Questions and Answers
What does the Eighth Amendment state?
Excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Which case is associated with the statement about torture and unnecessary cruelty being forbidden?
What was the NY statute's intention regarding electrocution in In re Kemmler?
To devise a more human method of reaching the result.
What did the court rule in Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber regarding accidents during execution?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the Weems test state about punishment?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the Trop test concerning punishment?
Signup and view all the answers
The death penalty can only be applied consistently across all cases without discrimination.
Signup and view all the answers
Which principle emphasizes that punishment must not degrade human dignity?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the court say about the infliction of death being infrequent?
Signup and view all the answers
The Supreme Court holds that the death penalty is unconstitutional per se.
Signup and view all the answers
In Furman v. Georgia, what is said about the uniqueness of the penalty of death?
Signup and view all the answers
What guidance should be provided to the jury regarding sentencing?
Signup and view all the answers
What is the primary purpose of a bifurcated procedure in death penalty cases?
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following are part of contemporary standards of decency indicia?
Signup and view all the answers
What do mandatory death penalty statutes typically fail to consider?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the Eighth Amendment require in capital cases?
Signup and view all the answers
What are the post-1976 sentencing scheme requirements?
Signup and view all the answers
What must states do to avoid arbitrary infliction of the death penalty?
Signup and view all the answers
What does the term 'aggravating circumstances' refer to?
Signup and view all the answers
What risk does the combination of lack of definition and vagueness present in capital sentencing?
Signup and view all the answers
In what case were concerns about a defendant's character and record emphasized?
Signup and view all the answers
What is deemed a relevant mitigating factor according to Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982)?
Signup and view all the answers
What does Walton v. Arizona (1990) state about the discretion of the sentencer?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Eighth Amendment
- Prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.
Wilkerson v. Utah (1878)
- Established that torture and unnecessary cruelty are forbidden punishments.
In re Kemmler (1890)
- Highlighted the need for humane execution methods, emphasizing electrocution as an improvement over previous methods.
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber (1947)
- Clarified that accidental execution does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation if there is no malice involved.
- Defined cruelty as inherent in the method of punishment, rather than in necessary suffering.
Frank v. Mangum (1915)
- Stressed the importance of notice and an opportunity for a hearing in capital cases.
Moore v. Dempsey (1923)
- Asserted that constitutional rights must be secured regardless of circumstances surrounding a criminal trial.
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
- Affirmed the duty of the court to appoint counsel for defendants in capital cases who cannot afford legal representation.
Weems v. United States (1910)
- First case ruling a sentence as cruel due to excessive imprisonment and its accompanying degradation.
Trop v. Dulles (1958)
- Introduced the concept of evolving standards of decency for interpreting the Eighth Amendment.
Bucklew v. Precythe (2019)
- Confirmed that the Constitution permits capital punishment without referencing earlier cases like Weems or Trop.
Weems test
- Establishes that punishment is excessive if a less severe option could achieve the same legitimate aims.
Trop test
- Determines punishment as unconstitutional if it defies the evolving standards of decency.
McGautha v. California (1971)
- Discussed the challenges of predicting which homicides deserve the death penalty and the complexity of establishing general standards.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
- Ruled that the death penalty, as applied in certain cases, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Chief Justice Stewart's Commentary
- Emphasized that the death penalty's capricious application resembled being struck by lightning and highlighted its irrevocability and rejection of rehabilitation.
Legal and Social Implications of Furman
- Identified the arbitrary nature of death penalty imposition, linking it to discrimination and socioeconomic disparities.
Principles Established in Furman
- Marshall's principles addressed the severity, unacceptability, and arbitrary nature of punishment.
- Brennan’s principles focused on human dignity, arbitrary application, and contemporary societal moral standards.
Legislative Outcomes Post-Furman
- Groundwork laid for state legislatures to revise death penalty statutes to align with constitutional standards.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
- Reinforced capital punishment's acceptance within the context of societal endorsement while asserting its purpose for retribution.
Key Concepts from Gregg
- Recognized that certain murders may deter with the death penalty, but effectiveness relies on contextual evaluations by legislatures.
Evolving Standards of Decency
- Contemporary decency standards are assessed through historical use, legislative actions, and jury determinations.
Woodson v. North Carolina (1976)
- Critiqued mandatory death penalties as too rigid and reflecting a lack of societal acceptance, emphasizing the need for individualized sentencing considerations.
