Law Commons^™

A Century In The Making: The Glorious Revolution, The American Revolution, And The Origins Of The U.S. Constitution’S Eighth Amendment, John D. Bessler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The sixteen words in the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment have their roots in England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. This Article traces the historical events that initially gave rise to the prohibitions against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. Those three proscriptions can be found in the English Declaration of Rights and in its statutory counterpart, the English Bill of Rights. In particular, the Article describes the legal cases and draconian punishments during the Stuart dynasty that led English and Scottish parliamentarians to insist on protections against cruelty and excessive governmental actions. In describing the grotesque punishments of …

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Promise The Nation Cannot Keep: What Prevents The Application Of The Thirteenth Amendment In Prison?, Raja Raghunath

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The walls of the prison are not solely physical. The doctrine of judicial deference to prison officials, which compels courts to defer to the discretion of those officials in almost all instances, obstructs the effective scrutiny of modern practices of punishment. Since its ratification, the Thirteenth Amendment—which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude anywhere within the United States or its jurisdiction, except where imposed “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”1—has been seen by courts as one brick in this wall. This Article makes the novel argument that, properly read, the amendment should function instead …

Lest We Regress To The Dark Ages: Holding Voluntary Surgical Castration Cruel And Unusual, Even For Child Molesters, Catherine Rylyk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Use Of The Drug Pavulon In Lethal Injections: Cruel And Unusual, Casey Lynne Ewart

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Cleaning Up The Eighth Amendment Mess, Tom Stacy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This article criticizes the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and offers its own understanding. The Court's jurisprudence is plagued by deep inconsistencies concerning the Amendment's 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 of the Clause: (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. …

Aggravating And Mitigating Factors: The Paradox Of Today's Arbitrary And Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Over twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that both mandatory capital sentencing schemes and total discretionary capital sentencing schemes violate the Eighth Amendment. According to Jeffrey Kirchmeier, the "guided discretion" capital sentencing scheme of sentencing factors that has developed, however, has the constitutional problems of both mandatory death penalties and unlimited discretion death penalties.

Justices Scalia, Blackmun, and Thomas have noted that the mandate of unlimited mitigating circumstances has resulted in an arbitrary system. Kirchmeier argues that today's sentencing scheme is arbitrary also because of undefined aggravating factors, unlimited nonstatutory aggravating factors, and victim impact evidence. According …