{
  "id": "RL33008",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33008",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 306693,
      "date": "2005-07-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:37:17.358029",
      "title": "Capital Punishment: A Legal Overview Including the Supreme Court Decisions of the 2004-2005 Term",
      "summary": "Executions declined through the 1950s and 1960s and ceased after 1967, pending definitive\nSupreme\nCourt decisions. This interval ended only after States altered their laws in response to the 1972\nSupreme Court decision in  Furman v. Georgia , a 5-4 decision deciding that the death penalty,\nas\nimposed under existing law, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and\nFourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In  Furman,  the Court ruled that the death\npenalty\nwas arbitrarily and capriciously applied under existing law based on the unlimited discretion\naccorded to sentencing authorities in capital trials. In response, States began to revise their statutes\nto modify the discretion given to sentencing authorities. These statutes went untested until the Court\ndecided  Gregg v. Georgia  in 1976 in which it found in a 7-2 decision, that the death penalty\ndid not\nper se violate the Eighth Amendment. The  Gregg  decision allowed States to establish the\ndeath\npenalty under guidelines that excluded the arbitrariness of sentencing in capital cases. As a result,\nstatutory safeguards were developed to make sentencing more just and fair. Some of the changes\nincluded (1) in death penalty cases, the determination of guilt or innocence must be decided\nseparately from hearings in which sentences of life imprisonment or death are decided; (2) the court\nmust consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in relationship to the crime and the\ndefendant; and (3) the death sentence must be subject to review by the highest State court of appeals\nto make sure that the penalty is in proportion to the seriousness or gravity of the offense and is\nimposed even-handedly under State law. Like the statutory safeguards, the capital cases decided by\nthe Court in the 2004-5 term also reflect its sentiment that if there is going to be a death penalty, the\nprocess must be fair.   \n \n   The Supreme Court abolished the practice of executing mentally retarded persons in\n Atkins v.\nVirginia  and juveniles who commit a capital crime while under the age of 18 in  Roper v.\nSimmons . \nThe Court ruled that these executions were prohibited on Eighth Amendment \u201ccruel and\nunusual\npunishment\u201d grounds. The Court expanded its doctrine on the \u201cineffective assistance\nof counsel\u201d\nin setting aside the death sentence for the petitioner in  Rompilla v. Beard  because his lawyers\nfailed\nto search files on his past convictions for mitigating evidence in spite of their conscientious efforts\nwhich led them to believe that it would be a waste of time. However, the Court determined in\n Bell\nv. Thompson  that the scheduling of an execution was reasonable and the actions of the Court\nof\nAppeals were an abuse of discretion, although the case was remanded for an ineffective assistance\nof counsel hearing by the Court of Appeals while acting upon an honest belief that its previous ruling\nhad been decided erroneously. Also, the Court\u2019s decision in  Miller-El v. Dretke \nreflected an\naffirmation of its condemnation of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33008",
          "sha1": "768e3b595f2612df47dc4b3d35211c5b7a110094",
          "filename": "files/20050722_RL33008_768e3b595f2612df47dc4b3d35211c5b7a110094.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33008",
          "sha1": "9d6c99406c179cb76ac27610140956d736f5c77a",
          "filename": "files/20050722_RL33008_9d6c99406c179cb76ac27610140956d736f5c77a.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}