Law Commons^™

An Analysis Of The Death Penalty Jurisprudence Of The October 2007 Supreme Court Term (The Twentieth Annual Supreme Court Review), Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

Death Penalty Cases Impose Singular Burden, Judith L. Ritter, Ross Kleinstuber

Judith L Ritter

No abstract provided.

Neuroimaging And Competency To Be Executed After Panetti, Michael L. Perlin

Michael L Perlin

Scholars have begun to consider the impact of neuroimaging evidence on capital punishment trials, questioning whether reliance on such testimony can actually make “sentencing more rational and humane.” They have also considered the impact of this evidence on criminal sentencing, expressing concern that such evidence will be improperly used “as predictive factors to increase sentences,” and counseling policymakers to “avoid misuse of new techniques.” In an earlier article on neuroimaging and criminal procedure, I considered the questions of a criminal defendant’s competency to submit to neuroimaging testing, and the impact of antipsychotic medications on the results of such testing.

What …

Death, Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky

Lee Kovarsky

I examine the interaction between what I call 'death ineligibility' challenges and the habeas writ. A death ineligibility claim alleges that a criminally-confined capital prisoner belongs to a category of offenders for which the Eighth Amendment forbids execution. By contrast, a 'crime innocence' claim alleges that, colloquially speaking, a capital prisoner 'wasn’t there, and didn’t do it.' In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has identified several new ineligibility categories, including mentally retarded offenders. Configured primarily to address crime innocence and procedural challenges, however, modern habeas law is poorly equipped to accommodate ineligibility claims. Death Ineligibility traces the genesis …

Murder Most Foul: The Death Penalty And The Disadvantaged, Abdaal M. Akhtar

Abdaal M Akhtar

The paper explores how the death penalty is intrinsically unfair in the way it is administered, as it provides ample scope for judges and juries to enforce their own biases and prejudices, racial or otherwise.