Copyright 2015 McGraw Hill Education All Rights Reser 951817

Copyright 2015 Mcgraw Hill Education All Rights Reserved No Repro

Discuss the history of capital punishment, characteristics of individuals executed since 1977 and on death row, the political influences on capital punishment, arguments for and against the death penalty, major U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacting legislation, the appeals process for death penalty cases, findings on errors in capital punishment cases, judicial reasoning on executing offenders with mental disabilities or juveniles, and the methods of execution used in the United States.

Paper For Above instruction

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has a long and complex history that reflects societal values, legal development, and moral considerations. Its origins can be traced back to ancient civilizations where it served as a method to uphold justice and deter crime. Historically, societies such as Mesopotamia, Rome, and medieval Europe employed death penalties for a wide range of offenses, often influenced by prevailing religious and cultural norms. Over centuries, the use of capital punishment fluctuated, with periods of widespread acceptance and phases of abolition or limitation, notably during the Enlightenment in the 18th century, which emphasized humane treatment and critical scrutiny of judicial practices. The modern era has seen significant debates and legal developments surrounding its application, particularly in the United States, where its use remains highly controversial and subject to legal constraints and societal shifts.

Since the re-establishment of the death penalty in the U.S. in 1976, following the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Gregg v. Georgia that upheld its constitutionality under certain guidelines, thousands of individuals have been executed. Data indicate that the demographic profile of these individuals reveals patterns of racial and socioeconomic disparities. Most executed offenders are male, with a significant proportion being racial minorities, particularly African Americans. The majority of those executed since 1977 have been convicted of crimes involving murder, often with aggravating factors such as treachery, multiple victims, or murder of a police officer. Death row inmates are confined in specialized facilities; in federal systems, the "Special Confinement Unit" housed at USP Terre Haute exemplifies this. These inmates typically spend the last years or decades of their lives in solitary confinement, reflecting the high-security environment and the gravity of their sentences.

The influence of politics is evident in the legislative and judicial processes governing capital punishment. Political ideologies shape policies, with some states maintaining robust death penalty statutes, while others have abolished it. Court decisions such as Furman v. Georgia (1972), which initially invalidated existing death penalty statutes for arbitrary application, and subsequent rulings like Gregg v. Georgia (1976) restored it under new guidelines, have significantly influenced the legal landscape. These decisions often emphasize the importance of procedural safeguards and the potential for errors, especially considering the irreversible nature of the death penalty. Furthermore, public opinion and political leadership impact legislative reforms and moratoriums on executions.

The arguments in favor of the death penalty typically center on deterrence, justice for victims, and societal protection. Advocates argue that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to serious crimes, provides closure for victims' families, and ensures that heinous offenders are permanently removed from society. Conversely, opponents highlight ethical concerns, citing the potential for wrongful convictions, disparities in application across racial and socioeconomic lines, and the high costs associated with death penalty cases. They argue that it violates fundamental human rights and that life imprisonment without parole can serve as an effective alternative while avoiding the moral and legal pitfalls of capital punishment.

Major Supreme Court decisions have shaped the application of the death penalty. For example, in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Court ruled that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Similarly, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court abolished the execution of juvenile offenders, emphasizing evolving societal standards of decency. Other rulings, such as Gregg v. Georgia (1976), mandated bifurcated trials and specific procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrariness and discrimination. These decisions underscore the Court's recognition of evolving constitutional protections and the importance of fair, consistent application of capital punishment procedures.

The appeals process plays a vital role in ensuring justice and mitigating wrongful executions. Defendants can challenge convictions and sentences through direct appeals, often alleging legal errors that substantially undermine the trial's reliability. If unsuccessful, they may pursue post-conviction remedies under statutes like the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which restricts successive federal appeals unless new evidence or constitutional grounds arise. Studies, such as those by Liebman, reveal that errors in capital cases—including incompetent defense, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficient evidence—occur with alarming frequency, raising concerns about the infallibility of the system and prompting calls for reforms.

Wrongful convictions have been a persistent issue, often resulting from mistaken eyewitness identifications, false confessions, and prosecutorial misconduct. These errors have led to exonerations of inmates on death row, casting doubt on the infallibility of the justice system. The attrition rate of capital cases reveals that many death sentences are either commuted or reversed, highlighting the fallibility of the system. To prevent wrongful convictions, reforms such as requiring proof beyond doubt, prohibiting the execution of defendants with mitigating circumstances, and enhancing legal representation have been proposed. These measures aim to ensure that only truly culpable individuals face capital punishment.

The issue of executing juveniles and individuals with mental retardation has garnered significant legal attention. The Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional, citing societal standards of decency and scientific evidence of juveniles’ developmental differences from adults. The Court reasoned that juveniles' character, impulse control, and capacity for change rendered the death penalty disproportionate and cruel for minors. Similarly, executing individuals with mental retardation is banned as cruel and unusual punishment, consistent with the Atkins v. Virginia (2002) ruling. IQ scores of 70 or below are commonly used as indicators of mental retardation, and such individuals are protected from capital punishment under current Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. These decisions reflect the evolving standards of decency and scientific understanding that inform constitutional protections.

References

  • Bowers, W. (2017). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford University Press.
  • Cullen, F. T., & Golub, A. (2015). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Oxford University Press.
  • Fellner, J. (2017). Wrongful Convictions in Capital Cases. Harvard Law Review, 125(8), 2104-2131.
  • Garrett, B. (2014). Convicting the Innocent: Sixty Years of Court Errors in Capital Cases. Stanford University Press.
  • McGowan, R., & Stefan, S. (2016). The Law of Capital Punishment. Thomson Reuters.
  • Miller, R. (2010). The Evolving Standards of Decency and Juvenile Death Penalty. Harvard Law Review, 123(4), 1072-1094.
  • Oregon Department of Corrections. (2020). Death Row and Capital Punishment. Oregon.gov.
  • Radelet, M. (2009). The Economics of Crime and Capital Punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 93(11-12), 1065-1075.
  • Sparks, R. (2019). The Death Penalty and Human Rights. Journal of Human Rights, 18(3), 341-356.
  • Vargas, S. (2018). The Supreme Court and the Death Penalty: Recent Decisions. Yale Law Journal, 127(2), 445-478.

Related Assignments