Overall Importance
- The ongoing judicial discourse shaped the framework for understanding capital punishment, its application, and evolving societal perspectives on justice and human dignity.### North Carolina (1976) - Stewart
- Emphasizes the need for individualized consideration in capital punishment cases, recognizing the humanity of offenders by evaluating their character and the unique circumstances of their offenses.
- Critiques processes that treat all offenders uniformly, without acknowledging mitigating factors that may warrant leniency.
Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) - Stewart
- Asserts that the Eighth Amendment mandates respect for human dignity, requiring an assessment of the offender's character and offense circumstances in death penalty cases.
Post-1976 Sentencing Scheme Requirements
- Narrowing: Limits the pool of death penalty candidates through specific criteria.
- Individualization: Ensures each case is considered on its unique facts.
- Proportionality: Aligns the severity of the punishment with the gravity of the offense.
Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) - Stewart
- States that death penalty laws must avoid arbitrary and capricious applications to maintain constitutional integrity in sentencing.
Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) - Agg
- Defines a murder as "outrageously or wantonly vile" if it involves torture or an aggravated battery.
Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) - Marshall
- Emphasizes the Court's role in correcting constitutional errors rather than re-evaluating facts that align with statutory language.
Maynard v. Cartwright (1988)
- Addresses vagueness in capital punishment statutes, arguing that inadequate definitions leave juries with excessive discretion, which violates constitutional mandates.
Arave v. Creech (1993) - O'Connor
- Acknowledges that guiding discretion doesn’t require precise definitions; subjective evaluations can still be constitutionally sound.
Arave v. Creech (1993) - O'Connor
- Highlights the challenge of assessing a defendant's emotional detachment versus more straightforward criteria of past convictions.
Arave v. Creech (1993) - Blackmun Dissent
- Critiques the majority’s vague formulations as ineffective and highlights the absurdity of engaging in vague legal definitions.
Zant v. Stephens (1983) - Stevens
- Clarifies that aggravating circumstances only serve to narrow eligibility for the death penalty without imposing strict standards for jury discretion.
Zant v. Stephens (1983) - Marshall
- Voices concern that the Court's ruling leaves too much discretion for jurors, undermining the objective standards established in earlier decisions.
Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) - Rehnquist
- Justifies that narrowing considerations at either phase of a trial (guilt or sentencing) are constitutionally acceptable and serve to guide jury discretion.
Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) - Rehnquist
- Indicates that duplicating aggravating circumstances with elements of the crime does not violate constitutional narrowing requirements.
Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) - Marshall
- Criticizes the majority's decision for detaching the narrowing function from the sentencing process, making it a mere formality.
Lockett v. Ohio (1978) - Burger
- Affirms the right of courts to exclude irrelevant evidence but emphasizes the necessity of considering all relevant mitigating factors.
Lockett v. Ohio (1978) - Burger
- Mandates that sentencers must be allowed to weigh all aspects of a defendant’s character and circumstances to avoid unjust sentencing.
Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) - Powell
- Recognizes the importance of considering age and background in mitigation, especially for younger defendants.
Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) - Powell
- Asserts that states cannot legally prevent consideration of mitigating evidence, which is crucial for just sentencing.
Johnson v. Texas (1993)
- Restricts Penry’s application to cases with extraordinary permanent handicaps that contribute directly to the crime.
Tennard v. Dretke (2004)
- Rejects limiting tests for relevant mitigating evidence, affirming broader considerations for what constitutes mitigation in sentencing.
Smith v. Texas (2004) - Kennedy
- States that the relevance of mitigating evidence is established and that courts must enable juries to consider such evidence properly.
Mills v. Maryland (1988) - Blackmun
- Highlights that barriers preventing the consideration of mitigating evidence, whether by law or by a juror’s vote, are constitutionally problematic.
Walton v. Arizona (1990) - Scalia Concurrence
- Clarifies that the discretion previously deemed unconstitutional for imposing the death penalty is now regarded as constitutionally required to avoid rigid sentencing.
Walton v. Arizona (1990) - Scalia Concurrence
- Suggests inherent tensions exist between individualization in sentencing and ensuring constitutional safeguards in capital cases.
Walton v. Arizona (1990) - Stevens Dissent
- Warns that the potential for arbitrariness in capital sentencing persists even when narrowed to serious offenses, calling for careful consideration of individual circumstances.
Walton v. Arizona (1990) - Stevens Dissent
- Argues that discretion should be exercised in response to individual mitigating circumstances within a limited class of death-eligible offenses.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
