Law Commons^™

A Promise Unfulfilled: Challenges To Georgia’S Death Penalty Statute Post-Furman, William Cody Newsome

Georgia State University Law Review

In Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Furman’s counsel. Three Justices agreed that Georgia law, as applied, was arbitrary and potentially discriminatory. Moreover, one Justice challenged the value of the death penalty and doubted it served any of the alleged purposes for which it was employed.

Although many challenges subsequent to Furman have been raised and arguably resolved by the Court, the underlying challenges raised by Furman appear to remain prevalent with the Court. Justice Breyer recently echoed the concurring opinions of Furman in his dissenting opinion from Glossip v. Gross, when he stated: “In …

An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia’S Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Georgia State University Law Review

In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that execution of people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, the Court explicitly left to the states the question of which procedures would be used to identify such defendants as exempt from the death penalty. More than a decade before Atkins, Georgia was the first state to bar execution of people with intellectual disability. Yet, of the states that continue to impose the death penalty as a punishment for capital murder, Georgia is the only state that requires capital defendants …

Duties Of Capital Trial Counsel Under The California “Death Penalty Reform And Savings Act Of 2016”, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Flying Over The Cuckoo's Nest: How The Mentally Ill Landed Into An Unconstitutional Punishment In South Carolina, Elle Klein

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …