DOCSLIB.ORG

The Death Penalty in the Twenty-First Century

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Death Penalty in the Twenty-First Century CONFERENCE THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................... 240 I. Opening Remarks-Jamin Raskin ................. 242 II. The Death Penalty in the Twenty-First Century: Questions and Directions-IraP Robbins ........... 243 III. Blackmun's Dissent Has It Become the Majority Opinion?-Panelists............................ 246 IV. Keynote Address: Capital Punishment and the Criminal Justice System: Courts of Vengeance or Courts of Justice?-Stephen B. Bright ...................... 279 A. Pressures on Elected Judges in Capital Cases ..... 283 B. The Exercise of Discretion by Prosecutors ....... 286 C. The Lack of Adequate Representation for the Poor ................................... 287 D. Indifference to Racial Discrimination ........... 293 E. Challenges for the Twenty-First Century ......... 297 V. Contemporary Society and the Death Penalty-Panelists 299 VI. Race and the Death Penalty-Panelists ............. 318 VII. Appendix: Speakers and Panelists ................ 349 240 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 45:239 INTRODUCTION* The following pages contain excerpts from recent panel discussions held at The American University, Washington College of Law, sponsored by the Criminal Law Society (CLS). The theme of each event was the death penalty in the twenty-first century. As such a passionate and complex issue often does, the death penalty inevitably creates controversy. Through these panel discussions, CLS aimed to create a forum for an intellectual discussion about the facts and the impact of modem death penalty jurisprudence in the United States. The Washington College of Law officially recognized CLS in the spring of 1993. The idea for the organization was born out of an experience that its co-founders had when volunteering at the Depart- ment of Justice, Office for the Victims of Crime. The students attended a "homicide survivor's group" meeting with their supervisor and his wife,Jack and Trudi Collins. The purpose of the meeting was to join together family and friends of homicide victims for both support and the exchange of information. The survivors were not there to grieve for their lost ones; rather, they wanted to discuss their encounters with the criminal justice system. The survivors shared stories about the police, about how each had learned of the death of their lost one, and about arrested suspects. They told each other who to contact at the various prosecutors' offices and how to become part of the crime victims' fund. One family shared a story about how they appeared before the parole board and helped convince the board not to release the person convicted of killing their brother. Each survivor learned something new about the system. The students recognized the difficulty in organizing a group like the "homicide survivors group" and how little the average citizen knows about the criminal justice process. Guest lecturers and lawyers in the field attended each meeting to counsel the survivors about different aspects of the system. With this in mind, the students devised a plan to start an information- al group called the Criminal Law Society of the Washington College of Law. CLS' goal is to provide students with unique opportunities to interact with individuals, in academia and in the community, who are somehow affected by the criminal justice system. In CLS' first year, students researched and wrote editorial and informational pieces addressing contemporary problems in criminal * Written by Patricia L. Ragone andJ. Michael Williams, cofounders of the Criminal Law Society at The Washington College of Law and former members of The American University Law Radarw. 19951 DEATH PENALTY law in a monthly newsletter entitled "Malice Aforethought." Also, students hosted occasional guest speakers, which later developed into a weekly luncheon series with guest lecturers from local prosecutor, public defender, public interest and private practice organizations. Students participated in tours of the Lorton Prison Facility and the Oak Hill Detention Center; while still others accompanied local police officers on "ride-ons." On November 9, 1994, CLS sponsored a panel discussion on the highly controversial Racial Justice Act. Although the Act never made it through Congress, the problems and issues that it raised are ongoing and perhaps timeless. In addition to the other experts on the panel, two representatives from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) served on the panel and responded to numerous questions and concerns about the data compilation and statistical analysis used in the GAO's Report on Race and the Death Penalty. This was the first opportunity for the public to address the GAO directly about their findings. Excerpts from this panel discussion are presented below in Part VI, "Statistics and the Death Penalty: Is Race a Factor?" On March 23, 1995, CLS hosted a conference entitled, "The Death Penalty in the Twenty-First Century-Where Is It Going?" An all-day event consisting of four panels and a keynote address by Stephen Bright, Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, the conference brought together practitioners, professors, victims, journalists, public interest advocates, and students to debate some of the most controversial questions of the day. Recognizing that a purely technical discussion of death penalty jurisprudence would disregard important political, psychological, and emotional issues, CLS organized panels that debated the legal and political implications of the death penalty; the rights and responsibilities of the media with respect to broadcasting executions; and the effect of the death penalty on individuals-from crime victims and their relatives to the average person on the street to potential criminals to convicted inmates on death row. In addition, Professor Bright provided an inspirational keynote address about current death penalty jurisprudence and its practical implications. Professor Bright's speech is reprinted in full in Part IV, "Capital Punishment and the Criminal Justice System: Courts of Vengeance or Justice." Two of the panels from this March conference are excerpted below. Part III discusses the effects of Justice Blackmun's dissent from the denial of certiorari in Callins v. Collins. As discussed in more detail in the panel discussions, Justice Blackmun changed his position on the THE AMERICAN UNrvERSiTY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 45:239 death penalty late in his career. In Callins, he encouraged the Court to grant the petition to vacate the death sentence and declare the death penalty unconstitutional. He was, however, unable to persuade the other members of the Court. Part V addresses contemporary society and the death penalty. Over one hundred students, faculty, professionals, journalists and others attended these panels. The American University Law Review" is publishing portions of these panel discussions so that an even broader audience may benefit from the important insights regarding the future of the death penalty in American society.*** CLS' success is the result of the extraordinary effort and dedication of past and present students at the Washington College of Law. CLS would be remiss if credit was not specifically extended to Professor Ira Robbins, who agreed at the outset to serve as CLS' advisor, and Associate Dean Jamin Raskin, the Student Bar Association, and the WCL administration for their continued support. I. OPENING REMARKS DEAN RASKIN: Today the Criminal Law Society at the Washington College of Law deals with an issue that is of pressing importance, and this conference comes not a moment too soon. Everyday, we read about the death penalty. It's been reinstated in New York.' It was a critical issue in the election of Governor Pataki in New York.2' We read yesterday that the United States Attorney in Washington has decided to seek the death penalty in a criminal case in the District of Columbia for the first time.' ** The participants and The Law Reiew staff made minor editorial changes when necessary for clarity. The Law Review staff also supplied the citations. *** Questions or comments about the death penalty transcripts or the Criminal Law Society may be addressed to: Criminal Law Society The American University Washington College of Law 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20016 1. SeeAct of Mar. 7, 1995, ch. 1, 1995 N.Y. Laws 1 (reinstating death penalty effective Sept. 1, 1995). 2. SeeJames Dao, Death Penalty in New York ReinstatedAfter 18 Years; Pataki SeesJusticeSewed, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 8, 1995, at A6 (indicating fulfillment of Governor Pataki's campaign goal to sign death penalty bill into law); Ellen Warren, Governor's Mansions to Take on Republican Decoration;Democrats Lose in N.Y., Texas, Pennsylvania, CHi. TRiB., Nov. 9, 1994, at 23 (comment- ing that Governor Pataki's platform was largely based on reinstatement of death penalty). 3. SeeToni Locy, U.S. to Seek Death in D.C. Case; ProsecutorAccedes to Reno's Decision in Officer's Slaying, WASH. POST, Mar. 21, 1995, at Al (stating that, if convicted, defendant accused of murdering police officer would be first person to be executed in Washington, D.C. since 1957). 1995] DEATH PENALTY This conference could not be more timely. We have the best experts in the country here to discuss not just the law of the death penalty, but the politics, the media, and what the death penalty means in society. I would like to now introduce my esteemed colleague, Ira Robbins, who will give a brief opening address this morning. II. THE DEATH
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Officials Back $39 Board Increase by VIVIAN B
    'Inside Today The Commission On Higher The student government votes The long-awaited report on the The Hartford Times goes out U.S.Sen Lowell Weicker, Education recommends that the today on whether to sent its possible health hazards of of business after 159 years, R.-Conn.. campaigns at UConn. legislature cut about $300,000 chairman to a convention in dormitory roof tarring is not leaving about 450 persons with- Stories and picture page 6. from UConn's 1977-78 budget. Kansas City, Mo. at a cost of satisfactory and another report out jobs. Story page 5. Story page 4. ■ $330 Story page 4. is ordered. Story page 5. tihmttttttntt lathj (Eamtma Serving Storrs Since 1896 VOL. LXXX NO. 33 STORRS. CONNECTICUT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976 Officials back $39 board increase By VIVIAN B. MARTIN • said Wednesday the the fee hike was set ed in arriving at the increase proposal. possible to cut another part of the A $39 per semester increase for and recommended by a committee organ- Adams has called the $39 figure "a bare budget." he said. "If we really wanted to students eating in University-run dining ized to review the fees. The recommend- bones minimum." take risks, we could deplete the reserve halls has been initially endorsed by the ed fee is tentative, and may be increased "The people involved with the fee fund, but that's not too expedient." he administration, UConn officials said or decreased. Wiggins said. review have worked out the budget and said. Wednesday. Students in dining halls currently pay all the explanations for increases." 'I know students are going to gripe, but Leonard Hodgson, director of food $335 a semester.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment As a System*
    Capital Punishment as a System* Jack Greenberg t The contemporary debate over capital punishment has been conducted principally in terms of whether it is an effective deterrent,' appropriately retributive, 2 racially discriminatory,3 arbitrary,4 or inevitably prone to er- ror.' In support of their positions, the contending sides have offered statis- tical and anecdotal arguments on deterrence, racial discrimination, and arbitrariness, as well as value judgments concerning whether the death penalty is, on the one hand, properly retributive or, on the other, morally acceptable. But, as the debate has proceeded over the past fifteen years, courts have imposed more than 2,000 capital sentences." The resulting pattern of decisions has introduced a new means of assessing the viability of the capital sentencing process. This Article explores the implications of this pattern of capital punish- ment decisions. It argues that the capital convicting and sentencing process has necessarily become extraordinarily careful to avoid executing those who are innocent or who deserve some sentence other than death. The substantial number of defendants sentenced to death who have subse- quently been found innocent, and the much greater number who have been convicted or sentenced in violation of law, demonstrate the need to employ such scrupulous care. Because of the large number of nullified convictions and sentences that have resulted from the exercise of such care, only one person has been executed against his will during the past fifteen years; three others have been executed because they refused to contest their convictions or sentences. Yet over 1000 death-sentenced prisoners are *The data in this article was assembled by Carol Palmer, a legal assistant at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who was assisted by Andrew J.
    [Show full text]
  • ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases ▪ February 2003
    American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Revised Edition February 2003 Copyright © 2003 American Bar Association All rights reserved. The materials herein may be reproduced, in whole or in part, provided that such use is for informational, non-commercial purposes only and any copy of the materials or portion thereof acknowledges original publication by the American Bar Association and includes the title of the publication, the name of the author, and the legend "Copyright 2003 American Bar Association. Reprinted by permission." Requests to reproduce materials in any other manner should be addressed to: Copyrights & Contracts Department, American Bar Association, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611; Phone: 312-988-6102; FAX: 312-988-6030; E-mail: [email protected]. Library of Congress Control Number: 2003104861 ISBN 1-59031-236-8 The commentary contained herein does not necessarily represent the official position of the American Bar Association. Only the text of the black-letter guidelines has been formally approved by the American Bar Association House of Delegates as official policy. The commentary, though unofficial, serves as a useful explanation of the black-letter guidelines. Joint Project of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants Chicago, Illinois www.abalegalservices.org And the American Bar Association Special Committee on Death Penalty Representation Washington, D.C. www.abanet.org/deathpenalty Printed
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2014 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2014 (As of January 1, 2014) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,070 Race of Defendant: White 1,323 (43.09%) Black 1,284 (41.82%) Latino/Latina 388 (12.64%) Native American 30 (0.98%) Asian 44 (1.43%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,010 (98.05%) Female 60 (1.95%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 34 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 19 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland [see note below], Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut, Maryland and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced in each state remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Fall 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2012 or 2013 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocate-Vol 2-No 1-Entire Issue (12-1979)
    Advocate Vol. , No. 1 A bi-monthly oublication of the Office for Public Advocacy Dec. ,. 1979 ETHICS: QUANDARIES &TEXQUAGMIRES FITZGERALD BY: Vince Aprile Director for Professional Development Office for Public Advocacy The death of Terrence R. Fitzgerald in September of this year has left the Query: May a defense attorney ethi legal profession, in general, and his cally permit his client in a colleagues, in particular, with a pro criminal case in Kentucky to found sense of loss. It serves no enter a plea of guilty even purpose to question why he died, for though the defendant is even if answers were provided he either not willing or unable would still be gone. But we can to admit his guilt? reflect upon the incredible contribution to the practice of law that he made, "[WJhile most pleas of guilty consist of and remember for a moment the man we both a waiver of trial and an express knew. admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the Ma rti nda I e- Hubbell’s tells us that imposition of criminal penalty.1’ North "Tex" was born in 1939 and was Carolina V. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 awarded his LLB from the University S.Ct. 160, 167, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 of Kentucky School of Law in 1964. 1970. Furthermore, "fain individual For a long time I knew little more of accused of crime may voluntarily, his background, and most of what I knowingly, and understandably consent did learn came from sources other than to the imposition of a prison sentence Tex.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty James T
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 3 Article 8 1983 Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty James T. Lloyd Jr. University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation James T. Lloyd Jr., Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty, 17 U. Rich. L. Rev. 603 (1983). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol17/iss3/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. QUESTIONS SURROUNDING VIRGINIA'S DEATH PENALTY I. INTRODUCTION On August 10, 1982, Frank J. Coppola died in Virginia's electric chair. His was the fifth execution1 since the 1976 Supreme Court decision hold- ing that a punishment of death was not unconstitutional per se.2 In the Commonwealth of Virginia, Coppola's was the first execution in over a decade.3 Coppola sought to waive his right to counsel and further appeal, hoping to be allowed to die with "human dignity" on the set execution date.4 An initial stay of execution was overturned by the United States Supreme Court hours before expiration of the court order calling for his execution.5 The execution resurrected the debate on the purposes of capital pun- ishment and heightened public awareness of the many questions sur- rounding the death penalty. This comment briefly traces the evolution of the death penalty as we know it today, and examines constitutional chal- lenges to Virginia's capital punishment statutes in light of recent deci- sions in state and federal courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocate-Vol 1-No 5-Entire Issue (8-1979)
    Advocate‘Ilie Vol. 1, No. 5 A bi-monthly publication of the Office for Public Advocacy Aug.,1979 NOTE DEFENDER OF THEMONTHEDITORSPUBLIC The August Newsletter is the first to go to print since the premeditated killing f John Spenkelink by the State of Florida. It is appropriate then, to lead this issue with the following article by Robert Pittman which appeared in the St. Petersburg Times of July 1, 1979, and is reprinted here with permission. THE VALUE OF A DOG’S LIFE AND A HUMAN LIFE This death warrant was signed, not by Gov. Bob Graham, but by the presi dent of Floridians Against Executions FAE. Rick Receveur, the Public Defender of the month, can truly be described as "Whereas the state of Florida has "a legend in his own time." Rick embarked on a series of executions; began his amazing public defender and whereas citizens of the state in career as an intern in the Jefferson order to form valid opinions of execu County Public Defender’s Office for tions need to know about them; and three semesters during law school at whereas the governor has arranged a the University of Louisville. When he deliberate program to hide the reality graduated from law school in 1975, he of executions from the citizens in became a full time public defender. whose name they are performed; now, He has served with tremendous compe therefore, is issued this warrant tency and dedication. directing the public execution of one Mixed Breed Dog at 8 a.m., The word in the Hall of Justice in Wednesday, July 4, 1979, at Fourth Louisville is that when Rick is street and Central Avenue in the city appointed to defend someone the pro of St.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 22 | Issue 2 Article 15 1996 The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D. Bessler Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Bessler, John D. (1996) "The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 22: Iss. 2, Article 15. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol22/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Bessler: The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penal THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" AND MINNESOTA'S ANTI-DEATH PENALTY MOVEMENT, 1849-191 1t John D. Besslertt I. INTRODUCTION ........................... 578 II. THE MINNESOTA TERRITORY AND THE EARLY STATEHOOD YEARS, 1849-1867 ................. 583 A. A Public Execution on the Prairie ............ 583 B. Lynch Mobs and FrontierJustice ............. 586 C. Early Abolitionist Efforts and the Execution of Anne Bilansky .............................. 589 D. More Public Hangings .................... 599 III. THE EXECUTION MORATORIUM, 1868-1884 ........ 603 A. The 1868 Act .......................... 603 B. The Repeal of the 1868 Act ................. 608 IV. THE RESUMPTION OF HANGINGS IN MINNESOTA, 1885-1889 . .............................. 614 A. Daytime Executions ...................... 614 B. The Barrett Boys and the Beginning of the 1889 Legislative Session ...................... 616 V. THE PASSAGE OF THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" IN 1889 ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • WHY the DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED: Examining the Evidence
    WHY THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED: Examining the Evidence There are arguments for and against the death penalty, but most of those “for” begin to crumble once the data and the relevant facts are examined. The arguments against the death penalty, however, are supported by these same facts and data. Some of this information is presented below in very brief form. There are references attached and footnotes are being prepared as a separate document that go into more detail on some of the issues. In short, capital punishment should be abolished because: THE DEATH PENALTY IS EXTREMELY ARBITRARY: In the Furman decision declaring the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 Justice Stewart said that "these death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders … the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed” (Furman v Georgia, 1972, p. 34-35). The Gregg decision in 1976 was supposed to correct all of the problems addressed in Furman but it is clear that arbitrariness still exists in various forms and at different stages of the death penalty process. Geographic Arbitrariness - One form of arbitrariness is a function of geographic variations in the use of capital punishment. In examining where the death penalty has been used since its reinstatement in 1976 it might be surprising to realize that only 2% of the counties in the United States have accounted for most of the executions, and 85% of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process 00 Coyne 4E Final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page Ii
