Furman and Finitude

2018 ◽  
pp. 205-225
Author(s):  
Adam Thurschwell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Relationship Of

This chapter argues that the United States Supreme Court’s death penalty jurisprudence provides an unlikely supplement to Derrida’s analysis, one that both supports and extends it. This jurisprudence recapitulates with remarkable fidelity the aporetic relationship of law and justice Derrida proposed in “Force of Law,” and thus allows Derrida’s death penalty seminar to be situated within his other writings on law. Beyond that, the Supreme Court’s crypto-Derridian analysis suggests a response to Derrida’s desire for an abolitionism that breaks with the death penalty’s “invincible phantasm,” even while remaining under shadow of that phantasm.

Public Opinion and Capital Punishment: A Close Examination of the Views of Abolitionists and Retentionists

1983 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe C. Ellsworth ◽  
Lee Ross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Self Image ◽  
Legal Implications

A survey designed to examine the attitudinal and informational bases of people's opinions about the death penalty was administered to 500 Northern California residents (response rate = 96 percent). Of these, 58.8 percent were proponents of capital punishment, 30.8 percent were opponents, and 10.4 percent were undecided. When asked whether they favored mandatory, discretionary, or no death penalty for various crimes, respondents tended to treat these options as points on a scale of strength of belief, with mandatory penalties favored for the most serious crimes, rather than considering the questions of objectivity and fairness that have influenced the United States Supreme Court's considerations of these options. For no crime did a majority favor execution of all those convicted, even when a mandatory penalty was endorsed. Respondents were generally ignorant on factual issues related to the death penalty, and indicated that if their factual beliefs (in deterrence) were incorrect, their attitude would not be influenced. When asked about their reasons for favoring or opposing the death penalty, respondents tended to endorse all reasons consistent with their attitudes, indicating that the attitude does not stem from a set of reasoned beliefs, but may be an undifferenti ated, emotional reflection of one's ideological self-image. Opponents favored due process guarantees more than did Proponents. A majority of respondents said they would need more evidence to convict if a case was capital. Theoretical and legal implications of the results are discussed.

scholarly journals An Argument for the Admissibility of Execution Impact Evidence in Pennsylvania

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paige H. Forster
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Capital Trials ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Penalty Phase

In 1991, the United States Supreme Court made a significant change to sentencing proceedings during capital trials. The Court ruled in Payne v. Tennessee that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit “victim impact evidence,” testimony about the character of the murder victim and the impact of the death on the victim’s family. The Payne decision permits highly emotional testimony from family members to enter into the penalty phase of a death penalty trial.

Executing the Innocent

1998 ◽  
pp. 21-26
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Linehan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Decisive Objection

The risk of executing innocent persons is a decisive objection to the institution of capital punishment in the United States. Consequentialist arguments for the death penalty are inconclusive at best; the strongest justification is a retributive one. However, this argument is seriously undercut if a significant risk of executing the innocent exists. Any criminal justice system carries the risk of punishing innocent persons, but the punishment of death is unique and requires greater precautions. Retributive justifications for the death penalty are grounded in respect for innocent victims of homicide; but accepting serious risks of mistaken executions demonstrates disrespect for innocent human life. United States Supreme Court decisions of the 1990’s (Coleman v. Thompson and Herrara v. Collins) illustrate the existence of serious risk and suggest some explanations for it.

State Constitutionalism and the Death Penalty

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-156
Author(s):  
Alan Rogers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts

Concerned that the United States Supreme Court's abolition of the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia (1972) would not be sustained, abolitionists turned to state supreme courts. Through their efforts, two states succeeded in realizing that goal: California, briefly, and Massachusetts, where the death penalty remains unconstitutional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document