Law Commons^™

The “Especially Heinous” Aggravator: Sharpshooter Bonuses Do Not Belong In Capital Sentencing Law, Taylor Lopa

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In capital cases, the jury is often left with the onerous decision about whether to impose the death penalty. To help jurors make sentencing decisions, judges will instruct them on how to apply the law. As one juror summarized, “[The judge told us] that we were to make our decision on the basis of his instructions and the law, not what we felt, not what we thought ought to be.” Because of jury instructions like this, jurors know that they must base sentencing decisions on the law rather than their personal beliefs. But what happens when the law itself …

Resurrecting Arbitrariness, Kathryn E. Miller

Articles

What allows judges to sentence a child to die in prison? For years, they did so without constitutional restriction. That all changed in 2012’s Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory sentences of life without parole for children convicted of homicide crimes. Miller held that this extreme sentence was constitutional only for the worst offenders—the “permanently incorrigible.” By embracing individualized sentencing, Miller and its progeny portended a sea change in the way juveniles would be sentenced for serious crimes. But if Miller opened the door to sentencing reform, the Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Mississippi appeared to slam it …

When Police Volunteer To Kill, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection, yet states continue to struggle with drug shortages and botched executions. Some states have authorized alternative methods of execution, including the firing squad. Utah, which has consistently carried out firing squad executions throughout its history, relies on police officers from the jurisdiction where the crime took place to volunteer to carry out these executions. This represents a plausible--and probable--method for other states in conducting firing squad executions.

Public and academic discussion of the firing squad has centered on questions of pain and suffering. It has not engaged with the consequences …

"Only To Have A Say In The Way He Dies": Bodily Autonomy And Methods Of Execution, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

Capital punishment is one of the most significant intrusions into a person's bodily autonomy; the state takes a person's life. Even though the state has stripped a person on death row of much of their autonomy and intends to kill them, removing all autonomy, a person sentenced to death may, in some circumstances, choose how they will die. While most states rely on a single method of execution, some states permit a condemned person to choose among two or more methods of execution. Constitutional challenges to methods of execution requires the challenger to demonstrate a substantial risk of severe pain …

Capital Punishment And The ‘Acnestis’ Of Its Modern Reformation, Sudarsanan Sivakumar

Human Rights Brief

The term “Capital Punishment” encompasses any penalizing punishment that results in the death of people accused of committing a crime.1 This damnation dates back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the “Code of Hammurabi,” a misemployed code that ensured the death penalty for twenty-five distinct crimes. People convicted of crimes were made to suffer for their actions in horrific ways, including being burnt alive and drowning.2 Since then, death by hanging has been the conventional method for capital punishment in most of the world.

Limiting Access To Remedies: Select Criminal Law And Procedure Cases From The Supreme Court's 2021-22 Term, Eve Brensike Primus, Justin Hill

Articles

Although the most memorable cases from the Supreme Court’s 2021-22 Term were on the civil side of its docket, the Court addressed significant cases on the criminal side involving the Confrontation Clause, capital punishment, double jeopardy, criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, and important statutory interpretation principles, such as the mens rea presumption and the scope of the rule of lenity. Looking back, the Court’s decisions limiting individuals’ access to remedies for violations of their constitutional criminal procedure rights stand out. Shinn v. Ramirez and Shoop v. Twyford drastically limit the ability of persons incarcerated in state facilities to challenge the …