No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
One of the most disturbing aspects of examining the extensive capital punishment debate, with its clear indications of discriminatory practices, ambiguous judicial directives, undeniable miscarriages of justice, controversial statistical data, and inept, inconsistent and/or unjust implementation, is the constantly gnawing thought that if this is the situation vis-à-vis what is considered the most extreme penalty with its special super due process, then what is happening in the cases of lesser penalties. These latter cases of petty thieves sentenced to years of incarceration for relatively minor delinquencies, of accused inadequately defended without appeals being lodged within the judicial system or public interest shown, of compulsory life imprisonment without parole, no doubt reflect all of the faults and errors of capital punishment.
1 For regular reports on death row conditions see the monthly bulletin, Lifelines: Newsletter of the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty.
2 See, for instance, the Pennsylvania case of Peterson et al v. Thornburgh (Civ. A. No. 893-0304, Eastern District of Pa., 18th June, 1984). For death row conditions in general, see Johnson, Robert, Condemned to Die: Life Under Sentence of Death (Washington, D.C., Elsevier, 1981)Google Scholar.
3 See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language.
4 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
5 See Mosk, , “The Current Profile of Capital Punishment”, in this issue, at p. 488Google Scholar.
6 Supra n. 4.
7 Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984).
8 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
9 Geimer, William, “Death at Any Cost: A Critique of the Supreme Court's Recent Retreat from its Death Penalty Standards” (1985) 12 Florida State U.L.R. 737Google Scholar.
10 Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984)
11 Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983).
12 Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980).
13 A further reason for not using juries was the difficulty of ensuring objectivity on the part of the jurors, given the tension between Protestants and Catholics.
14 In addition, the decision for capital punishment must be unanimous.
15 Thompson v. Oklahoma, 108 S. Ct. 2687.
16 See, for instance, Article 6 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
17 In some cases dealing with juveniles, attempts have been made to seek international support on their behalf, for instance by petitioning the United Nations.
18 Gregg v. Georgia, supra n. 4, at 200, n. 50.
19 See Sebba, Leslie, “Pardon and Amnesty — Judicial and Penological Aspects”, Ph.D. dissertation (Hebrew University, 1978, in Hebrew)Google Scholar.
20 Black, Charles, Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake (New York, Norton, 1974)Google Scholar.
21 See, for instance, Wolfgang, M., Kelly, A. and Nolde, Hans, “Comparison of the Executed and Commuted Among Admissions to Death Row” (1962) 53 J. Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 McCleskey v. Kemp, 95 L. Ed. 2d 262.
23 People v. Anderson, 493 P. 2d 880.
24 Rummel v. Ertelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).
25 Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978).
26 At lower court levels, though, judges have been more strict in examining the need for proportionality between the nature of the offence and the degree of severity of the punishment. See, for example, Wanstreet v. Bordenkircher, 276 S.E. 2d 205 (1981).
27 Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277.
28 See discussion of California law in California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (1983).
29 Gary Gilmore is the best known of several such condemned prisoners.
30 Rummel v. Ertelle, supra n. 24.
31 See Sheleff, Leon, Ultimate Penalties: Capital Punishment, Life Imprisonment, Physical Torture, (Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State U. P., 1987)Google Scholar chap. 5. See recent discussion in Bedau, Hugo, “Imprisonment vs. Death: Does Avoiding Schwarzschild's Paradox Lead to Sheleff's Dilemma?” (1990) 54 Albany L. R. 481–495Google Scholar.
32 Sheleff, Leon, “Mandatory Life Sentences: A Comparative Study” (1982) 5 Tel Aviv Studies in Law 116–143Google Scholar.
33 Occasionally the army court has imposed a death penalty which has always been commuted to a life sentence.
34 All these Jewish terrorists were later given a reduction of sentence and then released.
35 Sheleff, supra n. 31, chap. 14.