Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

ExpressO

Death penalty

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

No Due Process: How The Death Penalty Violates The Constitutional Rights Of The Family Members Of Death Row Prisoners, Rachel C. King Aug 2006

No Due Process: How The Death Penalty Violates The Constitutional Rights Of The Family Members Of Death Row Prisoners, Rachel C. King

ExpressO

The article makes the case for a novel theory that the death penalty violates the constitutional rights of the family members of death row prisoners. First, the article establishes that Americans are entitled to a fundamental “right to family,” based on a long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has established substantive due process rights such as the right to marry, to use contraceptives, to have children, to make educational decisions for children, and decisions about how to configure ones’ household. Next, the article makes the case that the death penalty interferes with the constitutional right to family by harming …


Does The Icj's Decision In Avena Really Mean Anything To Mexicans On Death Row?, Kenneth Williams Oct 2005

Does The Icj's Decision In Avena Really Mean Anything To Mexicans On Death Row?, Kenneth Williams

ExpressO

This article assesses the legality of President Bush's order to state courts that they review the convictions and sentences of certain Mexican nationals on death row in response to the ICJ's decision that the rights of these inmates had been violated. The article also discusses the review process and makes a proposal to ensure that the ICJ's mandate is carried out. Finally, there is a discussion as to the importance of these cases to both the U.S. and Mexico.


Cleaning Up The Eighth Amendment Mess, Tom Stacy Mar 2005

Cleaning Up The Eighth Amendment Mess, Tom Stacy

ExpressO

This article criticizes the Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and proposes its own understanding. The Court’s jurisprudence is plagued by deep inconsistencies concerning the text, the Court’s own role, and a constitutional requirement of proportionate punishment.

In search of ways to redress these fundamental shortcomings, the article explores three alternative interpretations: 1) A textualist approach; 2) Justice Scalia’s understanding that the Clause forbids only punishments unacceptable for all offenses; and 3) a majoritarian approach that would consistently define cruel and unusual punishment in terms of legislative judgments and penal custom. As evidenced by the …