Contradiction, Coherence, and Guided Discretion in the Supreme Court's Capital Sentencing Jurisprudence

American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 40, p. 1151, 2003

44 Pages Posted: 31 Aug 2009

See all articles by Mary Sigler

Mary Sigler

Arizona State University - College of Law

Date Written: 2003

Abstract

In the wake of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, many states revised their capital sentencing statutes to address the problem of arbitrary sentencing. In a series of decisions reviewing the new statutes, the Supreme Court determined that asymmetrical 'guided discretion' strikes the appropriate balance between consistency and individualized consideration in capital sentencing. On this approach, legislatures specify by statute the factors relevant to determining whether a defendant deserves the death penalty, but juries must be free to consider any factor that might militate in favor of a lesser sentence. At least two Supreme Court justices have characterized guided discretion as a contradiction in terms. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that open-ended mitigation destroys any hope of sentencing consistency, is not a constitutional requirement, and therefore should be abandoned by the Court. Justice Harry Blackmun argued that consistency and individuation are constitutional commitments that can neither be reconciled nor abandoned, so the Court should invalidate the death penalty as unworkable. This essay explores the possibility that the so-called contradiction in capital sentencing can be reconciled in terms of several well-established values of legal liberalism. Although the Supreme Court has failed to articulate a coherent rationale for its approach to capital punishment, this does not establish that no such rationale is available.

Keywords: Death penalty, guided discretion

Suggested Citation

Sigler, Mary, Contradiction, Coherence, and Guided Discretion in the Supreme Court's Capital Sentencing Jurisprudence (2003). American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 40, p. 1151, 2003, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1464849

Mary Sigler (Contact Author)

Arizona State University - College of Law

111 E. Taylor Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
81
Abstract Views
1,604
Rank
547,134
PlumX Metrics