Noting the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated in recent years, O' Connor stated, "If statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.
In speaking to the Minnesota Women Lawyer's group, O'Connor also expressed her concern about the rising numbers of inmates on death row and of executions since her appointment to the Court. Noting that Minnesota does not have the death penalty, O'Connor said, "You must breathe a big sigh of relief every day. Justice Scalia said he "wouldn't be surprised" if the U. Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional Commercial Appeal, Sept.
It ultimately did not do so, but it has imposed, under color of the Constitution, procedural and substantive limitations that did not exist when the Eighth Amendment was adopted—and some of which had not even been adopted by a majority of the states at the time they were judicially decreed.
For example, the Court has prohibited the death penalty for all crimes except murder, and indeed even for what might be called run—of—the—mill murders, as opposed to those that are somehow characterized by a high degree of brutality or depravity.
It has prohibited the mandatory imposition of the death penalty for any crime, insisting that in all cases the jury be permitted to consider all mitigating factors and to impose, if it wishes, a lesser sentence. And it has imposed an age limit at the time of the offense it is currently seventeen that is well above what existed at common law.
As it is, however, the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead—or, as I prefer to put it, enduring. It means today not what current society much less the Court thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. For me, therefore, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult, soul—wrenching question. It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies—including, for example, horse—thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie.
And so it is clearly permitted today. But while my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. Here is a retrospective on Justice Scalia and the Death Penalty. Justice Stevens Retired on the Death Penalty. Justice Stevens called for the abolition of the death penalty because of the risks of executing the innocent, its high costs relative to its questionable benefits, and the lengthy time defendants spend on death row.
He suggested change could come from the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds, from state legislatures, and from governors granting commutations. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that recent research reveals that Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man in H e has demonstrated, I think, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a Texas case in which they executed the wrong defendant, and that the person they executed did not in fact commit the crime for which he was punished.
And I think it's a sufficient argument against the death penalty Liebman's research showed that Carlos DeLuna's case involved faulty eyewitness testimony and police failure to investigate an alternative suspect.
And the application of the death penalty does a lot of harm, and does really very little good. Daily Caller , April 22, Arbitrariness in the imposition of the death penalty is exactly the type of thing the Constitution prohibits, as Justice Lewis Powell, Justice Potter Stewart, and I explained in our joint opinion in Gregg v.
We wrote that capital sentencing procedures must be constructed to avoid the random or capricious imposition of the penalty, akin to the risk of being struck by lightning.
Today one of the sources of such arbitrariness is the decision of state prosecutors—which is not subject to review—to seek a sentence of death. Here is the full transcript of the interview. Justice Stevens, thanks for doing this. You of course, became an outspoken opponent of the death penalty in your time on the court.
How did you evolve? Can you summarize how your own views evolved? About the death penalty? But there also you have to keep in mind, there are always two part to the question. And several of the members of the court, I can say specifically Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun, although they voted to uphold the penalty consistently early on, they personally did not think it made sense.
But my own thinking on the issue, on the constitutional issue evolved over the years, after our first decision in , in the first year that I came in the court, in which at which time I thought the court was adopting procedures and rules that would confine the imposition of the death penalty into a very narrow set of cases. And they took special pains to have fair procedures.
It seems like there may be another evolution now in the country that the case of Troy Davis, executed last week. It appeared with the protests around that that the country may be heading towards a tipping point in another direction, against the death penalty.
Is that what you see? ABC News , Sep 29, Retired Justice John Paul Stevens is a man of few regrets from his nearly 35 years on the Supreme Court, except one — his vote to reinstate the death penalty.
But instead it was expanded and gave the prosecutor an advantage in capital cases, according to Stevens. The retired associate justice has been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, but his admission of that Jurek v.
Stevens remarked, "I thought at the time. She wrote more about Stevens's views: The result is that instead of getting a random sample of jurors, jury panels are more supportive of the death penalty. In addition, the court now allows the relatives of crime victims to testify during the penalty phase of a capital trial. These so-called victim impact statements were once ruled too incendiary to be permissible, but four years later, a more conservative court reversed the decision. All of this, says Justice Stevens, has changed the nature of the death penalty as he and the court envisioned it in the s.
NPR ," October 4, During a "fireside chat" with fellow Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and hundreds of lawyers and judges who practice in federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin,. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens stated, "I think this country would be much better off if we did not have capital punishment. We cannot ignore the fact that in recent years a disturbing number of inmates on death row have been exonerated.
A solution to lower the number of death penalty cases, but not completely abolish it, is a three-judge panel. A three-judge panel is a panel of three judges that replace the jury. Legislature in Denver, Colorado created this system after July 1, Foster, They feel that if all murderers would instantly die after murdering, they would kill only if they wished to die themselves.
The Dilemma of Capital Punishment The definition of Capital Punishment is legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law. I, myself am not totally against capital punishment. The Dilemma of Capital Punishment?. Now I realize why there is such a Dilemma about Capital Punishment. After the Belgian Government renounced the execution of capital punishment once and for all.
But, just as in the nineteenth century, a variety of bills proposing the permanent abolition of the death penalty failed to achieve a parliamentary majority. Belgium had to wait until the Government took the initiative. That happened on 25 September when Minister of Justice Melchior Wathelet introduced a bill that finally removed capital punishment from the penal code. Starting Sentence Option 2: In fact, the death penalty is [thesis statement]. Bureau of Justice Capital Punishment. Death Penalty Fact Sheet.
Present your first claim for or against capital punishment. The entire paragraph should focus on the claim. It becomes obvious that [state first claim]. If you look at [evidence], it clearly shows that [state first claim].
Further proof can be found in [state reference], where [expert name] discovered [discovery]. This clearly shows that [state second claim]. A study done in [date] by [researcher name], showed that [statistics]. This section will show the third claim and back it up with statistics and expert information. According to [expert], [make third claim]. The last paragraph of the essay should include the thesis restated, as well as a summary of your main points.
The death penalty, or capital punishment, refers to punishment by death imparted to a person by a state or a legal framework. Because of the nature of the punishment, the death penalty raises a plethora of human-rights issues, which, consequently, has led to its abolishment in .
Another approach to a thesis statement therefore might be to state that the death penalty poses a moot question which has yet to be satisfactorily answered. Then the follow-up would be to present the arguments against the death penalty and the arguments in favor.
Thesis Statement Of Death Penalty. Abolishing the Death Penalty October 18, Abolishing the Death Penalty The death penalty has been an active force in the United States for decades. In the early history of our country, public executions were quite popular. Thousands have been executed with the majority occurring in the early twentieth century. Thesis Statements: The death penalty should be abolished.-or-The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes. Some of the issues in this argument: Is the death penalty an effective deterrent for heinous crimes? What are the economic ramifications of the death penalty?
[thesis statement] Starting Sentence Option 2: Much controversy surrounds [the death penalty/capital punishment]. The idea of killing someone [as a consequence/in punishment] of a crime seems [cruel/just] to many, but others [are for/are against/protest] it. Sample thesis statements on the death penalty Even though the death penalty was supposed to help in the deterring of murder, the time and the cost implications that are associated with it make it ineffective in achieving its purpose.