Death Penalty Law Outline 1 - Introduction, Imposing Death Penalty, Policy Points, Exempting Individuals, Lethal Injection | Study notes Criminal Law

Death&Penalty&Outline&

Professor&Rambo&

& & us.docsity.com&

Introduction

The 8th Amendment is applied through the 14th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment is

defined by evolving standards of decency.

The 8th Amendment proscribes the imposition of “cruel and unsual” punishment. The provision

is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. Furman v. Ga. As the court explained in

Atkins, the 8th A guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions. To

determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual, we look to “the

evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” The beginning

point is a review of objective indicia of consensus, as expresses in particular by the enactments

of legislatures that have addressed the question. We then must determine, in the exercise of our

own independent judgment, whether the DP is a disproportionate punishment for ___.

As in Atkins, the objective indicia of consensus in this case- the rejection of the juvenile

DP in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and

the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice – provide sufficient evidence that

today our society views ___, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as

“categorically less culpable than the average criminal.”

Next, since DP is the most severe punishment, it must be limited to those offenders who

commit a “narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes

them “the most deserving of execution.” Atkins.

A. Imposing+the+Death+Penalty!!

1. Rolling+v.+State!(Fla.!1997)!Pur!Curiam!(court!speaking!as!voice,!no!one!claiming!authorship)!

a) Rolling!pled!guilty!to!the!murders!of!five!college!students.!!Jury!recommended!death.!!At!

issue!was!whether!the!jury!instruction!regarding!heinous,!atrocious,!and!cruel!aggravating!

factor!and!whether!the!penalty!was!disproportionate.!!

b) To!see!Aggravating!&!Mitigating!Factors,!see!other!outline.!

c) Rolling!argues!the!TC!erred!in!finding!the!heinous,!atrocious,!or!cruel!aggravating!

circumstance!as!to!Sonya!Larson!because!there!was!no!evidence!she,!who!was!attacked!in!

her!sleep,!anticipated!her!death!or!otherwise!endured!extreme!pain!or!prolonged!suffering.!

d) Heinous,!Atrocious,!or!Cruel!Aggravator‐!only!look!at!D’s!actions!pre‐death!of!victim!

i. Viewed!from!perspective!of!what!society!would!view!as!HAC!

ii. No!evidence!victim!anticipated!death!or!endured!extreme/prolonged!pain!&!suffering,!

BUT!

iii. Evidence!she!was!conscious!30‐60!seconds!before!death,!wounds!characterized!as!

defensive,!moth!taped!and!did!not!die!instantaneously=!Proper!to!find!HAC!aggravator!

e) Rolling!argues!TC!gave!an!unconstitutionally!vague!Jury+Instruction!re:!HAC!factor!

i. Heinous!means!especially!wicked!or!shockingly!evil!

ii. Atrocious!means!outrageously!wicked!and!vile!

iii. Cruel!means!designed!to!influence!a!high!degree!of!pain!with!utter!indifference!to,!or!

even!enjoyment!of,!the!suffering!of!others!

2. Harlan!(Colo.!2005)‐!other!jury!instruction!case.!

a) Jury!cannot!use!an!extraneous!source!to!determine!what!words!in!instruction!mean!or!what!

sentence!should!be!imposed.!The!fact!that!a!juror!read!the!Bible!and!introduced!specific!

references!from!it!was!not!proper,!cannot!use!the!Bible!for!guidance!in!decision!making.!

Partial preview of the text

Download Death Penalty Law Outline 1 - Introduction, Imposing Death Penalty, Policy Points, Exempting Individuals, Lethal Injection and more Study notes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Professor Rambo

Introduction

The 8

Amendment is applied through the 14

Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment is

defined by evolving standards of decency.

The 8th^ Amendment proscribes the imposition of “cruel and unsual” punishment. The provision

is applicable to the states through the 14

Amendment. Furman v. Ga. As the court explained in

Atkins , the 8

A guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions. To

determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual, we look to “the

evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” The beginning

point is a review of objective indicia of consensus, as expresses in particular by the enactments

of legislatures that have addressed the question. We then must determine, in the exercise of our

own independent judgment, whether the DP is a disproportionate punishment for ___.

As in Atkins , the objective indicia of consensus in this case- the rejection of the juvenile

DP in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and

the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice – provide sufficient evidence that

today our society views ___, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as

“categorically less culpable than the average criminal.”

Next, since DP is the most severe punishment, it must be limited to those offenders who

commit a “narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes

them “the most deserving of execution.” Atkins.

