Capital Punishment, 1986

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Departmenl of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Capital Punishment, 1986 Seven States executed 18 p:risoners during 1986, bringing the total number Status 01 death penalty as 0112/31186 and 1986 executions of executions to 68 since 1976, the year that the United States Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. Those executed during 1986 had spent an average of 1 years and 2 months awaiting execution. During 1986, 291 prisoners were received under sentence of death from the courts. Sixty-rour persons had their death sentences vacated or commuted during the year, and 9 died while under a death sentence. At yearend, 32 States reported a total of 1,181 prison ers under sentence of death; all but 1 had been convicted of murder (an in mate admitted during 1986 for the cap ital rape of a child In Mississippi). The median time since the death sentence WaS imposed for the 1,781 prisoners was 40 months. About 2 in .1 offenders under sen tence of death for whom such informa tion Was available had a prior felony conviction; about 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction. About 2 in 5 con demned prisoners were in some criminal justice status at the time of the capital Jersey and Pennsylvania, more than offense. Half of these were on parole; 5%. Florida had the largest number of September 1987 the rest were in prison, on escape from condemned inmates (254), followed by prison, on probation, or had charges The capital punishment statistical Texas (236), California (176), Georgia pending against them. series has now completed 56 years (Ill), and lIlinois (101). of continuous Federal sponsor' The majority of those under sentence ship~ The series is designed to During 1986, 27 Slate prison systems of death (1,006) were white (56.596); provide detailed nalional infor received prisoners under sentence of 150 were black (42.1%); 16 were Ameri mation on lhose under des th death from the courts. Oregan re ean Indian (.996); and 9, Asian (.596). sen tences. This year-Is report ceived its first two inmates during 1986 With respect to ethnicity, 107 were contains special appendices on under a death penalty stn tute enacted clElSsified as liispanlc (6%). Eighteen of women and the death penalty and in December 1984. 'Texas (41 admis those under a dea th sentence were On Federal death penalty statutes sions), Florida {39 admissions), and female (I %). The median age was contained In the United States illinois (25 admissions) accounted for neBl'ly 32 years.' Code. The Bureau of Justiee more than a third of the inmates enter Statislics gralefuHy acknowledges ing prisons under a death sentence About 6296 of those under sentence the cooperation and participation during the year. of death were held by States in the of officials throughoulthe States South. Western States held an addi whose generous assistance makes The 1 B executions in 1986 were car tional 1796; Midwestern States, 15%; this reporting program possible. ried out by 7 States; there were 10 and the Northeastern States of New Sleven R. Schiesinger executions in Texas, J in Florida, and 1 Director each in Alabama, Georgia, North capital cases to present uany and all initial rejection of' the pecuniary gain Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. relevant mitigating evidence that Is circumstance did not constitute an ac Eleven of those executed were white availablen at the time of sentencing. quittal of that circumstance for double males, and 1 were black males. jeopardy purposes, and the State Turner v. Murray (decided April 30, Supreme Court's rejection of the cruel From the beginning of 1977 to the 1986) dealt with the question of poten and heinous circumstance at the first end of 1985, a total of 68 executions tial racial prejudice among jurors in review did not constitute an acquittal were carried out by 12 States. Over interracial capital crimes. The defend of the death penalty. The High Court the same period, 2,419 persons were ad ant, a black male, was indicted for the found that since a new trial was con mUted to prisons under sentence of robbery-murder of a white store propri ducted because the original conviction death, and 990 persons were removed etor in Virginia. During jury selection was nullified on appeal, no acquittal from the condemned population as a the defendant's request to question had occurred. and the double jeopardy result of dispositions other than exe prospective jurors on racial prejudice clause was not violated. cution (resentenclng, retrial, commu was denied by the trial judge, and the tation, or death occurring while defendant was subsequently convicted On May 5, 1986, the Supreme Court awaiting execution), and sentenced to death. The Supreme decided 00 Arkansas case not direc Uy Court reversed the ruling of the dealing with the death penalty but Capital punishment in the courts Virginia courts and concluded "that a having implications for juror selection defendant accused of an interracial in capital cases (Lockhart v. McCree). On January 22, 19B6, the Supreme capital crime is entitled to have pro The defendant, charged with a capital Court in cabana v. Bullock handed spective jurors informed of the victim1s felony murder, objected to juror selec down an important decision relating to race and questioned on the issue of tion procedures requiring that prospec the culpability of accomplices to capi racial bias. tl tive jurors who stated they could not tal murder~ In a previous decision, vote for a death penalty under any Enmund v. Florida (1982), the High On May 5, 1985, the Supreme Court circumstances be excluded (so-called Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment addressed the Issue of double jeopardy Witherspoon-excludables based upon the required that !lone .H who aids and wi th respect to aggravating circum 1968 ease of Witherspoon v. Illinois). abets a felony in the course of which a stances in Poland v. Arizona.. The case The defendant, though convicted and murder is committed by others" must involved 8 robbery-murder of two ar sentenced to life imprisonment, con be shown to have killed, attempted to mored car guards who were drowned by tended that a such 8 jury was more con kill, intended that a killing take place, the two defendants. At the Initial sen viction-prone than a jury drawn from a Or intended that iethal force be em tencing hearing the trial judge COn representatIve cross section of view ployed to impose a capital Sentence. cluded that the aggravating circum points from the community. Mississippi taw, by contrast, provided stance of murder for pecuniary gain for capital sentencing of accomplices only applied to contract murders and The High Court concludcd that exclu to capital murder whether or not the was not applicable in this case. He sions based upon shared attitudes intent to kill was demonstrated. then imposed the death penalty based toward the death penalty rather than upon another aggravating circumstance, shared characteristics (such as race or In cabana v. Bullock the Supreme murder 1n a cruel and helnous fashion. ethnicity) were not sufficient to prove Court concluded that the Mississippi On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court that an unbaJanced jury had been se judicial system needed to determine reversed the trial court's conviction, lected~ The Court noted the inherent clearly whether the Enmund criteria finding the evidence insufficient to difficul ties that would occur it juries were met. The Court also ruledt how support the cruel and heinous circum were requIred to represent a balance oC ever, that such a determination need stance. The court also Indicated that all possible viewpoints~ Rather, the not be made by the sentencing jury and the pecuniary gaIn circumstance was Court noted, the UConstitution presup that the Enmund criteria couid be eval not limited to contract murder. as had poses that a jury selected from 8 fair uBted by any appropriate tribunal- been concluded by the trial judge. cross section of the community is im appellate court, a trial judge, or a partial, regardless of the mix of indi jury. Mississippi subsequently adopted Upon re mand, the defendants were vidual vlewpoints actually represented a new statute that required the jury to again convicted of the murders; the on the jury, so long as the jurors can determine whether an accompHce actu trial judge found that both the pecu conscientiously and properly carry out ally killed, attempted to kill, or niary gain and cruel and heinous murder their sworn duty to apply the law to the intended to kill or use lethal force circumstances were present, and he sen facts of the particular case .. 11 (Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-19-1Ul(7)). tenced the defendants to death. The defendants appealed again on the In Ford v. Wainwright (decided June In Skipper v. South Carolina (decided grounds of double jeopardy. They con 26, 1985) the issue of the mental com April 29, 1986) the Court reversed and tended that they had been acquitted of petency of condemned prisoners prior remanded a case inVOlving the exclusion the death penalty because of the earlier to execution was considered by the of defense witnesses who would have finding by the Arizona Supreme Court High Court in a Florida case. The case offered mitigating evidence during the that there was insufficient evidence to dealt with a prisoner who was mentally sentencing phase of the trial~ The wit support a finding of a cruel and heinous competent at the time of the offense, neSSeS (two jail employees and a "regu circumstance.

Load more