THE DEATH PENALTY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES2025|PDF|Epub|mobi|kindle电子书版本百度云盘下载

THE DEATH PENALTY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUESPDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Chapter 1 The Death Penalty： Past and Present1

Ⅰ.Introduction1

Ⅱ.A Retrospective Analysis of the Death Penalty2

A.The Colonial Period2

B.The Age of Enlightenment and the Early Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty2

1.From Europe to the Colonies： The Impact of Enlightenment2

2.Changes in the Death Penalty from 1790-19504

Ⅲ.Early Supreme Court Decisions on the Death Penalty6

A.Wilkerson v.Utah： Death by Firing Squad7

B.In re Kemmler： Death by Electrocution8

C.Louisiana ex rel.Francis v.Resweber： The Constitutionality of Being Executed Twice11

D.Additional Changes in the Death Penalty Prior to 197212

Ⅳ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?13

Ⅴ.Conclusion14

Cases Briefed in Chapter 116

Case Briefs16

Wilkerson v.Utah, 99 U.S.130 (1878)16

In re Kemmler, 136 U.S.436 (1890)18

Louisiana ex rel.Francis v.Resweber, 329 U.S.459 (1947)20

Internet Resources22

Notes22

Chapter 2 The Foundation Cases： Furman v.Georgia and Gregg v.Georgia27

Ⅰ.Introduction27

Ⅱ.Furman v.Georgia (1972)： The Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional28

A.The Background28

B.The Facts28

C.The Majority Opinions29

D.The Dissenting Opinions31

Ⅲ.Gregg v.Georgia (1976)： The Death Penalty Is Constitutional in Some Cases32

A.The Background32

B.The Facts33

C.The Majority Opinions33

D.The Dissenting Opinions36

Ⅳ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?37

Ⅴ.Conclusion37

Cases Briefed in Chapter 238

Case Briefs38

Furman v.Georgia, 408 U.S.238 (1972)38

Gregg v.Georgia, 428 U.S.153 (1976)40

Internet Resources42

Chapter 3 Racial Discrimination and the Death Penalty45

Ⅰ.Introduction45

Ⅱ.Statistics and Bias in Death Penalty Cases and Jury Selection in Capital Proceedings45

Ⅲ.Legislative Responses to Discrimination in Capital Proceedings47

A.Federal Response： The Proposed Racial Justice Act and Its Failure47

B.State Responses47

1.Legislation47

2.State-Level Lack of Legislation48

Ⅳ.The Legal Community： An Assessment of Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys,and Judges54

A.District Attorneys54

B.Defense Attorneys57

C.Judges59

Ⅴ.The Jury： A Biased Bunch or Victims of Misinformation?61

A.Jury Selection62

B.Peremptory Challenges64

Ⅵ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?68

Ⅶ.Conclusion68

Cases Briefed in Chapter 369

Case Briefs70

McCleskey v.Kemp, 481 U.S.279 (1987)72

Turner v.Murray, 476 U.S.28 (1986)74

Miller-El v.Dretke, 545 U.S.231 (2005)75

Snyder v.Louisiana, 552 U.S.____(2008)78

Internet Resources80

Notes80

Chapter 4 The Mentally Impaired and the Death Penalty87

Ⅰ.Introduction87

Ⅱ.Supreme Court Cases： Past and Present87

A.Starting Point： Penry v.Lynaugh (1989)87

B.Executing the Mentally Retarded is Now Unconstitutional： Atkins v.Virginia88

C.Cases after Atkins89

Ⅲ.Emerging Issues91

A.Definition of Mental Retardation91

B.The Fear of "Faking"103

C.Mental Retardation versus Mental Illness104

D.What Is to Be Done with the Mentally Retarded Now on Death Row?105

Ⅳ.Insanity and the Death Penalty105

A.Insanity： Different from Other Mental Impairments105

B.Reasons for Not Executing the Insane106

1.Failure to Achieve Penological Goals106

a.Deterrence106

b.Retribution107

2.Theological107

3.Humanity107

C.Mental Competence and the Death Penalty108

Ⅴ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?111

Ⅵ.Conclusion111

Cases Briefed in Chapter 4112

Case Briefs113

Ford v.Wainwright, 477 U.S.399 (1986)113

Penry v.Lynaugh, 492 U.S.302 (1989)114

Atkins v.Virginia, 536 U.S.304 (2002)116

Singleton v.Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir.2003)118

Tennard v.Dretke, 542 U.S.274 (2004)119

Panetti v.Quarterman, 551 U.S.____ (2007)121

Internet Resources123

Notes124

Chapter 5 Death Penalty for Juveniles129

Ⅰ.Introduction129

Ⅱ.Thompson v.Oklahoma： Executing Juveniles Age 15 and Younger Is Unconstitutional130

