Death Penalty in America Final

Can actual innocence be a claim for Federal habeas corpus relief after a murderer has exhausted all his procedural claims?

No. Federal Habeas Corpus is strictly from ineffective attorneys. However, if a person is truly innocent, one justice noted that it should be examined.

Can a state execute a mentally incompetent person (insane)?

No. If a defendant was insane at the time of the crime, he or she can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. An insane defendant may also be found not competent to stand trial. In such a case, the court would suspend the proceedings until the defendant regains competency, at which point the trial can resume. A death-sentenced inmate can be incompetent to be executed. The Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright (1986) that executing the insane is unconstitutional. Because an insane inmate does not understand the purpose of his or her punishment, executing such a person has no retributive or deterrent effect. However, if an inmate's mental competency has been restored, he or she can then be executed. Click here to read more about Mental Illness and the Death Penalty.

Has the Supreme Court been consistent in its rulings on victim impact evidence?

No. In booth v Maryland and south carolina v gathers, the court struck down the victim impact statement because of arbitrariness.

What does mitigation refer to? Are there any limits on mitigation?

The defendant can present as much mitigating evidence as he wants. A mitigating factor is "any other circumstance appropriate for consideration". A mitigating factor should take into account the criminal and the crime that is likely to reduce the charge or lessen his sentence. This is evidence presented at the sentencing trial to show why the defendant should not get the death penalty. The jury may consider any mitigating evidence a juror finds relevant. The jury is instructed to weight mitigating factors against the aggraating factors.

How does the long delay from sentencing to execution affect the death penalty? How can this be an argument against the death penalty? What suggestion did one of our authors suggest as a guideline?

The time between sentencing and execution has been steadily increasing since the Gregg decision. 2005 data shows 12 years spent on death row. This is due to lengthy appeals, etc. Death row inmates experience mental anguish and pain while on death row. If a defendant spends an inordinate amount of time on death row, it violations the eighth amendment. Confined to their cells, no outside time. It might be worthwhile to examine why the defendant has been on death row so long. Defendant must prove cruel and unusual. An inordinate delay claim should be reviewed after the inmate has been under a sentence of death for twice as long as the national average of time spent on death row by other executed inmates.

What do we know about juveniles with LWOP sentences?

They must have committed a homicide. There are approximately 2300 serving LWOP. 59% were first time offenders. 26% convicted of felony murder. Nearly half experienced physical abuse. 20% of juvenile lifers victims of sexual abuse. 1/3 raised in public housing. 2 in 5 enrolled in special ed. Less than half were attending school. 84% had been suspended or expelled at some point.

What is a virtual life sentence?

A virtual life sentence is a sentence of 50 years of more.

What is problematic about aggravating factors that are used to decide if a person is eligible for the death penalty?

Aggravating factors are so extensive that most murders can be considered for the death penalty. Jurors are often confused about their instructions. 44% of jurors thought that the death penalty was required if the defendant's conduct was heinous, vile or depraved.

What has the supreme court ruled about juveniles and the mentally retarded and the death penalty?

Cannot execute mentally retarded or juveniles under 18. Neither group has the mental capacity to understand their crime.

How do pollsters and researchers measure death penalty opinion?

Death penalty has been measured with a simple yes/no question, presenting the options (i.e., which do you think is better death penalty or LWOP), or LWOP for tsarnave). Additionally, it can be measured by its usage (applied too much, morally justified, reasons for favoring the death penalty)

What does death qualification mean? How does this affect capital cases?

Death qualification means that the jurors have been screened and that no opponents of the death penalty are on the jury. If it is a slight problem with the death penalty, they may still serve on the jury if it does not impair his duties. Death qualification juries are more conviction prone. This is an unrepresentative jury.

Do doctors and psychologists think they should treat mentally incompetent (insane) persons so as to prepare them for execution?

Doctors and psychologists believe that participation in capital punishment is antithetical to their professional obligation. It ultimately matters is if the assistance diminishes the immediate suffering of the patient. A doctor should not treat a prisoner for the purpose of restoring competence to be executed. However, a balance must be achieved against the overall mental state of the prisoner.

Why did the Supreme Court rule the death penalty unconstitutional in the Furman case?

Furman V Georgia established that the death penalty was a violation of the 8th amendment. It was considered cruel and unusual punishment. It was arbitrarily applied to minorities and the poor. "If a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment iolations the command of the clause that the state may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes. What was once a common punishment is now rare. It is being inflicted arbitrarily. Four justices found it not unconstitutional per se, two said the opposite. three justices agreed that the statutes of furman were invalid but didn't state if capital punishment was.

