NCJ Number
133982
Journal
Boston College Law Review Volume: 31 Issue: 4 Dated: (July 1990) Pages: 901-966
Date Published
1990
Length
66 pages
Annotation
This note analyzes the recent development in the United States Supreme Court's eighth amendment jurisprudence, namely, its 1989 decisions which held that the execution of juvenile and mentally retarded offenders could proceed in light of the Court's prior cases concerning the cruel and unusual punishments clause.
Abstract
The discussion examines the evolution of the Court's approaches to defining the cruel and unusual punishments clause and additional approaches to the "evolving standards of decency" doctrine that members of the Court have argued are appropriate; presents the Court's application of the preceding approaches in the Thompson, Stanford, and Penry decisions; and analyzes the Court's approaches to eighth amendment interpretation in the death penalty contexts, most notably the historical, contemporary consensus, proportionality, and utilitarian excessiveness approaches. None of these approaches has adequately resolved the Court's problems in this area. Analyzing the Court's treatment of juvenile and mentally retarded offender executions, the note concludes that in these contexts the Court should adopt a compelling State interest/least restrictive means approach to determine the constitutionality of their sentences. 526 footnotes