Law Commons^™

Reducing The Dangers Of Future Dangerousness Testimony: Applying The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Capital Sentencing, Jaymes Fairfax-Columbo, David Dematteo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The United States Supreme Court has long held that the death penalty cannot be imposed arbitrarily, and that during sentencing in capital cases, jurors must be provided with guidelines to assist them in narrowing down the class of individuals for whom the death penalty is appropriate. Typically, this is accomplished through the presentation of aggravating and mitigating evidence. One aggravating factor is a capital offender’s future dangerousness, or the likelihood that the individual will engage in violent institutional misconduct while in prison. Future dangerousness may be assessed using a variety of measures; Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a measure of personality …

Grand Jury Innovation: Toward A Functional Makeover Of The Ancient Bulwark Of Liberty, Roger A. Fairfax Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Misnamed, Misapplied, And Misguided: Clarifying The State Of Sentencing Entrapment And Proposing A New Conception Of The Doctrine, Jess D. Mekeel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Mandatory Death Penalty In The Commonwealth Caribbean And The Inter-American Human Rights System: An Evolution In The Development And Implementation Of International Human Rights Protections, Brian D. Tittemore

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

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 …