Are there any inaccuracices in how and what jurors think that can and do affect their decisions?

Future dangerousness is a huge issue with juries. In simmons, v south carolina due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible. A prosecutor had argued that escapes, clemency etc might release a prisoner. Only 10 states have an instruction for what LWOP really is regarding parole ineligibility. Jury predictions about future danger are inaccurate 80-90% of time. Juries underestimate the time in prison, which causes them to lean toward the death penalty. Then future danger is 2nd most important factor. 3rd most important factor is the shorter time the jury THINKS the defendant will stay in jail, the more likely they will vote for the death penalty. Think furman murderers: only 1 committed a new murder out of 188. 20 committed a felony.

What was the remedy for the problems noted in Furman? In other words, how did the states address the problems noted in Furman?

In Gregg V Georgia, the Supreme Court approved the death penalty if it had a bifuricated procedure (i.e., a guilt phase followed by a sentencing phase), aggravating factors, and proportionality review (an appellate review to consider whether similar cases were getting the death penalty). In this case, the aggravating circumstances (that had to be true beyond a reasonable doubt) were (1) that the offender of murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of two other capital felones, to-wit the armed robbery of Simmons and Moore. Two that the offender committed the offense of murder for the pupose of receiving money and the automobile described in the diictment. or three. the offense of murder was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman in that they involved the depraity of the mind of the defendant. The jury is required to review any mitigating circumstances or aggravating cirumcstances otherwise authorized by law. Before a convicted defendant can be sentenced to death he must be found to have one of 10 aggravating factors. The jury has to consider the crime and the criminal. Was another capital felony present? was it heinous or endanger many person's? prior record? special facts that mitigate?

What are arguments against the ruling and reasoning of the majority opinions in those Supreme Court cases?

In a 2005 decision called Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the execution of people who were under 18 at the time of their crimes violates the federal constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments. The Roper opinion drew upon a 2002 decision by the Court holding that the execution of persons with mental retardation is unconstitutional: in both decisions, the Court reasoned that these special groups of offenders are less culpable than adult offenders with no intellectual impairment who committed the same crimes. The Court also examined the number of state legislatures that did and did not authorize the punishment of death for persons under 18; it found that a substantial number of death-penalty states had recently acted to exempt juveniles from capital punishment, and it viewed this movement as evidence of an "emerging national consensus" against the execution of juvenile offenders. Juveniles lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences, the character or a juvenile is not well developed. Dissenters said that some 17 years old were capable of being charged. Justice said ropers thought he could get away with it. therefore deterrence can work for juveniles.

What has the Supreme Court ruled about life without parole for juveniles? Has the Court abolished LWOP for juveniles?

Juveniles can be given life without parole. However they cannot be given it as part of a mandatory sentence. Additionally judges must account for the unique circumstances for each case.

What are some arguments against the position that race contaminates the death penalty process (e.g., van den Haag, Katz)?

Katz states that black defendant-white victim murder typically involves robbery and accounts for the racial disparity in sentencing. Essentially, Katz belives that there are real differences in the kinds of murders committed by blacks and whites and against black victims and white victims. Katz thinks that it is legitimate to sentence blacks to die because they tend to kill in the course of an armed robbery. Therefore, the murder being committed in the course of a felony is exceptionally important. an den haag thinks that the laws and procedures that distribute the death penalty should be changed. He believes that those opposing the death penalty oppose the penalty itself, not the maldistribution. Overall, dan den haag supports the death penalty in very controversial ways.

What are the statistics on life sentences?

LWOP is 53000+. LWP 108k+ Virtual life 44k+ 48.3% of prisoners are black.

What is problematic with mitigating evidence?

Mitigating evidence itself makes the death penalty arbitrary. Juries do not understand mitigating factors. Alcohol and drug use are considered aggravating factors and increase the severity of sentencing. However, residual doubt, retardation, and mental illness were persuasive mitigators. Jurors did not think that mitigating factors excused the crime and therefore should not be considered. Some jurors think that mitigating factors can only be considered if all jurors agree that it is a proper mitigating factor.

What has the research on jurors in death penalty cases shown? For example, what are the race issues about capital case jurors and juries?

Most juries in black defendant white victim cases are white males with an astounding lack of black males present on the jury. If a black male is present on the jury, the chance of a death sentence being imposed drops SIGNIFICANTLY.

What do over and under inclusion refer to?

