# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legal executions in California were authorized under the Criminal Practices Act of 1851. On February 14, 1872, capital punishment was incorporated into the Penal Code, stating:

A judgment of death must be executed within the walls or yard of a jail, or some convenient private place in the county. The Sheriff of the county must be present at the execution, and must invite the presence of a physician, the District Attorney of the county, and at least twelve reputable citizens, to be selected by him; and he shall at the request of the defendant, permit such ministers of the gospel, not exceeding two, as the defendant may name, and any persons, relatives or friends, not to exceed five, to be present at the execution, together with such peace officers as he may think expedient, to witness the execution. But no other persons than those mentioned in this section can be present at the execution, nor can any person under age be allowed to witness the same.

The various counties may have some records of the executions conducted under the jurisdiction of the counties, but the department knows of no compilation of these.

State Executions

Capital punishment on a county level continued until an amendment by the Legislature in 1891 provided:

A judgment of death must be executed within the walls of one of the State Prisons designated by the Court by which judgment is rendered.

In this statute, the warden replaced the sheriff as the person who must be present at the execution and invitation to the attorney general, rather than to the district attorney, was required.

Executions by hanging were conducted at both San Quentin State Prison and Folsom State Prison. There apparently was no official rule by which judges ordered men hanged at Folsom rather than San Quentin or vice versa. However, it was customary to send recidivists to Folsom.

The first state-conducted execution was held March 3, 1893, at San Quentin. The first execution at Folsom was December 13, 1895.

Lethal Gas

On August 27, 1937, the California State Legislature replaced hanging as the method of capital punishment with lethal gas. The law did not affect the execution method for those already sentenced. As a result, the last execution by hanging at Folsom was conducted December 3, 1937. The last execution by hanging at San Quentin was held May 1, 1942; the defendant had been convicted of murder in 1936.

A total of 215 inmates were hanged at San Quentin and 92 were hanged at Folsom.

The gas chamber was installed at San Quentin State Prison in 1938. On December 2, 1938, the first execution by lethal gas was conducted. From that date through 1967, 194 people - including four women - were executed by gas, all at San Quentin.

Legal Challenges and Changes

Beginning in 1967, as a result of various state and United States Supreme Court decisions, there were no executions in California for 25 years.

In February 1972, the California Supreme Court found that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the California state constitution and 107 condemned inmates were resentenced to life with the possibility of parole and removed from California's death row.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional as it was being administered at that time in a number of states.

In November 1972, the California electorate amended the state constitution and in 1973, legislation was enacted making the death penalty mandatory in specified criminal cases. Among these were kidnapping if the victim dies, train wrecking if any person dies, assault by a life prisoner if the victim dies within a year, treason against the state, and first-degree murder under specific conditions (for hire, of a peace officer, of a witness to prevent testimony, if committed during a robbery or burglary, if committed during the course of a rape by force, if committed during performance of lewd and lascivious acts upon children, by persons previously convicted of murder).

In 1976, the California Supreme Court, basing its decision on a United States Supreme Court ruling earlier that year, held that the California death penalty statute was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution because it did not allow mitigating circumstances to be admitted as evidence. Following this ruling, 70 inmates had their sentences changed to other than death.

Capital Punishment Reinstated

The California State Legislature re-enacted the death penalty statute in 1977. Under the new statute, evidence in mitigation was permitted. The death penalty was reinstated as a possible punishment for first-degree murder under certain conditions. These special circumstances include: murder for financial gain, murder by a person previously convicted of murder, murder of multiple victims, murder with torture, murder of a peace officer, murder of a witness to prevent testimony and several other murders under specified circumstances.

In 1977, the Penal Code also was revised to include the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. At that time, the punishment for kidnapping for ransom, extortion or robbery was changed from death to life without parole. Treason, train derailing or wrecking, and securing the death of an innocent person through perjury became punishable by death or life imprisonment without parole.

California voters approved Proposition 7 in November 1978, reaffirming the death penalty in California. It superseded the 1977 statutes and is the death penalty statute under which California currently operates.

Under state law, cases in which the death penalty has been decreed are automatically reviewed by the California Supreme Court which may:

Affirm the conviction and the death sentence;

Affirm the conviction but reverse the death sentence (which results in a retrial of the penalty phase only); or

Reverse the conviction (which results in a complete new trial).

Even if the California Supreme Court affirms the death sentence, the inmate can initiate appeals on separate constitutional issues. Called Writs of Habeas Corpus, these appeals may be heard in both state and federal courts and can be used to introduce new information or evidence not presented at trial.

Although the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, executions did not resume in California until April 21, 1992, when Robert Alton Harris was put to death in the San Quentin gas chamber.

Lethal Injection

In January 1993, California law changed to allow condemned inmates to choose either lethal gas or lethal injection as a method of execution.

San Quentin State Prison developed lethal injection protocols based on protocols from other jurisdictions (Operations Procedure or OP 770).

On August 24, 1993, condemned inmate David Mason was executed after voluntarily waiving his federal appeals. Because Mason did not choose a method of execution, he was put to death by lethal gas, as the law then stipulated.

In October 1994, a U.S. District judge, Northern District (San Francisco), ruled the use of cyanide gas was cruel and unusual punishment and barred the state from using that method of execution. The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 1996.

That same year, the California Penal Code was modified to state that if either manner of execution is held invalid, the punishment of death shall be imposed by the alternative means. The law further stipulated that lethal injection become the "default" method of execution should an inmate fail to choose. Serial killer William Bonin was executed on February 23, 1996, by lethal injection, the first California execution using that method.

Legal Challenges to the Administration of Lethal Injection

On February 21, 2006, condemned inmate Michael Angelo Morales' execution was stayed because of his claim that California's administration of its lethal injection protocol - San Quentin State Prison's OP 770 - would subject him to an unnecessary risk of excessive pain and violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Morales is on death row for the kidnap, rape and murder of Terri Winchell.

On December 15, 2006, the U.S. District Court held that "California's lethal-injection protocol - as actually administered in practice - create[d] an undue and unnecessary risk that an inmate will suffer pain so extreme that it offends the Eighth Amendment." The court also stated that "Defendants' implementation of lethal injection is broken, but it can be fixed."

In January 2007, the Governor's Office submitted a response to the court's December 15, 2006 Memorandum of Intended Decision. The court had identified five specific deficiencies in California's lethal injection protocol arising from the case of Morales v. Tilton. The specific deficiencies identified were:

Inconsistent and unreliable screening of execution team members;

A lack of meaningful training, supervision, and oversight of the execution team;

Inconsistent and unreliable record keeping;

Improper mixing, preparation, and administration of sodium thiopental by the execution team; and

Inadequate lighting, overcrowded conditions, and poorly designed facilities in which the execution team must work.

The governor immediately directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to undertake a thorough review of all aspects of its lethal injection protocols. CDCR informed the court it would undertake a thorough review and submit to the Court by May 15, 2007, a revised process.

CDCR assembled a team to conduct its review. In addition to reviewing and revising OP 770 and focusing on the deficiencies identified by the court, CDCR sought to identify other improvements to the lethal injection protocol. The team consulted with experts and visited other jurisdictions.

On May 15, 2007, CDCR released a report to the court proposing revisions to the lethal injection protocol. In order to address the court's concerns and improve the lethal injection protocol, the state:

Established a screening process for selection of execution team members and a periodic review process for team members.

Established a comprehensive training program for all execution team members including supervision and oversight. The training regimen focused on custody and care of the condemned inmate, the infusion process, intravenous application and vein access, characteristics and effects of each chemical used in the process, proper preparation and mixing of chemicals, the security of the lethal injection facility, proper record keeping and other areas.

Developed standardized record-keeping to ensure there are complete and reliable records of each execution. The state developed specific forms, processes and formats to ensure completeness, accuracy and consistency and provided specialized training.

Developed training processes for the proper use of sodium thiopental. Training processes were developed for proper mixing, preparation and administration of sodium thiopental.

Recommended improvements to the lethal injection facility at San Quentin State Prison, including steps to ensure adequate equipment, lighting and space. Current law requires that all executions be conducted within the walls of San Quentin State Prison. In 2007, construction of a lethal injection facility began to address the U.S. District Court's concerns. It was completed in March 2008 at a cost of $853,000.

Proposed revisions to the lethal injection protocol (OP 770), including modifying the procedures used to administer the lethal injection. A one-drug protocol and a three-drug protocol were both considered. The revised protocol was created to ensure the procedure did not create an undue and unnecessary risk that an inmate would suffer extreme pain.

In November 2007, the Marin County Superior Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act required CDCR to promulgate the protocol (OP 770) as a regulation. A lethal injection protocol had been in effect since 1993. No court had required it to be promulgated as a regulation.

In April 2009, CDCR submitted draft lethal injection regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On May 1, 2009, CDCR posted the notice of proposed regulations in the OAL Register and provided public notice on its website. The public comment period began on May 1, 2009. On June 30, 2009 CDCR held a public hearing regarding the proposed regulations. In January 2010 CDCR issued a notice of modification to the text of the proposed lethal injection regulations. The changes in the re-notice were in response to comments received regarding the originally proposed regulation text.

On April 29, 2010 CDCR submitted its final rulemaking package for the lethal injection regulations to the OAL. On June 8, the OAL notified CDCR that it was disapproving the regulations submitted on April 29. On June 11, CDCR published a second re-notice to the public addressing the issues raised by the OAL, and after accepting and responding to public comments, re-submitted its regulations on July 6, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, the OAL notified CDCR that it had approved and certified for adoption the regulations for lethal injection. The rulemaking record was filed with the Secretary of State the same day to take effect with the force of law in 30 days. August 29, 2010, was the permanent effective date of the regulations.

The execution of condemned inmate Albert Greenwood Brown, Jr., convicted in Riverside County of first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder committed during a rape, was set by Riverside County Court order for September 29, 2010. It was rescheduled to September 30 after the governor issued a temporary reprieve to allow inmate Brown to exhaust all appeals under the law and to allow the California Supreme Court time to review lower court decisions in the various legal challenges surrounding the scheduled execution.

On September 29, 2010, CDCR removed the scheduled execution of inmate Brown from the calendar after the California Supreme Court denied the state's request to move the execution forward as scheduled. Although the State prevailed in the Court of Appeal, it could not carry out the execution until the California Supreme Court proceedings were final. The California Supreme Court indicated that more time was needed to review legal challenges by the involved parties.

Lethal Injection Regulations Invalidated

On February 21, 2012, The Marin County Superior Court in Mitchell Sims v. CDCR, et al., issued a judgment and held that CDCR failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it promulgated its lethal injection regulations. The court issued an injunction prohibiting CDCR from executing anyone until such time as new lethal injection regulations were promulgated in compliance with the APA.

CDCR appealed the ruling and the injunction on April 26, 2012, to the First District Court of Appeal. On May 30, 2013, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in the Sims case and held that CDCR's lethal injection regulations were invalid for substantial failure to comply with the requirements of the APA. The court permanently enjoined CDCR from carrying out the execution of any condemned inmate by lethal injection unless and until new regulations are promulgated in compliance with the APA.

California Voters Retain the Death Penalty

Proposition 34, the Death Penalty Initiative Statute, was a ballot measure to repeal the death penalty as the maximum punishment for people found guilty of murder. On November 6, 2012, 52 percent of California voters voted against it. If the state's voters had approved it, the initiative would have replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and the 728 people on death row at the time would have had their sentences converted to life without parole.

California's Death Penalty Ruled Unconstitutional; Ruling Overturned by Federal Appellate Court

On July 16, 2014, the U.S. District Court Central District of California ruled that California's death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because of delays in the appeals process and vacated the death sentence of condemned inmate Ernest Dewayne Jones, the petitioner in the case. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote, "In California, the execution of a death sentence is so infrequent, and the delays preceding it so extraordinary, that the death penalty is deprived of any deterrent or retributive effect it might once have had. Such an outcome is antithetical to any civilized notion of just punishment." On November 12, 2015, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the district court's ruling in Ernest DeWayne Jones v. Ron Davis, Warden. The panel held that that petitioner's claim sought to apply a novel constitutional rule and wrote, "Under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), federal courts may not consider novel constitutional theories on habeas review." The panel also said, "A federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the petitioner has first exhausted the remedies available in state court."

Relatives of Murder Victims Seek to End Execution Delays

On April 19, 2012, a Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed with the Third District Court of Appeal in Winchell v. Cate on behalf of Bradley Winchell. It asserted excessive delay in carrying out the judgment of death and asked the court to order CDCR to promulgate a single-drug lethal injection protocol for the execution of inmate Michael Morales, on death row for the kidnap, rape and murder of Terri Winchell. Bradley Winchell is the victim's brother. In June of that year, the Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition.

On November 7, 2014, Bradley Winchell and Kermit Alexander, whose mother, sister and two nephews were murdered by condemned inmate Tiequon A. Cox, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in Sacramento County Superior Court. Winchell and Alexander v. Beard asserted that CDCR had abused its discretion, failed its duty and violated their rights because of unnecessary delays. They asked the court to order CDCR to promulgate lethal injection regulations and provide specific reasons for CDCR's denial of the original petition.

CDCR filed its response to the petition in December 2014 and stated that Winchell and Alexander lacked legal standing and that the Legislature had given CDCR discretion over how and when to develop lethal injection regulations. The Sacramento County Superior Court denied in a tentative ruling in January 2015 against CDCR's position. The judge allowed a hearing later that month and affirmed her tentative ruling on February 6, 2015.

On June 2, 2015, the State filed a stipulated settlement agreement in the Winchell and Alexander v. Beard case. The agreement stated that CDCR will promulgate a single-drug lethal injection regulation within 120 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion or other disposition in Glossip v. Gross, a case involving Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. The Sacramento County Superior Court signed the judgment and the case was settled.

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the sedative midazolam may be a part of a lethal injection protocol. The justices heard the Glossip v. Gross case on April 29, 2015. Pursuant to the settlement in the Winchell and Alexander v. Beard case, CDCR agreed to file with the Office of Administrative Law draft regulations of its lethal injection protocol for review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act within 120 days.

CDCR submitted on October 27, 2015, its notice of proposed adoption of lethal injection regulations for publication in the OAL's California Regulatory Notice Register. The OAL published it in its register on November 6, 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Legal executions in California were authorized under the Criminal Practices Act of 1851. On February 14, 1872, capital punishment was incorporated into the Penal Code, stating: A judgment of death must be executed within the walls or yard of a jail, or some convenient private place in the county.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress or any state legislature may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the Eighth Amendment does shape certain procedural aspects regarding when a jury may use the death penalty and how it must be carried out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just two months ago, the cover of People magazine was a tribute to late actor Robin Williams, who had just taken his own life. As they put it, Williams, "lost his battle with mental illness." That they considered his death a tragedy was eminently clear. Fast-forward to the most recent issue, and People has an entirely different take on suicide.

This week's People features Brittany Maynard, the 29 year-old woman with terminal cancer who captured national attention when she moved to Oregon in order to be able to legally end her life. People's coverage of her pending suicide is wholly different from its coverage of William's suicide. The coverage of Maynard includes language like "die in peace" and "heart of a warrior."

"Maynard is staying focused on what's important...though that doesn't mean it's been easy" they write.

They make it sound like she's going through a divorce, not planning her own death and using it to campaign for the social acceptance of suicide for the suffering.

Maynard appears on the cover in a silk blouse, with glossy makeup and golden baubles, and the subtitle, "Brittany Maynard photographed exclusively for People October 11, 2014." In short, People glamorizes Maynard and categorizes her suicide as a "controversial choice," imbibed with a certain daredevil quality that seems intended to evoke our awe, not our sadness.

But what makes her suicide any different from that of Robin Williams? He faced a terminal diagnosis too, one that involves years of suffering and bodily unraveling, one for which there is no cure. Our society, increasingly steeped in a culture of death, doesn't really have a good answer to the swelling tide of social acceptance for what the pro-suicide movement like to euphemize as "death with dignity."

No doubt, we all owe Maynard our compassion. It's hard to fathom the suffering of a 29 year-old newlywed faced with terminal cancer. As she said to People, "Dan and I have given up our dreams of having a family. My mother is soon to lose her only child. We can all agree that no parent should bury their child." As a 29 year-old beginning my own family, her story hits especially close to home.

But society's big mistake is in believing that suicide can be a compassionate or dignified choice. Suicide is suicide. There is nothing that can change that. You can make it legal. You can make it seem less horrible by using needles instead of some rope and a chair or a gun. You can put a beautiful woman on the cover of a celebrity magazine as a spokeswoman. But it's still suicide, and the reality is that anyone who commits suicide, or even ponders it, is suffering deeply.

Assisted suicide only compounds the tragedy and the inhumanity of taking one's life because it makes the law and other people complicit. It inverts our human obligation to help each other avoid death as much as possible and instead disincentivizes people to reach out to those who are suffering the most in society, usually the elderly, the disabled, those in chronic pain, or the terminally ill. Legal suicide gives society a giant cop-out for doing its most basic duty: caring for these people. With euthanasia, we can all just turn the other way while they take their own lives.

People magazine should be ashamed for giving a platform to a pro-suicide agenda. They might as well have built the gallows for Robin Williams and every other person who suffers with so little hope that they'd rather take their own life than live just one more day. Brittany Maynard's suicide will be just as tragic as Robin Williams' and that of every other person who follows in their path. People can do better than profiting off of death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brittany Maynard and the Trouble With Suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just two months ago, the cover of People magazine was a tribute to late actor Robin Williams, who had just taken his own life. As they put it, Williams, "lost his battle with mental illness." That they considered his death a tragedy was eminently clear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? Read pros, cons, and expert responses in the debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.

Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath. They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in order to save money.

[Editor's Note: We do not recommend or refer specific physicians, counselors, organizations, or other experts on end-of-life issues.] Some people find our use of the phrase "physician-assisted suicide" inaccurate and inappropriate, and they suggest we use the phrase "physician aid in dying" instead. In an effort to make our nonpartisan research accessible to the largest possible audience, we have used the more popular phrase "physician-assisted suicide." We do not mean to show support for or opposition to the practice by using the more common terminology.

PROS & CONS BY CATEGORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving [...]Read More...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take part in our euthanasia debate and voice whether you are for or against euthanasia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should this be a religious issue or should it focus primarily on personal choice only without regard to a religious viewpoint? (This question deals with the moral side and does involve your personal feelings about this issue)

# data[].attributes.subject
Should this be a religious issue or should it focus primarily on personal choice only without regard to a religious viewpoint? (This question deals with the moral side and does involve your personal feelings about this issue)

# data[].attributes.body
This is kind of tough to answer. From a religious side of it, you should not take your own life no matter how it is done. So no matter what side I look at this from, I still do not believe that someone should take their own life. That should not be their decision but the good lord above knows when it is time for you to go. I understand that when people are hurting and they do not wish to continue with their life or they know they are going to die, they should let the lord take over and do what he thinks is best.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Based on your research, and not your personal feelings, should Euthanasia be legal? (You are not dealing with morality at this point)

# data[].attributes.subject
 Based on your research, and not your personal feelings, should Euthanasia be legal? (You are not dealing with morality at this point)

# data[].attributes.body
Euthanasia should be legal to an extent. For animals, when it is time for them to die and they are in such pain, they do not need to live anymore. I suppose it could go the same way for humans, if they were in such pain in life then they could use euthanasia to go out of this world. But it should not be tempered with in a playful manner.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there any difference between Brittany Maynard taking her life and Robin Williams taking his life?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there any difference between Brittany Maynard taking her life and Robin Williams taking his life?

# data[].attributes.body
Even though they both took their life, it was in very different ways. Robin Williams hung himself knowing he was sick to end his life so during that process he probably struggled before his last breath. Brittany made it worldwide what she was doing and people were aware she was going to take her life because she was ill and had her closed loved ones by her side the whole time until it was her last breath. I believe there is a line between their deaths.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the death penalty be considered "cruel and unusual punishment"?  Why or why not? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the death penalty be considered "cruel and unusual punishment"?  Why or why not? 

# data[].attributes.body
Cruel and unusual punishment is stated in the eighth amendment. I firmly believe that the death penalty is considered on the "cruel and unusual punishment" level. Murdering someone is never a good thing to do. Yes, there is certain ways that it can become more or less violate killing someone but it is still not right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

You may think the death penalty is too cruel in any case, but the United States does permit the death penalty in certain cases. Whether the death penalty will be imposed is dependent on the state in which you live, because most criminal cases are tried based on state laws. For the few cases that make it to the federal level, there are rare instances where the death penalty can be imposed.

Just the Facts

The imposition of the death penalty is rare. Between 1967 and 1996 there was one execution for every 1,600 murders. The total number of murders in the United States during that time was 560,000, with 358 murderers executed according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 5,900 persons were sentenced to death between 1973 and 1996. The average time a murderer spends on death row is 11 years and 2 months, according to a 1995 article, "Capital Punishment," published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Daryl Renard Atkins started on the path to death row on August 16, 1996, when he and his friend William Jones abducted and robbed Eric Nesbitt with a semiautomatic handgun. The pair took all the money Nesbitt had on his person, then drove him to an automated teller machine (ATM). While there, they were caught on camera forcing him to withdraw more money. After getting the additional money, they drove Nesbitt to an isolated location and killed him by shooting him eight times.

Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder and sentenced to death. Both Jones and Atkins testified in the guilt phase of the Atkins' trial. They each confirmed the incident, but differed on who actually shot and killed Nesbitt.

Jones, whose testimony was more coherent and credible to the jury than the mentally retarded Atkins, led the jury to convict Atkins and blame him for the shooting.

During the penalty phase of the trial, the state introduced victim-impact evidence and proved two aggravating circumstances to push for the death penalty. The state proved to the jury that Atkins posed a future danger because of his prior felony convictions. In addition, the state called four victims of earlier robberies and assaults to testify against Atkins. Also, the state proved the "vileness of the offense" by pointing to the pictures of the deceased's body and the autopsy report, which were part of the initial trial record.

Court Connotations

A forensic psychologist is an expert who gives his psychological opinion in the courts to assist with fact finding in a criminal or civil case. A forensic psychologist must have a doctorate degree in psychology. After completing his doctorate, a psychologist will usually work under an experienced forensic psychologist to gain further expertise before being called on as an expert witness.

Dr. Evan Nelson, a forensic psychologist, testified in the penalty phase that based on his evaluation of Atkins, he was "mildly mentally retarded." He testified that after reviewing Atkins school and court records plus administering a standard intelligence test, Atkins had a full scale IQ of 59 and was functioning somewhere between the ages of 9 and 12.

Based on this testimony, the jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court used a misleading verdict form. At the second sentencing hearing, the same forensic psychologist testified, but additional testimony was added for the state by expert witness Dr. Stanton Samenow, who said that Atkins was not mentally retarded, but was of "average intelligence, at least" and diagnosable as having antisocial personality disorder. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death.

After the second sentencing hearing, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty. Atkins did not argue before the Virginia Supreme Court that his sentence was disproportionate to penalties imposed for similar crimes in Virginia, but he did contend "that he is mentally retarded and thus cannot be sentenced to death."

The Virginia Supreme Court rejected his appeal, saying it was "not willing to commute Atkins' sentence of death to life imprisonment merely because of his IQ score." Two Virginia justices dissented, saying that they rejected Dr. Samenow's opinion that Atkins possesses average intelligence as "incredulous as a matter of law," and concluded that "the imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive." In their dissent, they said "it is indefensible to conclude that individuals who are mentally retarded are not to some degree less culpable for their criminal acts. By definition, such individuals have substantial limitations not shared by the general population. A moral and civilized society diminishes itself if its system of justice does not afford recognition and consideration of those limitations in a meaningful way."

While in a 1989 case, Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court did rule that people with mental retardation could be put to death, many states have since changed their laws on this issue. The United States Supreme Court decided to hear Atkins' appeal in 2002 because of the dramatic shift in the position of state legislatures during the previous 13 years.

Just the Facts

Based on the 1910 landmark case, Weems v. United States, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of excessive bail, excessive fines, and unusual punishments. In that case the court ruled that a punishment of 12 years jailed in irons at hard and painful labor for the crime of falsifying records was excessive. The court said, "that it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense."

Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has held that judging whether punishment is excessive is not based on standards that prevailed when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail. Therefore, in determining whether punishments are "cruel and unusual" the Supreme Court looks to current-day standards set by recent legislatures.

In 1989, when the Supreme Court last looked at the issue of sentencing mentally retarded people to death, most states did allow that. In 2002, when the Supreme Court decided to revisit the issue, the political winds had changed and state legislatures were deciding against the death penalty in cases involving people with mental retardation. So the justices overturned Penry and ruled in favor of Atkins, reversed the Virginia Supreme Court, and remanded the case back to the lower courts for further decision.

The 6 to 3 ruling that the death penalty for Atkins was "cruel and unusual punishment," was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia also wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Rehnquist and Thomas. In writing for the Court, Stevens said:

"Those mentally retarded persons who meet the law's requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes. Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants. Presumably for these reasons, in the 13 years since we decided Penry v. Lynaugh, (1989), the American public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal. The consensus reflected in those deliberations informs our answer to the question presented by this case: whether such executions are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution."

In writing his dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

Living Laws

People who are found to be mentally retarded cannot be sentenced to death as of 2002, after the ban imposed by the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia.

"There are strong reasons for limiting our inquiry into what constitutes an evolving standard of decency under the Eighth Amendment to the laws passed by legislatures and the practices of sentencing juries in America. Here, the Court goes beyond these well-established objective indicators of contemporary values. It finds 'further support to [its] conclusion' that a national consensus has developed against imposing the death penalty on all mentally retarded defendants in international opinion, the views of professional and religious organizations, and opinion polls not demonstrated to be reliable ... Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent."

Justice Scalia added in his dissent, "This newest innovation promises to be more effective than any of the others in turning the process of capital trial into a game." How this game will be played out will be seen in future death penalty cases that find their way to the Supreme Court.

Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court © 2004 by Lita Epstein, J.D.. All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Alpha Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

You may think the death penalty is too cruel in any case, but the United States does permit the death penalty in certain cases. Whether the death penalty will be imposed is dependent on the state in which you live, because most criminal cases are tried based on state laws. For the few cases that make it to the federal level, there are rare instances where the death penalty can be imposed.

Just the Facts

The imposition of the death penalty is rare. Between 1967 and 1996 there was one execution for every 1,600 murders. The total number of murders in the United States during that time was 560,000, with 358 murderers executed according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 5,900 persons were sentenced to death between 1973 and 1996. The average time a murderer spends on death row is 11 years and 2 months, according to a 1995 article, "Capital Punishment," published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Daryl Renard Atkins started on the path to death row on August 16, 1996, when he and his friend William Jones abducted and robbed Eric Nesbitt with a semiautomatic handgun. The pair took all the money Nesbitt had on his person, then drove him to an automated teller machine (ATM). While there, they were caught on camera forcing him to withdraw more money. After getting the additional money, they drove Nesbitt to an isolated location and killed him by shooting him eight times.

Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder and sentenced to death. Both Jones and Atkins testified in the guilt phase of the Atkins' trial. They each confirmed the incident, but differed on who actually shot and killed Nesbitt.

Jones, whose testimony was more coherent and credible to the jury than the mentally retarded Atkins, led the jury to convict Atkins and blame him for the shooting.

During the penalty phase of the trial, the state introduced victim-impact evidence and proved two aggravating circumstances to push for the death penalty. The state proved to the jury that Atkins posed a future danger because of his prior felony convictions. In addition, the state called four victims of earlier robberies and assaults to testify against Atkins. Also, the state proved the "vileness of the offense" by pointing to the pictures of the deceased's body and the autopsy report, which were part of the initial trial record.

Court Connotations

A forensic psychologist is an expert who gives his psychological opinion in the courts to assist with fact finding in a criminal or civil case. A forensic psychologist must have a doctorate degree in psychology. After completing his doctorate, a psychologist will usually work under an experienced forensic psychologist to gain further expertise before being called on as an expert witness.

Dr. Evan Nelson, a forensic psychologist, testified in the penalty phase that based on his evaluation of Atkins, he was "mildly mentally retarded." He testified that after reviewing Atkins school and court records plus administering a standard intelligence test, Atkins had a full scale IQ of 59 and was functioning somewhere between the ages of 9 and 12.

Based on this testimony, the jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court used a misleading verdict form. At the second sentencing hearing, the same forensic psychologist testified, but additional testimony was added for the state by expert witness Dr. Stanton Samenow, who said that Atkins was not mentally retarded, but was of "average intelligence, at least" and diagnosable as having antisocial personality disorder. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death.

After the second sentencing hearing, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the death penalty. Atkins did not argue before the Virginia Supreme Court that his sentence was disproportionate to penalties imposed for similar crimes in Virginia, but he did contend "that he is mentally retarded and thus cannot be sentenced to death."

The Virginia Supreme Court rejected his appeal, saying it was "not willing to commute Atkins' sentence of death to life imprisonment merely because of his IQ score." Two Virginia justices dissented, saying that they rejected Dr. Samenow's opinion that Atkins possesses average intelligence as "incredulous as a matter of law," and concluded that "the imposition of the sentence of death upon a criminal defendant who has the mental age of a child between the ages of 9 and 12 is excessive." In their dissent, they said "it is indefensible to conclude that individuals who are mentally retarded are not to some degree less culpable for their criminal acts. By definition, such individuals have substantial limitations not shared by the general population. A moral and civilized society diminishes itself if its system of justice does not afford recognition and consideration of those limitations in a meaningful way."

While in a 1989 case, Penry v. Lynaugh, the United States Supreme Court did rule that people with mental retardation could be put to death, many states have since changed their laws on this issue. The United States Supreme Court decided to hear Atkins' appeal in 2002 because of the dramatic shift in the position of state legislatures during the previous 13 years.

Just the Facts

Based on the 1910 landmark case, Weems v. United States, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of excessive bail, excessive fines, and unusual punishments. In that case the court ruled that a punishment of 12 years jailed in irons at hard and painful labor for the crime of falsifying records was excessive. The court said, "that it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense."

Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has held that judging whether punishment is excessive is not based on standards that prevailed when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail. Therefore, in determining whether punishments are "cruel and unusual" the Supreme Court looks to current-day standards set by recent legislatures.

In 1989, when the Supreme Court last looked at the issue of sentencing mentally retarded people to death, most states did allow that. In 2002, when the Supreme Court decided to revisit the issue, the political winds had changed and state legislatures were deciding against the death penalty in cases involving people with mental retardation. So the justices overturned Penry and ruled in favor of Atkins, reversed the Virginia Supreme Court, and remanded the case back to the lower courts for further decision.

The 6 to 3 ruling that the death penalty for Atkins was "cruel and unusual punishment," was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia also wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Rehnquist and Thomas. In writing for the Court, Stevens said:

"Those mentally retarded persons who meet the law's requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes. Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct. Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants. Presumably for these reasons, in the 13 years since we decided Penry v. Lynaugh, (1989), the American public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal. The consensus reflected in those deliberations informs our answer to the question presented by this case: whether such executions are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution."

In writing his dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

Living Laws

People who are found to be mentally retarded cannot be sentenced to death as of 2002, after the ban imposed by the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia.

"There are strong reasons for limiting our inquiry into what constitutes an evolving standard of decency under the Eighth Amendment to the laws passed by legislatures and the practices of sentencing juries in America. Here, the Court goes beyond these well-established objective indicators of contemporary values. It finds 'further support to [its] conclusion' that a national consensus has developed against imposing the death penalty on all mentally retarded defendants in international opinion, the views of professional and religious organizations, and opinion polls not demonstrated to be reliable ... Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent."

Justice Scalia added in his dissent, "This newest innovation promises to be more effective than any of the others in turning the process of capital trial into a game." How this game will be played out will be seen in future death penalty cases that find their way to the Supreme Court.

Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to The Supreme Court © 2004 by Lita Epstein, J.D.. All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Alpha Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
supreme court death sentence virginia daryl renard atkins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court: Is the Death Penalty Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may think the death penalty is too cruel in any case, but the United States does permit the death penalty in certain cases. Whether the death penalty will be imposed is dependent on the state in which you live, because most criminal cases are tried based on state laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Based on research, how much money does it cost to put someone to death versus keep them in prison for life?  Why do you think this is?

# data[].attributes.subject
Based on research, how much money does it cost to put someone to death versus keep them in prison for life?  Why do you think this is?

# data[].attributes.body
The cost of putting someone to death versus keeping them in prison for life without parole is cheaper in the long run. When you keep the people in prison, we are paying for them to stay there and eat and live. Even though when you put someone to death you have to go to cases and judicial processes and that cost a lot of money, in the end executing someone is the cheaper route.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Should the death penalty be legal?  If so, in what circumstances should it be used?  If not, what other deterrent should be used?  Provide your reasons. 

# data[].attributes.subject
 Should the death penalty be legal?  If so, in what circumstances should it be used?  If not, what other deterrent should be used?  Provide your reasons. 

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe that the death penalty should be legal. If someone did something worthy enough to need their life ended, I believe they should stay alive and have to deal with their own wrongs and live in the misery of what they did for the rest of their life instead of ending it and allowing them to rest forever. A deterrent that should be used should be they aren't treated nicely in jail and have to give back to the community.