ILNews

The evolution of capital punishment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Cost of Justice

The Indiana Lawyer takes a historical look at how the death penalty system has evolved during the past 40 years and how Indiana has amended its practices and procedures through the decades.


1972
The Supreme Court of the United States struck down the death penalty with its ruling in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), holding that all state death penalty sentencing statutes were unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause because they allowed for arbitrary and capricious imposition.

1973
The Indiana General Assembly enacted a new death penalty sentencing statute, but a 1976 SCOTUS decision in Woodson v. North Carolina struck down a similar statute. The Indiana Supreme Court later struck down this state’s revised death penalty statute.

1976
Now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens joined with a U.S. Supreme Court majority in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), which overruled Furman v. Georgia and helped pave the way for states to re-enact capital punishment.

1977
Indiana reintroduced capital punishment, and that sentencing statute remains in effect today.

1981
Indiana saw its first execution following the death penalty’s re-enactment. The defendant was Steven Judy, who’d been sentenced a year earlier but waived non-mandatory appeals.

1987
Indiana increased the minimum age of a person eligible for execution from 10 to 16.

1989
The state General Assembly created the Indiana Public Defender Commission to set standards for capital attorneys, and it authorized the commission to reimburse counties 50 percent of defense costs in capital cases.

1990-92
The Indiana Supreme Court established Criminal Rule 24 to set mandatory standards for appointing and compensating trial and appellate counsel in death penalty cases.

1993
The Indiana General Assembly created Life Without Parole as a sentencing option in capital murder cases, and a year later prosecutors were given the authority to ask for LWOP rather than requesting a death sentence.

1994
The Indiana General Assembly banned the execution of the mentally retarded, a legislative decision that preceded the 2002 SCOTUS ruling in Atkins v. Virginia that held the same.

1995
Indiana changed the method of execution from electrocution to lethal injection.

2002
Indiana increased the minimum age of a person eligible for execution from 16 to 18, a decision that preceded the 2005 SCOTUS ruling that held executing anyone under 18 was cruel and unusual.

2007
• An American Bar Association panel of Indiana attorneys and legal scholars issued a report calling for a moratorium on the state’s death penalty on the grounds that the state lacks the ability for its appellate courts to review whether different crimes merit that penalty. Legislation followed in subsequent years, but did not gain approval.
• In honor of the late Sen. Anita Bowser (D-Michigan City), the Indiana Senate created an interim study commission to examine the issue of executing the mentally ill. That commission voted to recommend a bill that would exempt defendants identified to have serious mental illness, but no definition of that term was agreed on and a bill introduced in 2008 was not enacted. No further action has been taken.

2008
In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), Justice Stevens voted with the majority in upholding Kentucky’s method of lethal injection because he felt bound by stare decisis. However, he issued a concurrence in that case that put him with three other former justices in concluding that state-sanctioned killing (capital punishment) is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

2010
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller held a criminal justice summit at Notre Dame Law School to discuss the economic impact of capital punishment. A final report is being submitted to Indiana legislators, but no legislation was introduced in 2011 as a result of that conference.

2011
In March, Illinois became the 16th state to ban executions, a move that came a decade after Illinois imposed a moratorium on the death penalty due to concern about wrongful convictions. This follows what other states have done on grounds of wrongful conviction and exoneration trends, fiscal considerations, or public policy changes at the state level.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT