CRIMINOLOGY: AN ACTUARIAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF VIOLENCE POSED BY CAPITAL MURDER DEFENDANTS Skip over navigation
LexisNexis® Browse Law Reviews and Treatises
Skip over navigation
Sign in with your lexis.com® ID to access the full text of this article.
-OR-
Order the full text of this article if you do not have a lexis.com® ID.
 
Price: 
US $22.00 (+ tax)
 
 

Copyright (c) 2000 Northwestern School of Law
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology

CRIMINOLOGY: AN ACTUARIAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF VIOLENCE POSED BY CAPITAL MURDER DEFENDANTS

Summer, 2000

90 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1251

Author

JONATHAN R. SORENSEN, PH.D.* & ROCKY L. PILGRIM**

Excerpt



The Supreme Court held in Furman v. Georgia 1 that capital punishment was unconstitutional due to the arbitrary nature of then-current sentencing statutes. Citing jury discretion as the cause of inconsistent sentencing practices, the Furman decision invalidated the capital punishment statutes of all retentionist jurisdictions in the United States. In order to address the Court's central concern - whether death sentences were imposed in a uniform and fair manner - state legislatures revamped their capital punishment statutes to limit jury discretion. In the decisions that followed, the Court clarified which procedures would be acceptable, upholding statutes that guided juror discretion, 2 but striking down those that mandated a death sentence for particular types of murder. 3 Since that time, death penalty jurisprudence has focused on how to insure consistency in decision-making while providing fairness to individual defendants. 4

Concern for fairness led the Court to rule that states must allow evidence of nondangerousness as a mitigating factor in the punishment phase of capital trials. 5 The goal of incapacitating dangerous offenders prompted twenty-one states to include a defendant's potential for future violence among the aggravating circumstances jurors may be directed to consider before reaching a punishment decision. 6 Texas and Oregon, however, are the only two states that require capital juries to predict future conduct before sentencing. Specifically, a jury in these two states must unanimously agree there is "a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society" ...
 
 
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Search Documents
 
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy
 
 
 
 

Lexis® Web - The only search engine that delivers free web content specifically from legal sites validated by LexisNexis® attorney editors and includes tools for faster research and more relevant results.

 
LexisNexis Store
Research Now - Go to lexis.com
Connect the Dots - Free 1 hour webcast
Share. Network. Discover. - Go to LexisNexis Communities