What is the effect of a prosecutor arguing that the jury should impose the death penalty to exact retribution?

It is clear the prosecutor argued that the jury should impose the death penalty to exact retribution. The majority note that we have never addressed the question of the propriety of such argument in a penalty trial, that we have held 'in other contexts' that vengeance or retribution has no place in "the scheme" (In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740, 745, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948), that we have expressed doubts as to the [1 Cal.3d 749] propriety of introducing a photograph displaying a murder victim's pain because 'retribution is no longer considered the Primary objective of the criminal law' which 'focuses on the criminal, not Merely on the crime' (People v. Love, 53 Cal.2d 843, 856--857, fn. 3, 3 Cal.Rptr. 665, 673, 350 P.2d 705, 713; italics added), and that the prosecutor argued other factors besides retribution in appellants' penalty trial. From this the majority conclude: 'In these circumstances, the prosecutor's

Page 646