NCJ Number
63757
Date Published
1979
Length
6 pages
Annotation
ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE EXAMINED AND THE MANDATORY GUIDELINES FOR STATES ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE EXPLAINED.
Abstract
THE VARIETY OF MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY PIVOT AROUND DETERRENCE. MEANWHILE, THE PRIMARY ARGUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED ARE GENERALLY NOT BROUGHT FORTH AND EXAMINED. THESE, IN THEIR SIMPLEST FORMS, ARE THAT (1) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PERSONS INSIDE AS WELL AS OUTSIDE OF PRISONS; (2) SOCIETY HAS THE POWER AND THE LEGAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE ANY LAWFUL PUNISHMENT IT DESIRES; AND (3) OUR SYSTEM OF LAW IS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, WHEN ADMINISTERED ACCORDING TO LAW, IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT PHILOSOPHY. THE MAJORITY OF SOCIETY IS IN FAVOR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WHEN NOT CAPRICIOUSLY AND ARBITRARILY USED, AND THE SUPREME COURT HOLDS WITH THIS ATTITUDE AND HAS ESTABLISHED MANDATORY GUIDELINES FOR STATES' USE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1976 SET FORTH A THREE-STEP PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN LEGISLATIVELY FOLLOWED IN ALL STATES WHERE THE DEATH PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN OVERTURNED. THE GUIDELINES PROVIDE FOR THE USUAL TRIAL TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. IF GUILT IS FOUND, A HEARING MUST BE HELD TO ALLOW ARGUMENTS OF MITIGATION OR AGGRAVATION. IF THE CONVICTED PERSON IS SENTENCED TO DEATH, THERE SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC APPEAL TO THE NEXT HIGHER LEVEL WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION. THE ESSAY ADVANCES SEVERAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE POSITION HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RFC)