Entries tagged with “John Blume

Policy Issues

Arbitrariness

,

Intellectual Disability

,

Juveniles

,

United States Supreme Court

,

Executions Overview

,

Dec 17, 2021

Right Too Soon” Study: One in Seven Prisoners Put to Death in U.S. Had Legal Issues that Make Their Executions Unconstitutional

At least one in sev­en death-row pris­on­ers put to death in the United States since exe­cu­tions resumed in 1977 had legal claims in their cas­es that would ren­der their exe­cu­tions uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, a new Cornell University Law School study shows.

Policy Issues

Intellectual Disability

,

United States Supreme Court

,

Oct 07, 2022

Atkins at 20: Assessing the Purported Ban on Executing Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities

In its land­mark deci­sion in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the use of the death penal­ty against indi­vid­u­als with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty con­sti­tut­ed cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment in vio­la­tion of the Eighth Amendment. Twenty years lat­er, how­ev­er, there is not just the risk, but the cer­tain­ty” that states con­tin­ue to sen­tence intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled defen­dants to death, three legal schol­ars argue, and the fed­er­al courts are let­ting them get away with it.

Policy Issues

Arbitrariness

,

Race

,

Apr 14, 2023

LAW REVIEWS — Collection of Articles on the Death Penalty from Leading Scholars

The fol­low­ing law review arti­cles by sev­er­al key death penal­ty researchers were recent­ly pub­lished in 107 Cornell Law Review, No. 6, September, 2022. They cov­er a vari­ety of issues, such as the inter­play between race and cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, the his­to­ry of the death penal­ty, the fed­er­al death penal­ty, sen­tenc­ing trends, and the fed­er­al court’s role in cap­i­tal punishment:

Executions

Methods of Execution

,

Feb 06, 2024

South Carolina Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Constitutionality of Electrocution and Firing Squad, Considers Scope of Secrecy Law

On February 6, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral argu­ments in Owens v. Stirling, a case in which death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers chal­lenged the state’s elec­tro­cu­tion and fir­ing squad exe­cu­tion meth­ods as uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. A South Carolina tri­al court had pre­vi­ous­ly held an exten­sive evi­den­tiary hear­ing and issued an injunc­tion against use of those meth­ods based on the state’s con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­hi­bi­tion against cru­el,” unusu­al,” or cor­po­ral” pun­ish­ments. For almost 90 min­utes the par­ties dis­cussed the expert tes­ti­mo­ny and evi­dence con­sid­ered by the dis­trict court, while also spend­ing sub­stan­tial time debat­ing the…