Saturday, November 8, 2008

DEATH PENALTY(WHEN & WHETHER REQUIRED)

DEATH PENALTY(WHEN & WHETHER REQUIRED)

 

Indian penology is basically guided by the principle of punitive justice guarded by deterrence and revenge. This is contrary to the well-settled principles of retribution, rehabilitation, and the dictum that one should hate the sin and not the sinner. There are seven sections in the Indian penal code under which death sentence can be awarded to an accused. These are: Section 121 (waging war against the state), Section 132 (abetting mutiny actually committed), Section 194 (giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death), Section 302 (murder which maybe punished with death or life imprisonment), Section 305 (abetment of suicide of a minor or insane, or intoxicated person), Section 396 (dacoity accompanied with murder), and Section 307 (attempt to murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life if hurt is caused).

Besides the penal code, there are many other laws like Explosive substances act, Narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances act, Prevention of terrorism act, which, provides for imposition of capital punishment. But it has been repeatedly held by courts that death penalty is the maximum punishment and it cannot be awarded irrationally, arbitrarily, and must be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases. Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it obligatory for the trial court to give special reasons for awarding the extreme punishment of death. In the case of Machi singh v. State of Punjab, (1983), the apex court laid down three conditions where death sentence can be awarded, these are:

n      When it’s the rarest of rare cases.

n      When there is something uncommon about the crime, which renders the life imprisonment sentence inadequate, and calls for death sentence.

n      Whether the circumstances of the crime are such that there is no alternative but to impose the death sentence even after maximum weightage has been given to circumstances in favour of the offender.

But after the enactment of legislations like TADA (terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention) act, 1987, death sentence was considered as an appropriate punishment for an accused under the Act. The country and its runners have realized that the biggest threat to the national security is through terrorism.

Ongoing Debate Despite number of decisions of the apex court upholding the constitutional validity of capital punishment in Indian law, the debate must continue and cannot be closed for ever on the abstract doctrine of stare decisis, because the very nature of the problem is such that it must be the subject of review from time to time so as to be in tune with the evolving standards in a maturing society.

Imposition of death sentence is the extreme punishment, which ends a human life, therefore, restrictions have been imposed under the law to give special reasons for awarding the extreme punishment. “These special reasons must relate, not to the crime as such but to the criminal. The crime maybe shocking and yet the criminal may not deserve the death penalty,” Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer commented in Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Justice A.S. Anand went a step further when he observed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, that ‘it’s the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.”

It was with this intention that the apex court laid down certain principles, which must be applied by the law courts before deciding on the question of sentence. These principles have been broadly divided into two categories, aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances. In Shankar Gauri Shankar v. State of Tamil nadu, the court held that, “the choice as to which one of the two punishments provided for murder is the proper one in a given case will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case and the court has to exercise its discretion judicially and on well-recognised principles after balancing all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the crime. In Anshad and Others v. State of Karnataka, Justice A.S. Anand, held that “the motive and the manner in which the crime was committed, the weapons used and the extent of brutality or the lack of it are some of the considerations which must be present to the mind of the court.” Among the aggravating circumstances, which call for increased severity of punishment are: the manner in which the offence is perpetrated, whether it be by forcible or fraudulent means, or by aid of accomplices or in the malicious motive by which the offender was actuated, or the consequences to the public or to individual sufferers, or the special necessity which exists in particular cases for counter-acting the temptation to offend, arising from the degree of expected gratification, or the facility of perpetration peculiar to the case. Circumstances, which are to be considered in alleviation of the offender, are:

n      The minority of the offender

n      The old age of the offender

n      The condition of the offender

n      The order of a superior military officer

n      Provocation

n      When offence was committed under a combination of circumstances and influence of motives which are not likely to recur either with respect to the offender or to any other

n      State of health and the sex of the offender

There maybe some circumstances in mitigation of punishment, which should be inflicted:

§ Absence of bad intention

§ Provocation

§ Self-defence

§ Preservation of some near friends

§ Transgression of the limit of self-defence

§ Submission to the menaces

§ Drunkenness

§ Submission to authority

§ Childhood

Along with these circumstances there are certain other circumstances, which are kept in consideration before deciding on the punishment.

