An almost inherent characteristic of American death penalty jurisprudence is the long period of time that passes between the sentencing of a death-eligible defendant and the defendant’s execution. Although defendants who are sentenced to death row have a clear interest in exhausting all appeals, in many cases, the entire process may take 20 to 30 years or more, possibly exposing these individuals to undue physical and psychological harm. Such harm, when combined with the execution itself, may violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The current piece examines the concept of Lackey claims and examines such claims within the framework of “evolving standards of decency.” Recommendations for policy are also discussed.
ArnettJ. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339-373.
3.
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
4.
Barry v. Epps, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72879 (2006).
5.
BellB. (1986). Prisoners’ rights, institutional needs, and the Burger Court. Virginia Law Review. 72, 161-193.
6.
BethL. (1955). Justice Harlan and the uses of dissent. The American Political Science Review, 49, 1085-1104.
7.
BlankS. (2006). Killing time: The process of waiving appeal—The Michael Ross death penalty cases. Journal of Law & Policy, 14, 735-777.
8.
BlomquistR. (2004). Dissent, Posner-style: Judge Richard A. Posner’s first decade of dissenting opinions, 1981-1991—Toward an aesthetics of judicial dissenting style. Missouri Law Review, 69, 73-161.
9.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Capital punishment, 2009: Statistical Tables. TracyL. Snell. U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).
11.
CardozoB. (1921). The nature of the judicial process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
CarsonH. (1894). Great dissenting opinions. Annual Report of the American Bar Association, 17, 273-298.
13.
CauthenJ.LatzerB. (2000). Time on appeal: Empirical evidence on capital case processing in New Jersey. Judges Journal, 39, 12-17.
14.
CauthenJ.LatzerB. (2008). Why so long? Explaining processing time in capital appeals. Justice System Journal, 29, 298-312.
15.
Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155 (2006).
16.
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).
17.
Coleman v. Balkcom, 451 U.S. 949 (1981).
18.
CunninghamM.ReidyT.SorensonJ. (2005). Is death row obsolete? A decade of mainstreaming death-sentenced inmates in Missouri. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 307-320.
19.
CunninghamM.VigenM. (2002). Death Row inmate characteristics, adjustment, and confinement: A critical review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 191-210.
20.
Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998).
21.
EvansE. (1938). The dissenting opinion—Its use and abuse. Missouri Law Review, 3, 120-142.
22.
Ex parte Bush, 695 So.2d 138 (1997).
23.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
24.
Fautenberry v. Mitchell, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66764 (2009).
25.
Fearance v. Scott, 56 F.3d 633 (1995).
26.
FeldmanJ. (1999). A death row incarceration calculus: When prolonged death row imprisonment becomes unconstitutional. Santa Clara Law Review, 187, 213-219.
27.
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
28.
Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (2002).
29.
Free v. Peters, 50 F.3d 1362 (1995).
30.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
31.
GaydonL.MillerM. (2007). Elders in the justice system: How the system treats elders in trials, during imprisonment, and on death row. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 677-699.
32.
Gomez v. Fierro, 519 U.S. 918 (1996).
33.
GrassianS. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1450-1454.
34.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
35.
HammerD.CodyA.GersonR.GreeneN.MushlinM.WolfR. (2002). Dying twice: Conditions on New York’s death row. Pace Law Review, 22, 347-383.
36.
HaneyC. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 124-156.
37.
HaneyC. (2012). Prison effects in the era of mass incarceration. The Prison Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0032885512448604
38.
HaneyC.LynchM. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 23, 477-569.
39.
Harvard Law Review. (2000). Illinois Supreme Court holds that a disproportionately long stay on death row does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment- People v. Simms. Harvard Law Review, 114, 648-653.
40.
HedgesR. (2001). Justices blind: How the Rehnquist Court’s refusal to hear a claim for inordinate delay of execution undermines its death penalty jurisprudence. University of Southern California Law Review, 74, 577-615.
41.
HeinzerlingL. (1986). Actionable inaction: Section 1983 liability for failure to act. University of Chicago Law Review, 53, 1048-1073.
42.
In re Anderson, 69 Cal.2d 613 (1968).
43.
