Supreme convolution: Gregg v. Georgia and the nature of Supreme Court decision making
Item
-
Title
-
Supreme convolution: Gregg v. Georgia and the nature of Supreme Court decision making
-
Identifier
-
d_2009_2013:099d16b7d64d:10789
-
identifier
-
10984
-
Creator
-
Shemtob, Zachary Baron,
-
Contributor
-
Evan Mandery
-
Date
-
2010
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Criminology | Law | Political science | Capital Punishment | Jurisprudence | Legal Theory | Supreme Court
-
Abstract
-
Few issues evoke more impassioned debate than capital punishment. While death penalty supporters view it as a just and even necessary sanction, opponents see a profound symbol of American barbarism. The 1976 Supreme Court case of Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153, which authorized the modern death penalty, is one of the most controversial decisions in the Court's history. Not only did Gregg contain a variety of conflicting opinions, but it failed to fully clarify how the death penalty should be properly readministered. While Gregg's consequences have been subject to extensive analysis, surprisingly few scholars have explored the case itself at any length. This project analyzes Gregg through both archival research and oral history. It then situates this decision within the controversial discourse on what factors motivate judicial opinions. The study concludes that justices decide according to a variety of criteria, and therefore offers support for a mixed theory of judicial decision making.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
2009_2013.csv
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
-
Program
-
Criminal Justice
