scholarly journals Following in the Footsteps of Ford: Mental Retardation and Capital Punishment Post-Atkins

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia A. Orpen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mental Retardation ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Mentally Retarded ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Relationship

Since the United States Supreme Court held the capital sentence of mentally retarded John Paul Penry to be constitutional in Penry v. Lynaugh, the relationship between capital punishment, mental retardation and the Eighth Amendment has been widely debated. In a long awaited opinion, the Court finally held that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court overruled its holding in Penry, and recognized that capital sentences imposed on the mentally retarded constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although this appears to be a victory for the mentally retarded and their advocates, the real effect of the decision will depend largely on how the states apply the Atkins holding.

scholarly journals An Argument for the Admissibility of Execution Impact Evidence in Pennsylvania

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paige H. Forster
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Capital Trials ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Penalty Phase

In 1991, the United States Supreme Court made a significant change to sentencing proceedings during capital trials. The Court ruled in Payne v. Tennessee that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit “victim impact evidence,” testimony about the character of the murder victim and the impact of the death on the victim’s family. The Payne decision permits highly emotional testimony from family members to enter into the penalty phase of a death penalty trial.

Recent Legal Developments: Criminal Justice Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 2,020 Term

2021 ◽  
pp. 073401682110595
Author(s):  
Craig Hemmens ◽  
Cortney Dalton ◽  
Christopher Dollar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fourth Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Eighth Amendment

In this paper we review and analyze the criminal justice-related decisions of the 2,020 term of the United States Supreme Court. We also provide a summary of the Court’s voting patterns and opinion authorship. Thirteen of the Court’s 57 decisions touched on criminal justice. There were significant decisions involving the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and federal criminal statutes. Each of these is discussed in turn.

Executing the Innocent

1998 ◽  
pp. 21-26
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Linehan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Decisive Objection

The risk of executing innocent persons is a decisive objection to the institution of capital punishment in the United States. Consequentialist arguments for the death penalty are inconclusive at best; the strongest justification is a retributive one. However, this argument is seriously undercut if a significant risk of executing the innocent exists. Any criminal justice system carries the risk of punishing innocent persons, but the punishment of death is unique and requires greater precautions. Retributive justifications for the death penalty are grounded in respect for innocent victims of homicide; but accepting serious risks of mistaken executions demonstrates disrespect for innocent human life. United States Supreme Court decisions of the 1990’s (Coleman v. Thompson and Herrara v. Collins) illustrate the existence of serious risk and suggest some explanations for it.

Arbitrariness and Discrimination under Post-Furman Capital Statutes

1980 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Bowers ◽  
Glenn L. Pierce
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Present System ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Treat Ment ◽  
Death Sentences ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Drawing on a wide variety of data sources, this study examines arbi trariness and discrimination under capital statutes in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio, which are responsible for roughly 70 percent of the. death sentences imposed nationwide in the five years following the United States Supreme Court's Furman decision. It finds that there are gross dif ferences in the treatment of potentially capital offenders by race of of fender and victim and by judicial circuits within states. These are (1) inde pendent of aggravating felony-related circumstances, (2) present at both presentencing and sentencing stages of the criminal justice process, (3) uncorrected by the postsentencing appellate review process, (4) unaltered by the form and restrictiveness of capital statutes among states, and (5) remarkably similar to the best documented patterns of differential treat ment by race of offender and victim under pre-Furman capital statutes, now ruled unconstitutional. These findings show that the present system of capital punishment is inconsistent with the constitutional standards of the Furman and Gregg decisions of the United States Supreme Court, but is instead consistent with historically prevailing extralegal influences which compromise and displace the legally prescribed functions of such punishment and are an enduring source of arbitrariness and discrimina tion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document