39 Pages Posted: 30 Aug 2006 Last revised: 31 Oct 2010
Date Written: October 30, 2010
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.
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
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Burleson, Elizabeth, Juvenile Execution, Terrorist Extradition, and Supreme Court Discretion to Consider International Death Penalty Jurisprudence (October 30, 2010). Albany Law Review, Vol. 68, p. 909, 2005 . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=927359