A. Imposing the Death Penalty

Rolling v. State (Fla. 1997) Pur Curiam (court speaking as voice, no one claiming authorship) a) Rolling pled guilty to the murders of five college students. Jury recommended death. At issue was whether the jury instruction regarding heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravating factor and whether the penalty was disproportionate. b) To see Aggravating & Mitigating Factors, see other outline. c) Rolling argues the TC erred in finding the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance as to Sonya Larson because there was no evidence she, who was attacked in her sleep, anticipated her death or otherwise endured extreme pain or prolonged suffering. d) Heinous, Atrocious, or Cruel Aggravator‐ only look at D’s actions pre‐death of victim i. Viewed from perspective of what society would view as HAC ii. No evidence victim anticipated death or endured extreme/prolonged pain & suffering, BUT iii. Evidence she was conscious 30‐60 seconds before death, wounds characterized as defensive, moth taped and did not die instantaneously= Proper to find HAC aggravator e) Rolling argues TC gave an unconstitutionally vague Jury Instruction re: HAC factor i. Heinous means especially wicked or shockingly evil ii. Atrocious means outrageously wicked and vile iii. Cruel means designed to influence a high degree of pain with utter indifference to, or even enjoyment of, the suffering of others
Harlan (Colo. 2005)‐ other jury instruction case. a) Jury cannot use an extraneous source to determine what words in instruction mean or what sentence should be imposed. The fact that a juror read the Bible and introduced specific references from it was not proper, cannot use the Bible for guidance in decision making.

Professor Rambo

Gregg v. Georgia (USSC 1976)‐ H: DP is not cruel & unusual a) Issue: whether the Death Penalty for the crime of murder is, under all circs, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th^ and 14th^ Amendments. b) D argued that standards of decency had evolved to the point where capital punishment no longer could be tolerated. c) Court reviewed the history of the 8 th and the imposition of the DP i. Capital punishment was considered by framers and found that was intended. Next, must consider the parameters of when it can be imposed. 8th^ demands that punishment be acceptable to contemporary society & must comport with concept of human dignity. ii. The 8th^ A must draw its meaning from the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” a To define this must look at the direction state legislatures are taking b The direction jurors are taking in regards to imposing DP or not c The stance other countries have taken on this issue iii. A punishment must also accord with “the dignity of man.” So, the punishment cannot be excessive or disproportionate to crime committed. a First, the punishment must not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. b Second, the punishment must not be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. iv. In assessing a punishment selected by the legislature we presume its validity. d) Twin Aims of Death Penalty : i. Retribution ‐ is a natural instinct of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves the purpose of promoting the stability of a society governed by law. When ppl begin to think that society is unwilling or unable to impose the punishment “deserved,” people are more likely to start taking self‐help measures. a Should the victim’s desire for retribution be taken into account? Now, we only permit victim impact statements as aggravating factor. ii. Deterrence ‐ Specific/ General iii. Possibly also incapacitation (not necessarily a goal but definitely achieved).
Carey v. Musladin, 549 US 70 (2006)‐ optional
Deck v. Missouri, 544 US 622 (2005)‐ optional‐ shackling‐ 5 th^ A DP challenge

B. Policy Points

Uttecht v. Brown (USSC 2007) 5‐4, Kennedy opinion a) Issue: Did the TC violate Brown’s 6th^ (right to fair trial) and 14th^ A rights by excusing juror for cause on the ground that he could not be impartial in deciding whether to impose a death sentence. b) Rule : Criminal D has right to an impartial jury that has not been tilted in favor of capital punishment by selective prosecutorial challenges for cause, and the State has strong interest in having jurors who are able to apply DP within the framework the law prescribes. To balance these interests, a juror who is substantially impaired in ability to impose the DP under state‐law framework can be excused for cause , but if a juror is not so impaired, removal for cause is impermissible. In determining whether juror would be substantially impaired the TC may base judgment on juror’s demeanor (defer to judge’s decision re: this factor) c) Deference to the TC is appropriate because it is in a position to assess the demeanor of the

Professor Rambo

iv. Insanity/madness is itself its own punishment v. Death of insane ≠ death of victim‐ i.e., no proportionality in punishment if D can’t understand vi. Cannot aid in assistance of counsel‐ participation in last minute appeals e) Next, look at the adequacy of procedures used to determine if he was insane. Decided on DP grounds  must be accorded proper due process in determining the sanity of an individual. i. Since FL’s procedures for determining sanity of a death row prisoner were not “adequate to afford a full and fair hearing” on the issue, the petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the district court, de novo , on the question of his competence to be executed. ii. FL’s procedure: when Gov is informed an inmate may be insane, he must stay the execution & appoint 3 psychiatrists to examine the D at the same time. Then Gov determines whether D has the mental capacity to understand the DP and the reasons why it was imposed on him. FL’s scheme was deficient in that it precluded the D from presenting material relevant to his sanity, denied the opportunity to challenge or impeach the state psychiatrists’ opinions, and placed the decision wholly within the executive branch. f) Did not set a precise standard for incompetency