Rarest of rare The ethos behind the categorization of a particular case as ‘rarest of rare’ was that the uncontrolled and unguided discretion of judges to impose capital punishment

or imprisonment for life may affect the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 14 of the constitution. Because, two persons found guilty of murder on similar facts are liable to be treated differently- one forfeiting his life and the other suffering merely a sentence of life imprisonment. Further, the provisions of the law do not provide a procedure for trial of factors and circumstances crucial for making the choice between the capital penalty and imprisonment for life.

The trial under the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to the question of guilt. In the absence of any procedure established by law in the matter of sentence, the protection given by Article 21 of the constitution is imminently in danger of arbitrary exercise by the judges.

The responsibility of the judges in that respect is greater, since the question as to whether capital sentence for murder is appropriate in modern times has raised serious controversy the world over, sometimes, with emotional overtones. It is therefore, essential that this constitutional question be answered with objectivity and proper measure of self-restraint.

The Supreme Court of America in the case of Furman v. State of Georgia discussed the validity of the death sentence. Brennan, J., accepted the validity of the challenge in these words:

“If a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary justice and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any judicial purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the due infliction of that punishment violates the command of the clause that the state may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes.”

It is indeed a matter of concern for the legal fraternity in India that instances of misuse of this direction in the matter of sentencing in cases of political importance is increasing and the credibility and integrity of the institution is at stake and further continuation of such gross abuse of the discretionary power will shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system.

International Campaign This situation in Indian judicial system is contrary to the international campaign against death penalty getting momentum the world over. According to the latest statistics, more than 118 countries have abolished death penalty either in law or in practice and only 84 countries have retained it in their law. Studies of crime situation in different parts of the world have shown the ineffectiveness of capital punishment either as a deterrent or as appropriate retribution.

There is larger volume of evidence to compiled in the west by kindly social reformers and research workers to confound those who want to retain the capital punishment.

 

 

Punishment includes following:

 

Firstly, punishment is a privation.

Secondly, it is cohesive.

Thirdly, it is inflicted in the name of the state.

Fourthly, it presupposes rule, there violation more or less a formal determination  of that, expressed in a judgment.

Fifthly it is inflicted upon an offender who has committed a harm and this presupposes a set of values by reference to which both the harm and the punishment are ethically significant.

 

The amount of punishment is not uniform in all cases it varies acc. to the feature of the offence, mental condition, age, intention of the accused, the circumstances in which the offence was committed. Punishment being an undoubtedly solid necessity has been justified by the various theories. The following are the various theories: -

 

1.       Retributive

 

It is probably the most ancient justification for punishment. According to Justice Homes “It is commonly known that the early forms of legal procedure were grounded in vengeance. The principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a truth or nail for nail were the basis of criminal administration. It regards punishment as deserved by the individuals for the following reasons:

(a) That he behaved culpably (illegally)

(b) That the penalty will give satisfaction equivalent  to the grievance  caused by his action.

 

(c)               That similar ones have been and will be imposed on similar offenders.

(d)              That he was responsible for his action and performed it with a knowledge of possible consequences of his penalty.

 

 

Retributive punishment satisfies the instinct of revenge or retaliation which exist not merely in the individual wrong but also in the society at large. In the modern time, the idea of private revenge has been discarded and the state has come forward to have the revenge in place of the private individual.

 

Critics of the Retributive Theory

 

The Advocates of this theory point out that the punishment itself is not a remedy for the wrong but it merely aggravates the mischief. The punishment itself is a evil and can be justified only on the ground that it is going to yield better results.

 

2.  Deterrent

 

According to this theory, the object of punishment is not only the prevent the wrong doer of doing a wrong second time and also to make an example to others who have criminal tendency. Salmond considers deterrent aspects of the justice to be the most important for the control of the crime. Among those, who Advocate deterrent punishment because of which social utility, some claim that the infliction of claim upon those convicted of crime served to deter others from crime and that has great value for that reason. According to Benthem a man’s behaviour is governed by pleasure and pain. The pleasure contemplated from a particular aid mainly violation of  a legal rule, may be balanced against the pain anticipated from the same act. Therefore, penalty should be severe so that the pain should exceed the pleasure derived from the violation of the law. The notion that punishment reduced crime is based on the hedonistic assumption that people regulate their behaviour by calculation of pleasure and pain. The deterrent theory was the basis of the punishment in England in the Medieval Period and consequently severe and in human punishments were inflicted even for minor offences. In India, the death sentence of mutilation of limbs was imposed even for petty offences stealing during the Mughal Period. Even today, in most of the Islaim Country, such as Pakistan, Iran, Iraq & Saudi Arabia, the deterrent theory is the basis of Penal Jurisprudence

 

Criticism

 

This theory has been critisize on the ground that it has been proved ineffective in checking crimes and also that excessive harshness of punishment tends to defeat of his own purpose by arousing the sympathy of the public towards those who are given cruel and inhuman punishment. Further, deterrent punishment is likely to harden the criminal instead of creating in his mind the fear of law. There are classes of offenders who are not deterred by punishment. Example hardened criminals.

 

3.     Preventive Theory

 

Another object of punishment is preventive or disabling. The offenders are disable from repeating the crime by punishment like death, forfeiture or exile of an office. By putting the criminal in jail he is prevented from committing another crime.

According to Paton: - the preventive theory concentrate on the prisoner but seeks to prevent him from offending again in future. Death penalty and exile serves the same purpose of disabling the offender.

 

Criticism 

Critics point out that the preventive punishment has the undesirable effect of hardening the first time offenders or juvenile offender by putting them in association of hardened criminals.

 

4.  Reformative Theory

 

This theory speaks of individualization or personalization of punishment. According to this theory, the object of punishment is to reform criminals by creating a conviction that the crime does not pay or by breaking habits that criminals have formed. It regards human behaviour from a deterministic point of view. Individual behaviour is regarded as completely determined as being hereditary or conditional by ones environment. Even if an offender commits a crime under certain circumstances, he does not cease to be human. The object of punishment should be to bring about moral reform of the offender. The criminal must be given some opportunity such as vocational training in art, craft or industry in jail, so that he realizes is worth and become a respectable citizen after his release. While awarding punishment, the Judge should study character and age of the offender, his early breeding, family back ground, his education and environment and the circumstances in which he committed the crime. The object of doing so is to acquaint the Judge with the circumstances under which, the offence is committed so that the punishment may be awarded to suit the ends of justice.

 

Criticism

Critics of this theory point out that if criminals are sent to prison to be reform into good citizen then the prisons will remain no more remain prison and will become dwelling houses. However, the deterrent motive should not be abandoned altogether in favour of the reformative approach. Infact, a perfect system of criminal justice must be based on combination of all the theories of punishment.

 

Relevant case laws with regard to the theories of punishment:

 

In Inder Singh V/s. State

AIR 1978 SC 1091

 

The Supreme Court issued directions to the State Govt. to see that the young accused of the case are not given any degrading work and they are given the benefit of liberal parole every year if their behaviour shows trustworthiness.

 

In Attorney General of India V/s. Laxmi Devi

1986 SC 468

 

The Supreme Court held that it is not the brutality of punishment but its surety that serves a greater deterrent. A Barbaric crime does not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty such as public hanging which will be clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 

In Sunil Batra V/s. Delhi Admn.

 

It was held that hard labour has to receive a human meaning. A girl student or a male weakling sentence to rigorous imprisonment may not be forced to break stones for 9 hours a day. Sense and sympathy are not enemies of Penal Asylums.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

 

The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head. In the past, people were often executed by severing their head from their body. Today, in the U.S., most prisoners are executed by lethal injection.

The United States is one of the very few industrialized countries in the world which continues to execute criminals. Further, it is one of a handful of countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

 

The death penalty in the U.S. is essentially a product of Southern culture. During 2002:

bullet

61 of the 71 executions were in Southern states.

bullet

Outside the South, only three States (California, Ohio and Missouri) executed anyone.

 

From 1976, when executions were resumed, until 2003-JAN-1, there have been 820 executions in the US. This includes 66 during 2001 and 71 in 2002. About two out of three executions are conducted in only five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Texas leads the other states in number of killings. In late 2002, there were about 3,697 prisoners sentenced to death in 37 state death rows, and 31 being held by the U.S. government and military.  About 1.5% are women. 102 have been exonerated and freed since 1973, largely after having been proven innocent by DNA evidence.

In spite of the slight increase in U.S. executions between 2001 and 2002, the number of new death sentences decreased significantly. The Washington Post commented in late 2002 that "outside of a few states, the death penalty remains in decline....a few states account for the overwhelming majority of all executions. The more isolated they become, the greater the pressure for reform will be."

When asked whether they prefer to keep or abolish the death penalty, about 60 to 80% of American adults say that they want to retain capital punishment. Numbers vary depending upon the precise wording of the question asked by the pollsters. When asked whether they would like to see executions continue or have them replaced with a system that guaranteed:

 

bullet

life imprisonment with no hope for parole, ever;

bullet

that the inmate would work in the prison to earn money;

bullet

that the money would be directed to helping the family of the person(s) that they killed,

 

 

 

 

The most compelling arguments against capital punishment can be made on the basis of its actual administration in our society. I will list five of the usual points.

1. The possibility of error. Sometimes a person might be put to death who is innocent.

2. Unfair administration. Capital punishment is inflicted disproportionately on the poor and minorities.

3. Weakness of the argument from deterrence. The claim that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive, certainly not proven, extremely difficult to disprove, and morally suspect if any case.

4. The length of stay on death row. If there were ever any validity to the deterrence argument, it is negated by the endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials that keep persons condemned to death waiting for execution for years on end. One of the strongest arguments right now against capital punishment is that we are too incompetent to carry it out. That incompetence becomes another injustice.

5. Mitigating circumstances. Persons who commit vicious crimes have often suffered from neglect, emotional trauma, violence, cruelty, abandonment, lack of love, and a host of destructive social conditions. These extenuating circumstances may have damaged their humanity to the point that it is unfair to hold them fully accountable for their wrongdoing. Corporate responsibility somehow has to be factored in to some degree. No greater challenge to social wisdom exists than this.

The conclusion of the matter is that the present practice of capital punishment is a moral disgrace. The irony is that the very societies that have the least right to inflict it are precisely the ones most likely to do so. The compounding irony is that the economic malfunctions and cultural diseases in those same societies contribute to the violence that makes it necessary to unleash even more repression and brutality against its unruly citizens to preserve order and stave off chaos. To the degree that society provides opportunities for all citizens to achieve a good life in a sensible culture, it is reasonable to believe that the demand for capital punishment will be reduced or eliminated. The fact that our prisons are so full is the most eloquent testimony imaginable of our dismal failure to create a good society. Massive incarceration indicates the bankruptcy of social wisdom and social will. It points to the shallowness of our dedication to solving the basic problems of poverty, moral decay, meaninglessness, and social discord. Meanwhile, our leaders divert our attention with the alluring fantasy that capital punishment will make our citizens more secure against violent crime.

 

The first known execution in the territory now known as the United States of America was of Daniel Frank, put to death in 1622 in the Colony of Virginia for the crime of theft. Since then the death penalty has almost always been a feature of the criminal justice system, first in the American colonies and then, after independence, in the U.S. This page focuses on the history of the death penalty in the U.S. beginning in 1930, when death penalty statistics first began to be collected on a regular basis. It provides links to numerous important U.S. Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment, documents on recent developments in the status of the death penalty nationally, and other historical resources on the death penalty in the U.S. and elsewhere.
     Disclaimer: The Justice Center is not responsible for the content of any outside site linked here, nor does a listing here imply an endorsement of a site's opinions or content or a guarantee of its accuracy.

The Death Penalty in the U.S.

A brief history of the death penalty in the U.S. since 1930, when death penalty statistics began to be collected on a regular basis. This history emphasize death penalty statistics and the constitutional history of the death penalty and is based primarily on the annual capital punishment bulletins of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. For further information, see the Death Penalty Information Center's History of the Death Penalty.

