NCJ Number
43992
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1978) Pages: 7-17
Date Published
1978
Length
11 pages
Annotation
STANDARDS TO ASSURE THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN A SPECIFIC CASE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S REQUIREMENTS OF APPROPRIATENESS AND RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS ARE EXAMINED.
Abstract
IN 1976, THE SUPREME COURT DIRECTLY HELD FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DOES NOT ALWAYS VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT APPEARS PREPARED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE AWESOMENESS OF THE DECISION TO PUNISH BY KILLING GENERATES CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT DECISION IS MADE. IN ASSESSING THE UTILITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS IN ASSURING RELIABILITY IN THE DETERMINATION THAT DEATH IS THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT IN A SPECIFIC CASE, A PRELIMINARY STEP IS TO CONSIDER WHAT THE COURT MEANS BY 'APPROPRIATE' AND 'RELIABLY DETERMINED.' JUDICIAL OPINIONS SUGGEST CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: (1) WHETHER IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED, IN A MANNER DEEMED ADEQUATE FOR MAKING FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS IN CAPITAL CASES, THAT THE DEFENDANT FALLS INTO A CATEGORY FOR WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED EXECUTION AS A JUST DISPOSITION; (2) WHETHER THE SENTENCING DECISION WAS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED TO AVOID ARBITRARINESS AND DISCRIMINATION; (3) WHETHER THE JUDGE OR JURY HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACT CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS, AND SOCIETY'S, SENSE OF JUSTICE; AND (4) WHETHER THE SENTENCER HAS IN FACT ACTED CONSISTENTLY WITH PREVAILING NOTIONS OF JUSTICE. THE FIRST TWO MEASURES CONCERN THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PENALTY WITH CONTEMPORARY MORALITY AS REFLECTED IN LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENTS. THE THIRD ASSURES THAT A FULLY INFORMED, SUFFICIENTLY SEARCHING INQUIRY IS UNDERTAKEN IN EACH CASE. THE FOURTH MEASURE IS A FAIL-SAFE AGAINST AN ABERRANT SENTENCE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).