeks death, or the defendant has an earlier conviction for a serious violent felony.

Some prosecutors say they sometimes seek death when they believe life without parole is more appropriate. They also say they use the death penalty to persuade defendants to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence with or without parole.

A bill adding the sentencing option passed the state Senate this year but not the House. Rick Malone, executive director of the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, said his group will push for the change again in 2008.

Some prosecutors, who say juries are a reason for the inconsistency, support allowing a death sentence with only 10 of 12 jury votes if a judge permits it. Such a bill passed the House this year, but did not reach the full Senate for a vote.

Dennis Sanders, district attorney in the Toombs circuit in eastern Georgia, said he'd like to see specialized teams of prosecutors, defense attorneys and senior judges created to handle death penalty cases.

He said the state should make more money and resources available to prosecute death cases. Such a move would cut down on errors and reversals, he said, and ultimately save money.

Overall, he said "there'll never be perfect consistency."

Cook, at UGA, said major change will be difficult because fixes that represent a middle ground often get less attention.

"The polar extremes, I think, are in control right now," he said. "Both are afraid of the other and neither is willing to compromise."