1 Louisiana Law Review Volume 38 Number 3 Spring 1978 The Death Penalty for Rape - Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Constance R. LeSage Repository Citation Constance R. LeSage, The Death Penalty for Rape - Cruel and Unusual Punishment?, 38 La. L. Rev. (1978) Available at: This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
2 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38 Monroe, and would be forced to decide whether the confrontation clause imposes a constitutional bar to otherwise admissible evidence. It is submitted that the Louisiana Supreme Court should not require proof of unavailability in situations in which the requirement will not augment the reliability of the evidence. Although the United States Supreme Court has left the area of unavailability in a state of confusion, the Court has not required that unavailability be shown in instances in which such a showing is considered immaterial. By adopting the confrontation clause as its tool for applying these restrictions, the Louisiana Supreme Court cannot hope to find the clause any less confining and unwieldy than the United States Supreme Court has found it. 60 Should the United States Supreme Court abandon use of the confrontation clause, the Louisiana Supreme Court will be deprived of an important source of guidance in an area already fraught with confusion. The Louisiana Supreme Court can avoid these undesirable results by limiting the application of Monroe to coroner's reports. Gordon L. James THE DEATH PENALTY FOR RAPE-CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT? Defendant raped a woman and stabbed her to death. Eight months later he kidnapped another woman, raped her twice, and abandoned her to die after severely beating her. While serving multiple life terms for these offenses he escaped and kidnapped, raped, and robbed a third woman at knifepoint. He was found guilty of rape and sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court heldthat the death penalty is a grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman and therefore violates the eighth amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Coker v. Georgia, 97 S. Ct (1977). Throughout its history the Supreme Court has dealt with many cases involving the death penalty, but only quite recently has it directly addressed the constitutionality of the death penalty per se. In the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries, the Court's scrutiny was limited to determining whether execution methods were "torturous" or 60. See text at notes 22-37, supra.
3 1978] NOTES "barbarous" and thus prohibited.i Only in the early 1970's did the Court consider the constitutionality of certain sentencing procedures. 2 Finally, in Gregg v. Georgia, 3 the Court concluded that the death penalty per se is not a cruel and unusual punishment. In the instant case, the plurality 4 interpreted Gregg as having followed the holdings and dicta of prior cases to the effect that the eighth and fourteenth amendments forbid punishments that are either "barbaric" or "excessive" in relation to the crime. 5 The Court drew from the three-man plurality opinion in Gregg the test that a punishment is "excessive" if it "makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering" 6 or if it is out of proportion to the crime committed. The Court then looked at the second prong of this test and concluded that the death penalty is always disproportionate for the rape of an adult woman. 7 I. For example, both hanging and shooting were held to be constitutional modes of execution. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878). The Court also ruled that electrocution is a constitutional method of inflicting death. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890). 2. In Furman P. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court held Georgia's death penalty statute, which gave juries total and undirected discretion in sentencing a defendant to death, to be an arbitrary application of the penalty in violation of the eighth amendment. In response to the Furman decision, various states enacted mandatory death penalty statutes, whereas others required aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered before a defendant was sentenced to death. In Gregg V. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court held constitutional Florida's death penalty statute, which required a consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See Note, 38 LA. L. REV. 226 (1977). In Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), the Court struck down Louisiana's mandatory death penalty statute U.S. 153 (1976). 4. Justice White was joined by Justices Stevens, Stewart, and Blackmun, and by Justice Powell on the points to be discussed Justices Stewart, Powell and Stevens concluded that the death penalty does not invariably violate the eighth amendment because it does not violate contemporary standards of decency. 428 U.S. at 179. They further concluded that it does not violate the concept of human dignity because it is not so totally without penological justification as to result in the gratuitous infliction of suffering. Id at , 187. Justice White in Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), concluded that the penalty is acceptable to the contemporary community (id.), and that the Court should defer to the legislative judgment that the death penalty serves the valid social ends of retribution and deterrence. Id at 355. Justices Burger, Blackmun, and Rehnquist in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), concluded that they should abide by state legislative decisions as to the morality and efficacy of the penalty unless it is cruel to such a degree as to be clearly unconstitutional. 408 U.S , 410, S. Ct. at Id.
4 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38 In making this decision the Court looked to what it termed objective factors which suggest that society no longer supports the death penalty for rape. 8 The Court considered history and precedent, legislative attitudes, 9 and jury decisions, and noted that "eighth amendment judgments should not be, or appear to be, merely the subjective views of justices." 1 0 The data revealed that only Georgia provided the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman, and that Georgia juries imposed the penalty in only ten percent of all possible cases. From these facts the Court concluded that the country no longer accepts capital punishment as the penalty for the rape of an adult woman." l In reaching its conclusion based on so-called objective data, the plurality facilely ignored most of American history and based its decision on the five years of legislative turmoil following Furman v. Georgia. 1 2 Prior to Furman sixteen states and the federal government punished rape with death. 13 As the dissent pointed out, the failure of state legislatures to 8. Id at One must wonder to what extent unspoken factors also influenced the plurality's decision. Several groups were pressuring the Court to forbid the death penalty for rape. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund had worked for years to end the use of the penalty in rape cases because it alleged that historically the penalty was used selectively against black men who raped white women. Several women's rights organizations including the National Organization for Women filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Coker in the belief that juries often refuse to convict rapists because they feel that the punishment is too extreme and that testimony humiliating to the victim is often required to make absolutely sure that only guilty parties receive such an extreme penalty. Finally, the justices certainly were aware that as Justice Stewart stated, "The rapist... may be encouraged to kill because the penalty would be the same." TIME, April 11, 1977, at In the last fifty years a majority of the states have never punished rape with death. Immediately prior to Furman only 16 states and the federal government still did so. See statutes cited in note 13, infra. After Furman only three states, Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana, punished rape with death. GA. CODE ANN (Supp. 1972); N.C. GEN. STAT (Supp. 1973); LA. R.S. 14:42 (Supp. 1975) (prior to 1977 amendment). However, the procedures used in North Carolina's and Louisiana's statutes were held unconstitutional in Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 375 (1976), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976). When Louisiana and North Carolina responded to those decisions they did not reenact the death penalty for rape. See LA. R.S. 14:42 (Supp. 1977). Thus at the time of the Coker decision only Georgia punished the rape of an adult woman with death. 97 S. Ct. at S. Ct. at Id at U.S. 238 (1972); see 97 S. Ct. at U.S.C (1970); ALA. CODE tit. 14, 395 (recomp. vol. 1958); ARK. STAT. ANN (1964); FLA. STAT. ANN (West 1965); GA. CODE ANN (rev. vol. 1970); Ky. REv. STAT. ANN (Baldwin 1963); LA. R.S. 14:42 (1950); MD. CRIM. LAW CODE ANN (1957); Miss. CODE ANN (recomp. vol. 1956); Mo. ANN. STAT (Vernon 1953); NEv. REV. STAT (1961) (rape with substantial bodily harm); N.C. GEN. STAT (1953); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, 1115
5 1978] NOTES reenact the death penalty for rape could be a result of the confusion following the nine separate opinions in Furman rather than a decision that death is a disproportionate penalty for rape.' 4 In the same manner, the reluctance of juries to impose the death penalty may merely indicate that they reserve such an extreme penalty for extreme cases and not that they consider the death penalty disproportionate for all rapes, no matter how aggravated. The plurality found further support for its position in its own determination that rapists do not deserve capital punishment. After a brief nod to the severity of the crime, the Court expressed the gravamen of its rationale: The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderers; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair.... [T]he death penalty... is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life.' 5 Thus, the plurality's definition of harm only encompasses physical harm resulting in death. The plurality's simplistic approach does not reflect contemporary morality. The subjective basis of the decision fails to explain adequately why in all rape cases the death penalty is excessive simply because the rapist has not taken a life. Studies of rape show it to be a violent and brutal crime often involving sexual humiliation, cruel beatings, and the use of dangerous weapons.1 6 Most victims experience both physical and psychological trauma, and the victim often continues to be affected during the long-term process of rebuilding her life. 17 After a closer scrutiny of rape the plurality should have weighed psychological and emotional (West 1958); S.C. CODE 16-72, (1962); TENN. CODE ANN (1955); Tx. PENAL CODE ANN (Vernon 1961); VA. CODE (repl. vol. 1960). 14. Chief Justice Burger in his dissenting opinion made just this point. "Failure of more states to enact statutes imposing death for rape of an adult woman may thus reflect hasty legislative compromise occasioned by time pressures following Furman, a desire to wait on the experience of those states which did enact such statutes, or simply an accurate forecast of today's holding.... Having in mind the swift changes in positions of some Members of this Court in the short span of five years, can it rationally be considered a relevant indicator of what our society deems 'cruel and unusual' to look solely to what legislatures have refrained from doing under conditions of great uncertainty arising from our less than lucid holdings on the Eighth Amendment?" 97 S. Ct. at S. Ct. at See Comment, Rape and Rape Laws.- Sexism in Society and Law, 61 CALIF. L. REV. 919, (1973). 17. See E. HILLBERMAN, THE RAPE VICTIM (1976).
