Term
| What did the supreme court rule in Furman vs. GA (Georgia)? |
|
Definition
| the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional in its implementation in Georgia because the system gave absolute discretion to the jury without articulating standards and was thus “arbitrary(Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) and capricious (Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.).” Capital punishment is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual. Brennan and Marshall believed it was unconstitutional in all cases, others focus on arbitrary nature of sentences, mainly black bias |
|
|
Term
| What did the supreme court rule in Woodson vs. North Carolina ? |
|
Definition
| the Supreme Court ruled that having mandatory capital punishment for certain crimes was unconstitutional because crimes are too unique to have a blanket punishment. |
|
|
Term
| What was Gregg vs. GA ( Georgia) about ? |
|
Definition
| Gregg v. GA upheld Georgia’s reformed capital punishment judiciary system because it was bifurcated(Divide into two branches or forks) and had standards (such as a list of 6 qualifications, 1 of which had to be met to qualify a defendant for capital punishment). The majority opinion stated that capital punishment has 2 purposes: retribution and deterrence. The government has to act as the public’s outrage and prevent the public from taking matters into their own hands. Although evidence is inconclusive, capital punishment may also serve as deterrence to other potential criminals. |
|
|
Term
| Has the Supreme Court dealt adequately with due process problems as they apply to the death penalty? Your answer should include (a) a statement as to what due process is, (b) what problems with regard to due process the death penalty faces, and (c) history of the court with respect to these problems as stated in Furman v. GA, Woodson v. North Carolina and Gregg v. GA. Also, you must draw a conclusion of your own regarding this issue. |
|
Definition
| The Supreme Court has not dealt adequately with due process problems as they apply to the death penalty. Due process is the fair treatment of an individual in the judicial system. Some problems with regard to due process include racial discrimination, class discrimination - some people have better access to justice, plea bargains and death-qualified jurors. The court doesn’t acknowledge these problems or believes that making objective standards eliminates problems in due process. I believe that the death-qualified jury argument is the strongest argument against capital punishment because it tilts every case in favor of the prosecution and is patently unjust. Because this creates a fundamental injustice in due process, I believe capital punishment should be abolished. Also, the quality of court-appointed attorneys is low (generally speaking). |
|
|
Term
| Does the death penalty present any real advantages over the penalty of life imprisonment? Why or why not? In your answer you may consider any of the sources provided by your book, but you must consider the positions of Louis Pojman and Jeffrey Reiman, and provide a conclusion of your own regarding the issue. |
|
Definition
According to available statistical evidence, it doesn’t have any advantages as a deterrent. There is no evidence to show that capital punishment has any greater a deterrent effect than life imprisonment in cases of murder. Louis Pojman believes in common sense theory/continuously rising disclination which states that the more severe the penalty, the better it is as a deterrence. He also believes that, given inconclusive evidence on the deterrence effect of capital punishment, it is our “best bet” to keep capital punishment because it would save the most innocent lives.
Jeffrey Reiman sees life imprisonment as an equally (if not more) effective maximum penalty on 3 fronts:
1. Common sense argument begs the question. Deterrence doesn’t rise in effectiveness after life imprisonment. And criminals are not completely rational actors. Evidence shows us this.
2. If the risk of death by civilians or police with guns doesn’t deter a person from committing the crime, the distant possibility of death penalty will not either.
3. Not executing may also have a deterrent factor and has as much a basis in evidence as van den Haag’s common sense assertion. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Justice Marshall’s dissent in Gregg v. GA. |
|
Definition
Marshall believes capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment because it is “excessive” and that if more people fully understood capital punishment they would not approve.
1. Retribution is not sufficient. Life imprisonment can prevent “private blood feuds” just as effectively as capital punishment.
2. There is no deterrence effect. (there’s no correlation between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of capital crime)
3. Killing someone just because the public believes he “deserves it” is fundamentally at odds with the 8th amendment |
|
|
Term
| Describe two of Primoratz’s responses to objections to the retributive argument |
|
Definition
1. Objection: CP violates right to live.
Response: No rights are absolute. If you take away others’ rights, you forfeit your own. Also, it’s not unjust killing.
2. Objection: CP is legal murder.
Response: This is nonsensical rhetoric. Incarceration is legal kidnapping. Fines are legal theft. Slippery Slope.
3. Objection: There is no way to calculate proportionality of human lives.
Response: All lives are equal under the law. We don’t weigh the quality of life, only the proportionality of the punishment with the crime.
4. Objection: CP is not proportional because of the long wait before execution.
Response: This is a problem with due process, not CP.
5. Objection: Because CP is irrevocable, we can’t rectify if we make a mistake.
Response: The possibility of mistake is present in all cases. Death is the only proportional punishment for murder. If we take away CP, murderers will have a disproportionately lenient punishment compared to all other criminals. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the lecturer’s counter-example to Primoratz’s retributive argument. |
|
Definition
Case 1) Man breaks into woman’s house, rapes her, stabs her repeatedly and she dies
Case 2) Man breaks into woman’s house, rapes her, stabs her repeatedly, but she is rushed to hospital which saves her life
What’s the difference between these two crimes? Why should the perpetrator in case 1 be punished differently than the perp in case 2 if they did exactly the same acts? We should punish people for what they actually did (their crime) and not the outcome of their crime. Attempted murder should be treated the same as murder. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Nathanson’s two senses of retribution. |
|
Definition
Equality - punishment equal to the crime, literally “eye for an eye”, impossible because punishing
torturers and rapists would violate 8th amendment and there is no way to punish criminals such as embezzlers, spies, and airplane hijackers
Proportionality - punishment proportional in severity to the crime, neutral in regard to CP, just implies that the worst crime deserves worst punishment. Proportionality doesn’t imply using death penalty, life in prison is also sufficient.
** Is nathanson okay with proportionality? because its compatible and has a great range of punishments? It’s open ended so a lot of actions can be undertaken
Yes, he is okay with proportionality. Pretty much everyone is. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the deterrence argument for the death penalty. Then state how each of the following views deterrence: |
|
Definition
CP should be legal because it deters potential murderers from murdering people and therefore saves innocent lives.
a. Majority opinion in Gregg v. GA.+
It’s possible, but retribution is main reason for CP.
b. Louis Pojman
According to common sense, death penalty should deter more than life imprisonment. According to best bet, given that we don’t know the deterrence effectiveness of CP, it is most beneficial to have CP.
c. Primoratz
Irrelevant. Retribution is the only reason to have CP.
d. Jeffrey Reiman
There is no evidence to suggest that CP deters. There may even be evidence that not having CP deters. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the retributive argument for the death penalty. Then describe the views of the following thinkers regarding this argument: |
|
Definition
CP should be legal because it is morally just to punish a person for committing a crime. This also prevents people from trying to take matters of justice into their own hands.
a. Primoratz
Pro retribution; proportionality. Death is the only proportional punishment for murder.
b. Nathanson
Defines two kinds of retribution: equality and proportionality. Equality is impossible/cruel and unusual, and proportionality is neutral to CP. Equal retributive theory is flawed in the sense that we do not know how to punish some types of crimes. You can execute a murderer but how do you punish a rapist, illegal drug user, or prostitute? Proportional retributive theory is flawed because there is not validation of types of punishments we can assert against wrongdoers. Nathanson does however acknowledge that proportional retributive theory plays a better role about punishments than equal theory.
c. The lecturer
You can’t justify CP on retribution alone. Proportionality is not sufficient. See 4c.
Need both deterrence and retribution together, neither can stand on its own.
d. Dissenting opinion (Marshall) in Gregg v. GA
Retribution is insufficient. To do something to someone because he “deserves” it, is in contradiction with the 8th amendment because it violates the “dignity of man.” |
|
|
