by Jared Chamberlain

Created on: January 03, 2009

I would like to preface this essay by pointing out a fact that many may consider unusual: I have historically had no opinion on the death penalty. I have received comments before from people to whom I have told this that indicate their heightened level of disbelief at their discovery of that fact, and perhaps rightfully so. For someone who stands with firm conviction on one side or another of many controversial issues such as gun control, abortion, welfare, foreign policy, etc., it is strange that I would have no opinion concerning what is arguably the most divisive and emotional issue in contemporary American society, indeed, in most of Western civilization. In addition to addressing case law, expert opinion, and social science data, I hope to gain from this research and subsequent analysis, if not an opinion of my own, then at least a renewed sense of awareness of both sides of the capital punishment debate.

Deceased

In 1972, the case of Furman v. Georgia was brought before the Supreme Court. The landmark Furman case had an immense impact on the justice system of all the states that used the death penalty. The Court held, in a 5-4 vote with nine separate opinions, that capital cases could result in arbitrary punishment and therefore were "cruel and unusual," violating the Eight Amendment. This decision effectively stripped death penalty statutes in 40 states and commuted the sentences of 629 inmates nationwide (DPIC).

Resurrected

Because the opinions (all but two) handed down in Furman upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty itself and only struck down the statutes themselves, the door was left open for states to rewrite their statutes addressing these problems. In the Gregg decision in 1976, death penalty statutes in Florida, Texas, and Georgia were upheld, as was the constitutionality of the death penalty itself under the Eight Amendment. Sentencing guidelines were put into place in these revised statutes that allowed for the introduction of aggravating and mitigating factors to give the jury more narrowly tailored discretion in deciding sentencing. In addition to these guidelines, bifurcated trials were introduced, in which there are two separate trials; one to determine guilt and a separate one to determine sentencing. Another important addition to these statutes was the implementation of automatic appellate review of the conviction and sentence. The last reform introduced was that of proportionality review, whereby a state could identify and eliminate

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next Page >>