We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
NOTHING IS CERTAIN BUT DEATH: WHY FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS MANDATES ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY.
- Authors
Edmondson, Carla
- Abstract
More than 40 years after the Supreme Court issued its terse, oneparagraph opinion in Furman v. Georgia, which effectively invalidated death-penalty schemes across the country, the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making persists. Attempts to cabin juror discretion, by narrowing eligible offenses and delineating specific aggravating factors, have largely failed. Among the variety of aggravating factors, perhaps none exercises more influence over the death penalty decision than a defendant's perceived future dangerousness. This Article examines the constitutionality of capital punishment through the lens of a defendant's future dangerousness and concludes that erroneous predictions of future behavior result in arbitrary and capricious death sentences contrary to the mandate of Furman v. Georgia. Surveying case law from all states that permit some form of a future-dangerousness argument, this Article uncovers the dominant and insidious influence an individual's perceived future dangerousness has on the penalty decision. In many jurisdictions, a jury may decide whether death is the appropriate punishment based solely on its prediction of future behavior. Relying on comparisons of juror predictions of future violence and longitudinal studies of actual violence among death-sentenced inmates, this Article demonstrates that the future dangerousness question is a fundamentally flawed inquiry and argues that abolition is the only viable solution for addressing the problem of arbitrary and capricious death sentences.
- Subjects
UNITED States; CAPITAL punishment; LEGAL status of violent criminals; FURMAN v. Georgia; DECISION making in law; JURORS' attidudes; AGGRAVATING circumstances (Law); CONSTITUTIONAL law; STATE statutes (United States); HISTORY; CAPITAL punishment laws; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2016, Vol 20, Issue 3, p857
- ISSN
1557-6582
- Publication type
Article