Iowa Law Review. (1972). Mental suffering under sentence of death: A cruel and unusual punishment. Iowa Law Review, 57, 814-833.
44.
JohnsonR. (1979). Under sentence of death: The psychology of death row confinement. Law & Psychology Review, 141-192.
45.
JohnsonR. (1980). Warehousing for death: Observations on the human environment of death row. Crime & Delinquency, 26, 545-562.
46.
Johnson v. Bredesen, 130 S. Ct. 541 (2009).
47.
Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999).
48.
Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995).
49.
LewisD.PincusJ.FeldmanM.JacksonL.BardB. (1986). Psychiatric, neurological, and psychoeducational characteristics of 15 death row inmates in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 838-845.
50.
LillichR. (1991). The Soering case. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 85, 128-149.
51.
LombardiG.SluderR.WallaceD. (1997). Mainstreaming death-sentenced inmates: The Missouri experience and its legal significance. Federal Probation, 61, 3-11.
52.
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co, 457 U.S. 992 (1982).
53.
LuskinM. (1978). Building a theory of case processing time. Judicature, 62, 115-127.
54.
LuskinM.LuskinR. (1986). Why so fast, why so slow? Explaining case processing time. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 77, 190-214.
55.
LyonA.CunninghamM. (2005). “Reason not the need”: Does the lack of compelling state interest in maintaining a separate death row make it unlawful. American Journal of Criminal Law, 33, 1-30.
56.
McClainE. (1905). Dissenting opinions. Yale Law Journal, 14, 191-199.
57.
McKenzie v. Day, 57 F.3d 1461 (1995).
58.
MyersK. (2002). Practical Lackey: The impact of holding executions after a long stay on death row unconstitutional under Lackey v. Texas. Dickinson Law Review, 106, 647-677.
59.
NeubauerD.RyanJ. (1982). Criminal courts and the delivery of speedy justice: The influence of case and defendant characteristics. Justice System Journal, 7, 213-235.
60.
PantonJ. (1976). Personality characteristics of death-row prison inmates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 306-309.
61.
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).
62.
People v. Chessman, 52 Cal.2d 467 (1959).
63.
RapaportE. (2012). A modest proposal: The aged of death row should be deemed too old to execute. Brooklyn Law Review, 77, 1089-1132.
64.
RobbinsI. P. (1990). Toward a more just and effective system of review in state death penalty cases. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
65.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
66.
Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970).
67.
SadoffD. (2008). A legal policy critique of the death row phenomenon. Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law, 17, 77-112.
68.
SchabasW. (1994). Soering’s legacy: The Human Rights Commission and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council take a walk down death row. The International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 43, 913-923.
69.
SchwartzH. (2005). Death Row Syndrome and demoralization: Psychiatric means to social policy ends. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 33, 153-155.
70.
SessionsP. (1997). Swift justice: Imposing a statute of limitations on the federal habeas corpus petitions of state prisoners. University of Southern California Law Review, 70, 1513-1570.
71.
ShalevS. (2008). A sourcebook on solitary confinement. London, England: Mannheim Centre for Criminology.
72.
SimmonsE. (2009). Challenging an execution after prolonged confinement on death row [Lackey revisited]. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 59, 1249-1270.
73.
SmithH. (2012). Personal and official authority: Turn-of-the-century lawyers and the dissenting opinion. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 24, 507-541.
74.
Smith v. Arizona, 552 U.S. 985 (2007).
75.
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984).
76.
SnellT. (2011, December). Capital Punishment, 2010: Statistical Tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp10st.pdf
77.
SteinbergL.ScottE. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018.
78.
Thompson v. McNeil, 129 S. Ct.1299 (2009).
79.
Timm v. Delong, 59 F. Supp.2d 944 (1998).
80.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1954).
81.
Turner v. Jabe, 58 F.3d 924 (1995).
82.
TushnetM.YackleL. (1997). Symbolic statutes and real laws: The pathologies of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Duke Law Journal, 47, 1-86.
83.
United States v. Hall, 26 F. Cas. 79 (1871).
84.
WhitticoG. (2013). Tribute: In Memoriam: Remembrances from the legacy of Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Regent University Law Review, 25, 403-442.
