University News
Constitution Day: In Imposing the Death Penalty, Does the "Tie" Go to the Defendant?
September 20, 2006
In Imposing the Death Penalty, Does the "Tie" Go to the Defendant?
By Keith Boeckelman, Political Science
Kansas v. Marsh (2006)
The Eight Amendment to the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." The most significant issue that the Supreme Court has faced in interpreting this clause concerns whether and under what circumstances the death penalty is unconstitutional.
In the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court prohibited the use of the death penalty due to its arbitrary application. Most states rewrote their capital punishment statues, leading the Supreme Court to reinstate the death penalty in 1976. More recently, the Supreme Court has used an "evolving standard of decency" criterion to evaluate the death penalty, which it has deemed unconstitutional for the mentally retarded (2002) and for
juveniles (2005).
The Kansas v. Marsh decision dealt with the case of Michael Marsh, who was convicted of a double murder. At the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury concluded that the mitigating and aggravating factors balanced out, which, according to Kansas law, meant that the death penalty could be applied. In other words, the "tie" went to the prosecution. The Kansas Supreme Court, however, ruled that the states capital punishment law was unconstitutional, and that, if everything else is equal, the defendant should get the benefit of the doubt.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court overruled the Kansas high court, holding that the idea that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution does not apply at the sentencing phase. The majority opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas argued that states are allowed to impose the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating factors balance out. In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that there has not been "a single case -- not one -- in recent years in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years...the innocent name would be shouted from the rooftops." In a biting dissent, Justice David Souter called the Kansas law "morally absurd" and "obtuse by any moral or social measure."
Sept. 18, 2006 - Constitution Day Release
Sept. 18, 2006 - The Trial of the Century: Hamdan v. Rumsfield and the Overturning of the Bush Doctrine
By Peter Cole, History
Sept. 19, 2006 - Wetlands Protection and The Clean Water Act: Rapanos v. United States
By Greg Hall, History
Posted By: University Communications (U-Communications@wiu.edu)
Office of University Communications & Marketing
Connect with us: