Title: An Epistemological Look at the Standard of Proof for Future Danger Predictions under the Texas Capital Sentencing Scheme
Abstract: (ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)I. Introduction 209A. Relevant Statutory Language in Texas 210B. Overview 212II. Epistemological Results and Practical Outcomes of the Texas Sentencing Scheme 212A. Hypothetical Value Judgments of Four Paradigmatic Jurors.... 213B. Jurors' Individualized Expected Utilities 2151. Calculating Jurors' Utilities 216C. Varying Standards of Proof Among Jurors for Lack of a Clear One 2191. Laudan's Formula Applied to a Six-Outcome Scheme.....2192. Standards of Proof Exceeding 100% 2203. Ambiguous Statutory Language Adds to Capricious Standards 222III. Empirical Data Shows Low Jury Prediction Accuracy 223A. False Positives Resulting from Expert Psychiatric Testimony. 223IV. Improving the Future Danger Statute 228A. Admissible Evidence 229B. Requiring a Particular Percentage of Certainty 229C. Clarifying Society 230V. Conclusion 230I. IntroductionIn Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court effectively put a moratorium on capital punishment by limiting state sentencing schemes that gave unbridled discretion to jurors.* 1 Four years later, the Court responded to the Furman limitations in Gregg v. Georgia, where it held that bifurcated trials requiring juries to consider both mitigating and aggravating factors at the sentencing stage would provide guidance to jurors, reducing arbitrary and capricious sentences.2 The Gregg Court stated that a bifurcated sentencing scheme would meet Furman's conditions by providing a basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [the death penalty] is imposed from many cases in which it is not.3Nonetheless, the Court has continually upheld state capital sentencing schemes that are unpredictable in application and call for speculation of a defendant's propensity for future violence,4 resulting in a small but arbitrary number of death sentences.5 In particular, Texas's sentencing scheme provides very little meaningful basis for why one defendant is sentenced to death over another, which results in a disproportionate number of death row inmates who would be better suited for life without parole (LWOP), the default sentence for convicted capital defendants who do not receive death.6 Although the number of death row inmates is a small percentage of the general inmate population, 75-80% of convicted capital defendants are sentenced to death.7 Texas is executing far more criminals than any other state, and the finality of death highlights the need for reliable and reasoned sentencing.8A. Relevant Statutory Language in TexasIn sentencing decisions where the death penalty is an option, Texas asks jurors to make determinations on two special issues: future dangerousness and mitigating evidence.9 I will maihly focus on the more troublesome of the two special issues-future dangerousness. Inherently speculative, the future dangerousness issue requires jurors to make life-ordeath decisions based upon a prediction of the future. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of such an assessment, courts have continually upheld the future danger criterion determined by juries as reliable. …
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot