Death Penalty

Sample Solution

   

Early Supreme Court Cases on Capital Juries

The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of capital juries in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968). In Witherspoon, the Court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude jurors for cause simply because they have expressed general conscientious objections to the death penalty. The Court reasoned that excluding such jurors would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial by a representative jury.

Full Answer Section

  In the case of Bumper v. North Carolina (1968), the Court held that it is unconstitutional for prosecutors to use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors from capital cases simply because they oppose the death penalty. The Court reasoned that such challenges would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial by a representative jury. Changes in the Court's Views on Capital Juries In the decades since Witherspoon and Bumper, the Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings that have further limited the ability of prosecutors to use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors from capital cases. For example, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the Court held that prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. The Court reasoned that such challenges would violate the defendant's right to equal protection under the law. The Court has also limited the ability of prosecutors to use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. In the case of J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994), the Court held that prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of gender. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court held that prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of sexual orientation. Impact of the Court's Rulings on Capital Punishment The Supreme Court's rulings on capital juries have had a significant impact on the process of capital punishment. The Court's rulings have made it more difficult for prosecutors to convict defendants in capital cases and have made it more likely that defendants who are convicted will be sentenced to life in prison instead of the death penalty. For example, a study by the Death Penalty Information Center found that the number of death sentences imposed in the United States declined by more than 50% after the Court's decision in Batson. The study also found that the number of black defendants sentenced to death declined by more than 70% after the Court's decision in Batson. The Supreme Court's rulings on capital juries have also made it more difficult for prosecutors to execute defendants who have been convicted of capital crimes. For example, a study by the National Research Council found that the number of executions in the United States declined by more than 40% after the Court's decision in Batson. Conclusion The Supreme Court's rulings on capital juries have had a significant impact on the process of capital punishment. The Court's rulings have made it more difficult for prosecutors to convict defendants in capital cases and have made it more likely that defendants who are convicted will be sentenced to life in prison instead of the death penalty. The Court's rulings have also made it more difficult for prosecutors to execute defendants who have been convicted of capital crimes. The Supreme Court's rulings on capital juries are based on the principle that defendants in capital cases have the right to a fair trial by a representative jury. The Court has reasoned that excluding jurors from capital cases simply because they oppose the death penalty would violate this right. The Supreme Court's rulings on capital juries have been controversial. Some people believe that the Court's rulings have made it too difficult for prosecutors to convict and execute defendants who have committed heinous crimes. Others believe that the Court's rulings have made the process of capital punishment more fair and just.