Against the Death Penalty
2016년 8월 · Brookings Institution Press
5.0star
리뷰 1개report
eBook
176
페이지
family_home
적용 가능
info
report검증되지 않은 평점과 리뷰입니다. 자세히 알아보기
eBook 정보
"A landmark dissenting opinion arguing against the death penalty.
Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that it does; that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently and, thus, violates the ban on ""cruel and unusual punishments"" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
“Today’s administration of the death penalty,” Breyer writes, “involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.”
This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia—as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions."
Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty, Justice Stephen Breyer argues that it does; that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently and, thus, violates the ban on ""cruel and unusual punishments"" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
“Today’s administration of the death penalty,” Breyer writes, “involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.”
This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia—as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions."
평점 및 리뷰
5.0
리뷰 1개
저자 정보
Stephen Breyer is an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. He has written several books including Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View and The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities.
이 eBook 평가
의견을 알려주세요.
읽기 정보
스마트폰 및 태블릿
노트북 및 컴퓨터
컴퓨터의 웹브라우저를 사용하여 Google Play에서 구매한 오디오북을 들을 수 있습니다.
eReader 및 기타 기기
Kobo eReader 등의 eBook 리더기에서 읽으려면 파일을 다운로드하여 기기로 전송해야 합니다. 지원되는 eBook 리더기로 파일을 전송하려면 고객센터에서 자세한 안내를 따르세요.
