The Death Penalty: An Unusual Punishment America is Inflicting Upon Itself

The United States is the only Western, industrialized nation still executing criminal offenders. The Constitutional provision that is most often used to call the appropriateness of capital punishment in the United States into question is the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents of capital punishment have often argued various reasons why the death penalty is a cruel punishment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has not agreed. A new approach to abolition advocacy is needed. Since the death penalty has not been determined cruel, I submit a new legal argument based on the unusual nature of capital punishment. Utilizing systems theory, I posit the death penalty is an unusual criminal punishment due to the extraordinary range of persons beyond merely the defendant who are negatively impacted by executions.     

Reflections of an octogenarian on criminal law and criminology

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that capital punishment is not unconstitutional per se, in part because the high degree of public support for the death penalty indicates that the American public does not consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Court, the public's desire for retribution is an appropriate basis for determining that the death penalty is an acceptable criminal sanction. This paper examines the degree of public support for the death penalty and the basis for that support. It also explores the differences between retribution as just deserts and retribution as revenge, and concludes by asking whether a public desire for revenge is an appropriate, enlightened basis for our capital punishment policy.     

Deterrence and the Death Penalty: Partial Identification Analysis Using Repeated Cross Sections

Objectives

Researchers have used repeated cross sectional observations of homicide rates and sanctions to examine the deterrent effect of the adoption and implementation of death penalty statutes. The empirical literature, however, has failed to achieve consensus. A fundamental problem is that the outcomes of counterfactual policies are not observable. Hence, the data alone cannot identify the deterrent effect of capital punishment. This paper asks how research should proceed. We seek to make transparent how assumptions shape inference.

Methods

We study the identifying power of relatively weak assumptions restricting variation in treatment response across places and time. We perform empirical analysis using state-level data in the United States in 1975 and 1977.

Results

The results are findings of partial identification that bound the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Under the weakest restrictions, there is substantial ambiguity: we cannot rule out the possibility that having a death penalty statute substantially increases or decreases homicide. This ambiguity is reduced when we impose stronger assumptions, but inferences are sensitive to the maintained restrictions.

Conclusions

Imposing certain assumptions implies that adoption of a death penalty statute increases homicide, but other assumptions imply that the death penalty deters it. Thus, society at large can draw strong conclusions only if there is a consensus favoring particular assumptions. Without such a consensus, data on sanctions and murder rates cannot settle the debate about deterrence. However, data combined with weak assumptions can bound and focus the debate.     

Politics and the Death Penalty: 1930–2010

Recent theorists have argued that the use of the death penalty has been shaped by political considerations throughout history. However, empirical research has primarily examined this relationship in the last third of the twentieth century. In order to expand the temporal scope used to examine capital punishment practices, this study examines whether four post-Furman perspectives are able to account for the use of death sentences at the state level from 1930 to 2010. This study also examines whether the movement from the pre- to the post-Furman time period moderated the relationship between political factors and use of death sentences. The findings indicate that the size of religious fundamentalist populations, jurisdictional welfare expenditures, and surpluses in the labor force are significant predictors of death sentences across both eras. These results suggest that the predictive power of recent political theories is not restrained to the jurisdictional use of death sentences in the last third of the twentieth century.     

The 4 Ds of Forensic Mental Health Assessments of Personal Injury

The field of psychiatric/psychological injury and law concerns tort and other legal claims for injuries sustained in events at issue, such as in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), worker compensation, or the veteran affairs (VA). The 4 Ds refer to the requirement that legal action in these types of cases can proceed when there is a duty, the duty has been discharged with dereliction, the resultant act has caused directly tortious harm, and damages are applicable. In contrast, the related 4 Cs refer to the conditions of effective forensic testimony. The principles of forensic mental health assessment (FMHA; Heilbrun et al., 2009) underscore the scientific requirements in forensic assessments, as do the American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2013) forensic specialty guidelines. For example, Brodsky’s maxims for effective work in court (Brodsky & Gutheil, 2016) cover a broad spectrum of ethical and practice guidelines for the profession. Similarly, Young (2016 a, b, c) has specified the parameters of admissible evidence in court, functioning ethically for the court, and the need to be comprehensive, scientifically informed, and impartial in forensic mental health assessments. All these sources lead to an integrated set of the principles for effective and ethical practice in the forensic arena of mental health work, referred here as the 4 Ds for the field of psychiatric/psychological injury and law. These revised 4 D principles involve Dignity, Distance, Data, and Determinations.     

Abolishing the Death Penalty: An Untested Legal Argument

This paper supplies the logical and substantive framework for an untested challenge to the legality of the death penalty in the United States. As such, it yields a novel strategy for appellants and supporting amici seeking review of capital cases in the United States Supreme Court. With twin reliance on the right of the people to reparation for harm wrongly inflicted by others and their constitutional right to Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment, this paper advances the argument that the mere possibility of a wrongful execution yields an imperative for abolishment of capital punishment by the Court.     

Tinkering with the Machinery of Death: An Analysis of Juror Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials During Two Statutory Eras

The Texas death penalty statute originally approved by the United States Supreme Court in Jurek v. Texas (1976) was legislatively amended as a result of the Court’s decision in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989). The changes were intended to focus on increasing jurors’ ability to give mitigating effect to evidence in sentencing. Using data from the Capital Jury Project, we compared juror comprehension of sentencing guidelines, punishment responsibility, and deliberations in sentencing among a sample of 123 Texas jurors who deliberated under the Jurek and Penry statutes. In each area, we found that the amended statute failed to guide capital juror decision-making as intended.     

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

He Versus She: A Gender-Specific Analysis of Legal and Extralegal Effects on Pretrial Release for Felony Defendants

The current study sought to identify significant predictors of pretrial processing for both male and female defendants in an aggregate sample. The data used in this study were taken from the State Court Processing Statistics, 1990–2000: Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004 Bureau of Justice Statistics . ( 2004 ). State court processing statistics, 1990–2000: Felony defendants in large urban counties [ Computer file ]. Ann Arbor , MI : Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research . [Google Scholar]). The original sample included a total of 87,437 felony cases. The relationships between relevant independent variables and 5 separate dependent variables (denial of bail, non-financial release, amount of bail set, making bail, and pretrial incarceration) were analyzed using both multivariate regression and Z-score comparisons within gender-specific models. Findings suggest that the effects of certain independent variables on pretrial release decisions and outcomes are different between the gender-specific models.     

Introduction

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ belief that the Constitution calls for the principle of free thought—“not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate”—was severely tested when the father of a fallen Marine sued members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed near his son's funeral service. Consistent with its traditions and precedents, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-1 that the First Amendment protected church members’ offensive speech from tort liability. In ruling as it did, the Court properly chose to consider only the case elements it was presented, refused to create a new category of unprotected speech, and in turn eroded the reach of intentional infliction of emotional distress in speech-related cases.

“The Court is out of the business of creating new categories of unprotected speech. Get over it.” ¹ Kathleen Sullivan, attorney and former dean, Stanford University Law School, remarks at Communication Law in the Digital Age conference of the Practising Law Institute, New York (Nov. 10, 2011).      

Privacy in Commonwealth Caribbean law: emerging trends in the protection of sexual citizenship

This article will explore the three recent judgments of Jovil Williams and Jason Campbell v AG of St. Christopher and Nevis & Chief of Police;¹1 Suit No: NEVHC 2013/0120, Williams J, (Supreme Court of St. Kitts Nevis, 21st March 2016) (unreported).View all notes Caleb Orozco v AG of Belize²2 Claim No. 668 of 2010 (Supreme Court of Belize, 10th August, 2016) (unreported).View all notes and Therese Ho vs Lendl Simmons³3 High Court Claim CV.2014-01949 (Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, 26th October, 2015) (unreported) [32].View all notes which have broken new ground in constitutional law and the law of torts concerning the protection of (the right to) privacy. It is argued that these judgments hold substantial promise towards the making of a meaningful sexual citizenship in the Caribbean; a citizenship which protects the sexual autonomy of citizens and prevents or redresses the invasion or breach of these rights.     

The Admissibility of the R-PAS in Court

The admissibility of the Rorschach has been a concern of forensic psychologists for many years. The focus of this debate has been the Comprehensive System, which is the most researched of the current Rorschach Systems available in the USA. However, recently, a new, competing system has been published: the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS; Meyer et al., Rorschach Performance Assessment System: Administration, Coding, Interpretation, and Technical Manual, 2011). Using Heilbrun’s (Law and Human Behavior 16:257–272, 1992) guidelines as a framework, we examine the admissibility of this new system according to the standards outlined in Daubert (1993) and Frye (1923). We conclude that we have reservations about the admissibility of the R-PAS in court at the present time, notwithstanding ongoing work on this system.     

An evaluation of <Emphasis Type="Underline">Payton v. New York</Emphasis>

The Supreme Court decision in Payton v. New York (1980) is evaluated. In this cose, the. Court remanded to the trial level tribunal a case in which an arrest was made and evidence was seized without a warrant. The author discusses the case thoroughly and compares the decision to other cases which dealt with the warrantless arrest and seizure of evidence. The author questions if the Court is becoming “too technical” in its interpretation of the 4th Amendment and poses once again the perennial question; “Where is the line drawn between protecting the nights of society from criminals and protecting the rights of criminals from judicial interpretation?”     

The Supreme Court and the pledge of allegiance: a hollow victory

In Elk Grove Unified School District v Newdow (Elk Grove),1 124 S. Ct. 2301 (2004). View all notes the Supreme Court, in an 8–0 judgment,2 Justice Scalia chose not to participate in the outcome since he criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling before it reached the High Court. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 384 (Mem) (2003). See also Mark Walsh, Scalia: Courts go too far on Church State, Education Week, 22 January 2003, p. 22; Houston Chronicle, Justice decries courts removal of God, 13 January 2003, p. 5. View all notes with three concurrences, upheld the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. In light of the uproar caused by Elk Grove, this article is divided into three parts. After reviewing the history of the Pledge the second section examines the litigation involving the pledge, including Elk Grove in this regard. The article concludes with brief reflections on the meaning of Elk Grove.     

