Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dissecting The Aba Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report Of 2013: Death And Texas, A Surprising Improvement, Patrick S. Metze
Dissecting The Aba Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report Of 2013: Death And Texas, A Surprising Improvement, Patrick S. Metze
Akron Law Review
Professor Metze dissects the American Bar Association report, September 2013, entitled Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report—An Analysis of Texas’s Death Penalty Laws, Procedures and Practices. This Report was produced by the ABA’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, specifically the Death Penalty Due Process Review Project, which identified 12 inadequacies in the Texas Capital Punishment System, recommended changes, and evaluated compliance. Now, four years and two legislative sessions later, this Article explores what Texas has done in the interim to improve its death penalty process. Incredibly, the Article concludes …
Legislative Response To Furman V. Georgia - Ohio Restores The Death Penalty, Jeffrey T. Heintz
Legislative Response To Furman V. Georgia - Ohio Restores The Death Penalty, Jeffrey T. Heintz
Akron Law Review
THE ABOVE REPRESENTS the first inclusion of a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments in any charter of any colony in the New World. Believed to be traceable to the Magna Charta, such a prohibition is now embodied in our eighth amendment. It has been the subject of much litigation and construction, most recently in Furman v. Georgia, where the death penalty, as then imposed, was declared to be invalid as cruel and unusual. Some states, including Ohio, have responded with new statutes controlling imposition of the death penalty in order to circumvent the Furman proscriptions. Only time will tell …
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Akron Law Review
“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”