NCJ Number
106864
Journal
Cornell Law Review Volume: 69 Issue: 6 Dated: (August 1984) Pages: 1129-1243
Date Published
1984
Length
115 pages
Annotation
An analysis of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to capital punishment focuses on the emergence of a system of guided discretion in capital sentencing and concludes that two of the most recent capital cases were wrongly decided.
Abstract
In the 1970's the Court held that capital punishment was compatible with the eighth amendment only if imposed through fair and reasonably consistent means. The Court recognized the need for discretion, but it insisted that statutory capital sentencing programs must direct and limit such discretion to prevent arbitrary, discriminatory, or excessive sentencing decisions, As a result, most States have enacted detailed statutory guidelines that limit sentencing discretion. They have also provided for direct appellate review of death sentences. The collateral review of Federal habeas corpus provides an additional way to detect errors that make a capital sentence unconstitutional. In recent cases, however, the Court has been willing to accept capital sentencing laws and appellate review procedures that compromise both fairness and consistency in imposing the death penalty. These decisions establish a disturbing trend for the future of capital punishment. 754 footnotes. (Author summary modified)