The Limits of Legal Language: Decisionmaking in Capital Cases
It is argued that current sentencing instructions could be improved by focusing on more narrow, achievable goals and by adopting an approach to capital sentencing that differs significantly from that in Furman vs. Georgia (1972). Proposed model instructions seek to limit the class of the death eligi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Michigan law review 1996-08, Vol.94 (8), p.2590-2624 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2624 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 2590 |
| container_title | Michigan law review |
| container_volume | 94 |
| creator | Steiker, Jordan M. |
| description | It is argued that current sentencing instructions could be improved by focusing on more narrow, achievable goals and by adopting an approach to capital sentencing that differs significantly from that in Furman vs. Georgia (1972). Proposed model instructions seek to limit the class of the death eligible and at the same time seek to communicate to sentencers in clear terms the nature and scope of their decisionmaking power. The instructions seek to correct 2 central respective failings of the pre- and post-Furman paradigms. The "standardless discretion" approach embodied in the pre-Furman statutes offers no protection to those defendants who are not truly among the "worst" offenders. The "guided discretion" approach reflected in contemporary statutes structures the death penalty decision in ways that are unhelpful and misleading, thereby undermining sentencer accountability. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/1289834 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38991891</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A18749480</galeid><jstor_id>1289834</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A18749480</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4e0ff23ae46dbf565b49792d1bde9cdd6ca47f41934bdab3c2eccb5c80062de33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10U1r3DAQBmARGsh2E_IXTCnNpU70ZVsq9LBsmw8w5JKchSyPXG1taSvZh_77KGwOoWyZw8DwMMzwInRJ8DVluLkhVEjB-AlaEclkKaqq-YBWGNO6pJTxM_QxpR3GmFSMrND3p19QtG5ycyqCLVoY9Fi02g-LHuBb8QOMSy74Sf92fiicL7Z67-ZstjpBOkenVo8JLt76Gj3f_nza3pft493DdtOWhjXVXHLA1lKmgdd9Z6u66rhsJO1J14M0fV8bzRvL872863XHDAVjusoIjGvaA2Nr9OWwdx_DnwXSrCaXDIyj9hCWpJiQkghJMvz0D9yFJfp8m6KYEE5r8Q7lX0E5b8MctXndqDZENFxygTP6egQN4CHqMXiwLo_f8_IIz9XD5Mwxf3XwJoaUIli1j27S8a8iWL3mqN5yzPLzQe7SHOJ_2QsIYZdj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>201142681</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Limits of Legal Language: Decisionmaking in Capital Cases</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Steiker, Jordan M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Steiker, Jordan M.</creatorcontrib><description>It is argued that current sentencing instructions could be improved by focusing on more narrow, achievable goals and by adopting an approach to capital sentencing that differs significantly from that in Furman vs. Georgia (1972). Proposed model instructions seek to limit the class of the death eligible and at the same time seek to communicate to sentencers in clear terms the nature and scope of their decisionmaking power. The instructions seek to correct 2 central respective failings of the pre- and post-Furman paradigms. The "standardless discretion" approach embodied in the pre-Furman statutes offers no protection to those defendants who are not truly among the "worst" offenders. The "guided discretion" approach reflected in contemporary statutes structures the death penalty decision in ways that are unhelpful and misleading, thereby undermining sentencer accountability.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0026-2234</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-8557</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1289834</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School</publisher><subject>Aggravating circumstances ; Capital punishment ; Civil law ; Constitutional law ; Court hearings & proceedings ; Criminal law ; Criminal punishment ; Criminal sentencing ; Criminals ; Decision making ; Defendants ; Instructions to juries ; Interpretation and construction ; Juries ; Jurors ; Law ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Legal aspects ; Mitigating circumstances ; Sentences (Criminal procedure) ; Statutory law ; Supreme Court decisions ; U.S.A</subject><ispartof>Michigan law review, 1996-08, Vol.94 (8), p.2590-2624</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1996 The Michigan Law Review Association</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1996 Michigan Law Review Association</rights><rights>Copyright Michigan Law Review Association Aug 1996</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4e0ff23ae46dbf565b49792d1bde9cdd6ca47f41934bdab3c2eccb5c80062de33</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1289834$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1289834$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,57996,58229</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Steiker, Jordan M.</creatorcontrib><title>The Limits of Legal Language: Decisionmaking in Capital Cases</title><title>Michigan law review</title><description>It is argued that current sentencing instructions could be improved by focusing on more narrow, achievable goals and by adopting an approach to capital sentencing that differs significantly from that in Furman vs. Georgia (1972). Proposed model instructions seek to limit the class of the death eligible and at the same time seek to communicate to sentencers in clear terms the nature and scope of their decisionmaking power. The instructions seek to correct 2 central respective failings of the pre- and post-Furman paradigms. The "standardless discretion" approach embodied in the pre-Furman statutes offers no protection to those defendants who are not truly among the "worst" offenders. The "guided discretion" approach reflected in contemporary statutes structures the death penalty decision in ways that are unhelpful and misleading, thereby undermining sentencer accountability.