6 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38 harm as well as physical harm to the victim against the severity of the death penalty. Coker seems to represent a great departure from past treatments of the death penalty. Before the instant case only Justices Brennan and Marshall, who take the position that capital punishment violates the eighth amendment, had discussed the moral issue of the state's taking a human life.' 8 At different times Justices Burger, Blackmun, White and Rehnquist have avoided this moral issue entirely by espousing a theory of deference to legislative judgments regarding the penalty. 1 9 When Justices Stewart, Stevens, and Powell in Gregg did address the societal values at stake, the debate was almost entirely in utilitarian terms-whether the penalty is of practical use to society. 20 The Coker Court ignored justifications for upholding the death penalty advanced in prior cases. Although Justice Blackmun in Furman and Justice White in Roberts v. Louisiana 2 ' deferred to legislative judgments concerning the death penalty, 22 they expressed no hesitancy in interfering with Georgia's decision that death is an acceptable penalty for rape. Although the plurality in Gregg considered retribution a valid goal because it prevented anarchy, 23 in Coker the justices did not discuss whether a lesser penalty than death can adequately express society's abhorrence of rape. The Coker plurality also failed to consider the deter- 18. Justice Brennan had stated, "Although pragmatic arguments for and against the punishment have been frequently advanced, this longstanding and heated controversy cannot be explained solely as the result of differences over the practical wisdom of a particular government policy. At bottom, the battle has been waged on moral grounds. The country has debated whether a society for which the dignity of the individual is the supreme value can, without a fundamental inconsistency, follow the practice of deliberately putting some of its members to death." Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 296 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring). In Furman Justice Marshall said, "If the evidence clearly demonstrated that capital punishment served valid legislative purposes, such punishment would, nevertheless, be unconstitutional if citizens found it to be morally unacceptable." Id at 332 (Marshall, J., concurring). 19. Justices Burger, Blackmun, and Rehnquist discussed this need in Furman. 408 U.S. at , 410, 468 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). Justice White discussed this need in Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, (1976) (White, J., dissenting). 20. In Gregg, Justice Stewart's plurality opinion, in which Powell and Stevens joined, discussed two goals of punishment-retribution and deterrence. Deterrence is obviously a practical rather than a moral goal. However, even in discussing retribution the justices' concern was with its use in preventing self-help in the seeking of vengeance rather than with whether death as a punishment can be an end in itself rightly imposed because the defendant deserves it. 428 U.S. at U.S. 325 (1976). 22. See note 19, supra U.S. at 183.
7 1978] NOTES rence justification articulated in Gregg. The plurality's only concern in Coker was the "moral depravity" 24 of the rapist and whether he is sufficiently culpable to deserve death. Thus the Court, by limiting its consideration to the proportionality prong of the test propounded by only three justices in Gregg, deviated entirely from the utilitarian discussion that characterized previous death penalty debates. The existence of aggravating circumstances did not alter the plurality's determination that a rapist never deserves the death penalty. Under Georgia law, neither a rapist nor a murderer could be sentenced to death absent a showing of aggravating circumstances. 2 The Court recognized that this statutory scheme could result in death for a rapist and not for a deliberate killer if the rape was found to be aggravated and the killihg was not. This possibility ran counter to the Court's position that a rapist should never be punished more severely than a deliberate killer. 26 The dissent, however, reasoned that the eighth amendment does not prohibit a state from taking into consideration a defendant's prior history of vio S. Ct. at The following circumstances will aggravate the crime of murder: (1) the commission of the murder while engaged in another capital felony, aggravated battery, or first degree burglary or arson; (2) the murder was committed by a person with a prior record of capital felony or serious assaultive convictions; (3) the defendant's act of murder knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place by means of a device or weapon which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person; (4) the commission of the murder for himself or for another for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value; (5) the offender directed another to commit murder or committed murder as an agent or employee of another person; (6) the murder was committed in an outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman manner in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim; (7) the victim was a peace officer, corrections employee or fireman while engaged in the performance of his official duties; (8) the murder was committed by an escapee from the lawful custody of a peace officer or place of lawful confinement; or (9) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest, or custody in a place of lawful confinement, of himself or another. Georgia's death penalty statute requires that at least one of three aggravating circumstances be found before a rapist is sentenced to death: prior capital felony convictions, commission of the rape while engaged in another capital felony or aggravated battery, or the commission of the rape in an "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman manner." GA. CODE ANN , (Supp. 1976). The jury in Coker's case found the aggravating circumstances of the conviction of prior capital felonies (murder, rape and kidnapping) and the commission of the rape while engaged in another capital felony (armed robbery) S. Ct. at Again, the plurality has limited its definition of harm to physical harm resulting in death. The justices comprising the plurality conclude that a rapist is not as culpable as a deliberate killer because a rapist does not kill. However, aggravating circumstances also indicate culpability and, thus, certain rapists may be more deserving of death than certain killers.
8 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38 lent crimes in devising punishments. 27 The Court would not have so readily excluded a consideration of these factors if it had relied on the utilitarian goals- deterrence and retribution to prevent anarchy-put forth in Gregg. Clearly, aggravating factors such as multiple offenses are relevant in determining a sentence designed to deter future crime. 28 Not only is Coker disturbing because of the opinion's unconvincing combination of subjective and objective factors which result in the decision's indeed "appear[ing] to be merely the subjective views of individual justices, ' 29 but the Coker decision also seems to have ramifications beyond prohibiting the death penalty for rape. The dissenters interpreted the plurality opinion as implying that death cannot be imposed as a penalty for crimes not resulting in the death of the victim, 30 and this conclusion is certainly consistent with the plurality's language. Therefore, if the Court adheres to the reasoning employed in Coker, it will conclude that present state and federal statutes imposing the death penalty for such crimes as the rape of a child, 3 1 armed robbery, 32 kidnapping, 33 airplane hijacking 34 and treason 35 are violations of the eighth amendment. Constance R. LeSage RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN CHURCH SCHOOLS Plaintiffs, black parents and their two children, brought suit against defendant, a church school operating on church property, I seeking damages and an injunction in response to defendant's refusal to admit the S. Ct. at 2874 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 28. See id.; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183 n.28 (1976) (Stewart, J., concurring) S. Ct. at ; see text at note 10, supra S. Ct. at 2880 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 31. See, e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN (2) (1976); Miss. CODE ANN (Supp. 1974). 32. See, e.g., GA. CODE ANN (1968). 33. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C (1970); GA. CODE ANN (1968); LA. R.S. 14:44 (1950) U.S.C. 1472(i)(1)(B) (Supp. V 1975). The statute provides the death penalty in hijacking cases only when a person is killed, but requires no intent to kill U.S.C (1970). 1. Defendant, Dade Christian Schools, Inc., was founded by the New Testament Baptist Church and both the school and the church use the same building. Brown v. Dade Christian Schools, Inc., 556 F.2d 310, (5th Cir. 1977).
Santa Clara Law Review Volume 39 Number 4 Article 10 1-1-1999 The Death Penalty is Cruel and Unusual Punishment for the Crime of Rape - Even the Rape of a Child Pallie Zambrano Follow this and additional
Montana Law Review Volume 38 Issue 1 Winter 1977 Article 7 1-1-1977 Montana's Death Penalty after State v. McKenzie Christian D. Tweeten Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr
AKaON LAW REIvmw (Vol. 12:2 v. Virginia."' That theory still has viability but the contemporary view is that it refers to the states' power to regulate use of natural resources within the confines of constitutional
Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 13 Number 3 Article 5 1985 DEATH AFTER LIFE: THE FUTURE OF NEW YORK'S MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDERS COMMITTED BY LIFE- TERM PRISONERS Andrea Galbo Follow this and
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 54 Issue 3 Child Abuse Symposium Article 10 January 1978 The 1977 Illinois Death Penalty Statute: Does It Comply with Constitutional Standards Catherine H. McMahon Follow
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 67 Issue 4 Article 9 1977 Capital Punishment: Gregg v. Georgia, 96 S. Ct. 2909 (1976), Proffitt v. Florida, 96 S. Ct. 2960 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 96 S. Ct.
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
Volume 28 Issue 1 Article 6 1982 Constitutional Law - The Eighth Amendment - The Eighth Amendment Prohibits the Penalty of Death for One Who Neither Took Life, Attempted or Intended to Take Life, Nor Contemplated
Campbell Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Spring 1983 Article 8 January 1983 Criminal Law - Death Penalty: Jury Discretion Bridled J. Craig Young Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr
Criminal Justice in America CJ 2600 Chapter 11 James J. Drylie, Ph.D. Sentencing A sentence is the imposition of a sanction by a judicial authority on a person(s) convicted of a criminal offense or crime.
Page 1 of 37 U.S. Supreme Court GREGG v. GEORGIA, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) 428 U.S. 153 GREGG v. GEORGIA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA No. 74-6257. Argued March 31, 1976 Decided July 2, 1976 Petitioner
Constitutional Law Capital Punishment of Mentally Retarded Defendants is Cruel and Unusual Under the Eighth Amendment Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 71 Issue 4 Winter Article 11 Winter 1980 Eighth Amendment--The Death Penalty Phyllis A. Ewer Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
Volume 35 Issue 3 Article 4 1990 Children, the Death Penalty and the Eighth Amendment: An Analysis of Stanford v. Kentucky Tanya M. Perfecky Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr
Remembering Furman s Comparative Proportionality: A Response to Smith and Staihar William W. Berry III * I. INTRODUCTION... 65 II. COMPARATIVE PROPORTIONALITY THROUGH THE SMITH LENS...67 III. COMPARATIVE
Pace Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Winter 1985 Article 4 January 1985 An Impermissible Punishment: The Decline of Consistency as a Constitutional Goal in Capital Sentencing Karen Appel Oshman Follow this
8th and 9th Amendments Joseph Bu, Jalynne Li, Courtney Musmann, Perah Ralin, Celia Zeiger Period 1 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
Volume 33 Issue 2 Article 4 1988 Redefining a Culpable Mental State for Non- Triggermen Facing the Death Penalty James J. Holman Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr
FURMAN V. GEORGIA United States Supreme Court 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed. 2d. 346 (1972) In this case the Supreme Court invalidates Georgia s death penalty statute. This decision represents three
You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?
NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 63 Number 6 Article 12 8-1-1985 State v. Wilson: The Improper Use of Prosecutorial Discretion in Capital Punishment Cases Peter K. Daniel Follow this and additional works
Capital Punishment for the Rape of a Child is Cruel and Unusual Punishment Under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution: Kennedy v. Louisiana CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EIGHTH AMENDMENT - CRUEL
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 29 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1967-1968 Term: A Symposium February 1969 Guilty Pleas, Jury Trial, and Capital Punishment P. Raymond Lamonica
685 So.2d 1063 Page 1 STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony WILSON. STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick Dewayne BETHLEY. Nos. 96-KA-1392, 96-KA-2076. Dec. 13, 1996. Dec. 30, 1996. 685 So.2d 1063, 96-1392 (La. 12/13/96)
Boston College Law Review Volume 31 Issue 4 Number 4 Article 3 7-1-1990 The Constitutionality of Executing Juvenile and Mentally Retarded Offenders: A Precedential Analysis and Proposal for Reconsideration
357 CALIFORNIA v. BROWN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 479 U.S. 538; Argued December 2, 1986, Decided January 27, 1987 OPINION: CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. The question
Cite as: 548 U. S. (2006) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04 1170 KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL LEE MARSH, II ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS [June 26, 2006] JUSTICE SOUTER,
Page 1 of 11 206.14 FIRST DEGREE MURDER - MURDER COMMITTED IN PERPETRATION OF A FELONY 1 OR MURDER WITH PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION WHERE A DEADLY WEAPON IS USED. CLASS A FELONY (DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT);
University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives Faculty Scholarship 1985 The Capital Defendant's Right to Make a Personal Plea for Mercy:
Journal of Law and Policy Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 7 1999 Making the Constitutional Cut: Evaluating New York's Death Penalty Statute in Light of the Supreme Court's Capital Punishment Mandates Jason M.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 69 Issue 2 Summer Article 4 Summer 1978 Capital Punishment: Death for Murder Only Stewart W. Karge Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
TAB 01: NC Death Penalty: History & Overview The Death Penalty in North Carolina: History and Overview Jeff Welty April 2012, revised April 2017 This paper provides a brief history of the death penalty
Logical and Consistent? An Analysis of Supreme Court Opinions Regarding the Death Penalty Matthew B. Robinson and Kathleen M. Simon* Volume 3 - No. 1 Spring 2006 * Matthew B. Robinson and Kathleen M. Simon
Terry Lenamon on the Death Penalty Sidebar with a Board Certified Expert Criminal Trial Attorney Terence M. Lenamon is a Terry Lenamon s List of State Death Penalty Mitigation Statutes (Full Text) Florida
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 KA 1617 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JAUVE COLLINS On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 03 07
Judgment rendered May 17, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
NO. 08-5385 In The Supreme Court of the United States ARTEMUS RICK WALKER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF GEORGIA Respondent. On Petition For A Writ of Certiorari To The Supreme Court of Georgia BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
STATE V. GRELL: PLACING THE BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS TO PROVE MENTAL RETARDATION IN CAPITAL CASES Mary Hollingsworth INTRODUCTION In determining eligibility for the death penalty, Arizona law requires defendants
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Comments The Constitutionality of Ohio's Death Penalty In July 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the punishment of death is not in and of itself a cruel and unusual punishment in
Tulsa Law Review Volume 25 Issue 1 Article 4 Fall 1989 Thompson v. Oklahoma: The Mitigating Circumstance of Youthful Capital Offenders Arthur E. Petersen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr
Campbell Law Review Volume 26 Issue 1 Spring 2004 Article 1 April 2004 North Carolina's (f )(1) Mitigating Circumstance: Does It Truly Serve to Mitigate? Ashley P. Maddox Follow this and additional works
Indiana Law Journal Volume 58 Issue 1 Article 6 1982 The Death Penalty Cases: Shaping Substantive Criminal Law David R. Schieferstein Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at:
Nebraska Law Review Volume 81 Issue 2 Article 2 2002 The Nebraska Death Penalty Study: An Interdisciplinary Symposium Robert F. Schopp University of Nebraska Lincoln Follow this and additional works at:
Page 1 of 38 150.10 NOTE WELL: This instruction and the verdict form which follows include changes required by Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), Cabana v. Bullock,
CHAPTER 14 PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING CHAPTER OUTLINE I. Introduction II. Sentencing Rationales A. Retribution B. Deterrence C. Rehabilitation D. Restoration E. Incapacitation III. Imposing Criminal Sanctions
E-Filed 01/24/2018 11:15:48 AM Honorable Julia Jordan Weller Clerk of the Court No. 1961635 IN THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT EX PARTE VERNON MADISON * * STATE OF ALABAMA, * EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR * JANUARY
St. John's Law Review Volume 77 Issue 1 Volume 77, Winter 2003, Number 1 Article 5 February 2012 Kinder, Gentler, and More Capricious: The Death Penalty After Atkins v. Virginia John F. Romano Follow this
CHAPTER 9 Sentencing Teaching Outline I. Introduction (p.260) Sentencing: The imposition of a criminal sanction by a judicial authority. (p.260) II. The Philosophy and Goals of Criminal Sentencing (p.260)
I. Limits of Criminal law a. Due process b. Principle of legality c. Void for vagueness II. Mental State a. Traditional law i. A specific intent crime is one in which an actual intent on the part of the
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TRAVIS NALL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Issue 4 Winter Article 14 Winter 1988 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments--The Death Penalty Survives Anderson E. Bynam Follow this and additional works at:
Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06 CR-00019-R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
WHAT ABOUT (ALL) THE VICTIMS? -- THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXECUTION-IMPACT EVIDENCE IN CAPITAL SENTENCING HEARINGS Virginia Bell W&L 09L May 1, 2009 As the families of murder victims are increasingly allowed
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 4 A Symposium on Legislation June 1956 Criminal Law - Felony-Murder - Killing of Co- Felon William L. McLeod Jr. Repository Citation William L. McLeod Jr., Criminal
No. 07-343 In the Supreme Court of the United States PATRICK KENNEDY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA (CAPITAL CASE) ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS
Louisiana Law Review Volume 32 Number 1 December 1971 An Unloaded and Unworkable Pistol as a Dangerous Weapon When Used in a Robbery Wilson R. Ramshur Repository Citation Wilson R. Ramshur, An Unloaded
ROPER v. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 [March 1, 2005] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to address, for the second time in a decade and a half, whether it is permissible
DePaul Law Review Volume 28 Issue 2 Winter 1979 Article 5 Evolutions of the Eighth Amendment and Standards for the Imposition of the Death Penalty Lynn Kristine Mitchell Grace E. Wein Follow this and additional
