Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Substantial Guidance Without Substantive Guides: Resolving The Requirements Of Moore V. Texas And Hall V. Florida, Clinton M. Barker
Substantial Guidance Without Substantive Guides: Resolving The Requirements Of Moore V. Texas And Hall V. Florida, Clinton M. Barker
Vanderbilt Law Review
Exempting certain classes of people from the possibility of the death penalty is hardly new; Blackstone noted the common law prohibition on executing the insane, stating that "furiosus furore solum punitur"-madness is its own punishment.' Even then, however, "the reasons for the rule [were] less sure and less uniform than the rule itself." 2 In the United States, Eighth Amendment jurisprudence does little to clarify the reasons behind a particular death penalty exemption because it relies, in part, on the practice of the states to decide what is outside the bounds of acceptable punishment. 3 Because exemptions are thus dependent …
An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia's Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall
An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia's Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
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 to prove …