Law in Contemporary Society

View   r6  >  r5  ...
ChrisBuerger-SecondPaperReady 6 - 21 May 2008 - Main.ChristopherBuerger
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"

A Burden on Defendants: Racial Discrimination and Equal Protection in Criminal Cases

Line: 27 to 27
 
Changed:
<
<		The troubling results of this standard are on display in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279. McCleskey, a black defendant sentenced to death, provided the Supreme Court with a study. The study revealed that the race of a murder victim was a significant factor in how often prosecutors sought (and the jury granted) the death penalty. Killing a white person increased the chances that the defendant would received the death penalty. This factor was about as significant as a previous felony conviction of the defendant. Then, the County DA testified that in sixteen years he'd never discussed with any assistant whether to seek the death penalty in a case, and that he was not aware of any official policy. But the Court found no equal protection violation. The disparate effects, even coupled with the unbridled discretion that the prosecution admitted to, did not prove “that either the state or the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent.” The court uses the Washington v. Davis standard and finds no explicit discriminatory purpose.
>
>		The troubling results of this standard are on display in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279. McCleskey, a black defendant sentenced to death, provided the Supreme Court with a study. The study revealed that the race of a murder victim was a significant factor in how often prosecutors sought (and the jury granted) the death penalty. Killing a white person increased the chances that the defendant would receive the death penalty. This factor was about as significant as a previous felony conviction of the defendant. Then, the County DA testified that in sixteen years he'd never discussed with any assistant whether to seek the death penalty in a case, and that he was not aware of any official policy. But the Court found no equal protection violation. The disparate effects, even coupled with the unbridled discretion that the prosecution admitted to, did not prove “that either the state or the prosecutor acted with discriminatory intent.” The court uses the Washington v. Davis standard and finds no explicit discriminatory purpose.
 

Revision 6r6 - 21 May 2008 - 15:42:53 - ChristopherBuerger
Revision 5r5 - 20 May 2008 - 18:42:48 - ChristopherBuerger
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM