Law Commons^™

The Firing Squad As "A Known And Available Alternative Method Of Execution" Post-Glossip, Deborah W. Denno

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article does not address the medical debate surrounding the role of midazolam in executions; the problems associated with using the drug have been persuasively argued elsewhere. Nor does it question the soundness of the Glossip Court’s “alternative method of execution” requirement. Rather, this Article’s proposed reform is a constitutionally acceptable alternative that meets the Glossip Court’s standard, rendering moot—at least for the purposes of the following discussion—very real concerns regarding the validity of that dictate. Part I of this Article pinpoints several areas where the Glossip Court goes wrong in glaringly inaccurate or misleading ways, given the vast history …

The Constitutionality Of Lengthy Term-Of-Years Sentences For Juvenile Non-Homicide Offenders, Rebecca Lowry

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I discusses the development of the Court's ' kids are different" decisions. Part II argues that the rationale behind Graham applies not only to life-without-parole sentences but also to lengthy term-of-years sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders. Part III suggests a constitutional mandate as to when states must provide a meaningful opportunity for release and explores other legislative action states can employ to comply with Graham.

The Challenge And Dilemma Of Charting A Course To Constitutionally Protect The Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant From The Death Penalty, Lyn Entzeroth

Akron Law Review

This article examines these issues in the context of an important and emerging constitutional challenge to the death penalty: whether the death penalty can be imposed on capital defendants who suffer from severe mental illness at the time of the commission of their crimes. The American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill all endorse a death penalty exemption for the severely mentally ill. Recent law review articles suggest that such an exemption may even be compelled by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. …

Cruel And Unusual Before And After 2012: Miller V. Alabama Must Apply Retroactively, Tracy A. Rhodes

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Levine: A Survey Of His Most Influential Court Of Appeals Decisions - 1993-2002, Jean D'Alessandro

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lethal Injections: States Medicalize Execution, Joel B. Zivot

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Executioner's Dilemmas, Eric Berger

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Sure We Are Getting It Right: Repairing "The Machinery Of Death" By Narrowing Capital Eligibility, Ann E. Reid

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Death Penalty And The Right To Counsel Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unreviewable Irredeemable Child: Why The District Of Columbia Needs Reverse Waiver, Jamie Stevens

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

In 2005 the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that adult criminal courts prosecuted 23,000 cases involving defendants under the age of eighteen nationwide. 2 This means that those defendants faced conviction and sentencing in adult courts. Transfer of those under eighteen into adult criminal court has become the states' first line of defense in the fight against youth crime. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have cast doubt on the wisdom, and even the constitutionality of that approach. Roper v. Simmons held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for anyone under eighteen years of age. 3 Graham v. Florida …

An Analysis Of The Death Penalty Jurisprudence Of The October 2007 Supreme Court Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2007 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Off With His __": Analyzing The Sex Disparity In Chemical Castration Sentences, Zachary Edmonds Oswald

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Societies around the world have performed castration, in its various forms, on their male and female members for thousands of years, for numerous reasons. Even within the United States, prisoners have been sentenced to castration (as a form of punishment or crime prevention) since the early twentieth century. In recent years, legislatures have perpetuated this practice but with a modern twist. Now, states use chemical injections to castrate their inmates. It turns out, however, that systemic problems plague the chemical castration sentencing regime. These problems arise from the nature of the crimes eligible for chemical castration sentences, the manner of …

Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon juveniles was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, did not hold it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole if there was “transferred intent” or “reckless disregard.” Nonetheless, the Court effectively abolished state discretion and required sentencing courts to consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances. The Court, however, did not specify what sentencing guidelines should dictate. Thus, states are now …

The Punishment Need Not Fit The Crime: Harmelin V. Michigan And The Eigth Amendment, Scott K. Petersen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Atkins V. Virginia: National Consensus Or Six-Person Opinion?, Joanna Hall

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

History Repeats Itself: The Post-Furman Return To Arbitrariness In Capital Punishment, Lindsey S. Vann

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this comment provides a brief review of Furmanandthe circumstances leading to the decision. Part II discusses thefactors indicating current arbitrariness and other recurring factors surrounding the American death penalty. Part III examines the development of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause since Furman. Finally, Part IV discusses how the Supreme Court should apply its contemporary Eighth Amendment doctrine to the current circumstances surrounding the imposition of the death penalty.

Kids Are Different, Stephen St.Vincent

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Graham v. Florida. The case involved a juvenile, Graham, who was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted as an adult of a nonhomicidal crime. The offense, a home invasion robbery, was his second; the first was attempted robbery. Due to Florida's abolition of parole, the judge's imposition of a life sentence meant that Graham was constructively sentenced to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime. Graham challenged this sentence as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Somewhat surprisingly, the Supreme Court invalidated Graham's sentence by a 6-3 majority. By a …

Killing Them With Procedure: A New Cruel And Unusual Punishment?, Jeremy J. Schirra

American University Criminal Law Brief

No abstract provided.

