A new article to be published in the American Criminal Law Review explores the constitutionality of the death penalty for those convicted of felony murder, i.e., those who participated in a serious crime in which a death occurred, but were not directly responsible for the death. The article is by Joseph Trigilio and Tracy Casadio, both Deputy Federal Public Defenders in California and is titled "Executing Those Who Do Not Kill." The authors argue that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tison v. Arizona (1987) should be overturned. Tison allows the death penalty for certain non-triggermen if the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with a reckless disregard for human life. According to the law review, the analysis in Tison has been overturned in other cases, “Tison leads a trilogy of cases, including Stanford v. Kentucky and Penry v. Lynaugh, that represent a sharp break from a tradition of careful scrutiny on proportionality that considers both objective and subjective criteria in determining whether a certain category of defendants is constitutionally eligible for a death sentence.” Both Stanford and Penry have been overturned, and the authors maintain that, “under the proportionality analysis articulated in Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons, and Kennedy v. Louisiana, the contemporary 'standards of decency' require a further narrowing of death penalty eligibility for those who do not kill nor intend to kill.” The article concludes, “In 2009, the Court cemented the new proportionality paradigm in Kennedy, expressly basing its analysis on the framework of Roper, Atkins, Coker, and Enmund. In so doing, the Court abandoned Tison’s analytical framework as no longer authoritative. The time has come to overturn Tison and to bar the execution of felony-murder accomplices who neither kill nor intend to kill.”
On February 11, 2011, a symposium will be held at the Vermont Law School in South Royalton to explore current issues in capital punishment. Entitled New Perspectives on Capital Punishment, the symposium will address the death penalty from the point of view of scholars, litigators, and educators. The goal of the symposium is to contribute to the vital discourse concerning capital punishment and its human rights implications. It will feature Hugo Adam Bedau, a prominent death penalty scholar. Other speakers include nationally recognized death penalty litigators Mark Olive and Sean O'Brien, lethal injection expert Deborah Denno, constitutional scholar Eric Freedman, acclaimed sociologist Michael Radelet, and international law attorney Sandra Babcock. The symposium will address topics such as Applied Theory and Litigation Strategies and International Law and Capital Punishment.
Christopher Slobogin, Professor of Law and Psychiatry at Vanderbilt University, has written an evaluation of Florida's death penalty to be published in a forthcoming edition of the Elon University Law Review. The evaluation is based on a study by an assessment team sponsored by the American Bar Association. Florida is one of the leading states in sentencing people to death, but it also has the most death row exonerations of any state in the country. Florida was chosen by the ABA to be one of eight death penalty states reviewed under its Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. The purpose of this project was to allow states to identity and eliminate flaws in their death penalty system. The Florida Assessment Team was led by Prof. Slobogin and was instructed to investigate the following aspects of death penalty administration: "police investigation procedures; the use of DNA evidence; crime laboratories and medical examiners; prosecutorial discretion; defense services; jury instructions; the judicial role; the direct appeal process; state post-conviction and federal habeas proceedings; clemency proceedings; the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and the treatment of people with mental illness and mental retardation."