</description><subject>Aggravating circumstances</subject><subject>Capital punishment</subject><subject>Civil law</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Court hearings & proceedings</subject><subject>Criminal law</subject><subject>Criminal punishment</subject><subject>Criminal sentencing</subject><subject>Criminals</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Instructions to juries</subject><subject>Interpretation and construction</subject><subject>Juries</subject><subject>Jurors</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Legal aspects</subject><subject>Mitigating circumstances</subject><subject>Sentences (Criminal procedure)</subject><subject>Statutory law</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><issn>0026-2234</issn><issn>1939-8557</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10U1r3DAQBmARGsh2E_IXTCnNpU70ZVsq9LBsmw8w5JKchSyPXG1taSvZh_77KGwOoWyZw8DwMMzwInRJ8DVluLkhVEjB-AlaEclkKaqq-YBWGNO6pJTxM_QxpR3GmFSMrND3p19QtG5ycyqCLVoY9Fi02g-LHuBb8QOMSy74Sf92fiicL7Z67-ZstjpBOkenVo8JLt76Gj3f_nza3pft493DdtOWhjXVXHLA1lKmgdd9Z6u66rhsJO1J14M0fV8bzRvL872863XHDAVjusoIjGvaA2Nr9OWwdx_DnwXSrCaXDIyj9hCWpJiQkghJMvz0D9yFJfp8m6KYEE5r8Q7lX0E5b8MctXndqDZENFxygTP6egQN4CHqMXiwLo_f8_IIz9XD5Mwxf3XwJoaUIli1j27S8a8iWL3mqN5yzPLzQe7SHOJ_2QsIYZdj</recordid><startdate>19960801</startdate><enddate>19960801</enddate><creator>Steiker, Jordan M.</creator><general>University of Michigan Law School</general><general>Michigan Law Review Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960801</creationdate><title>The Limits of Legal Language: Decisionmaking in Capital Cases</title><author>Steiker, Jordan M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-4e0ff23ae46dbf565b49792d1bde9cdd6ca47f41934bdab3c2eccb5c80062de33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Aggravating circumstances</topic><topic>Capital punishment</topic><topic>Civil law</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Court hearings & proceedings</topic><topic>Criminal law</topic><topic>Criminal punishment</topic><topic>Criminal sentencing</topic><topic>Criminals</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Instructions to juries</topic><topic>Interpretation and construction</topic><topic>Juries</topic><topic>Jurors</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Legal aspects</topic><topic>Mitigating circumstances</topic><topic>Sentences (Criminal procedure)</topic><topic>Statutory law</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Steiker, Jordan M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Michigan law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Steiker, Jordan M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Limits of Legal Language: Decisionmaking in Capital Cases</atitle><jtitle>Michigan law review</jtitle><date>1996-08-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2590</spage><epage>2624</epage><pages>2590-2624</pages><issn>0026-2234</issn><eissn>1939-8557</eissn><abstract>It is argued that current sentencing instructions could be improved by focusing on more narrow, achievable goals and by adopting an approach to capital sentencing that differs significantly from that in Furman vs. Georgia (1972). Proposed model instructions seek to limit the class of the death eligible and at the same time seek to communicate to sentencers in clear terms the nature and scope of their decisionmaking power. The instructions seek to correct 2 central respective failings of the pre- and post-Furman paradigms. The "standardless discretion" approach embodied in the pre-Furman statutes offers no protection to those defendants who are not truly among the "worst" offenders. The "guided discretion" approach reflected in contemporary statutes structures the death penalty decision in ways that are unhelpful and misleading, thereby undermining sentencer accountability.</abstract><cop>Ann Arbor</cop><pub>University of Michigan Law School</pub><doi>10.2307/1289834</doi><tpages>35</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0026-2234 |
| ispartof | Michigan law review, 1996-08, Vol.94 (8), p.2590-2624 |
| issn | 0026-2234 1939-8557 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38991891 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Business Source Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Aggravating circumstances Capital punishment Civil law Constitutional law Court hearings & proceedings Criminal law Criminal punishment Criminal sentencing Criminals Decision making Defendants Instructions to juries Interpretation and construction Juries Jurors Law Laws, regulations and rules Legal aspects Mitigating circumstances Sentences (Criminal procedure) Statutory law Supreme Court decisions U.S.A |
| title | The Limits of Legal Language: Decisionmaking in Capital Cases |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T11%3A18%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Limits%20of%20Legal%20Language:%20Decisionmaking%20in%20Capital%20Cases&rft.jtitle=Michigan%20law%20review&rft.au=Steiker,%20Jordan%20M.&rft.date=1996-08-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2590&rft.epage=2624&rft.pages=2590-2624&rft.issn=0026-2234&rft.eissn=1939-8557&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1289834&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA18749480%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=201142681&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A18749480&rft_jstor_id=1289834&rfr_iscdi=true |