Exercising Divine Justice? Medieval versus Modern Perspectives on Future Dangerousness and the Death Penalty

Abstract

In recent decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly privileged religious beliefs in determining the applicability of U.S. laws. To sustain these claims, the Court has turned to the distant past. This paper explores a medieval parallel to the Texas “future dangerousness” standard which requires jurors to predict whether a capital defendant will pose a future threat to society. Framed as a secular issue, the standard’s religious overtones were made manifest with the conversion of death-row inmate, Karla Faye Tucker. Certain Texas officials justified denying her clemency petition by asserting that judgments about the soul are reserved for divine authority. Medieval Christian sources provide support for this belief, but operate to constrain state power—especially where the potential punishment is death. Juxtaposing the medieval reasoning against the Supreme Court’s recent use of historical and religious sources raises some provocative questions.