☰ In this section

The Champion

March 2019 , Page 47 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

Capital Cases: Does Reliability Still Matter in Death Penalty Cases?

By Randolph M. Fiedler

The best explanation for who gets the death penalty is not the heinousness of the offense, but race and geography.1 Innocent people end up on death row, and even some innocent people are executed.2 If these sound like old problems, it is because they are. The Furman Court noted them; the Gregg Court declared them solved. The Court is, again, acknowledging these problems.3 Scholars, for years now, have suggested that these problems offer new directions for litigation.4 

When the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty, the problem was an inability to explain who got the death penalty. The five concurrences of Furman shared a concern about the absence of standards for who would get the death penalty.5 The absence of standards left too much discretion. And discretion created random results (at best) or discriminatory results (at worst). The Furman opinions left open that a reliable — or non-random — death penalty would still be constitutional.6 

When, in Gregg and its companion cases

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
login

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us
ad

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us
ad