skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 119637 Find in a Library
Title: Jury Coercion in Capital Cases: How Much Risk Are We Willing to Take?
Journal: University of Cincinnati Law Review  Volume:57  Issue:3  Dated:(1989)  Pages:1073-1100
Author(s): M J Crowley
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 28
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This comment questions the risks posed by jury coercion and the level of jury coercion that should be tolerated in capital punishment cases.
Abstract: The comment provides an overview of the U.S. Supreme Court's development of procedural parameters necessary in capital cases to avoid the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. The comment also explores the Supreme Court's emphasis on individualization in capital sentencing as demonstrated through its rejection of mandatory death statutes, its developments regarding the death penalty as a punishment proportionate to the offense, and its consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The jury's role in capital cases is examined, including the effects of both supplemental jury charges and inquiries into the numerical division of a jury. Jury discretion in capital sentencing is discussed in terms of limiting or guiding it to protect a defendant against wrongfully being sentenced to death. It is concluded that the Supreme Court is muddying the waters of constitutional protection in the sensitive area of jury coercion and thus may be eroding the strong case law it has built for protecting capital defendants. 202 references.
Main Term(s): Capital punishment
Index Term(s): Jury decisionmaking; Sentencing disparity; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=119637

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.