The triumph of vengeance over retribution: the United States Supreme Court and the death penalty

In this article the author uses a review of Welsh S. White'sThe Death Penalty in the Nineties as a framework for analyzing recent trends in the United States Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence. Since 1976 the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment at least in part on the notion that the death penalty serves the useful social purpose of retribution. This article, however, contends that it is imperative to distinguish between retribution and vengeance as rationales for criminal punishment. Modern retributive theory calls for punishments to be guided by considerations of proportionality, fairness, and equality. Vengeance-based punishments, on the other hand, are aimed at satisfying the victim's and society's desire for retaliation and are not limited by the retributive principle that punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The article analyzes recent Supreme Court decisions that are not examined inThe Death Penalty in the Nineties-decisions that allow the introduction of victim-impact evidence into capital sentencing proceedings and permit the death penalty to be imposed on 16-year-old offenders, mentally retarded defendants, and those who neither kill nor intend to kill. These decisions, it is argued, demonstrate that the contemporary Court has bestowed judicial approval on vengeance as an acceptable justification for capital punishment.     

An empirical examination of commutations and executions in post-Furman capital cases

A review of the literature on capital punishment reveals evidence that the death penalty was imposed capriciously in the past. Previous research on executive clemency in capital cases revealed similar forces in operation. In the voluminous literature surrounding capital punishment, however, relatively little contemporary empirical work focuses directly on the characteristics of the final clemency decision to commute or execute, especially post-Furman. In this paper I explore some of these elements and find that several extralegal factors, possibly including political motivation, still may play a role in this highly discretionary decision-making process.     

Preface: Hunting Wolves

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.

The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?1 ?1. William J. Bennett, ‘In a lecture to the United States Naval Academy’, November 24, 1997.      

Gender and Juvenile Drug Abuse: A General Strain Theory Perspective

This study is a partial test of Robert Agnew's (2006 Agnew , Robert. 2006 . “Pressured Into Crime: General Strain Theory.” Pp. 201 – 209 in Criminological Theory: Past to Present. , 3rd ed. , edited by F. T. Cullen and R. Agnew . Oxford , England : Oxford University Press . [Google Scholar]) general strain theory. The sample consists of 39,879 juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17 from a metropolitan area in Texas with more than 5 million people. Logistic regression is used to determine the effect of living situation on drug offenders, drug recidivists, and juvenile court case outcome when race, abuse, sex, and mental health problems are controlled. Gender-specific analysis is used to test L. Broidy and R. Agnew's (1997 Agnew , Robert and Timothy Brezina . 1997 . “Relational Problems With Peers, Gender, and Delinquency.” Youth & Society 84 – 111 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) hypothesis that girls and boys react differently to strain. Results show partial support for the influence of a strained living situation on drug offenders, drug recidivists, and case outcome. Support is found for the hypothesis that boys' and girls' experiences with strain differ.     

Kant with Freud: Derrida’s Analysis of the Ancient Dream of Self-Punishment

During his 2000–2001 seminar on the death penalty, Jacques Derrida argues that Kant is the most ‘rigorous’ philosophical proponent of the death penalty and, thus, the thinker who poses the most serious objections to the kind of philosophical abolitionism that Derrida is trying to develop in his seminar. For Kant, the death penalty is the logical result of the fundamental principle of criminal law, namely, talionic law or the right of retaliation as a principle of pure, disinterested reason. In this paper, I demonstrate how Derrida attempts to undermine Kant’s defence of the death penalty by demonstrating both its internal contradictions (the tenuous distinction between poena forensis, that is, punishment by a court, and poena naturalis, natural punishment) and its strange affinities with the law of primitive peoples (as understood by Freud in Totem and Taboo). I argue that Derrida’s repeated returns throughout the seminar to Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals suggest that Kant’s seemingly rational defence of the death penalty is ultimately motivated by interests that belie the supposed disinterestedness of modern law and by a notion of natural justice that at once subtends and subverts all criminal law.     

Movie review essay

While Paul McCold’s intent to clarify the compatibility of restorative justice and community justice conceptual frameworks is laudable, his effort provides as much confusion as clarity (McCold, 2004 McCold, P. (2004). Paradigm muddle: The threat to restorative justice posed by its merger with community justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 7: 13–35. [Taylor &; Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], this issue). This piece identifies some of the conflicts inherent in the roots of the development and growth of restorative justice. It also raises concerns regarding how restorative justice theoreticians and practitioners consider community, the role of strangers, empowerment, prevention, and punishment within restorative frameworks. The authors of this piece conclude that, while it remains important to safeguard the underlying principles of restorative justice, it is also necessary to remain open to new possibilities and to new ideas.