Title : Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies?
link : Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies?
Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies?
An appalling and racialized standard of ‘future dangerousness’ has been used to condemn defendants. This lawyer fought it.
The death penalty, like abortion, is one of those hot-button topics that keeps popping up into the public consciousness, a roach motel for meretricious ideas and bad public policy — including racism. I would bet that if it involved putting white people to death for killing black people, it would have been abolished years ago. Still, it persists. Except our society — until recently — has come to believe that overt expressions of racism might not be a good thing. Better to keep a fig leaf over it than to explore its underbelly.
In 1972, the Supreme Court found in the 5-4 decision of Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty as practiced in this country was unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. But the majority couldn’t agree on a rationale for its decision, so instead of one majority opinion, five separate concurrences were produced. While Justices Brennan and Marshall found the death penalty itself to be cruel and usual punishment, Justices Stewart, White and Douglas focused on its arbitrariness, leaving the door wide open for states to rejigger their statutes and return to executions.
In 1973, Texas did just that — the sentencing phase of a capital trial was separated from the guilt phase, and the jury was asked to consider “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society [future dangerousness].” In response to the Furman decision, Governor Preston Smith commuted the death sentences of 52 inmates in Texas, clearing out death row entirely. In 1976, consolidating cases from five different states (Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Louisiana), the court in Gregg v. Georgia found that the death penalty was not unconstitutional in every case. Executions in Texas, now by lethal injection — Old Sparky, the Texas electric chair, had been retired — started back up in 1982.
Not long ago, I read about the case of Buck v. Davis, decided by the Supreme Court on Feb. 22. Duane Buck had been convicted of capital murder in 1997. He killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends. The details of the crime are appalling, but no less appalling is that Dr. Walter Quijano discussed Mr. Buck’s race as a factor in determining his future dangerousness. African-Americans, Dr. Quijano argued, are more likely to commit acts of violence. Though Dr. Quijano opined that Mr. Buck was not a risk of future dangerousness, his testimony about race remained an element for the jury to consider.
Dr. Quijano has given similar testimony in other death penalty cases since 1991.
Source: The New York Times, The Opinion Pages, Errol Morris, June 7, 2017. Errol Morris is a writer and filmmaker. He lives with his wife and French bulldog in Cambridge.
⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
 |
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
Thus articles Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies?
that is all articles Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies? the link address https://allnewsinformationtime.blogspot.com/2017/06/who-is-dangerous-and-who-dies.html
0 Response to "Who Is Dangerous, and Who Dies?"
Post a Comment