Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Criminal Law

William & Mary Law School

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 10 of 10

Full-Text Articles in Law

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 Dec 2014

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 Dec 2014

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.


The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive Dec 2014

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 Dec 2014

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 …


Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis Dec 2014

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

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.


Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus Dec 2014

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

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.


Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington Dec 2014

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

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.


Use Of The Drug Pavulon In Lethal Injections: Cruel And Unusual, Casey Lynne Ewart Feb 2006

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 Dec 2005

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. …


From Breard To Atkins To Malvo: Legal Incompetency And Human Rights Norms On The Fringes Of The Death Penalty, Linda A. Malone Dec 2004

From Breard To Atkins To Malvo: Legal Incompetency And Human Rights Norms On The Fringes Of The Death Penalty, Linda A. Malone

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.