Provezano v. State (Fla. 2000): In dissent, Anstead argues what is required should be more than awareness; the D should have a rational understanding of why he is being executed. Powell’s concurrence in Ford : If the defendant perceives the connection between his crime and his punishment, the retributive goal of the criminal law is satisfied.
Panetti v. Quarterman (USSC 2007) 5‐4 opinion. a) Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer v. Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Alito. b) Read Ford as 8th^ prohibiting carrying out the execution of a prisoner who is mentally insane, and once the prisoner makes the requisite preliminary showing, the 8 th Amendment, applicable to the States under the DPC of the 14th^ A, entitles him to an adjudication to determine his mental condition. c) Issue: Does the 8th^ permit the execution of a prisoner whose mental illness deprives him of “the mental capacity to understand that he is being executed as punishment for a crime”? What is the standard a D need to show to prove he is incompetent to be executed? d) Panetti suffered from documented mental illness/gross delusions, but was not accorded hearing. i. F: Defendant found competent to be tried and to waive counsel, and at trial he claimed he was not guilty by reason of insanity! D understood the state claimed it wished to execute him for the murders, but he thought the state was really executing him to stop him from preaching. e) CoA: he was aware (1) he committed the murders (2) he will be executed & (3) the reason the State gave for execution is his commission of the crimes. Thus, he is aware of the reasons for his execution. f) USSC: A prisoner’s awareness of the State’s rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it. i. “Rational understanding” is difficult to define. And we must not ignore the concern that some prisoners , whose cases are not implicated by this decision, will fail to understand why they are to be punished on account of reasons other than those stemming from a severe mental illness. The mental state requisite for competence to suffer capital

Professor Rambo

punishment neither presumes nor requires a person who would be considered “normal” or even “rational” in layperson’s terms. Some prisoners condemned to death may be so callous as to be unrepentant; so self‐centered and devoid of compassion as to lack all sense of guilt; so adept at transferring blame to others as to be considered out of touch with reality. Those states of mind, even if extreme compared to the criminal population at large, are not what petition contends lie at the threshold of a competence inquiry. The beginning of doubt about competence in a case like petitioner’s is not a misanthropic personality or an amoral character. It’s a psychotic disorder. a Rambo Q : What is the court saying? Only concerned with psychotic disorder. What about narcissism? What about an amoral person who would never have a rational understanding? g) Rule : Petitioner’s submission is that he suffers from a severe, documented mental illness that is the source of gross delusions preventing him from comprehending the meaning and purpose of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. This argument, we hold, should have been considered. h) Even if D has awareness of state’s states reason, gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put an awareness of a link between a crime and its punishment in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can no longer serve its purpose. i. Rambo Q: Can this be extended beyond a death penalty context? If you have to have a rational understanding of what you are being punished in DP context, why not apply to all offenses?

Syllabus Question : What if a prisoner says he just “can’t remember” the killings?
Exam Question : What if you equally believed that you were being put to death because you committed the crime AND because you believed the state didn’t like the color of your eyes?
Awareness v. Rational Understanding: Not just that you are aware of it (b/c you have been told by the state) v. understanding that I murdered someone & because I murdered someone, I will be executed.

B. Medicating to Execute‐ An Undecided Issue : Forced medication challenges arising under the

5 th^ Amendment due process “liberty” interest and under the 8th^ Amendment.

Sell v. US (USSC 2003) 6‐ 3 ‐ medicating to render competent to stand trial a) Issue: does forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to render Sell competent to stand trial unconstitutionally deprive him of his “liberty” to reject medical treatment? 5th Amendment. i. Precedent ( Harper ) recognized that an individual has a significant constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs. State law authorized forced medication to inmates who were gravely disabled or represented a significant danger to themselves or others. Treatment decision was made by a psychiatrist and ordered b/c it was in the prisoner’s medical interests. Court found the State’s interest in medicating to reduce the danger was significant and prevailed over the prisoner’s liberty interest. ii. Riggins ‐ individual has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding involuntary admin of antipsychotic drugs that can only be overcome by an essential or overriding state interest. This satisfied if demonstrate that treatment was medically appropriate, and, considering less intrusive alternatives , essential for the sake of D’s own safety or the safety of others. b) Rule from Precedent : can involuntarily medicate only if: the treatment is medically appropriate , is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness

Death Penalty Law Outline 1 - Introduction, Imposing Death Penalty, Policy Points, Exempting Individuals, Lethal Injection, Study notes of Criminal Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Death Penalty Law Outline 1 - Introduction, Imposing Death Penalty, Policy Points, Exempting Individuals, Lethal Injection and more Study notes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Professor Rambo

Introduction

The 8

Amendment is applied through the 14

Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment is

defined by evolving standards of decency.

The 8th^ Amendment proscribes the imposition of “cruel and unsual” punishment. The provision

is applicable to the states through the 14

Amendment. Furman v. Ga. As the court explained in

Atkins , the 8

A guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions. To

determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual, we look to “the

evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” The beginning

point is a review of objective indicia of consensus, as expresses in particular by the enactments

of legislatures that have addressed the question. We then must determine, in the exercise of our

own independent judgment, whether the DP is a disproportionate punishment for ___.

As in Atkins , the objective indicia of consensus in this case- the rejection of the juvenile

DP in the majority of States; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and

the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice – provide sufficient evidence that

today our society views ___, in the words Atkins used respecting the mentally retarded, as

“categorically less culpable than the average criminal.”

Next, since DP is the most severe punishment, it must be limited to those offenders who

commit a “narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes

them “the most deserving of execution.” Atkins.

A. Imposing the Death Penalty

Professor Rambo

B. Policy Points

Professor Rambo

Professor Rambo

B. Medicating to Execute‐ An Undecided Issue : Forced medication challenges arising under the