Death penalty developments in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have recently been featured in the news:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the case of Abdur’Rahman v. Bredesen in which the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the state’s lethal injection procedure is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court’s action is no reflection of their opinion on the matter of lethal injection. The Justices are currently reviewing a separate case that asks whether inmates can use a federal civil rights law to challenge lethal injection procedures. That case is scheduled for decision by the end of June. (Bloomberg News, May 22, 2006).

In South Carolina, lawmakers have abandoned a legislative provision that would have allowed the death penalty for sex offenders convicted a second time of assaulting children younger than 11 years old. Legislators in the South Carolina House eliminated the proposal because it likely would have prevented a broader sex offender bill from passing through the legislature before the General Assembly adjourns on June 1. Opponents of the death penalty provision have said the state would face hefty legal bills to defend the law and that imposing the death penalty on this class of offenders would give them no incentive to spare their victims’ lives. (Associated Press, May 21, 2006).

Wisconsin legislators have voted to place an advisory referendum on the death penalty on the ballot this fall. Wisconsin voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on whether the death penalty should be enacted in the state for cases involving a person who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and whose conviction is based on DNA evidence. The referendum is non-binding. Wisconsin has not had the death penalty since 1853, but the state does allow the sentencing option of life without parole. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 16, 2006).

See U.S. Supreme Court, Methods of Execution, and Recent Legislative Activities.