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: 63757 Find in a Library
Title: WHY NOT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? (FROM CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 1979, BY R G IACOVETTA AND DAE H CHANG - SEE NCJ-63717)
Author(s): G L KUEHEL
Corporate Author: Carolina Academic Press
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 6
Sponsoring Agency: Carolina Academic Press
Durham, NC 27701
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE EXAMINED AND THE MANDATORY GUIDELINES FOR STATES ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE EXPLAINED.
Abstract: THE VARIETY OF MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY PIVOT AROUND DETERRENCE. MEANWHILE, THE PRIMARY ARGUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED ARE GENERALLY NOT BROUGHT FORTH AND EXAMINED. THESE, IN THEIR SIMPLEST FORMS, ARE THAT (1) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PERSONS INSIDE AS WELL AS OUTSIDE OF PRISONS; (2) SOCIETY HAS THE POWER AND THE LEGAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE ANY LAWFUL PUNISHMENT IT DESIRES; AND (3) OUR SYSTEM OF LAW IS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, WHEN ADMINISTERED ACCORDING TO LAW, IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THAT PHILOSOPHY. THE MAJORITY OF SOCIETY IS IN FAVOR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WHEN NOT CAPRICIOUSLY AND ARBITRARILY USED, AND THE SUPREME COURT HOLDS WITH THIS ATTITUDE AND HAS ESTABLISHED MANDATORY GUIDELINES FOR STATES' USE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1976 SET FORTH A THREE-STEP PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN LEGISLATIVELY FOLLOWED IN ALL STATES WHERE THE DEATH PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN OVERTURNED. THE GUIDELINES PROVIDE FOR THE USUAL TRIAL TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. IF GUILT IS FOUND, A HEARING MUST BE HELD TO ALLOW ARGUMENTS OF MITIGATION OR AGGRAVATION. IF THE CONVICTED PERSON IS SENTENCED TO DEATH, THERE SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC APPEAL TO THE NEXT HIGHER LEVEL WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION. THE ESSAY ADVANCES SEVERAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE POSITION HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RFC)
Index Term(s): Capital punishment; Deterrence; Judicial decisions; Public Attitudes/Opinion; US Supreme Court
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63757

*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.