NCJ Number
80402
Journal
Stanford Law Review Volume: 33 Issue: 1 Dated: (November 1980) Pages: 1-74
Date Published
1980
Length
74 pages
Annotation
This study demonstrates the utility of quantitative methods in identifying death sentences which violate the eighth amendment or State law in their comparative excessiveness.
Abstract
A death sentence is comparatively excessive when other defendants with similar characteristics generally receive sentences other than death for committing similar offenses in the same jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's death penalty cases have made comparative excessiveness an issue of constitutional importance. Because the excessiveness inquiry requires comparing the characteristics of large numbers of cases to identify which are similar, it lends itself to quanitative methods. A series of measures is proposed that can be used to analyze the comparative excessiveness of individual death sentences. Each measure focuses on a different aspect of the defendant's culpability. No one measure gives an unambiguous indication of the degree of comparative excessiveness; however, when viewed together, these measures do provide a reasonable basis for assessing the likelihood that other defendants who cannot be distinguished from any particular defendant whose death sentence is under scrutiny would receive the death penalty in that jurisdiction. Moreover, by analyzing in this manner all the death sentences imposed in a particular jurisdiction, a reasonably confident statement can be made about the extent to which that State's capital sentenceing system conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia. The strengths and weaknesses of alternative measure of excessiveness are evaluated, and steps that States should take to provide the data needed for quantitative analysis of the application of death sentences are described. A discussion of the use of multiple linear regression is appended, and 136 footnotes are listed. (Author summary modified)