ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Legal Theory Blog

Berry on Judicial Restraint & the Death Penalty

By Lawrence Solum

ADVERTISEMENTS
William W. Berry III (University of Mississippi School of Law) has posted Powell, Blackmun, Stevens, and the Pandora?s Box Theory of Judicial Restraint on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
    In recent years, three Supreme Court justices, Powell, Blackmun, and most recently, Stevens, have all called for the abolition of the death penalty, repudiating their prior views on capital punishment. This article attempts to understand these reversals not as normative shifts on the propriety of capital punishment, but instead from an institutional choice perspective. In other words, these justices decided to abandon the death penalty not because they changed their view on its morality or efficacy. Rather, the justices changed their conception of judicial restraint with respect to the Eighth Amendment. They each moved from a position of complete deference to state legislatures to regulating state legislatures? use of capital punishment before ultimately deciding to remove the ability of state legislatures to use the death penalty altogether.

    This article argues, then, that the shift that has occurred is one as to the justices? views of the appropriate role of the Court in interpreting the Constitution to apply to states? legislative schemes. Further, the article argues that this shift is a paradigmatic example of the ?Pandora?s box? principle of judicial restraint ? that the decision to constitutionalize a particular area of state regulation has the consequence of placing the Court in the difficult position of trying to regulate a series of intractable problems on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the article argues that the application of this principle in the context of the death penalty, in light of the understanding that ?death is different? and the high volume of error in capital cases, largely explains why all three justices reached the same conclusion that the death penalty should be abolished.

Interesting thesis!

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on March 05, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0029 secs (from cache 10/31/26 04:23:05)