Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …

Go to article

The Impact Of Civilian Aggravating Factors On The Military Death Penalty (1984-2005): Another Chapter In The Resistance Of The Armed Forces To The Civilianization Of Military Justice, Catherine M. Grosso, David C. Baldus, George Woodworth

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1984, the U.S. Armed Forces amended its capital punishment system for death eligible murder to bring it into compliance with Furman v. Georgia. Those amendments were modeled after death penalty legislation prevailing in over thirty states. After a brief period between 1986 and 1990, the charging decisions of commanders and the conviction and sentencing decisions of court martial members (jurors) transformed the military death penalty system into a dual system that treats two classes of death eligible murder quite differently. Since 1990, a member of the armed forces accused of a killing a commissioned officer or murder with a …

Go to article

First Amendment Equal Protection: On Discretion, Inequality, And Participation, Daniel P. Tokaji

Michigan Law Review

The tension between equality and discretion lies at the heart of some of the most vexing questions of constitutional law. The considerable discretion that many official decisionmakers wield raises the spectre that violations of equality norms will sometimes escape detection. This is true in a variety of settings, whether discretion lies over speakers' access to public fora, implementation of the death penalty, or the recounting of votes. Is the First Amendment violated, for example, when a city ordinance gives local officials broad discretion to determine the conditions under which political demonstrations may take place? Is equal protection denied where the …

Go to article

Death In The Federal Courts: Expectations And Realities Of The Federal Death Penalty Act Of 1994, John P. Cunningham

University of Richmond Law Review

"Thou shalt not kill." These four words have echoed throughout the churches, judicial courts, and political meeting places of men and women for time immemorial. Along with their deep religious and political significance, they carry with them a haunting contrast to the current state of mankind: men and women can kill other men and women-legally. In the United States, this "legal" killing, commonly referred to as the "death penalty," traditionally takes place within the confines of the individual state judicial systems, and generally involves the execution of felons tried and convicted of some form of intentional murder.

Go to article

Rights And Freedoms Under The State Constitution: A New Deal For Welfare Rights, Sandra M. Stevenson, Eve Cary, Mary Falk, Helen Hershkoff, Robert A. Heverly

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article