Is Capital Punishment Unconstitutional? And Even If We Think It Is, Should We Want the Supreme Court To So Rule?

Author(s):  
Michael J. Perry
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Blume ◽  
Lyndsey S. Vann

11 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 183 (2016)Forty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States deemed constitutional new death penalty laws intended to minimize the arbitrariness which led the Court to invalidate all capital sentencing statutes four years earlier in Furman v. Georgia. Over the last four decades the Court has — time and again — attempted to regulate the “machinery of death.” Looking back over the Court’s work, many observers, including two current Supreme Court justices, have questioned whether the modern death penalty has lived up to expectations set by the Court in the 1970s or if, despite 40 years of labor, the American death penalty continues to be administered in an unconstitutionally arbitrary manner. This Article presents data from South Carolina’s forty-year experiment with capital punishment and concludes that the administration of the death penalty in that state is still riddled with error and infected with racial and gender bias. It is — in short — still arbitrary after all these years. The authors maintain that the only true cure it to abolish South Carolina’s death penalty, although they do argue that lesser steps including additional safeguards and procedure may limit, but will not eliminate, some of the arbitrariness and bias which are present in the current imposition of South Carolina’s most extreme punishment.


2006 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence C. Marshall

In 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States, allowing optimism to trump experience, accepted various states’ assurances that new death penalty procedures the states had then recently adopted would avoid the vices that had led the Court to strike down the death penalty in 1972. Now, some thirty years later, a body of evidence has developed demonstrating that this experiment has failed—that the problems of arbitrariness, racism and propensity to error are endemic to the criminal justice system (particularly with regard to capital punishment) and cannot be cured by what Justice Blackmun called “tinker[ing] with the machinery of death.” Despite the Court’s best intentions, the death penalty procedures of the 1980s and 1990s and the first half of this decade reflect little if any significant improvement over the condemned pre-1972 systems.


1974 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Welsh S. White ◽  
Michael Meltsner

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-363
Author(s):  
Alexis E. Carl

Serious mental illness (SMI), wrongful convictions, and capital punishment is explored, as having a SMI may heighten an individual’s risk of being wrongfully convicted and consequently dealt a capital sentence. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court banned the use of capital punishment for individuals with intellectual disabilities, ruling it unconstitutional, due to the diminished moral and intellectual capacity held by these individuals. Based on these Supreme Court findings, an argument is made that SMI is a compelling mitigating factor that ought to disqualify the pursuit of capital punishment. Due to the cognitive and volitional impairments associated with SMI, people with SMI are especially vulnerable to being wrongfully convicted of a crime and further wrongfully sentenced to death. Data to build this argument include that those with SMI are more likely to: 1) falsely confess; 2) struggle with assisting in their defense; 3) be perceived as an unreliable witness; 4) appear as though they lack remorse; and 5) face prejudices from judges and jurors; which all contribute to wrongful convictions. An explanation of these vulnerabilities are discussed in detail by examining 26 case vignettes (derived from the National Registry of Exonerations and other sources) where such individuals were wrongfully convicted due to SMI. Data from the National Registry of Exonerations is further analyzed, leading to discussion of the disproportionate co-occurrence of wrongful convictions that are stimulated by SMI. This paper concludes with an analysis of reforms and a discussion of how to enact safeguards to protect individuals with SMI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document