This paper addresses constitutional safeguards as they apply to capital punishment; specifically, the lack of such safeguards regarding the use of prosecutorial discretion. In particular, the use of discretion at the charging stage is examined. Such analysis shows clear room for misuse of discretion and seeks to find methods by which such discretion can be restrained. Lastly, the existence of such misuse, and the implications for arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death sentence, raise issues of state priorities. Specifically, what is at issue is equality of justice having to compete with bureaucratic efficiency, and the implications of such competition for the justice system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice. (1970). Standards relating to the prosecuting function and the defense function. New York, NY: American Bar Association.
2.
American Bar Association. (1980). Standards for criminal justice. (2nd Ed.) Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
3.
Baldus, D.C., Pulaski, C., & Woodwork, G. (1983). Comparative review of death sentences: An empirical study of the Georgia experience. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 661- 753.
4.
Bedau, H.A. (1982). The death penalty in America. (3rd Ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
Black, C.L. (1982). Death sentences and our criminal justice system . As cited in Bedau, H.A.The death penalty in America. (3rd Ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
Bowers, W.S. & Pierce, G.L. (1980). Arbitrariness and discrimination under post-Furman capital statutes. Crime and Delinquency, 26, 563-635.
7.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
8.
Goldstein, A.S. (1981). The passive judiciary: Prosecutorial discretion and the guilty plea. Baton Rouge, LA: Lousiana State University Press.
9.
Gregg v. Georgia, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)
10.
Grigsby v. Mabry, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (1983)
11.
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)
12.
Kennedy, M. (1970). Beyond incrimination: Some neglected facets of the theory of punishment. Catalyst, 5, 1-37.
13.
Marshall, J., Scott, P.D. & Hunter, J. (1987). The Iran-Contra connection: Secret teams and covert operations in the Reagan era. Boston, MA: South End Press.
14.
McCleskey v. Kemp, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987)
15.
McCurley, N.C. (1982). Prosecutorial discretion. Georgia Law Journal, 71, 449-475.
16.
National District Attorneys Association. ( 1977). National prosecution standards. Chicago, IL: National District Attorneys Association.
17.
Newman, D.J. (1966). Conviction: The determination of guilt or innocence without trial. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
18.
Nissman, D.M. & Hagan, E. (1982). The prosecution function. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
19.
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962)
20.
Paternoster, R. (1983). Race of victim and location of crime: The decision to seek the death penalty in South Carolina. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 754-777.
21.
Paternoster, R. (1984). Prosecutorial discretion in requesting the death penalty: A case of victim-based racial discrimination. Law and Society Review, 18(3), 437-478.
22.
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976)
23.
Remington, F.J., Newman, D.J., Kimball, EL, Goldstein, H., & Dickey, W.J. (1982). Criminal justice administration: Cases and materials . (Rev. Ed.) Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
24.
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976)
25.
Spenkelink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (1978)
26.
Wainwright v. Witt, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)
27.
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 88 S.Ct. 1770 (1968)
28.
Woodson et al. v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)
