Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2127792
 
 

Footnotes (252)



 


 



Entrenchment and/or Destabilization? Reflections on (Another) Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment


Carol S. Steiker


Harvard Law School

Jordan M. Steiker


University of Texas School of Law

August 10, 2012

Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012
U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 226
Harvard Public Law Working Paper, No. 13-02

Abstract:     
In this article, we revisit our 1995 analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s death penalty jurisprudence (Sober Second Thoughts: Reflections on Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 357) in light of the steep decline in death sentences and executions over the past decade. Our consideration of the causes of this precipitous and unexpected turnaround leads us to the surprising conclusion that the same regulatory reforms of the modern (post-1976) era that we earlier described as legitimating and entrenching the practice of capital punishment have also contributed to its recent destabilization. We contrast the effects of the death penalty reforms of prior generations – such as narrowing the scope of death-eligible crimes, making death sentences discretionary rather than mandatory, privatizing and centralizing executions, and improving execution methods – with the reforms of the modern era of constitutional regulation. The reforms of the modern era have vastly increased the regulation and cost of the death penalty, required the professionalization of the capital litigation bar, led to lengthy periods of time between sentencing and execution, increased the focus on mitigation in capital trials, and contributed to the proliferation of life-without-parole as an alternative to the death sentence. We argue that the current regime represents a fundamental break with past modes of regulating capital punishment in ways that render the current American death penalty unstable, indeed precarious. We explore the implications of these insights for two broader debates – the first about the relationship between reform and abolition, and the second about the causes of American “exceptionalism” with regard to capital punishment.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 35

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 11, 2012 ; Last revised: February 12, 2013

Suggested Citation

Steiker, Carol S. and Steiker, Jordan M., Entrenchment and/or Destabilization? Reflections on (Another) Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment (August 10, 2012). Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012; U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 226; Harvard Public Law Working Paper, No. 13-02. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2127792

Contact Information

Carol S. Steiker (Contact Author)
Harvard Law School ( email )
Griswold 409
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
617-496-5457 (Phone)
617-495-1110 (Fax)
Jordan M. Steiker
University of Texas School of Law ( email )
727 East Dean Keeton Street
Austin, TX 78705
United States
512-232-1346 (Phone)
512-471-6988 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 853
Downloads: 194
Download Rank: 91,997
Footnotes:  252

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.313 seconds