Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Capital Jury Project (2)
- Capital jurors (2)
- Capital punishment (2)
- Death penalty (2)
- Anti-sympathy instructions (1)
-
- Brown v. California (1)
- CJP (1)
- Capital defense (1)
- Capital sentencing (1)
- Crime and punishment (1)
- Crime as moral failure (1)
- Crimes of negligence (1)
- Criminal law excuses (1)
- Criminal wrongdoing (1)
- Death-eligible defendants (1)
- Empirical legal studies (1)
- Faithful performance (1)
- Future dangerousness (1)
- Juror decision-making in capital cases (1)
- Kent Greenawalt (1)
- Legislative intent in statutory interpretation (1)
- Merciful jurors (1)
- People v. Goetz (1)
- Punishment as secular penance (1)
- Shafer v. South Carolina (1)
- Simmons v. South Carolina (1)
- State v. Forrest (1)
- State v. Williams (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Walker v. Superior Court (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Two Kinds Of Criminal Wrongs, Stephen P. Garvey
Two Kinds Of Criminal Wrongs, Stephen P. Garvey
Stephen P. Garvey
I distinguish two kinds of criminal wrongs. A wrongdoer who acts in defiance of his conscience is guilty of what I call a wicked wrong. A wrongdoer who does not act in defiance of his conscience is guilty of what I call a vicious wrong. The distinction is derived from a conception of immorality typically associated with the Christian tradition. The distinction is important because it determines the moral message a wrongdoer should try to send through the punishment or penance he must endure in order to atone for his wrongdoing.
Future Dangerousness In Capital Cases: Always "At Issue", John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Future Dangerousness In Capital Cases: Always "At Issue", John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Stephen P. Garvey
Under Simmons v. South Carolina, a capital defendant who, if not sentenced to death, will remain in prison with no chance of parole is constitutionally entitled to an instruction informing the jury of the fact, but only if the prosecution engages in conduct that places the defendant's future dangerousness "at issue." Based on data collected from interviews with South Carolina capital jurors, Professors Blume, Garvey and Johnson argue that future dangerousness is on the minds of most capital jurors, and is thus "at issue" in virtually all capital trials, regardless of the prosecution's conduct. Accordingly, the authors argue that the …
Are Housekeepers Like Judges?, Stephen P. Garvey
Are Housekeepers Like Judges?, Stephen P. Garvey
Stephen P. Garvey
Professor Greenawalt proposes that we look at interpretation "from the bottom up." By taking a close look at informal relationships between an authority and his or her agent, and how the agent "faithfully performs" instructions within such relationships, he hopes to gain insight into the problems surrounding the interpretation of legal directives. The analysis of "faithful performance" in informal contexts which Professor Greenawalt presents in From the Bottom Up is the first step in a larger project. His next step is to see what lessons the interpretation of instructions in informal contexts has for law. This Comment tries to contribute …
The Merciful Capital Juror, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey
The Merciful Capital Juror, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey
Stephen P. Garvey
We examine the role of mercy in capital sentencing along three dimensions. We first explain why mercy is a philosophically problematic virtue, and second, why it presently holds an ambiguous status within constitutional doctrine. Finally, we draw on interviews with jurors who served on capital cases in order better to understand how the behavior of merciful jurors compares to the behavior of their less merciful counterparts. Among other things, we find that merciful jurors tend to be better educated and to attend religious services regularly. We also find that merciful jurors are, as one might reasonably expect, more apt to …