|
||||
|
||||
Juvenile Execution, Terrorist Extradition, and Supreme Court Discretion to Consider International Death Penalty JurisprudenceElizabeth BurlesonLondon School of Economics (LSE); Pace Law School October 30, 2010 Albany Law Review, Vol. 68, p. 909, 2005 Abstract: European human rights law and multilateral conventions have raised United States death penalty policy to an international level. Treaties and international institutions have impacted the extradition of capital offenders and influenced the development of human rights law within the United States. Refusal to extradite without assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed has continuing ramifications for the implementation of transnational counter-terrorism measures. Determining a contemporary standard of decency regarding cruel and unusual punishment, what shocks the public conscious, or what constitutes torture depends upon what societal parameters one uses. The Supreme Court's readiness to examine international developments in coming to terms with the proportionality of capital punishment marks a significant turning point in constitutional jurisprudence.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 39 Keywords: Capital Punishment, Death Penalty, Extradition, Transnational Counter-Terrorism, Torture, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Civil Rights, Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, International Law, Criminal Law, Dispute Resolution, Human Rights Law, Jurisdiction, Juveniles JEL Classification: H1, H5, H7, K14, K33, K4, Z10 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: August 30, 2006 ; Last revised: October 31, 2010Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.328 seconds