DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating Due Process Challenges to the Federal Death Penalty Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating Due Process Challenges to the Federal Death Penalty Act DePaul Law Review Volume 53 Issue 4 Summer 2004: Symposium - Race to Article 16 Execution Death Denies Due Process: Evaluating Due Process Challenges to the Federal Death Penalty Act Joshua Herman Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Joshua Herman, Death Denies Due Process: Evaluating Due Process Challenges to the Federal Death Penalty Act, 53 DePaul L. Rev. 1777 (2004) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol53/iss4/16 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEATH DENIES DUE PROCESS: EVALUATING DUE PROCESS CHALLENGES TO THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY ACT Who was it? A friend? A good man? Someone who sympathized? Someone who wanted to help? Was it one person only? Or was it mankind? Was help at hand? Were there arguments in his favor that had been overlooked? Of course there must be. Logic is doubtless unshakable, but it cannot withstand a man who wants to go on liv- ing. Where was the Judge whom he had never seen? Where was the high Court, to which he had never penetrated? He raised his hands and spread out all his fingers. 1 -Franz Kafka, The Trial INTRODUCTION In a three-month span in 2002, two district courts declared the Fed- eral Death Penalty Act (FDPA) unconstitutional. 2 United States v. Quinones3 and United States v. Fell4 each held that the FDPA fails to protect the due process rights of federal capital defendants. While the conclusions in Quinones and Fell are noteworthy, the cases are espe- cially significant because each used the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment 5 rather than the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. 6 Each case applied the Due Pro- cess Clause as "a guarantee of legality itself, legality not of the formal or superficial kind, but of the fundamental, inherent form."' 7 These decisions emphasize that the fundamental interests at stake in capital cases are individual human lives. Quinones and Fell both used the Due Process Clause, but each deci- sion presented a distinct analysis. Quinones, which preceded Fell, 1. FRANZ KAFKA, THE TRIAL 228 (Willa Muir & Edwin Muir trans., 1956) (1937). 2. Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591-3598 (2000). 3. United States v. Quinones, 196 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); United States v. Quinones, 205 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), rev'd, 313 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002). 4. United States v. Fell, 217 F. Supp. 2d 469 (D. Vt. 2002), rev'd United States v. Fell, 360 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2004). 5. U.S. CONST. amend. V (stating that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or prop- erty, without due process of law"). 6. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. 7. RODNEY L. Mor-r, DUE PROCESS OF LAW: A HISTORICAL AND ANALYTICAL TREATISE OF THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS FOLLOWED BY COURTS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE "LAW OF THE LAND" 604 (2d ed. 1973). 1777 1778 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 53:1777 used a substantive due process analysis when it considered the consti- tutionality of the FDPA in light of evidence that death penalty systems have failed to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.8 The compel- ling evidence before the Quinones court included over one hundred death row exonerees, some of whom came within hours of execution for crimes they did not commit.9 Fell applied a procedural due pro- cess analysis and examined the validity of the relaxed evidentiary standard at the FDPA sentencing hearing.10 Despite these distinct fo- cuses, an overriding concern for heightened reliability binds Quinones and Fell to each other and to the body of death penalty jurisprudence. By concluding that the FDPA condones lowered reliability,'1 Qui- nones and Fell provide substance to the language of death penalty ju- 2 risprudence that is too often aspirational rhetoric.' The discomfort with the current administration of the death penalty that Quinones and Fell voice does not exist in a vacuum. The etiology of that unease does not reveal a single source. Each decision is both emblematic and a product of the sea change that marks America's attitude toward the death penalty. The decisions do not, however, merely mirror public opinion polls or encapsulate a cause cdhlbre. Both opinions potentially represent significant legal developments in death penalty jurisprudence. This Comment submits that the Due Process Clause presents viable grounds for challenging the constitutionality of capital punishment. As Quinones and Fell show, a due process challenge has a flexibility that the traditional Eighth Amendment challenge lacks. Also, by fo- cusing on the individual rights at stake, due process challenges re- phrase the critical inquiry from institutional concerns to individual rights. This Comment first considers a broad range of perspectives in order to understand the context and implications of Quinones and 8. Quinones, 205 F. Supp. 2d at 257. 9. Id. at 265. 10. Fell, 217 F. Supp. 2d at 490-91. 11. Quinones, 205 F. Supp. 2d at 268; Fell, 217 F. Supp. 2d at 491. 12. See Adam Thurschwell, Federal Courts, the Death Penalty, and the Due Process Clause: The OriginalUnderstanding of the "Heightened Reliability" of Capital Trials, 14 FED. SENT. R. 14 (2001). Thurschwell notes that the Supreme Court's admonishments for heightened reliability and increased accuracy in capital cases have for the most part remained mere rhetoric, as the special protections theoretically afforded to capital defendants under the Eighth Amendment have turned out to be almost valueless in practice. The tendency among academics and defense lawyers has been to bewail this phenomenon as judicial hypocrisy. Whatever the merits of that view as a matter of individual judicial psychology or politics, it has deeper roots in an underlying conceptual weakness in the Court's attempt to use the Eighth Amendment as the primary vehicle for guaranteeing the heightened reliability of capital procedures. Id. at 15 (footnote omitted). 2004] DEATH DENIES DUE PROCESS 1779 Fell. Subpart II(A) discusses current attitudes toward the death pen- alty.1 3 That section surveys how the general public and federal and state legislatures have reacted to the increasing evidence of the rates of error, indications of racial bias, and other important issues involv- ing capital punishment. Subpart 11(B) discusses wrongful convictions and the studies that attempt to discover why they occur. 14 In subpart II(C), the focus switches to the United States Supreme Court's position on the death penalty, which includes a brief summary of the seminal cases and more recent decisions.15 Current and developing attitudes toward capital punishment and the Supreme Court's stance on the issue cre- ate the conflict that surges through Quinones and Fell. After intro- ducing this conflict, subpart II(D) discusses the FDPA by providing a general outline of that statute's history, an explanation of its critical 1 provisions, and a brief sample of cases interpreting it. 6 After discuss- ing the FDPA, Quinones17 and Fell18 are examined. Subpart III(A) discusses briefly the role of the Due Process Clause in capital punishment jurisprudence.1 9 That section shows that the Due Process Clause is available for challenging death sentences, but it has historically been used in a relatively limited capacity. Subpart III(B) then turns to Quinones.20 The central topics of this analysis include: identifying the underlying concerns that motivated the deci- sions, examining the Supreme Court's position on the role of inno- cence in capital cases as represented in Herrera v. Collins,21 answering why the district court applied the Due Process Clause instead of the Eighth Amendment, and discussing how the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred by misreading Herrera and fail- ing to address the district court's due process analysis. Subpart III(C) discusses Fell.22 Similar to the Quinones analysis, the discussion of Fell examines the issues that motivated the district court to hold the FDPA unconstitutional. That section discusses the role of the "ele- ments rule" that Apprendi v. New Jersey2 3 announced and Ring v. Ari- 13. See infra notes 28-90 and accompanying text. 14. See infra notes 91-133 and accompanying text. 15. See infra notes 134-179 and accompanying text. 16. See infra notes 180-239 and accompanying text. 17. See infra notes 240-326 and accompanying text. 18. See infra notes 327-381 and accompanying text. 19. See infra notes 384-422 and accompanying text. 20. See infra notes 423-583 and accompanying text. 21. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). 22. See infra notes 584-766 and accompanying text. 23. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 1780 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 53:1777 zona2 4 extended to capital cases. Subpart III(C) contends that the Second Circuit erred when it reversed Fell because it did not view the FDPA sentencing hearing as a distinct trial and also because it con- strued the requirement for heightened reliability in a manner that threatens the reliability of federal capital sentencing hearings. Sub- part III(C) also submits that the rules of evidence should be applied unilaterally to the Government at the sentencing stage, which would increase the reliability of evidence at sentencing and also enable the sentencer to make individualized sentencing determinations. 25 Part IV discusses the impact of Quinones and Fell.26 That section evaluates the importance of the due process analyses applied in Quinones and Fell.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building a Secure Workforce
    Federal Government Services Building a Secure Workforce Guard against insider threat Michael G. Gelles David L. Brant Brian Geffert Building a Secure Workforce Guard Against Insider Threat Table of Contents Introduction 1 Asset Loss and Insider Threat Defined 2 Other Potential Results of Asset Loss Caused by Insider Threats 3 Understanding the Insider Threat 4 Summary of Findings: Insider Threat 4 Risk Indicators and Characteristics 5 Competing Loyalties 5 Risk of Increased Computing and Networking 6 Risk of Public Information in Private Hands 6 Mitigating Asset Loss: A Series of Interventions and Action Plans 7 Establishing a Workforce Culture to Mitigate Risk 7 The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) a Tactical Mitigation Strategy 8 The Workforce as a Monitor: “Operationalizing” Security Awareness Training 8 Leveraging Human Resources as a Risk Mitigator 9 Risk Management Through Information Access Management 9 Case Reviews 10 Project Initiation 10 Establish a Baseline: The “As-Is State” 10 Case Sampling and Methodology for Review 10 Conduct a Gap Analysis and Profile the “To-Be State” 10 Recommendations for Future Study and Change 11 Appendix A 12 Enterprise Risk Framework and the Insider Threat 12 Risk Equation 13 Appendix B 14 Information Management Framework and the Insider Threat 14 References 16 Contacts 17 i Building a Secure Workforce Guard Against Insider Threat Introduction In today’s evolving and changing global environment, business in the public sector is increasingly more challenging. There is an ongoing need to adapt a more balanced and integrated approach to protecting information and other assets. As the world becomes a virtual community of competitors and predators, an organization’s assets are at greater risk than in the past, when the world was more localized, compartmentalized, and siloed.
    [Show full text]
  • National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012
    Description of document: National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Work Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012 Requested date: 25-May-2012 Released date: 29-September-2017 Posted date: 16-October-2017 Source of document: FOIA Request National Reconnaissance Office OCIO/Information Review and Release Group 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715 Fax: 703-227-9198 Online FOIA Request Form Email: [email protected] The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715 29 September 2017 REF: FOIA Case F12-0103 This is in response to your request dated 25 May 2012 and received in the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) on 5 June 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • American Intelligence Journal Vol 34
    AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE JOURNAL THE MAGAZINE FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS The Cyber Threat: The Future of Intelligence in a Wired World __NMIF__________________________ Vol. 34, No. 1, 2017 American THE MAGAZINE FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS Intelligence Journal Vol. 34, No. 1 2017 ISSN 0883-072X NMIF Board of Directors LTG (USA, Ret) Mary A. Legere, Chair Col (USAF, Ret) John Clark, President Col (USAF, Ret) William Arnold, Vice President Col (USAF, Ret) Michael Grebb, Treasurer Col (USAF, Ret) Carla Bass, Director LTC (USA, Ret) Steve Iwicki, Director Mr. Don Bolser, Director Dr. (Col, USAF, Ret) Eva S. Jenkins CDR (USNR, Ret) Calland Carnes, Director Capt (USNR, Ret) Stephanie Leung, Director Mr. Dennis DeMolet, Director Kel McClanahan, Esq., Director Lt Col (USAF, Ret) James Eden, Director Brad Moss, Esq., Director COL (USA, Ret) Michael Ferguson, Director Capt (USNR) Rick Myllenbeck, Director Col (USAF, Ret) Owen Greenblatt CDR (USNR) Louis Tucker, Director COL (USA, Ret) David Hale, Director COL (USA, Ret) Gerald York, Director Editor - COL (USA, Ret) William C. Spracher, Ed.D. Production Manager - Ms. Debra Hamby-Davis Brig Gen (USAF, Ret) Scott Bethel, Director Emeritus Dr. Forrest R. Frank, Director Emeritus MajGen (USMC, Ret) Michael Ennis, Director Emeritus LTG (USA, Ret) Patrick M. Hughes, Director Emeritus Col (USAF, Ret) William Huntington, Director Emeritus The American Intelligence Journal (AIJ) is published by the National Military Intelligence Foundation (NMIF), a non-profit, non-political foundation supporting American intelligence professionals and the U.S. Intelligence Community, primarily through educational means. NMIF believes in the power of the intelligence mission to inspire young people to join the intelligence profession as a career of service to the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty a Reminder of Criminals
    Death Penalty A Reminder Of Criminals Ulrick never reaps any locoed unionize sempre, is Zared pacifist and gasping enough? Expectorant Kris never interring so iambically or spy any tormentor contrariwise. Sinclare synonymize shrinkingly. Section three federal grand jury decision to commute a reminder of death penalty has been convicted of murdering a posthumous pardon. While other officers stood by complicit is a chilling reminder that the racial terror. Justice Breyer argues the red penalty isn't just aggravate it's. On death penalty, makes little less democratic, we are palatable to remind criminals. Ann did not deserve that why experience. Just specifically undermine any potential to the death penalty is in another girl because federal and a death penalty may be. Did not death penalty, but have adopted lethal protection of criminal code for any noise as habeas corpus. Much attention to death penalty for those on his confinement, one another issue and news reporters that? For criminal justice of penalty should india is innocent life? The Capital Punishment Exception A criminal for JStor. Victor Feguer was put on death in Iowa by hanging at the dusk of 2 He was sentenced to fry for kidnapping and murder since his evening meal Feguer requested a single olive with the sale in it. Hegel deserves severe crimes are death penalty of a criminals in. Why i suggest about criminal himself is death penalty no resistance to. Chuck Rosenthal, who was notoriously inclined to seek the solitary penalty whenever he on he could that it. Beijing has fallen out. There are often been matched up murder do and controlling a reminder of death penalty a smoked.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦
    Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process Carolina Academic Press Law Casebook Series Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Cornell Law School Raj K. Bhala The George Washington University Law School John C. Coffee, Jr. Columbia University School of Law Randall Coyne University of Oklahoma Law Center John S. Dzienkowski University of Texas School of Law Paul Finkelman University of Tulsa College of Law Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Thomas G. Krattenmaker Director of Research Federal Communications Commission Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Michael P. Scharf New England School of Law Peter M. Shane Dean, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Emily L. Sherwin University of San Diego School of Law John F. Sutton, Jr. University of Texas School of Law David B. Wexler University of Arizona College of Law Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process Second Edition Randall Coyne Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Lyn Entzeroth Law Clerk to Federal Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina Copyright © 2001 by Randall Coyne and Lyn Entzeroth All Rights Reserved. ISBN: 0-89089-726-3 LCCN: 2001092360 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 Summary Table of Contents Table of Contents ix Table of Cases xxiii Table of Prisoners xxix List of Web Addresses xxxiii Preface to the Second Edition xxxv Preface to First Edition xxxvii Acknowledgments xxxix Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Federal Death Penalty
    Copyright (c) 2000 Ohio Northern University Law Review Ohio Northern University Law Review 2000 26 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 529 LENGTH: 22970 words THE TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM THE ULTIMATE PENALTY: A MULTIFARIOUS LOOK AT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: The Future of the Federal Death Penalty NAME: Rory K. Little* BIO: * Professor of Law, Hastings College of the Law, U.C., [email protected]. Special thanks to Dean Victor Streib of Ohio Northern University Law School, for encouraging me to deliver this paper at his beautiful school in March 2000, to Richard Dieter for saving me from some errors, and to the patient staff of the ONU Law Review. Thanks also to Stephen Brundage, Hastings Class of 2000, and Dan Pollack, Class of 2002, for fast and accurate research assistance, and to Suzanne Menne and Daniel Joy for high- speed clerical assistance. This Article was finalized in August 2000, and thus may not comprehend significant subsequent developments. SUMMARY: ... One of the many threads comprising the recent past and likely future of the federal death penalty is the story of Juan Raul Garza. ... Thus, an unusual convergence of diverse political camps may now combine to question the federal death penalty: an uneasy alliance between opponents of federal capital punishment and those opposed to the phenomena known as "federalization" of crime. ... Political and legislative avenues of attack are likely the most hopeful course for opponents of the federal death penalty because the Supreme Court implicitly approved the legality of the statutory structure in 1999, when it affirmed, albeit 5- 4, the death sentence in the first federal capital case to be argued before the Court in over fifty years, Jones v.
    [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]
  • Australian Law Reform Commission
    Keeping Secrets REPORT The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information REPORT 98 May 2004 © Commonwealth of Australia 2004 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601 or by email to [email protected]. ISBN 0-9750600-5-8 Commission Reference: ALRC 98 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996. The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by The SOS Printing Group (Australia) Pty Ltd The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Attorney-General of Australia Suite MF 21 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 31 May 2004 Dear Attorney-General, The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information On 2 April 2003, the Commission received a reference from the then Attorney- General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, pursuant to the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, to undertake a review of the handling and protection of classified and security sensitive information in legal proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 195 Spring 2008 ARTICLES BOOK REVIEWS Department of Army Pamphlet 27-100-195
    Volume 195 Spring 2008 ARTICLES TIME TO KILL: EUTHANIZING THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL OF MILITARY DEATH SENTENCES TO RESTORE FINALITY OF LEGAL REVIEW Major Joshua M. Toman THE SOLDIER AND THE STATE: WHETHER THE ABROGATION OF STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN USERRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL WAR POWERS Major Timothy M. Harner BY THE CONTENT OF CHARACTER: THE LIFE AND LEADERSHIP OF MAJOR GENERAL KENNETH D. GRAY (RET.) (1966–1997), THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICER Lieutenant Colonel George R. Smawley THE THIRTY-SIXTH KENNETH J. HODSON LECTURE ON CRIMINAL LAW Brigadier General Patrick P. Finnegan BOOK REVIEWS Department of Army Pamphlet 27-100-195 i MILITARY LAW REVIEW Volume 195 Spring 2008 CONTENTS ARTICLES Time to Kill: Euthanizing the Requirement for Presidential Approval of Military Death Sentences to Restore Finality of Legal Review Major Joshua M. Toman 1 The Soldier and the State: Whether the Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity in USERRA Enforcement Actions Is a Valid Exercise of the Congressional War Powers Major Timothy M. Harner 91 By the Content of Character: The Life and Leadership of Major General Kenneth D. Gray (Ret.) (1966–1997), The First African-American Judge Advocate General Officer Lieutenant Colonel George R. Smawley 128 The Thirty-Sixth Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture on Criminal Law Brigadier General Patrick P. Finnegan 190 BOOK REVIEWS The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 Reviewed by Major Jeffrey S. Thurnher 203 The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC Reviewed by Major Brian Harlan 211 i Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Jurisdiction and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty Clark Smith
    University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review 7-1-2015 Fair and Impartial? Military Jurisdiction and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty Clark Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umnsac Part of the Military, War and Peace Commons, and the National Security Commons Recommended Citation Clark Smith, Fair and Impartial? Military Jurisdiction and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty, 5 U. Miami Nat’l Security & Armed Conflict L. Rev. 1 (2015) Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umnsac/vol5/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review by an authorized administrator of Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fair and Impartial? Military Jurisdiction and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty Clark Smith* When thepunishment maybedeath, there are particular reasons to ensure that the menandwomen of the ArmedForces do not by reason of serving their countryreceive less protection than theConstitution provides for civilians.1 - John Paul Stevens Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 2 II. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE MILITARY.......................................... 6 A. Brief History.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Brennan and the Death Penalty
    California Western Law Review Volume 27 Number 2 A Focus on Justice Brennan Article 3 1991 "Death Stands Condemned:" Justice Brennan and the Death Penalty Jeffrey J. Pokorak Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Pokorak, Jeffrey J. (1991) ""Death Stands Condemned:" Justice Brennan and the Death Penalty," California Western Law Review: Vol. 27 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol27/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pokorak: "Death Stands Condemned:" Justice Brennan and the Death Penalty '[DEATH STANDS CONDEMNED:" JUSTICE BRENNAN AND THE DEATH PENALTY JEFFREY J. POKORAK" Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. -Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken INTRODUCTION Now that Justice William Brennan has retired from his position on the United States Supreme Court,1 his opinions may be examined with the advantage of hindsight. Justice Brennan was responsible for some of the most momentous decisions of his age in some of the most publicly debated constitutional areas. Freedom of the press,2 freedom of speech,3 voting rights,4 school desegrega- tion,s welfare rights for the poor,6 affirmative action,7 the application of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to criminal cases,8 the right to * Supervising Attorney for St.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States
    Changing Views on the Death Penalty in the United States Paper delivered in Beijing, China, October 7, 2007, at the Conference on Alternatives to the Death Penalty in U.S.A and China By Richard C. Dieter* Introduction The death penalty has been a firmly established institution in the United States since its inception. Dating back to the colonial period of the early 1600s, through the establishment of the United States under its present constitution in 1787, right through to the present day, the death penalty has been part of U.S. law and practice. During that time, there have been over 15,000 executions in the U.S. The period from 1900 to 1950 represented the most prolific use of the death penalty in our history for any comparable period of time.1 Executions were halted briefly between 1967 and 1977 as the U.S. Supreme Court considered and then ruled on the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Court held in 1972 that the existing practice of capital punishment was so arbitrary and unpredictable that it violated our constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.2 But states quickly revised their statutes, and some of these new laws met the Court's approval in 1976.3 Executions resumed and slowly rose to a level of almost 100 in one year. However, since the start of the new millennium in 2000, the death penalty has taken a very different course, and that change is the principal subject of this paper. To put these changes in perspective, it is helpful to review more closely the direction that capital punishment was heading in the U.S.
    [Show full text]