A.Facts130

B.The Court’s Holding130

C.Reasoning131

Ⅲ.Stanford v.Kentucky： Executing Juveniles Ages 16 to 17 Is Constitutional131

A.Facts131

B.The Court’s Holding132

C.Reasoning132

Ⅳ.Atkins v.Virginia： A Case Involving the Mentally Retarded,but a Prelude to the Abolition of the Juvenile Death Penalty133

A.The Issue and Holding133

B.Significance of Atkins for the Juvenile Death Penalty： The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Simmons v.Roper134

Ⅴ.Roper v.Simmons： The Supreme Court Declares the Execution of Juveniles Unconstitutional135

A.Facts135

B.The Holding135

C.Majority Opinion136

D.Dissenting Opinions138

Ⅵ.Evaluating Evolving Standards： Thompson, Stanford, and Simmons140

Ⅶ.A Comparison of Thompson, Stanford, and Simmons142

Ⅷ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?144

Ⅸ.Conclusion145

Cases Briefed in Chapter 5146

Case Briefs146

Thompson v.Oklahoma, 487 U.S.815 (1988)146

Stanford v.Kentucky, 492 U.S.361 (1989)148

Roper v.Simmons, ____U.S.____, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005)149

Internet Resources151

Notes152

Chapter 6 Juries, Jurors, and the Death Penalty155

Ⅰ.Introduction155

Ⅱ.The Ultimate Responsibility： Bifurcated Trials and the Role of Capital Juries156

A.Jury Override： Judges Trumping Juries156

B.Ring v.Arizona： The End of Judicial Sentencing in Capital Cases?158

Ⅲ.Jury Instructions： Guided Discretion in Capital Cases159

A.Guilt Phase： Lesser Included Offenses160

B.Penalty Phase： Future Dangerousness and Parole Eligibility161

Ⅳ.Jury Selection in Capital Cases： Death Qualification163

Ⅴ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?165

Ⅵ.Conclusion167

Cases Briefed in Chapter 6168

Case Briefs169

Witherspoon v.Illinois, 391 U.S.510 (1968)169

Beck v.Alabama, 447 U.S.625 (1980)171

Lockhart v.McCree, 476 U.S.162 (1986)172

Mills v.Maryland, 483 U.S.367 (1988)174

Morgan v.Illinois, 504 U.S.719 (1992)175

Simmons v.South Carolina, 512 U.S.154 (1994)177

Weeks v.Angelone, 528 U.S.225 (2000)179

Ring v.Arizona, 536 U.S.584 (2003)180

Uttecht v.Brown, 551 U.S.____ (2007)182

Internet Resources184

Notes185

Chapter 7 The Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Death Penalty189

Ⅰ.Introduction189

Ⅱ.Strickland： A Two-Part Test for Deciding Ineffective Assistance Claims190

Ⅲ.Application of Strickland in Subsequent Cases191

Ⅳ.Applying AEDPA Restrictions to Sixth Amendment Challenges in Death Penalty Cases192

V.Evaluating Ineffective Assistance in the Twenty-First Century： Objective Standards for Disadvantaged Defendants194

Ⅵ.State and Local Indigent Defense Systems and Funding194

Ⅶ.Recent Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel196

A.Mickens v.Taylor： Successive Representation Permitted Unless Adverse Consequences Exist197

B.Wiggins v.Smith： Counsel’s Duty to Discover a Dysfunctional Background199

C.Florida v.Nixon： The Supreme Court Closes the Door on Silence200

D.Rompilla v.Beard： Right to Investigate Gains Momentum201

E.Schriro v.Landrigan： Interference Is Not Incompetence202

F.Arave v.Hoffman： The Right to Effective Plea Bargaining203

Ⅷ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?204

Ⅸ.Conclusion206

Cases Briefed in Chapter 7207

Case Briefs209

Strickland v.Washington, 466 U.S.688 (1984)209

Lockhart v.Fretwell, 506 U.S.364 (1993)210

Mickens v.Taylor, 535 U.S.162 (2002)212

Bell v.Cone, 535 U.S.685 (2002)213

Wiggins v.Smith, 539 U.S.510 (2003)215

Florida v.Nixon, 543 U.S.175 (2004)216

Rompilla v.Beard, 545 U.S.374 (2005)218

Schriro v.Landrigan, 550 U.S.____ (2007)221

Internet Resources223

Notes224

Chapter 8 Due Process and the Death Penalty229

Ⅰ.Introduction229

Ⅱ.Tracing the Origin of Due Process in Death Penalty Cases230

A.Taking a Two-Part Approach： Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment230