    00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page i Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page ii Carolina Academic Press Law Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Dean, Mercer University School of Law Raj Bhala University of Kansas School of Law Davison M. Douglas Dean, William and Mary Law School Paul Finkelman Albany Law School Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Kenneth L. Port William Mitchell College of Law H. Jefferson Powell The George Washington University Law School Michael P. Scharf Case Western Reserve University School of Law Peter M. Shane Michael E. Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page iii Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process fourth edition Randall Coyne Frank Elkouri and Edna Asper Elkouri Professor of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Lyn Entzeroth Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs University of Tulsa College of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page iv Copyright © 2012 Randall Coyne, Lyn Entzeroth All Rights Reserved ISBN: 978-1-59460-895-7 LCCN: 2012937426 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page v Summary of Contents Table of Cases xxiii Table of Prisoners xxix List of Web Addresses xxxv Preface to the Fourth Edition xxxvii Preface to the Third Edition xxxix Preface to the Second Edition xli Preface to the First Edition xliii Acknowledgments xlv Chapter 1 • The Great Debate Over Capital Punishment 3 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Capital Punishment Bad Policy?
    default slugline 5 Jul 2001 10:40 ISSUE Is Capital Punishment Bad Policy? YES: David Von Drehle, from “Miscarriage of Justice: Why the Death Penalty Doesn’t Work,” The Washington Post Magazine (Febru- ary 5, 1995) NO: Ernest van den Haag, from “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” Harvard Law Review (May 1986) ISSUE SUMMARY YES: David Von Drehle, a writer and the arts editor for the Washing- ton Post, examines specific capital punishment cases, statistics, and statements made by U.S. Supreme Court justices and prosecutors re- versing their support of the death penalty and concludes that capital punishment is bad policy. NO: Ernest van den Haag, a professor of jurisprudence and public policy (now retired), analyzes a number of objections to capital pun- ishment, ranging from its unfair distribution to its excessive costs and its brutal nature. He rejects claims that capital punishment is unfair and barbaric, and he maintains that the death penalty does deter criminals and is just retribution for terrible crimes. In 1968 only 38 percent of all Americans supported the death penalty for certain crimes. In 1972, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its deci- sion in Furman v. Georgia stating that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, many Americans were convinced that capital punishment was permanently abolished. After all, even though there were 500 inmates on death row at the time, there had been a steady decline in the number of executions in the United States: In the 1930s there were on average 152 executions per year; in 1962 there were 47 executions; and in 1966 there was 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Document
    States Fail to Meet Critical Need ofIndigent Defendants -continued from front page tied. At the july 31, 1985 hearing where dissatisfaction over last-minute stays of his September 5, 1985 execution date There has been no action, execution, and the burden that they in­ was set, Washington's trial counsel however, in terms of funding or flict upon judges. moved to have new counsel appointed actual recruitment in most "Death Professor Anthony G. Amsterdam to represent him in connection with any of New York University, a leading capi­ habeas corpus proceedings, and the mo­ Belt" states, with the exception of tal punishment theoretician, criticized tion was denied. This left him without an Florida. justice Powell for not recognizing that attorney to pursue post-conviction pro­ the system, described by Powell as "per­ ceedings on his behalf. By late August, missive" and one which "permits the his date with the executioner was only necessary expertise, or by overburdened now familiar abuse of process," serves a two weeks away and he had not yet be­ lawyers from public interest legal pro­ beneficial purpose to be balanced against gun either state or federal habeas corpus jects. Some are afforded no representa­ the cost of delay. Only two weeks be­ proceedings. tion at all. fore justice Powell's speech, the Su­ With the clock ticking, frantic ef­ Some state government officials feel preme Court heard argument in Barefoot forts were made by Marie Deans of the that to execute someone who does not v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). The Virginia Coalition on jails and Prisons, have an attorney would cause a "black NAACP Legal Defense Fund presented the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and eye" for their state.
    [Show full text]