Redemption Song: Graham V. Florida And The Evolving Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence, Robert Smith, G. Ben Choen

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without parole ("LWOP") for a juvenile under eighteen who commits a non-homicide offense. For Terrance Graham, who committed home-invasion robbery at seventeen, the decision does not mean necessarily that he someday will leave the brick walls of Florida's Taylor Annex Correctional Institution. Unlike previous Eighth Amendment decisions, such as Roper v. Simmons, where the Court barred the death penalty for juveniles, this new categorical rule does not translate into automatic relief for members of the exempted class: "A State need not guarantee the …

Contemplating Cruel And Unusual: A Critical Analysis Of Baze V. Rees In The Context Of The Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment Proportionality Jurisprudence, Katie Roth Heilman

American University Law Review

This Comment argues that, while the Court’s modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has gradually reduced the circumstances under which the death penalty may be imposed, this trend is inconsistent with the Court’s unwillingness to critically examine the specific procedures states use to execute, even in the face of growing concerns over the humaneness of such procedures. Part I gives a historic overview of the Court’s limited method-of-execution jurisprudence, followed by a review of the Court’s recent line of rulings on challenges to the death penalty’s proportionality. Part II analyzes Baze within the broader context of the Court’s Eight Amendment proportionality jurisprudence. …

Cruelty To The Mentally Ill: An Eighth Amendment Challenge To The Abolition Of The Insanity Defense, Stephen M. Leblanc

American University Law Review

This Comment addresses the present gap in insanity-defense laws

created by the defense’s abolition and offers an Eighth Amendment

based remedy. Part I reviews the history and evolution of the insanity

defense in Anglo-American law. It then describes how four states

have statutorily abolished the defense. It concludes with a discussion

of Clark v. Arizona, the Court’s most recent decision on the

constitutionality of the insanity defense. Part II turns to the Eighth

Amendment, examining its historical understanding and the

contemporary evolving-standards-of-decency analysis, through which

the Court assesses the constitutionality of modern-day punishments.

Part II concludes with a discussion of …

Furman'S Mythical Mandate, Scott W. Howe

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article argues for the rescue and reform of Supreme Court doctrine regulating capital sentencing trials under the Eighth Amendment. Many legal commentators, both liberal and conservative, including several members of the Supreme Court, have concluded that the Court's regulation of capital sentencing trials is a disaster. The repeated criticisms rest on a commonly accepted view about a principal goal of capital sentencing regulation. The prevailing account, fueled by the rhetoric of the Justices, stems from the notion that Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 208 (1972), revealed a mandate of consistency in the use of the death penalty that …

The Legal, Political, And Social Implications Of The Death Penalty, Hon. William W. Wilkins

University of Richmond Law Review

A recent national poll found that sixty-five percent of Americans favor the death penalty. That's down from eighty percent ten years ago. Moreover, the total favoring the death penalty dropped to fifty percent when those polled were asked to assume that thealternative to the death penalty was life in prison with no chance of parole. And, the number of death sentences imposed in the United States during the last few years has dropped to the lowest level since capital punishment was reinstated thirty years ago. Thus, it would seem that our society's attitude toward capital punishment is changing. What was …

Constitutional Law & Criminal Law - The Eighth Amendment - The Juvenile Death Penalty: A Premature Decision Over Teenage Immaturity? Roper V. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)., J. Blake Byrd

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

The final clause of the Eighth Amendment is the source of this nation's prohibition on unconstitutional punishment. Today, the Supreme Court's evolving-standard on the prohibition on unconstitutional punishment has two steps: The Court (1) looks at objective indicia of societal consensus against a particular practice and (2) ultimately uses its independent judgment to analyze whether the punishment is proportional to the offender's mental state and category of crime. There is tension within the Court, however, because some members believe that the evolving-standards jurisprudence is mistaken, and they fervently reject a proportionality analysis.

The United States has a long history of …

The High Court Remains As Divided As Ever Over The Death Penalty, George H. Kendall

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

More than three decades ago, in Furman v. Georgia, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down all existing capital punishment schemes be-cause the results they generated were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasoned. No member of that Court remains on the Court today, and the Court has grown increasingly conservative ever since. Nevertheless, impor-tant questions concerning the administration of capital punishment continue to wrought deep divisions within the Court, for instance in determining whether racial bias influences the system, in determining the sufficiency of new evidence of innocence to justify review of a defaulted claim in habeas corpus proceedings, in determining a …

Legitimizing Error, Rebecca E. Woodman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has sought to harmonize competing constitutional demands under Eighth Amendment rules regulat-ing the two-step eligibility and selection stages of the capital decision-making process. Furman’s demand for rationality and consistency requires that, at the eligibility stage, the sentencer’s discretion be limited and guided by clear and objective fact-based standards that rationally narrow the class of death-eligible defendants. The selection stage requires a determination of whether a specific death-eligible defendant actually deserves that punish-ment, as distinguished from other death-eligible defendants. Here, fundamental fairness and respect for the uniqueness of the individual are the cornerstones of …

Narrowing Racial Disparities In Sentencing Through A System Of Mandatory Downward Departures, Douglas Smith

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Stevens's Ratchet: When The Court Should Decide Not To Decide, Joel A. Flaxman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Hidden underneath the racy death penalty issues in Kansas v. Marsh lurks a seemingly dull procedural issue addressed only in separate opinions by Justices Stevens and Scalia: whether the Court should have heard the case in the first place. As he did in three cases from the Court’s 2005 term, Justice Stevens argued in Marsh that the Court has no legitimate interest in reviewing state court decisions that overprotect federal constitutional rights. Instead, the Supreme Court should exercise its certiorari power to tip the scales against states and in favor of individuals. Granting certiorari in Marsh, Stevens argued, was not …

The Revolution Enters The Court: The Constitutional Significance Of Wrongful Convictions In Contemporary Constitutional Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Jordan Steiker

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Over the last decade, the most important events in American death pen-alty law have occurred outside the courts. The discovery of numerous wrongfully convicted death-sentenced inmates in Illinois led to the most substantial reflection on the American death penalty system since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a Republi-can, first declared a moratorium on executions in 2000 and eventually commuted all 167 inmates on Illinois’s death row in 2003. The events in Illinois reverberated nationwide. Almost overnight, state legislative agendas shifted from expanding or maintaining the prevailing reach of the death penalty to studying its …