1.The Concept of Guided Discretion230

a.Woodson v.North Carolina231

b.Lockett v.Ohio231

c.Eddings v.Oklahoma232

d.Gardner v.Florida232

2.The Evolution of the "Guided Discretion" Standard233

Ⅲ.Recent Death Penalty Cases Dealing with Due Process234

A.Admissibility of Psychiatric Examinations234

B.Future Dangerousness and Capital Sentencing236

C.The Importance of the "Jury" Verdict236

D.Shackling and the Defendant’s Entitlement to the Presumption of Innocence237

E.Third-Party Guilt Evidence and Admissibility Standards238

Ⅳ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?240

Ⅴ.Conclusion241

Cases Briefed in Chapter 8242

Case Briefs243

Gardner v.Florida, 430 U.S.349 (1977)243

Estelle v.Smith, 451 U.S.454 (1981)244

Eddings v.Oklahoma, 455 U.S.104 (1982)246

Gray v.Netherland, 518 U.S.152 (1996)247

Sattazahn v.Pennsylvania, 537 U.S.101 (2003)249

Deck v.Missouri, 544 U.S.622 (2005)250

Holmes v.South Carolina, 547 U.S.319 (2006)252

Internet Resources254

Notes255

Chapter 9 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Death Penalty Cases259

Ⅰ.Introduction259

Ⅱ.Gregg v.Georgia and the Emerging Importance of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors260

Ⅲ.Aggravating Factors269

A.General Procedural Requirements269

B.Vagueness and Guided (or Unguided) Discretion270

C.The Special Case of Victim Impact Statements271

D.The Special Case of Future Dangerousness272

Ⅳ.Mitigating Factors273

A.General Procedural Requirements274

B.Evidence Allowed274

C.Jury Instructions275

Ⅴ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?277

Ⅵ.Conclusion278

Cases Briefed in Chapter 9279

Case Briefs281

Woodson v.North Carolina, 428 U.S.280 (1976)281

Presnell v.Georgia, 439 U.S.14 (1978)282

Lockett v.Ohio, 438 U.S.586 (1978)284

Barefoot v.Estelle, 463 U.S.880 (1983)285

Lewis v.Jeffers, 497 U.S.764 (1990)286

Payne v.Tennessee, 501 U.S.808 (1991)289

McKoy v.North Carolina, 494 U.S.433 (1990)288

Kansas v.Marsh, 458 U.S.163 (2006)291

Brewer v.Quarterman, 550 U.S.____ (2007)293

Internet Resources294

Notes295

Chapter 10 Appeals, Habeas Corpus, and the Death Penalty301

Ⅰ.Introduction301

Ⅱ.The Appellate Process303

Ⅲ.The Great Writ304

A.History304

B.The Battle over Successive Petitions and the Road to the AEDPA306

1.The Good Faith/Bad Faith Rule306

2.New-Claim Successive Petitions Rule306

3.The Impact of Gregg on Successive Petitions307

C.The AEDPA309

Ⅳ.Current Consequences of the AEDPA312

A.Retroactivity312

B.Statute of Limitations and Actual Innocence312

1.Statute of Limitations312

2.Actual Innocence314

Ⅴ.The Use of Habeas Corpus to Determine the Constitutionality of Methods of Execution318

Ⅵ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?320

Ⅶ.Conclusion322

Cases Briefed in Chapter 10323

Case Briefs324

Rose v.Lundy, 455 U.S.509 (1982)324

McCleskey v.Zant, 499 U.S.467 (1991)326

Sawyer v.Whitley, 505 U.S.333 (1992)328

Herrera v.Collins, 506 U.S.390 (1993)330

Felker v.Turpin, 518 U.S.651 (1996)333

Nelson v.Campbell, 541 U.S.637 (2004)334

House v.Bell, 547 U.S.____ (2007)336

Lawrence v.Florida, 549 U.S.____ (2007)338

Internet Resources339

Notes340

Chapter 11 Evolving Standards of Decency and the Eighth Amendment’s Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment345

Ⅰ.Introduction345

Ⅱ.Methods of Execution346

Ⅲ.Proportionality of Punishment350

A.Types of Crimes351

B.Degree of Involvement in Killing352

C.Proportionality Review353

Ⅳ.The Role of Public Opinion and National Consensus353

Ⅴ.International Perspectives355

Ⅵ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say?357

Ⅶ.Conclusion358

Cases Briefed in Chapter 11359

Case Briefs360

Pulley v.Harris, 465 U.S.37 (1984)360

Tison v.Arizona, 481 U.S.137 (1987)361

Baze v.Rees, 553 U.S.____ (2008)363

Kennedy v.Louisiana, 554 U.S.____ (2008)365

Internet Resources368

Notes369

Chapter 12 Other Issues, Trends, and the Future of the Death Penalty373

Ⅰ.Introduction373

Ⅱ.Justifications for Punishment and the Death Penalty374

A.Retribution and the Death Penalty375

B.Deterrence and the Death Penalty377

C.Incapacitation and the Death Penalty378

D.The Absence of a Justification? The Supreme Court’s Reasons for the Death Penalty379

Ⅲ.Flaws in the Administration of the Death Penalty and Moratoria380

Ⅳ.Trends in the Death Penalty384

Ⅴ.The Future387

Internet Resources388

Notes388

Index391