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: 35550 Find in a Library
Title: WITHERSPOON REVISTED - EXPLORING THE TENSION BETWEEN WITHERSPOON AND FURMAN
Journal: UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW  Volume:45  Issue:1  Dated:(1976)  Pages:19-36
Author(s): W S WHTE
Corporate Author: University of Cincinnati Law Review
United States of America
Date Published: 1976
Page Count: 18
Sponsoring Agency: University of Cincinnati Law Review
Cincinnati, OH 45221
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: IN WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS (1968) THE SUPREME COURT LIMITED THE PROSECUTOR'S RIGHT TO A DEATH-QUALIFIED JURY UNDER JURY-DISCRETIONARY STATUTES.
Abstract: IT HELD THAT UNDER A SYSTEM OF JURY-DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, A VENIREMAN MAY NOT BE EXCLUDED FOR CAUSE BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS ON THE DEATH PENALTY, UNLESS HIS VIEWS ARE UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR AND WOULD COMPEL HIM TO VOTE AUTOMATICALLY AGAINST IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY OR WOULD PREVENT HIM FROM MAKING THE REQUIRED IMPARTIAL DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE. IN FURMAN V. GEORGIA (1972), THE COURT INVALIDATED ALL DEATH SENTENCES IMPOSED PURSUANT TO A SYSTEM OF JURY-DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE OF ITS PERCEPTION THAT THE PREVAILING SYSTEM RESULTED IN AN ARBITRARY AND UNEVEN APPLICATION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. THIS ARTICLE ANALYZES POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACKS ON THE TWO CATEGORIES OF POST-FURMAN STATUTES: 'MANDATORY' STATUTES, WHICH IMPOSE AN AUTOMATIC SENTENCE OF DEATH UPON CONVICTION OF A SPECIFICALLY DEFINED CRIME; AND 'GUIDED DISCRETIONARY' STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A LIST OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALLOW OR REQUIRED THEM TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY IF AT LEAST ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT. IT FIRST DISCUSSES THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY WITHERSPOON ON THE SYSTEM'S USE OF A DEATH-QUALIFIED JURY AND THE POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THESE LIMITATIONS. IT THEN EXPLORES WITHERSPOON'S UNDERLYING RATIONALE AND ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE NEW SYSTEMS.
Index Term(s): Analysis; Capital punishment; Cruel and unusual punishment; Judicial decisions; Jury selection; Laws and Statutes; Mandatory Sentencing; Sentencing/Sanctions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=35550

*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.