The United States Supreme Court and the death penalty: The struggle for fairness
In the ten years since Furman v. Georgia , the United States has recognized the right of states to adopt and follow different capital sentencing schemes so long as they protect the defendant from arbitrary and capricious imposing of the death sentence. The sentence may not be disproportionate to the...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
1986
|
| En: |
American journal of criminal justice
Año: 1986, Volumen: 10, Número: 2, Páginas: 178-204 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Palabras clave: |
| Sumario: | In the ten years since Furman v. Georgia , the United States has recognized the right of states to adopt and follow different capital sentencing schemes so long as they protect the defendant from arbitrary and capricious imposing of the death sentence. The sentence may not be disproportionate to the crime. Sentencing may be done by a judge or jury. Prospective jurors may not be challenged for cause merely because their deliberations would be affected because a death penalty was possible, but only if they could not fulfill their oath. Habeas corpus petitions in capital cases are not open invitations to avoid finality of judgment and execution of the sentence, but are to find constitutional errors. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1936-1351 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/BF02887469 |