Decline in the death penalty

The death penalty continues to decline in the United States. The Death Penalty Information Center released a year-end analysis stating that the number of death sentences carried out across the United States reached history contemporary lows, with only twenty inmates being executed in 2016. This is the lowest number of executions in the United States since 1991, when only fourteen inmates were executed. Every year since 1991, there have been at least twenty-eight inmates executed, until 2016. This trend away from the death penalty comes across as great news for opponents of the death penalty.  Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, stated these this data is“consistent with what we’ve been seeing—steady momentum away from the death penalty, an increasing number of people opposing it and a declining number who are expressing support for it.” and that “We are moving in the direction of the rest of the world” in regards to the death penalty. The United States is part of a handful of nations in the world who still legally allow the death penalty, and actively carry out capital punishment. However, despite this, there were still some setbacks for those opposed to the death penalty. Despite the number of Americans who support the death penalty dropping from 80% in 1996 to 60% in 2016, in some states referendums that approve the death penalty and even restore the use of death penalties passed. In California, a proposal to end the death penalty was rejected by voters, who then passed a measure to expedite the process of capital punishment. Karen Clifton, executive director of the Catholic Mobilizing Network to End the Death Penalty has stated that twelve out of the twenty people executed, and eleven that were sentenced to death, displayed evidence of mental health issues. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of those diagnosed with mental retardation is unconstitutional, “yet those affected by severe mental illness can still be executed.”

Thoughts for later: If executing those suffering from mental retardation is unconstitutional because they cannot understand their actions and the consequences of their actions, how is it that executing those suffering from severe mental illnesses is constitutional?  This just furthers my belief that the supreme court needs to revisit this issue and create set-in-stone guidelines if they’re going to keep the death penalty legal, because there should be protections against those with severe mental illnesses who are not fully culpable.

Works Cited:

Clarke, Kevin. "Death Penalty’s Decline Continues." America, vol. 216, no. 3, 06 Feb. 2017, pp. 12-14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=121282131&site=ehost-live.

Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty

The mentally retarded have had a long history with the death penalty in the United States. Psychology and science have long been used in the classification of intelligence, which in turn leads to the classification of legal competence. Throughout the early 1900s, the United States took part in eugenics sterilization practices, with the United States committing an estimated forty thousand forced sterilizations. Thought at the time, this pales in comparison to what was happening in Nazi Germany, it is still very significant. Involuntary sterilization was ended in the United States during the civil rights movement, because data showed it was mainly poor minority groups that were being sterilized. This is also when a push began for deinstitutionalization and community-based clinical services.  began to gain traction.  The case Wyatt . Stickney set standards in Alabama quality of care required for involuntary committal on grounds of mental retardation, including that it must be a humane environment, you must have sufficient qualified staff, an individualized treatment plan, and placement in the least restrictive environment possible. In Youngberg v. Romeo, the Supreme Court nationalized these standards for the entire United States. However, these rulings also had some unintended consequences that affected the view on mental retardation and the death penalty. For many states, it was for too expensive for them to maintain these facilities while following these guidelines, so many of them just closed and mentally retarded and mentally ill patients were released into communities that were not prepared to deal with their care needs. As a result of this, prisons and jails became the main home for mentally ill and mentally retarded patients due to their inadequate care. Due to community resistance against group homes, the Supreme Court made a ruling in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, stating that mental retardation, in itself, does not determine a ‘quasi-suspect’ class, and therefore does not grant them any special rights beyond those afforded to all regular citizens. This ruling, similar to the previous rulings, also had unintended consequences. While this ruling allowed removed a large obstacle in the strategic placement of group homes for the mentally ill and retarded, it also took away their protections that were previously afforded to them, and made them liable for the death penalty. Finally, in 2002 in the Supreme Court case of Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that executing inmates with mental retardation was unconstitutional. Prior to this ruling, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, at least forty-four people classified as being mentally retarded we sentenced to death and executed in the United States.

Thoughts for later: This source also briefly related back to my previous source about whether the death penalty is unconstitutional for juveniles. It seems that the general consensus in all of the sources that I have read that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If there have been rulings for all of these exceptions in the death penalty, like juveniles and mental retardation, why hasn’t a set-in-stone ruling been made as to whether the death penalty is actually constitutional.

Works Cited:

FRENCH, LAURENCE A. "Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty in the USA: The Clinical and Legal Legacy." Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, vol. 15, no. 2, June 2005, pp. 82-86. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18184426&site=ehost-live.