Overinclusion: Offenders that are "ordinary" or "run of the mill" qualify as having committed a truly horrible murder that merits the death penalty. This is because of the aggravating factor "atrocious heinous, vile" being so vague that almost any murder can apply. There is also no definition that states what is atrocious, heinous, vile so prosecutors and jurors can include less serious murderers as deserving the death penalty. Another factor is that many states have an exceptionally long list of aggravating factors that cover almost every available murder. Under-inclusion: Some murderers who deserve the death penalty do not get the death penalty. A serial killer might not get the death penalty if he agrees to share locations of bodies. A jury may also exercise leniency for some reason for a murderer who committed a truly horrible/brutal murder. Of course, this is supposed to be combated partially by proportionality review. This involves an appellate court examining all death sentences and comparing them to one another and to cases that do not get the death penalty. In practice though, they only match to see if it matches at least one other case. They are not doing a comprehensive review. Underinclusion: Factors of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and jury unanimity led to some deserving murderers not getting a death sentence.

What has the Supreme Court ruled about who can and cannot serve on capital case juries?

Potential jurors who have general objections to the death penalty or conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction cannot be excluded from juries in capital cases. He must be willing to examine all penalties of law. However a potential juror can be challenged for cause (can be stricken) if his views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath". A juror's bias is not required to be proven with unmistakable clarity.

Suggestions to modify the death penalty process or limit the death penalty to make it less objectionable

Reduce the amount of time necessary to assure just outcomes in capital trials and appeals. Invest resources in excellent lawyers, quick trials, and expeditious appeals. Think due process.

Is the death penalty torture? Explain why or why not?

The death penalty could be considered torture due to the mental anguish suffered while on death row. Additionally, the means utilized for the death penalty remain controversial.

What are the two major points of the Strickland case concerning the effectiveness of defense attorneys? Have recent cases changed the emphasis at all?

Stricklack requires that the defendant prove that counsel's representation was deficient and that it would affect the outcome of the trial. Ineffective assistance is only established when both things are proen. Williams v Taylor and Wiggins v Smith and Rompilla v Beard expanded on this. The court stated that a failure to conduct a thorough nvestigation of the client's background may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, in Rompilla, even if the counsel does not suggest mitigating evidence, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to acquire and review material that the prosecution will rely on as evidence of aggravation at the trial's sentencing phase. IE. Now the attorney has to be effective at both guilt and sentencing phase.

How effective are attorneys in capital cases?

Supreme Court has ruled that legal counsel must provide effective representation. However, many times the attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lack the trial experience. Many attorneys in capital cases are incompetent, ineffective, inexperienced.. Do not go the extra mile to put on a first class defense. Failed to bring out the mental status of clients or potential abuse. Legislators are not willing to pay for a truly adequate defense system.

What is the fundamental tension or contradiction or problem in the Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty? In other words, the Supreme Court wants trial courts to strive for two objectives that seem to be contradictory. What are those contradictory objectives?

That the punishment is not arbitrary or unequally applied. The Supreme Court wants it to not be cruel and unusual punishment. However, by its very nature, death is an "awesome punishment" that is truly unique. Death is final. It is truly a unique punishment that needs to be examined by itself. Some of the justices (scalia) think that the death penalty is legal and fine and dandy. The cruel and unusual was to ensure that barbaric means of execution were not used - not to dissuade the death penalty.

Should executions be televised?

Timothy McVeigh wanted his execution publicized. They would maximize the deterrent effect of capital punishment. However, viewing executions might make citizens more prone to violence. One author thinks that judges and jurors must be required to be the executioner. Jurors who oppose the death penalty cannot be excluded. Politically sensitive, elected state court judges cannot override verdicts and impose death sentences. Death penalty states must authorize LWOP. Finally, executions must be televied.

How does race affect the death penalty process?

When controlling for all variables, defendants in white victim cases are 4.3 times as likely to get the death penalty as defendants killing black victims. 11% death penalty in white victim cases. 22% in black defendant/ white victim. 80% of murder victims resulting in execution have been white. BUT whites only account for 50% of murder victims.

What are the findings concerning death penalty opinion?

White males support the death penalty more than any other group. It's about 50/50 on public opinion for the death penalty overall.

Does item wording make any difference in death penalty opinion? How so?

Yes. Given a particular case (boston bomber), a disproportionate amount recommended LWOP. Additionally, a smaller percentage support the death penalty when the question mentions LWOP.

Can victim impact evidence be used at death penalty sentencing hearing?

Yes. This was upheld by Payne Tennessee, in which a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase. Without the victim evidence, the jury may not have all the evidence to determine the proper punishment. Prior to payne, the imbalance existed. The defense could present any mitigating evidence. This evidence can result in an undeserving offender dying.