Decades in Death’s Twilight

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-163
Author(s):  
Emily Gray
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Death Row ◽  
Entire Duration ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Death Row Inmates ◽  
History Of

The average amount of time that death row inmates spend on death row has ballooned over the past decade, and for death row inmates in the state of Texas, the entire duration of that increased time will be spent in solitary confinement. This raises the following question: Is solitary confinement now considered to be part of the punishment, one that may be worse than the death penalty itself? This article discusses the history of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and cites scientific literature which posits that long-term solitary confinement can cause serious psychological damage. It examines “death row syndrome,” a term that refers to the psychological illness or disorder exhibited by an inmate who has spent a prolonged period of time in harsh conditions on death row. The article reviews the Polunsky Unit, which currently houses Texas’s death row and has been described as one of the worst prisons in the United States. The article also discusses the long history of Lackey claims, which allege that prolonged confinements under a death sentence breach the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The unresolved dissent within the Supreme Court regarding this subject is presented and discussed. This article contends that the prolonged solitary confinement of a Texas inmate on death row is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and concludes that the only solution is to end the practice of automatic and permanent solitary confinement.

The Supreme Court, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and the Death Penalty

1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-131
Author(s):  
Sol Rubin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of

The history of the Eighth Amendment (prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment) as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States is bleak. For all practical purposes, the Court's rulings have rendered the Eighth Amendment a dead letter.

Intelligent and Civilized Sentiments

Lethal State ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 111-152
Author(s):  
Seth Kotch
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
State Law ◽  
Death Row ◽  
Death Sentences ◽  
Death Row Inmates ◽  
History Of ◽  
Tangible Result

This chapter tells the history of some of the elements that contributed to the declining use of the death penalty in North Carolina. Journalist Nell Battle Lewis railed against the practice as racist, un-Christian, and barbaric. Paul Green echoed those sentiments as he campaigned to save death row inmates from death. Yet their activism had little tangible result. More significant was a change in state law that allowed juries to formally recommend mercy following a conviction, meaning that judges were no longer required to deliver mandatory death sentences. The end of the mandatory death sentences ended executions, which ceased in 1961 and would not resume until 1984.

Solitary Confinement across Borders

2019 ◽  
pp. 59-76
Author(s):  
Sharon Shalev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prison System ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Management Units ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Close Supervision ◽  
Recent Developments

This chapter looks at the use of solitary confinement in three jurisdictions where the author has conducted research: England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States. It asks when and why prisoners are placed in solitary confinement in these jurisdictions, and what are the conditions of their confinement. The chapter's main focus is on the long-term use of solitary confinement as a tool for managing individuals classified and labeled as the most dangerous or troublesome in the prison system, including in New Zealand's Management Units and England and Wales’s Close Supervision Centres. Finally, it examines recent developments and asks what learning there might be for other jurisdictions.

The History of Mitigation in Death Penalty Cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 34-45
Author(s):  
Russell Stetler
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Death Sentences ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
Mitigating Factors ◽  
History Of ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Effective Representation ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses how the theory and practice of mitigation have evolved over more than four decades, thereby helping to define the modern death penalty era in the United States. Prior to 1976, juries generally made death penalty decisions in a unitary proceeding. Juries then had unfettered discretion to impose death sentences, and the results were so arbitrary that in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all the existing death penalty statutes. In 1976, the Court approved new statutes that guided jurors’ discretion. The Court required individualized sentencing in which jurors could consider mitigating factors based on the diverse frailties of humankind. This broad definition of what might inspire juries to reject death was elaborated in succeeding decades in a series of decisions relying on the Eighth Amendment. Social workers and other nonlawyers became critical members of multidisciplinary capital defense teams providing effective representation under the Sixth Amendment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document