Death Penalty
Discipline: Law
Type of Paper: Response essay
Academic Level: High school
Paper Format: APA
Question
In his dissent in Callins v. Collins, Justice Blackmun famously wrote, “From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.” In explaining his transformation, Blackmun wrote:
To be fair, a capital sentencing scheme must treat each person convicted of a capital offense with that “degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual.” That means affording the sentencer the power and discretion to grant mercy in a particular case, and providing avenues for the consideration of any and all relevant mitigating evidence that would justify a sentence less than death. Reasonable consistency, on the other hand, requires that the death penalty be inflicted evenhandedly, in accordance with reason and objective standards, rather than by whim, caprice, or prejudice. Finally, because human error is inevitable, and because our criminal justice system is less than perfect, searching appellate review of death sentences and their underlying convictions is a prerequisite to a constitutional death penalty scheme.
On their face, these goals of individual fairness, reasonable consistency, and absence of error appear to be attainable: Courts are in the very business of erecting procedural devices from which fair, equitable, and reliable outcomes are presumed to flow. Yet, in the death penalty area, this Court, in my view, has engaged in a futile effort to balance these constitutional demands.
What efforts has the Court made “to balance these constitutional demands.” Be sure to reference at least five specific case holdings in your answer. Do you shared Blackmun’s view that these efforts have been futile? Why or why not? After your review of the constitutional law of death, do you share Justice Blackmun’s pessimism or do you reach a different conclusion? Why?