University of Richmond Law Review Volume 17 Issue 3 Article 8 1983 Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty James T. Lloyd Jr. University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-145 KUNTRELL JACKSON, VS. APPELLANT, LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered February 9, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY
Cite as: 536 U. S. (2002) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 01 488 TIMOTHY STUART RING, PETITIONER v. ARIZONA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA [June 24, 2002] JUSTICE BREYER,
No. 07-343 In the Supreme Court of the United States PATRICK KENNEDY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA (CAPITAL CASE) ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AND BRIEF
The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Fifth Amendment, Double Jeopardy in Capital Sentencing, Bullington v. Missouri Patrick J. Keating Please take a
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 9 Issue 2 Article 7 1986 Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Eighth Amendment Bars Execution of the Insane Jonathan Taylor Follow this and additional
Washington University Law Review Volume 61 Issue 1 January 1983 Eighth Amendment Prohibits Imposition of Death Penalty on Accomplice to a Felony Murder, Enmund v. Florida, 102 S. Ct. 3368 Linda K. Singer
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 26 Issue 3 Spring 1995 Article 6 1995 Simmons v. South Carolina: Safeguarding a Capital Defendant's Right to Fair Sentencing Mark Zaug Follow this and additional
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,316 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DEJUAN Y. ALLEN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick District
University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 1987 Maintaining System Integrity in Capital Cases: The Use of Court-Appointed
Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 Number 4 June 1960 Criminal Law - The Felony Manslaughter Doctrine in Louisiana Robert Butler III Repository Citation Robert Butler III, Criminal Law - The Felony Manslaughter
DePaul Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Fall 1983 Article 5 Solem v. Helm: Proportionality Review of Recidivist Sentencing Is Required by the Eighth Amendment Mary K. Bentley Follow this and additional works
State v. Blankenship 145 OHIO ST. 3D 221, 2015-OHIO-4624, 48 N.E.3D 516 DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION On November 12, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a final ruling in State v. Blankenship,
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL: AN ARGUMENT FOR A JURY DETERMINATION OF THE ENMUND/TISON CULPABILITY FACTORS IN CAPITAL FELONY MURDER CASES INTRODUCTION [D]eath is different. 1 When used to punish,
Section 20 Mistake as to a Justification 631 THE LAW Wyoming Statutes (1982) Chapter 4. Offenses Against the Person Article 1. Homicide Section 6-4-101. Murder in the First Degree (a) Whoever purposely
Cite as: 553 U. S. (2008) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07 5439 RALPH BAZE AND THOMAS C. BOWLING, PETI- TIONERS v. JOHN D. REES, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. ON WRIT
The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals August 2015 Legislative Response to Furman v. Georgia - Ohio Restores the Death Penalty Jeffrey T. Heintz Please take a moment
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 80 Issue 4 Winter Article 12 Winter 1990 Eighth Amendment--The Death Penalty and the Mentally Retarded Criminal: Fairness, Culpability, and Death Peter K.M.
Critique: A worldwide student journal of politics The Supreme Court, the Death Penalty, and Evolving Standards of Decency: A History of Interpretation Marc Bacharach Miami University, Oxford Introduction
The Juvenile Death Penalty in Washington: A State Constitutional Analysis Bruce L. Brown* On February 6, 1990, a Kitsap county jury found Michael Monroe Furman guilty of aggravated first degree murder.
[Cite as State v. Watkins, 2018-Ohio-5137.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 13AP-133 and v. : No. 13AP-134 (C.P.C. No. 11CR-4927) Jason
Santa Clara Law Review Volume 30 Number 2 Article 1 1-1-1990 The Lucas Court and Capital Punishment: The Orginial Understanding of the Special Circumstances John W. Paulos Follow this and additional works
Tulsa Law Review Volume 24 Issue 2 Article 3 Winter 1988 Maynard v. Cartwright: How the Supreme Court Killed the Catchall Category in the Oklahoma Death Penalty Stephen Richard Ward Follow this and additional
Nova Law Review Volume 27, Issue 3 2003 Article 5 Ring v. Arizona: How Did This Happen, and Where Do We Go Gary Scott Turner Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 11: The Contemporary Era Criminal Justice/Punishments/Capital
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-145 Opinion Delivered April 25, 2013 KUNTRELL JACKSON V. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-08-28-2] HONORABLE ROBERT WYATT, JR., JUDGE LARRY