1930-1967

   

 

From 1930, the first year for which statistics are readily available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to 1967, 3,859 persons were executed under civil (that is, nonmilitary) jurisdiction in the United States.

 

 

Moratorium on executions

   

 

By the end of the 1960s, all but 10 states had laws authorizing capital punishment, but strong pressure by forces opposed to the death penalty resulted in an unofficial moratorium on executions for several years, with the last execution during this period taking place in 1967. Prior to this, an average of 130 executions per year occurred.

Furman invalidates mostdeath penalty laws

 

 

Legal challenges to the death penalty culminated in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972), which struck down federal and state capital punishment laws permitting wide discretion in the application of the death penalty. Characterizing these laws as "arbitrary and capricious," the majority ruled that they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Only two of the justices concurring in the decision (Justices Brennan and Marshall) declared capital punishment to be unconstitutional in all instances, however; other concurrences by Justices Douglas, Stewart, and White focused on the abitrariness of the application of capital punishment, including the appearance of racial bias against black defendants. In all, nine separate opinions -- five invalidating existing laws and four arguing for their retention -- were written by the nine Supreme Court justices spelling out their different views on what constituted the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

 

 

New laws upheld

 

More than 600 death row inmates who had been sentenced to death between 1967 and 1972 had their death sentences lifted as a result of Furman, but the numbers quickly began to build up again as states enacted revised legislation tailored to satisfy the Supreme Court's objections to arbitrary imposition of death sentences. These laws were of two major types:
     The first type, providing for guided discretion, was upheld by the Supreme Court in three related cases: Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976). The Georgia, Texas, and Florida statutes validated by the Supreme Court afforded Table: Executions post-Furmansentencing courts the discretion to impose death sentences for specified crimes and provided for two-stage, or "bifurcated," trials, involving in the first stage the determination of a defendant's guilt or innocence and, in the second, determination of the sentence after consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In Georgia and Texas, the final sentencing decision rested with the jury, and in Florida with the judge.
     Those laws which provided a mandatory death penalty for specific crimes, and allowing no judicial or jury discretion beyond the determination of guilt, were declared unconstitutional in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976). These rulings led directly to the invalidation of mandatory death penalty statutes in 21 states, and resulted in the modification of the sentences of hundreds of offenders from death to life imprisonment.

 

Executions resume

 

The first execution under the new death penalty laws took place on January 17, 1977, when convicted murdered Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah. Gilmore's was the first execution in the United States since 1967. Two prisoners were executed in 1979; one in 1981; two in 1982; and five in 1983. Executions increased dramatically in 1984, with 21 in that year, and there have been at least 10 executions in the U.S. every year since. There were 74 executions in 1997. From 1977 to 1997, a total of 432 executions took place. Of the executed prisoners during this period, 266 were white, 161 were black, and five were of other races. By the end of 1997, 38 states and the federal government had capital punishment law; 12 states (including Alaska) have no death penalty. (Bureau of Justice Statistics annual bulletins on capital punishment provide current information on U.S. jurisdictions which authorize the death penalty.) By the end of 1996, 3,219 prisoners were under sentence of death, including 3,208 in 34 states and 11 under federal jurisdiction. All were convicted of murder.

 

Supreme Court decisions refine death penalty laws

   

In 1977, the Supreme Court declared in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) that applying the death penalty in rape cases was unconstitutional because the sentence was disproportionate to the crime. Coker resulted in the removal of twenty inmates -- three whites and 17 blacks -- awaiting execution on rape convictions from death rows around the country.
     In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), the high court forced a number of states to again revise their death penalty statutes by ruling that the sentencing authority in a capital case must consider every possible mitigating factor to the crime rather than limiting, as Ohio had, the mitigating factors that could be considered to a specific list. For additional Supreme Court decisions, see Selected Supreme Court Decisions, below.