Juveniles and the Death Penalty

For a long period of time, the death penalty for minors (those under 18) was perfectly acceptable in the United States, and minors were being sentenced to death for committing capital offenses. However, the Supreme Court had ruled in Thompson v. Oklahoma that due to an “evolving standard of decency”, that executing offenders of capital offenses under the age of fifteen was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which safeguards against cruel and unusual punishment. Later that year, in Stanford v. Kentucky, Justice Scalia, a proponent of the death penalty, stated that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit offenders of capital offenses older than fifteen at the time of their offense from being sentenced to death. Finally, in 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in Simmons v . Roper, that executing juvenile offenders “violates evolving standards of decency” and is therefore unconstitutional, as it violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This takes the same approach that the Supreme Court took in Thompson v. Oklahoma, but takes it a step further to include all juvenile defenders, as opposed to just those under the age of fifteen. In 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the punishment must contribute “measurably” to retribution, deterrence, or both. If it does not contribute to those, then it must be deemed excessive, and violates the constitution. It also stated that capital punishment must be reserved for those “materially more depraved”, and should not be used for just the “normal” murderer. These are meant to carry out sentences in accordance with the degree of the offender’s culpability. Due to the inherent limitations of juveniles and their developing mind, capital punishment does not contribute towards retribution or deterrence, therefore making capital punishment against juveniles disproportionate, and unconstitutional. Ultimately, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing those who committed capital offenses that were under the age of eighteen at the time to death is unconstitutional. Prior to this, since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 22 juveniles were executed for committing capital offenses.

Thoughts for later: I agree that the executing kids whose brains aren’t fully developed is not justice and definitely not proportionate to their crime, but how is executing those who are adults and commit heinous crimes a suitable punishment? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have them sit in a prison cell for the rest of their life as opposed to just executing them and that's it?

Works Cited:

James, Anne and Joanne Cecil. "Out of Step: Juvenile Death Penalty in the United States." International Journal of Children's Rights, vol. 11, no. 3, July 2003, pp. 291-303. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1163/157181804322794440.

Does the fifth amendment make the death penalty constitutional?

The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment
Joseph Blocher


The debate on whether capital punishment is constitutional or not has been on-going for many years. On the pro death penalty side, they argue that the 5th amendment “explicitly contemplates” the death penalty, and in doing so makes capital punishment constitutional. And then there are those against the death penalty, who believe that even though the founding fathers believed at the time the death penalty was permissible, it does not mean that it is a permanent legal punishment immune to constitutional challenge. They also believe that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which clearly violates the provision in the eighth amendment protecting citizens against such punishments, therefore making capital punishment unconstitutional. So, if you concede that the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment, you therefore must acknowledge that the death penalty is unconstitutional as it clearly violates the eighth amendment, and you can no longer use the fifth amendment to defend the death penalty. However, in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v Georgia that if states follow the previous guidelines set in place in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, that capital punishment is constitutional. However, since then, three of the Supreme Court judges who voted in favor of capital punishment have changed their stance and stated that they believe capital punishment is in fact considered cruel and unusual punishment. This basically makes the fifth amendment a piss poor defense of the death penalty, however the inverse is just as poor. “To be clear, the inverse argument would be equally faulty. The weakness of the Fifth Amendment Argument does not mean that the death penalty is unconstitutional, let alone “categorically” so.” (Blocher 278). Nonetheless, to this day whether the constitutional allows or prohibits the death penalty is being debated. Justice Blackmun, a skeptic of the death penalty, has even stated “the Constitution appears to permit[] the penalty of death.”, but then also said “From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”

Thoughts for later: If those justices changed their opinion on the death penalty being cruel and unusual punishment, why has Gregg v. Georgia not been overturned, and why has the death penalty not been ruled cruel and unusual punishment? If the constitution is not specific at all about whether the death penalty is legal or not, why hasn’t a concrete amendment been added to the constitution stating where it’s legal or not, and if it is, what provisions must be set for states to allow the punishment? I

Works Cited:

Blocher, Joseph. "The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment." Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 111, no. 1, 15 Nov. 2016, pp. 275-293. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=120553778&site=ehost-live.

Should the death penalty be banned in the United States?

Should capital punishment be banned in the United States? For those who are not aware, capital punishment is another word for the death penalty. The death penalty is a punishment that can be administered to someone convicted of committing a capital crime, in which they are executed. While the death penalty has become rare in recent years, with some states even banning it, it is still federally acceptable to sentence someone to death for committing a capital offense. Some believe that it should be banned federally because it is barbaric, and violates people’s basic human rights. Others feel that it brings closure to the families of victims, and that justice is properly served when people are executed for committing these heinous acts. What I would like to know more about is how much money it costs a taxpayer for someone to be executed, and for someone to spend life in prison. I would also like to know more about what all of the capital offenses are, and why death penalty sentences are becoming less frequent. I think it might be difficult to add to the conversation down the line, since this has been something that has been debated for quite some time, but I think after doing more research I can find a way.