INDEX

Drawing on in-depth interviews with the relatives of convicted murderers, this article interrogates the concept of stigma through an everyday notion of familial toxicity and commonsense understandings of murder. Identifying moments of stigmatizing strain, the article examines moments of opportunity for managing stigma through three metatactics: management of space, information, and self-presentation. However, due to the problems in carrying out sensitive research with a hidden population, there are limits to how far arguments made can be generalized. Therefore, the article concludes by raising questions for future research.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Murder Victims' Families,

The story focuses on Tessie Hutchinson, who was selected by the communal lottery for execution; her only sin was to live in a village that had the tradition of stoning one of its inhabitants each year. This paper suggests some ways that the life of America’s death penalty mirrors the art of “The Lottery.” The author comments on the “masking of evil,” the execution of the innocent, the arbitrariness in selecting those who die, the search for justification, and the brutality of the death penalty. In “The Lottery,” the tradition of the stoning was so embedded in tradition and its administration was so formal and precise that the ultimate outcome of the tradition, the killing of a fellow human being, was sanitized and unexamined. In America, the net effect of the bureaucratization of executions is to give those who implement them and those who receive reports of them a sense of sterility and mundaneness that should never accompany the state’s killing of its own. Although proponents of capital punishment in America argue that the chances that an innocent person will be executed are slim, history shows that it has occurred. It was no comfort to Tessie Hutchinson that she was to be the only member of her village to be stoned that year. So it is no comfort to the innocent who are executed that each is only one of a small number of innocent people who have been killed by the state. The arbitrariness of the lottery in selecting who will be executed may not be so obvious in the selection of those who will be killed by the state in America. Still, random and arbitrary circumstances impact who is selected to be executed, circumstances such as the race and wealth of the defendant, the race of the victim, the quality of the defense counsel, the particular trial judge, and the State in which the crime occurs. Although there is no unequivocal evidence that the death penalty achieves some monumentally positive benefit for American society, support for it by the community persists, along with its brutality and cruelty. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a “thinly veiled cruelty keeps the custom alive.”

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Networks,

Cruel and unusual punishment, as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, encompasses punishment that amounts to torture and barbarity, cruel and degrading punishment not known to the common law, and punishment so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. Thus, contained in the Eighth Amendment is a fundamental respect for humanity. For the imposition of a death sentence, the trier is constitutionally mandated to take into account the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense. What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Electrocution,

This study links two previously unrelated lines of research: The lack of comprehension of capital penalty-phase jury instructions and discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. Dependent measures included a sentencing verdict (life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty), ratings of penalty phase evidence, and a test of instructional comprehension. Results indicated that instructional comprehension was poor overall and that, although Black defendants were treated only slightly more punitively than White defendants in general, discriminatory effects were concentrated among participants whose comprehension was poorest. In addition, the use of penalty phase evidence differed as a function of race of defendant and whether the participant sentenced the defendant to life or death. The study suggest that racially biased and capricious death sentencing may be in part caused or exacerbated by the inability to comprehend penalty phase instructions.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Networks,

Cases involving the Establishment of Religion Clause predominantly emphasize religious neutrality. Believing this to be normatively correct, Professor Loewy argues for religious neutrality in capital punishment cases. In accordance therewith, he would uphold religious peremptory challenges where a juror’s religious belief is related to her death penalty perspective. Professor Loewy agrees with the courts’general willingness to disallow religion as an aggravating factor while allowing it as a mitigating factor. This dichotomy comports with the neutralityp rinciple because aggravatingfa ctors, in general,a re limited whereas mitigating factors are unlimited.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Religion ,

On May 16, 2001, the federal government carried out its first execution for a criminal offense in over 38 years (Timothy McVeigh). This article (part of a symposium issue) examines recent developments in the administration of the federal death penalty, in the legislative, judicial, and executive (Department of Justice) arenas. While not an abolitionist, the author expresses misgivings about federal capital punishment as it is currently administered, updating statistics regarding racial and geographic disparity from his 1999 article “The Federal Death Penalty: History and Some Thoughts About the Department of Justice’s Role,”. The article also explains “What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Jones,” (1999). Finally, the international implications of the first execution by the federal government in two generations are explored. No longer can the United States shift its internationally isolated position regarding capital punishment onto its constituent states under a theory of independent federalism. Note: This is a description of the paper and not the actual abstract.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Networks,

Determining the place and use of capital punishment in the American legal system is a challenging affair and one that is closely associated with and determined by religion’s role in American legal decision-making. Both capital punishment and religion are controversial issues, and tend to challenge legal scholars and practitioners about whether they should function together or alone as valid parts of the legal system in the United States. Professor Levine argues that religious arguments should be employed to interpret and explain American legal thought when the need or proper situation arises. He uses capital punishment as an example of how to properly reconcile a controversial legal issue with religious thought. Professor Levine suggests that religion acts as a comparative law model and provides another valid and instructive way of viewing capital punishment. Religious thought serves to provide explanation and insight into controversial American legal issues, and helps legal scholars and practitioners toward forming permanent solutions.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Religion ,

This Article addresses the issue of whether a criminal defendant may waive the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments by selecting an unconstitutional punishment over a constitutional punishment. The Article begins with a discussion of the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, followed by a discussion of areas where the Court has allowed defendants to waive Eighth Amendment protections in various contexts. Then, the Article discusses court decisions that have addressed whether one may waive Eighth Amendment protections by choosing a cruel and unusual punishment. Generally, this issue has arisen in three contexts: (1) where defendants are given the punishment option of banishment; (2) where sex offenders are given the punishment option of castration; and (3) where capital defendants are given an execution method option that violates the constitution. The Article explains that at least in the context of punishment type, a defendant’s choice should not waive Eighth Amendment protections. First, the ban on cruel and unusual punishments is a right that differs significantly from other constitutional criminal rights because it serves a broad societal purpose. Second, the waiver of this right differs from the waiver of other criminal rights because such waivers do not benefit the individual or society. Finally, to allow such waivers would strip the Eighth Amendment of meaning by permitting legislatures to create any punishment options it desired. Therefore, the Article concludes that the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments cannot be waived by an individual.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment,

The ritual slaughter of humans for sacrificial purposes has an ancient provenance. Few members of modern society would be inclined to believe that killing humans for sacrificial purposes continues. Of those, most probably envision it only being practiced by individuals who belong to “uncivilized,” or non-“First-World” cultures. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it becomes apparent that this is a misconception because the past and present practice of capital punishment includes a thinly disguised manifestation of the ritualized killing of people, otherwise known as human sacrifice. The purpose of this article is to identify, describe, and analyze the historic and contemporary connection between the practices of capital punishment and human sacrifice. After describing how human sacrifice constitutes an integral component of capital punishment, it will be argued that the institutionalization of this antiquated barbaric ritual, vis-a-vis the use of capital punishment, renders the present use of the death penalty in the United States incompatible with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”; and that consequently, this facet of capital punishment renders the penalty at odds with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against the infliction of “cruel and unusual” punishments.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment,

Over the past several years, many questions have been raised concerning the application and effectiveness of the death penalty. Ironically, the Catholic Church, a long-time supporter of the death penalty, has become one of the most vocal critics of the death penalty. In this Essay, Father Robert F. Drinan documents the Church’s new-found opposition to the death penalty, and discusses the influence the Church will have on the future of the death penalty.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Religion ,