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: 237012 Find in a Library
Title: Executing Those Who Do Not Kill: A Categorical Approach to Proportional Sentencing
Journal: American Criminal Law Review  Volume:48  Issue:3  Dated:Summer 2011  Pages:1371-1422
Author(s): Joseph Trigilio; Tracy Casadio
Date Published: 2011
Page Count: 52
Publisher: http://www.law.georgetown.edu 
Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article presents the case for the United States Supreme Court to reverse its standing regarding offenders eligible for the death penalty who do not kill.
Abstract: At the end of the 20th century, the United States Supreme Court ruled in three separate cases on the proportional use of the death penalty that the death sentence was allowable for a defendant who neither killed nor intended to kill but was a major participant in a felony and acted with reckless disregard for human life, and that a defendant’s status as a juvenile offender or a mentally retarded person did not preclude the use of the death penalty. Since then, the Court has reversed itself regarding the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders and mentally retarded persons, yet it still allows for the use of the death penalty for defendants who have not killed. The first section of the article examines the rulings of the Supreme Court prior to Tison v. Arizona, in which the Court ensured that a defendant’s punishment was proportionate to the crime for which he was convicted. The second section of the paper examines the three cases – Tison v. Arizona, Stanford vs. Kentucky, and Penry v. Lynaugh, in which the Court altered the established rules regarding proportionality of punishment, allowing for use of the death penalty in cases that had previously been off limits, such as with juvenile offenders and mentally retarded offenders. The third section of the paper examines the more recent decisions by the Court that have reversed the findings in both Penry and Stanford. The final section of the paper then proposes that the Court should reexamine the proportionality of death sentences of felony-murder accomplices in light of its recent rulings regarding use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders and mentally retarded defendants. Appendix
Main Term(s): Capital punishment
Index Term(s): Abolishment of capital punishment; Adult felony system; Death row inmates; Felony murder; Juvenile capital punishment; US Supreme Court; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=259032

*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.