« Reading closely the main criminal justice elements of "Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter" | Main | How many veterans are among Prez Obama's 944 federal prison commutations? How many more veterans are clemency worthy? »
November 11, 2016
Early thoughts on a day to be full of thoughts about the future of the death penalty
As noted in this prior post, I am so very fortunate and pleased and excited that today I will have a chance to participate in this amazing symposium being put on by Northwestern Law's Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. The title given to the event is "The Death Penalty's Numbered Days?", and this symposium page provides the schedule of panels and speakers.
Needless to say, all the election result earlier this week surely has impacted what a lot of folks plan to say at this event, and here are three notable new article highlights aspects of the new capital punishment world order:
From BuzzFeed News here, "How Donald Trump Could Revitalize The Death Penalty: Trump could have a serious impact on the death penalty if he wanted to. Here’s how."
From SFGate here, "Suit filed to block death-penalty measure Prop. 66"
From the AP here, "With Death Penalty Back, Nebraska Looks Ahead to Executions"
In a (too tiny) nutshell, I generally do not expect too much to change jurisprudentially or practically about the death penalty in the next few years unless and until (1) states can find a steady supply of lethal injection drugs (or devise effective alternative methods of execution), and/or (2) Prez-Elect Trump and his appointees start trying to make a potent case to all Americans that much greater use of the death penalty is an essential and important ways to legally respond to the uptick in murders nationwide in the last few years.
November 11, 2016 at 09:04 AM | Permalink
Regarding the SFGate article, the drafters of Prop. 66 knew damn good and well the prop would be challenged. They also knew a lot, most, or all of it would be thrown out. They don't care because Prop 62 lost, and that was the goal. The worst that could happen in their eyes is that the status quo was maintained. If it is ruled to be unconstitutional prima facie to the point where the drafters of Prop. 66 knew or should have known it was unconstitutional, they should be disbarred for violating their oath to uphold the Constitutions of California and the United States.
Posted by: George | Nov 12, 2016 12:01:14 AM
The drafters of Prop 66 knew it would and should be challenged. Their goal was to complicate Prop 62, and it barely worked. They should be disbarred for violating the oaths to uphold the Constitutions of California and United States if a prima facie case can be made Prop 66 is unconstitutional in whole or in part.
Posted by: George | Nov 12, 2016 11:33:33 PM