Errors in Capital Cases and What Can Be Done about Them

2008 ◽  
pp. 3-27
Keyword(s):  
Capital Cases

Reflections on One Hundred Capital Cases Submitted to Electroencephalography

1952 ◽  
Vol 98 (410) ◽  
pp. 23-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Hill ◽  
D. A. Pond
Keyword(s):  
Cross Section ◽  
Medical Officer ◽  
Brain Disease ◽  
Capital Cases

During the last eight years the E.E.G.'s of over 100 persons awaiting trial on charges of murder have been examined, at first at Sutton and since 1947 at the Maudsley Hospital. While a few cases were seen during the war, the majority of these prisoners have been examined since the end of hostilities and about 50 of them between 1948-1950. It is difficult to assess to what extent this group constitutes a cross-section of the murderer population. During the four years 1945-48 inclusive some 300 prisoners were committed for trial at Assizes over the whole country on the charge of murder and this is the stage at which the majority of our subjects have been examined. Some 50 prisoners were examined during this period so that approximately one-sixth of all cases have been seen here. There were no formal criteria of selection, which was usually made by the prison medical officers, but inevitably there has been a greater concentration within the group of individuals suspected of epilepsy or brain disease. Nevertheless, in the last two years the majority of prisoners accused of murder in the London area and home counties have been examined. At the time when the examinations were made, we were supplied in each case with full clinical details and some information regarding the alleged crime by the prison medical officer. By far the largest number of such prisoners has come to us from Brixton Prison. We are greatly indebted to Dr. J. C. Matheson, Dr. Hugh Grierson, Dr. F. H. Taylor, as well as to medical officers of other prisons throughout the country, who have given us all the information available and have collaborated with us in an invaluable way in our investigations.

Capital Punishment, Retribution, and Emotion

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-290
Author(s):  
Anthony Walsh ◽  
Virginia L. Hatch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Imaging Techniques ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Group Stability ◽  
Normal People ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Almost All

This article explores the emotions behind the retributive urge as it applies to the death penalty in the United States. It is argued that the retributive urge is so strong because it engages the most primitive of our emotions, and that these emotions served adaptive purposes over the course of human evolution. Many scholars offended by the retributive instinct insist that we must put emotions aside when discussing the death penalty, even as jurors in death penalty cases, and rely on our rationality. To ask this is to ask what almost all normal people find impossible because the emotions evoked in capital cases (disgust, anger, sympathy for the victim, desire for justice) evolved for the purpose of maintaining group stability and survival by punishing freeloaders. Modern neuroscience has destroyed the traditional notion that rationality and emotion are antagonists. Brain imaging techniques show that they are fully integrated in our brain wiring, and both are engaged in decision making, but when reason and emotion yield conflicting judgments, the latter almost always triumphs. The evolutionary rationales for why emotions conducive to punitive responses for wrongdoers exist are examined.

Intellectual Disability, Criminal Justice, and the Death Penalty

2020 ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Cliff Sloan ◽  
Lauryn Fraas
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Adaptive Behavior ◽  
Current Medical ◽  
Medical Standards ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Social Work Practitioners ◽  
Iq Scores ◽  
Standard Error Of Measurement ◽  
The U.S

This chapter introduces the reader to key cases analyzing claims of intellectual disability, describes the current clinical definition and diagnosis, and provides an overview of recurring issues in capital litigation. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals with intellectual disability may not be executed. The Court subsequently clarified that current medical standards must be used in assessing claims of intellectual disability in capital cases. The clinical diagnosis requires assessing three factors: (a) deficits in intellectual functioning; (b) deficits in adaptive behavior; and (c) the onset of deficits during the developmental period. Courts must be informed by current medical standards regarding issues that arise, including the standard error of measurement in IQ scores, the problems of offsetting weaknesses in adaptive behavior with perceived strengths, and other clinical topics. The principle that the death penalty must not be imposed on individuals with intellectual disability signals important responsibilities for social work practitioners.

Conclusion: Clemency’s Place

2019 ◽  
pp. 226-252
Author(s):  
Daniel Pascoe
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Future Research Agenda ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Judicial Sanctions ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

The Conclusion, after briefly summarizing the respective country positions and restating the three-part hypothesis outlined in Chapter 7, considers what Southeast Asia’s ‘natural experiment’ on clemency means for policymakers, NGO staff, and legal practitioners working on death penalty cases in the region. The four national case studies, together with Chapter 7’s comparative hypothesis, suggest various practical means of boosting each Southeast Asian jurisdiction’s clemency rate within finalized capital cases. The Conclusion also considers what implications the comparative findings outlined in Chapter 7 have for the broader criminal justice literature in other parts of the world (particularly concerning the relationship between discretion exercised at different stages of a criminal case, the relationship between extrajudicial and judicial sanctions, the impact of democratization on criminal justice policies, and the influence of delay on criminal justice decision-making). Finally, the Conclusion suggests a future research agenda, including quantitative studies to ‘test’ the accuracy of the book’s three-part hypothesis in other parts of the retentionist world. The chapter ends with several predictions regarding the future of capital clemency in the four Southeast Asian jurisdictions under analysis (Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia).

Federation of Malaysia

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-158
Author(s):  
Daniel Pascoe
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

As with Chapters 3 and 4, the case study on Malaysia begins with a thorough description of the country’s death penalty laws and practice, and Malaysia’s publicly known clemency practice over the period under analysis (1991–2016). Thereafter, for both the Malaysian (Chapter 5) and Indonesian (Chapter 6) cases, the potential explanatory factors for clemency incidence are more complex than for Thailand and Singapore, given these two jurisdictions’ more moderate rates of capital clemency and fluctuating political policies on capital punishment over time. Available statistics suggest that Malaysia’s clemency rate is moderately high, at between 55 and 63 per cent of finalized capital cases. Malaysia is a federal state where pardons are granted by the hereditary rulers or appointed state governors in state-based cases, or by the Malaysian king (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) in federal and security cases, all on the advice of specially constituted Pardons Boards. Chapter 5 presents the following two explanations for Malaysia’s restrictions on death penalty clemency: prosecutorial/judicial discretion and detention without trial in capital cases, and the Federal Attorney-General’s constitutional role on the State and Federal Pardons Boards. As to why Malaysia’s clemency rate has not then fallen to the miniscule level seen in neighbouring Singapore (with both nations closely comparable, as they were once part of the same Federation of Malaya), Chapter 5 points to the relevant paperwork placed before each Pardons Board, the merciful role played by the Malay monarchy, and the impact of excessively long stays on death row before clemency decisions are reached.

Specific Testifying Situations

2019 ◽  
pp. 426-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Postal
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Psychologists ◽  
Capital Cases

This chapter offers advice and strategies from seasoned forensic psychologists, neuropsychologists, attorneys, and judges regarding specific testifying situations, including testifying in front of a judge rather than a jury, testifying about a record reviews (when you haven’t met the plaintiff), testifying as a fact witness, and testifying in capital cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document