 

Current Status

 

Since the 1976 Gregg decision upholding the constitutionality of Georgia's death penalty law, numerous states have reinstated capital punishment in their statutes. The most recent state to enact a death penalty law was New York in 1995. As of January 1998, 38 states and the federal government have capital punishment laws in effect. Alaska, eleven other states -- Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin -- and the District of Columbia do not have a death penalty. Sites providing information on the current status of the death penalty throughout the nation are available on the Death Penalty Statistics page.

Refining Death Penalty Laws

  • Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976): Mandatory death penalty laws declared unconstitutional.
  • Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977): Death penalty for the rape of adult women declared unconstitutional because the sentence was disproportionate to the crime. Twenty prisoners from around the country were removed from death row as a consequence of this decision.
  • Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978): Sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider every possible mitigating factor, rather than being limited to a specific list of factors to consider. This decision resulted in the release of 99 prisoners from Ohio's death row. See also Bell v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 637 (1978).
  • Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980): Sent back for retrial several cases on grounds of too broad and vague an application of the provision stipulating the death penalty if the offense was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhumane, in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim." The ruling did not affect the statute itself, but the court held that the relevant facts in Godfrey were not substantially different from other cases in which the provision was not applied.
  • Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980): Struck a portion of Alabama's death penalty law that blocked juries from convicting defendants of an included lesser offense rather than the capital crime itself; juries were required to either convict a defendant of the capital crime or to acquit him.
  • Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980): Prospective jurors cannot be excluded from service in capital trials because they would be "affected" by the possibility of a capital sentence.
  • Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 (1982): Upheld the death sentence of a defendant convicted under the Alabama statute partially struck down in Beck v. Alabama. The court held that, since a lesser offense was not an issue, the law's failure to allow for it did not prejudice the case; i.e., the conviction of a capital prisoner tried under a partially flawed statute need not be reversed unless it was actually touched by the imperfection. Evans was executed on April 22, 1983.
  • Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982): Struck down the death sentence of a defendant who had not intended, attempted, or actually killed the victim of a robbery in which he was an accomplice.
  • Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984): Upheld the death penalty in a California case, holding that there was no constitutional requirement for a proportionality review -- that is, a review of sentences in comparable cases throughout a state to deterimine if similar cases are handled in a similar way -- though many state death penalty law provide for such a review.
  • Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986): Held that is is unconstitutional to execute a person who is insane.
  • McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987): Rejected the claim that death penalty sentencing in Georgia was administered in a racially biased manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, despite statistical data on capital sentences in Georgia to which showed that black defendants convicted of killing white victims were more likely to be given the death sentence than other defendants.
  • Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988): Ruled that youths younger than 16 years old at the time of their offense cannot be constitutionally executed.
  • Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989): Ruled that it is not categorically unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person found guilty of capital murder. Some states have enacted laws specifically excluding capital sentencing for persons determined to be mentally retarded.
  • Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989): Reaffirmed the court's opinion that it was not unconstitutional to execute youths at least 16 years old at the time of committing a capital offense. A number of states define minimum ages authorized for capital punishment.
  • United States of America: Developments on the Death Penalty During 1993: London: Amnesty International, 1994.

 

Historical Resources

Other resources on the history of the death penalty
in the U.S. and in other nations.

 

United States

  • The Execution of Caleb Adams: This site chronicles the life, crime, trial, and execution by hanging of Caleb Adams, a nineteen-year-old convicted in 1803 of murdering a six-year-old boy.
  • "Dirty Details: Executing U.S. Soldiers During World War II": by J. Robert Lilly. 28 November 1995; earlier draft presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November, 1995. Part of a long-term examination of the execution of U.S. soldiers during World War II, this paper describes the crimes, defendants, and victims for 18 military executions that took place in England, 1943-1945.
  • "Executing U.S. Soldiers in England, WWII: The Power of Command Influence and Sexual Racism": by J. Robert Lilly and J. Michael Thompson. 31 August 1995. The Visiting Forces Act of 1942 permitted the American military during World War II to use capital punishment in England as an extension of discipline. The authors argue that the act's purpose was to control a perceived danger: the socializing of African American troops with British females, and the possible explosive violence between Caucasian and African American troops.

 

 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

DOWNLOAD BOOKS, PDF's ,REPORTS,

SEND FREE SMS


Free SMS to India

Search

Google