About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

72 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2020)

handle is hein.journals/uflr72 and id is 1 raw text is: UNUSUAL STATE CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS William W. Berry Hi* Abstract This Article argues that many of the states that retain the death penalty currently violate their own state constitutions because their use of the death penalty is unusual. Specifically, an intrastate assessment of the death penalty in some states, particularly examining its use across counties, suggests that the rareness of its use might mean that it has become an unusual punishment. As a result, this Article explores the twenty-six capital states that proscribe unusual punishments and categorizes them based on the likelihood that their use of the death penalty violates their state constitutions. Part I of this Article explains the concept of unusualness under the Eighth Amendment as developed by the United States Supreme Court in its capital cases. In Part II, this Article explores the Eighth Amendment analogues in state constitutions that similarly prohibit unusual punishments and the conjunctive and disjunctive language of the state constitutions, before demonstrating how the Eighth Amendment approach could translate to the analysis of unusualness under state constitutional law. Part III then examines the states that have unusual punishment proscriptions in their state constitutions and categorizes the states based on the likelihood that their use of the death penalty violates their state constitutions. Finally, in Part IV, this Article argues for an expansive application of state constitutions to bar unusual state capital punishments, exploring the policy reasons supporting this analytical move. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................3 I. EIGHTH AMENDMENT UNUSUALNESS.........................................6 A. Furman v. Georgia..............................................................7 B. The Evolving Standards of Decency...............................8 II. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL UNUSUALNESS ..............................15 A. State Constitutional Analogues to the Eighth Amendment ...........................................................16 B. Conjunctives and Disjunctives .........................................18 C. Counties as Analogues for States .....................................20 * Associate Professor, University of Mississippi School of Law; D.Phil. in Law, University of Oxford; J.D., Vanderbilt University. I would like to thank Andrew Rock for his outstanding research assistance on this Article, and the Florida Law Review for their excellent editorial work in preparing this Article for publication.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most