1

MSc in Criminology and Criminal Justice Hilary Term 2016

The Death Penalty

PROFESSOR CAROLYN HOYLE carolyn.hoyle@crim.ox.ac.uk

This option runs on Fridays from 14:00-15:30 in Seminar E Manor Road Objective of the Option To provide students with a good understanding of the scope and practice of capital punishment and the movement - backed by international organizations and human rights treaties - to abolish the death penalty worldwide. Students will learn about the extent to which defendants in capital cases are protected by due process and have access to qualified defence counsel, and where they lack protection from police abuse, unfair trials, and painful forms of execution. They will explore what happens when the due process safeguards fail and innocent people are convicted and sentenced to death. Further, they will consider whether capital punishment can ever be administered equitably, without discrimination on grounds of race, geography, gender or other non-legal variables. Throughout this course students will draw on recent and controversial cases and decisions, as well as the social scientific literature. Schedule of Seminars

1. Abolition and Retention: a brief tour of the world

2. Capital punishment in law and practice

3. Procedural Protections for the Accused

4. Protecting Vulnerable Defendants

5. Inequity and Arbitrariness in the Administration of Capital Punishment

6. Convicting and Sentencing the Innocent

7. Alternatives to death: is life imprisonment better than death row?

8. Guest Lecture, Carlton Gary: a case study of a wrongful conviction

Key Text for the Course R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., Oxford University Press. Accessible overview on some of the topics: UN Human Rights (2014) Moving Away from the Death Penalty at http://www.ohchr.org/Lists/MeetingsNY/Attachments/52/Moving-Away-from-the-Death-Penalty.pdf

2

Preparation for Class Everyone should come to each seminar ready to engage in discussion with the same level of knowledge of the subject. Therefore you should try to read all or most of the pieces on the list for each week. On some weeks you will be asked to give a presentation on one of the topics. Presentations will be assigned at least one week before the class. Presentations should be brief (approximately 5 minutes) and can be accompanied by a short handout, providing the basic information about the topic, to be given to the other students (you are allowed to photocopy the handouts on the machine in the Centre for Criminology). The introductory paragraph to the readings for each week provides a guide to the key issues you should be considering when preparing for class. However, as with most of your studies at graduate level, you should also formulate your own questions as you do the reading, and raise these in class for discussion. The following websites will prove useful during your studies: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Death Penalty Information Center http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org Death Penalty Worldwide www.amnesty.org: Amnesty International http://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/ The Death Penalty Project http://www.handsoffcain.info/ Hands Off Cain If you notice any errors on the reading list or have any suggestions for further readings please let me know. Carolyn Hoyle 2015-16

3

Seminar One

Abolition and Retention: A brief tour of the world

The first part of this seminar will cover the pace of abolition and the new wave of abolition across the world, asking what the prospects are for international acceptance or rejection of capital punishment, and what the alternatives are for those jurisdictions that abolish the death penalty. The second part will focus on Asia, where there have been some significant changes in the past decade and the third part on the post-Furman American experience, asking whether America is exceptional in its retention of the death penalty. After the overview section, students should study EITHER the US OR Asia. Presentations: After a discussion about the death penalty worldwide, two students will be asked to present brief presentations: 1) on Asia and 2) on the US. All students should read Part 1, then EITHER part II OR part III Part I: A ‘Whistle-Stop’ Tour of the World Amnesty International, Death Sentences and Executions in 2014 (download at

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/0001/2015/en/

R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), chapters 1-3 (but excluding the final section of ch 3 on the US) OR Hood and Hoyle, ‘Progress Made for Worldwide Abolition of the Death Penalty’, International Affairs Forum, Capital Punishment Around the World, vol. 6, 1, 2015, pp. 8-11. W. Schabas, ‘Universal Abolition of Capital Punishment is Drawing Nearer’, International Affairs Forum, Capital Punishment Around the World, vol. 6, 1, 2015, pp. 12-13. READ EITHER PART II OR PART III Part II: A Focus on Asia Read at least one of the following reports: Death Penalty Project, The Death Penalty in Taiwan, 2014; Death Penalty Project, The Death Penalty in Malaysia, 2013; Death Penalty Project, The Death Penalty in Japan, 2013; Download all DPP reports at http://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/legal-resources/research-publications/ Sangmin Bae (2014) ‘Death Penalty Moratorium in South Korea: Norms, Institutions and Leadership’ in Lill Scherdin (ed) Capital Punishment: A Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System?, Ashgate

4

Borge Bakken (2014) ‘The Norms of Death: On Attitudes to Capital Punishment in China’, in Lill Scherdin (ed) Capital Punishment: A Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System?, Ashgate Fort Fu-Te Liao (2014) ‘Why Taiwan’s de facto Moratorium was Established and Lost’ in Lill Scherdin (ed) Capital Punishment: A Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System?, Ashgate David Johnson, (2014) ‘Why Does Japan Retain the Death Penalty?: Nine Hypotheses’ in Lill Scherdin (ed) Capital Punishment: A Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System?, Ashgate. Roger Hood & Surya Deva (eds.) (2013), ‘Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics and Public Opinion’ (Oxford University Press), Chapter 1 on Asia (by Franklin Zimring); and chapter 8 on Singapore (by Michael Hor).

M Miao, ‘Capital Punishment in China: A Populist Instrument of Social Governance’ (2013) 17 (2) Theoretical Criminology, 233-250

Part III: America: An Exceptional Case? Up to date information on the current use of the death penalty in the US is produced by the Death Penalty Information Center, Year-end Report 2014: http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/2014YrEnd.pdf R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., Oxford University Press, Chapter 3, p. 128 (section on US). B. Harcourt (2009), ‘Abolition in the United States by 2050: On Political Capital and Ordinary Acts of Resistance’ in C. Ogletree, JR. and A. Sarat (eds) Road to Abolition?: The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States, New York University Press, pp. 72- 96. C. S. Steiker and J. M. Steiker (2009), ‘The Beginning of the End?’ in C. Ogletree, JR. and A. Sarat (eds) Road to Abolition?: The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States, New York University Press, pp.97-138. C. Steiker & J. Steiker, "Entrenchment and/or Destabilization? Reflections on (Another) Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment," 30 Law & Inequality 211 (2012) D. Garland (2010), Peculiar Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition, Oxford University Press, chs. 4 and 11. Note: For those unfamiliar with US death penalty jurisprudence since 1972 the following cases are referred to in the literature (a good place to find brief descriptions of these cases is http://campuspress.yale.edu/capitalpunishment/ : Furman v Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (The death penalty as administered is declared unconstitutional.) Gregg v Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (the death penalty is not per se unconstitutional)

5

Woodson v. North Carolina 1976 (mandatory death penalties are unconstitutional) (excerpt from Bedau, 1997, pp. 206-209. Lockett v Ohio 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (reaffirms the concept of individualised sentencing) Coker v Georgia 433 U.S. 584 (1977) (the death penalty for rape is unconstitutional) and Post Furman: Callins v Collins 510 U.S. 1141 (1994) (Blackmun J. dissenting from denial of certiorari; and Scalia J. concurring in the denial of certiorari)

6

Seminar Two

Capital punishment in law and practice

Seminar two seeks to understand the scope of capital punishment in law and practice, the process of execution and the experience of those on death row. We will consider which offences the death penalty is used for around the world, how prisoners are held on death rows, what challenges are posed by attempts to executed prisoners, and who else suffers when the death penalty is imposed. Presentations: Three students will be asked to present brief presentations: 1) the scope of capital punishment around the world; 2) death row; 3) executing prisoners Overview R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., Oxford University Press, Chapters 4 & 5. Scope of Capital punishment Skim information about Pakistan, India, Iran, and other countries you’re interested in from the AI report detailed in week 1 reading list. Lines, R.. ‘A “Most Serious Crime”? – The Death Penalty for Drug Offences and International Human Rights Law’, Amicus Journal 21,(2010), pp. 21-28. Penal Reform International, Sharia law and the death penalty, 2015, http://www.penalreform.org/resource/sharia-law-and-the-death-penalty/ Liu, Renwen, ‘Recent Reforms and Prospects in China’ in R. Hood and S. Deva (eds.), Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia (2013), pp. 107-122. Death row Johnson, D. T., ‘Where the state kills in secret. Capital punishment in Japan’, Punishment and Society 8 (2006), pp. 251–285. B. Batra, ‘Don’t be Cruel: The “Death Row Phenomenon” and India’s “Delay” Jurisprudence’ in R. Hood and S. Deva (eds.), Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia (2013), pp. 287-312. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), A Death before Dying: Solitary Confinement on Death Row (July 2013). Executions Brian Evans, ‘Medical Ethics, Globalization, and the Decline of Lethal Injection’, International Affairs Forum, Capital Punishment Around the World, vol. 6, 1, 2015, pp. 18-22.

7

Martschukat, J., “No improvement over Electrocution or even a Bullet” Lethal Injection and the meaning of Speed and reliability in the Modern Execution Process’ in C. G. Ogeltree, Jr. and A. Sarat (eds.), The Road to Abolition? The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States’ (2009), pp.252-278. Denno, D. ‘For Execution methods Challenges, the Road to Abolition is Paved with Paradox’ in C. J. Ogletree and A. Sarat (eds.), The Road to Abolition, (2009), New York: NYU Press, pp. 183-214. The Conversation, Utah’s firing squad is another twist in America’s long quest for a perfect execution method, April 8, 2015. (Daniel LaChance) The Conversation, Punishment, secrecy and lethal injection: a few thoughts on Glossip v Gross, July 2, 2014 (John Stinneford). Collateral damage Robertson, O. and Brett R., Lightening the Load of the Parental Death Penalty on Children, (2013) Quaker United Nations Office, New York. Vandiver, M., ‘The Impact of the Death Penalty on the Families of Homicide Victims and of Condemned Prisoners’, in J. R. Acker, R. M. Bohm, and C. S. Lanier (eds.), America’s Experiment with Capital Punishment (2nd edn., 2003), pp. 613–645.

8

Seminar Three Procedural Protections for the Accused

Seminar 3 looks at the procedural protections for the accused and the extent to which they protect the innocent from conviction. In doing so, it questions the extent to which juries are able to make fair and accurate decisions. After the overview section, students should study EITHER the US OR Asia. Presentations: Two students will be asked to prepare brief (5-minute) presentations to lead our discussions on procedural protections in 1) Asia and 2) the US. For an overview of the topic in various jurisdictions, see R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., ch 7, sections 1-5. All students should read EITHER part II OR part III Asia:

Surya Deva, Death Penalty in the 'Rarest of Rare' Cases: A Critique of Judicial Choice-Making in Roger Hood & Surya Deva (eds.) (2013), Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics and Public Opinion (Oxford University Press). David Johnson (2010) ‘Capital Punishment without trials in Japan’s Lay Judge System’, 8(52) Asia Pacific Journal 1-8 Roger Hood & Surya Deva (eds.) (2013), ‘Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics and Public Opinion’ (Oxford University Press): chapter 6 on China (by Liu Renwen); and chapter 7 on India (by Bindal and Kumar). The US: For a good introduction to the key issues in the US (which will inform your understanding in the following weeks too!): see C Steiker & J Steiker, (2008) ‘Report to the ALI Concerning Capital Punishment, Annex B at http://www.ali.org/doc/Capital%20Punishment_web.pdf D. Garland (2010), Peculiar Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition, Oxford University Press, ch 9. S. Bright (2003), ‘The Politics of Capital Punishment: The Sacrifice of Fairness for Executions’, in: J.R. Acker, R.M. Bohm and C.S. Lanier, America’s Experiment with Capital Punishment, Carolina Academic Press, ch. 4, pp. 127-146. P. Brace and B. Boyea, 2008, State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty and the Practice of Electing Judges, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 52, 2, 360-372

9

C. Haney (2005), ‘A Tribunal Organized to Convict and Execute?: On the nature of jury selection in capital cases’, ch 5 in Haney, Death by Design, OUP, pp. 93-114 C. Haney (2005), ‘Preparing for the Death Penalty in Advance of Trial: Process Effects in Death Qualifying Capital Juries’, 6: in C. Haney, Death by Design, OUP, ch. 6, pp. 115-140.

Jesse Cheng (2010) Frontloading Mitigation: The “Legal” and the “Human” in Death Penalty

Defense Law & Social Inquiry Volume 35, Issue 1, pages 39–65.

J. L. Madeira, The Family Capital of Capital Families: Investigating Empathic Connections Between Jurors and Defendants' Families in Death Penalty Cases" Mich. St. L. Rev. (2012). Stephen B. Bright (2009) ‘The Right To Counsel In Death Penalty And Other Criminal Cases: Neglect Of The Most Fundamental Right And What We Should Do About It’, The Journal of Law in Society 11 J.L. Soc'y 1

10

Seminar Four

Protecting Vulnerable Defendants

In this seminar we shall examine how mental health, disability, and age affect the application of the death penalty and the links between these two related concepts. The treatment of vulnerable defendants has been the subject of fairly recent judgments of the US Supreme Court in Atkins and Roper and even more recently with cases regarding the mentally ill. Some of the questions raised are: Should vulnerable defendants be treated any differently? If so, what does “vulnerable” mean in this context? Are there good reasons to retain the death penalty in these cases? What is the appropriate role of the Court in these questions? And how, if at all, should social science affect Court decisions? Presentations Three students will be asked to prepare brief (5-minute) presentations on the main issues covered in this weeks readings: 1 on juveniles, 1 on intellectual disability, and 1 on mental illness, but other students should aim to cover TWO of these three topics in full and be ready to discuss them in class. Overview

R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., Oxford University Press, ch 6: (Excluding the Vulnerable from Capital Punishment)

R. Smith, S. Cull, and Z. Robinson, "The Failure of Mitigation?," 65 Hastings Law Journal 1221 (2014).

1. Intellectual Disability: From Atkins to Hall (J. Blume, et al., "A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court's Creation Of A Categorical Bar," 23 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 393 (2014)).

J Amy Dillard, (2011) ‘And Death Shall Have No Dominion: How to achieve the categorical exemption of mentally retarded defendants from execution’ 45, University of Richmond Law Review 961-1008 James W. Ellis (2014) ‘Hall v. Florida: The Supreme Court’s Guidance in Implementing Atkins’, William & Mary Bill of Rights, vol 23, No. 2, UNM School of Law Research Paper no 2015-03 http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/PIP_Journal.cfm?pip_jrnl=1625301&partid=350508&did=245660&eid=1619725

11

2. Mental Illness D. Clay Kelly, (2010) Death Penalty and Mentally Ill Defendants, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 38: 2: 284-86. Franklin J. Bordenave, MD and D. Clay Kelly, MD, "Death Penalty and Mentally Ill Defendants," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2010. R. Bonnie (2007), ‘Panetti v Quarterman: Mental Illness, the Death Penalty, and Human Dignity’, University of Virginia Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper 71 Lyn Entzeroth (2011) The Challenge And Dilemma Of Charting A Course To Constitutionally Protect The Severely Mentally Ill Capital Defendant From The Death Penalty 44 Akron L. Rev. 529 A. Dillard, "Madness Alone Punishes the Madman: The Search for Moral Dignity in the Court's Competency Doctrine as Applied in Capital Cases," 79 Tennessee Law Review 461 (2012).

S. Sundby, "The True Legacy of Atkins and Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, and the Death Penalty's Unravelling," William & Mary Bill of Rights, Vol. 23, forthcoming, 2014.)

3. Juveniles: from Roper to Miller Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (2005), ‘The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States’, October 2005 Adam Liptak (2007), ‘Lifers as Teenagers, Now Seeking Second Chance’, The New York Times, October 17, 2007. Hood and Hoyle, The Death Penalty, 5th edn., chapter 11, pp. 496-501 Cara H Drinan (2014) ‘Misconstruing Graham and Miller’ 91(3) Washington University Law Review 785-95 Google recent newspaper articles on the on-going interpretation of Miller

12

Seminar Five

Inequity and Arbitrariness in the Administration of Capital Punishment

In this seminar we consider the various types of inequities and arbitrariness in the administration of capital punishment. In particular, we examine how the US Supreme Court has dealt with the argument that the application of the death penalty is racist and discuss recent studies of the place and importance of race within capital punishment. Presentations: Two students will be asked to give brief (5-minute) presentation on 1) racism in the administration of capital punishment, 2) the role of victim impact evidence. Overview

R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., Oxford University Press, ch 8: from s. 2, p. 354.

James E. Liebman and Peter Clarke, Minority Practice, Majority’s Burden: The Death Penalty Today, 9 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 255 (2011).

M. J. Songer and I. Unah (2006), ‘The Effect of Race, Gender, and Location on Prosecutorial Decisions to Seek the Death Penalty in South Carolina’, South Carolina Law Review, 58, p. 161.

On Geography Frank R. Baumgartner, The Geography of the Death Penalty http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/Innocence/NC/Baumgartner-geography-of-capital-punishment-oct-17-2010.pdf Racism in the administration of capital punishment J. Acker, “Life, death and race - How color-blind is justice, especially in capital cases?,” Albany Times-Union, April 22, 2012 http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Life-death-and-race-3500557.php M. Lynch and C. Haney, "Looking Across the Empathic Divide: Racialized Decision Making on the Capital Jury," 2011 Michigan State Law Review 573. Isaac Unah (2011) Empirical Analysis of Race and the Process of Capital Punishment in North Carolina’ Michigan State Law Review 609 David Baldus and George Woodworth: ‘Race, Discrimination and the Death Penalty: An Empirical and Legal Overview, in: J.R. Acker, R.M. Bohm and C.S. Lanier, 2003, America’s Experiment with Capital Punishment, Carolina Academic Press, ch. 16, pp. 501-551.

13

W.J. Bowers, M. Sandys and T.W. Brewer (2004), ‘Crossing Racial Boundaries: A Closer Look at the Roots of Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing When the Defendant is Black and the Victim is White’, 53 De Paul Law Review 1497. M.L. Radelet and G.L. Pierce (2009), ‘Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Resolving Homicides’ in C. Lanier, W.J. Bowers, J.R. Acker (eds). The Future of America’s Death Penalty, Carolina Academic Press, pp. 113-134. 2. Victim Impact Testimony R Paternoster & J Deise (2011) ‘A Heavy Thumb on the Scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making’, Criminology, 49(1), 129 D Minot (2012) Silenced Stories: how victim impact evidence in capital trials prevents the jury from hearing the constitutionally required story of the defendant’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1) S. Phillips (2009), ‘Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment’, Law and Society Review, vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 807-

14

Seminar Six

Convicting and Sentencing the Innocent

Having in previous weeks considered the procedural safeguards in place to protect the innocent, and particularly those who are deemed to be ‘vulnerable’, in this seminar we consider what happens when those safeguards fail to protect defendants and innocent people are convicted and sentenced to death. We explore what has failed in the criminal process when the innocent are convicted; what difficulties defendants encounter in trying to prove their innocence; and how social scientific research has developed our understanding of innocence. This class will focus on the US, though for information on wrongful convictions in death penalty cases see: R. Hood and C. Hoyle (2015), The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, 5th edn., Oxford University Press, ch 7, (section on Wrongful convictions). Presentations: Two students will be asked to give brief (5-minute) presentations addressing the following:

1) What, in your opinion, is the most intractable problem for those who would like to reduce the number of wrongful convictions in capital murder cases?

2) How helpful is the innocence movement for death penalty abolitionists? For up-to-date information and reports see: National Registry of Exonerations held by the law school at the University of Michigan http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx and read the key findings of their recent report (S. Gross & M. Shaffer, "Exonerations in the United States, 1989–2012," Univ. of Michigan Law School, May 21, 2012): http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/exonerations_us_1989_2012_summary.pdf J. Roman, K. Walsh, et al., "Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Wrongful Conviction," Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, June 2012. The report is at this link. You need only read the executive summary at pp. 1-3 for class, but if you write a paper on this topic you’ll need to read the full report. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238816.pdf http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6 Academic studies on US: For an overview on research on sources of wrongful conviction, see J. Gould and R. Leo (2010), One Hundred Years Later: Wrongful Convictions after a Century of Research, The Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 100, No. 3. J. Acker (2009), ‘Actual Innocence: Is Death Different?’ Behavioral Sciences and Law, 27, pp. 297-311. J. Acker and R. Bellandi, “Firmament or Folly? Protecting the Innocent, Promoting Capital Punishment, and the Paradoxes of Reconciliation,” 29 Justice Quarterly 287 (April 2012)

15

B. Garrett (2008), ‘Judging Innocence’, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 55. SSRN HeinOnline (PDF) B. Garrett (2010) "The Substance of False Confessions," 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1051. HeinOnline (PDF) The Conversation, ‘Coerced confessions and jailhouse snitches: why the death penalty is so flawed’, August 5, 2015, (Brandon Garrett). C. Steiker and J. Steiker (2005), ‘The Seduction of Innocence: The Attraction and Limitations of the Focus on Innocence in Capital Punishment Law and Advocacy’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 95, No. 2 (Winter, 2005), pp. 587-624. The Conversation, Loss of Innocence: the experience of exonerated death row inmates, August 3, 2015 (Saundra Westervelt & Kimberly Cook).

The Death Penalty Project, 2014, The Inevitability Of Error: The Administration Of Justice In Death Penalty Cases, download report at http://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/news/1795/1795/

16

Seminar Seven

Alternatives to death: is life imprisonment better than death row?

(with Marion Vannier)

Abolitionists cannot content themselves with arguing the negative aspects of capital punishment. Those that seek to abolish the death penalty face the task of establishing a viable alternative or alternatives. They must have a clear idea about what punishment is appropriate for those who commit terrible offences. In this final seminar of the course we will discuss how perceptions and understandings of life imprisonment have evolved over time (from prison management concerns to humanitarian issues). For an overview of how different countries have dealt with the question of alternatives to death, see: Hood and Hoyle, The Death Penalty, 5th edn., chapter 11, and for the specific issues to be discussed in class, from p. 485 Presentation: one student will introduce the seminar with by a five-minute presentation on the key issues that come out of this literature, and the questions it raises.

Most of the class will focus on a discussion that draws on the following pieces:

Sentencing Project, (2013) ‘Life goes on: the historic rise of life sentences in America’

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf

Wright, Julian (1990) "Life-Without-Parole: An Alternative to Death or Not Much of a Life at

All?". 43 Vand. L. Rev. 529 Stewart, Jim, and Paul Lieberman (1982) “What Is This New Sentence That Takes Away Parole?” Student Lawyer Bedau, H. (1990) "Imprisonment vs. Death: Does Avoiding Schwarzschild's Paradox Lead to Sheleff's Dilemma?", Albany Law Review, 54:481-495

Mauer, M., King, R., and Young, M. (2004), "The Meaning of "Life": long prison sentences in

context", The Sentencing Project,

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_meaningoflife.pdf Nellis, A. (2013), "Tinkering with Life: A Look at the Inappropriateness of Life Without Parole as an Alternative to the Death Penalty", University of Miami Law Review, 67:439

17

Seminar Eight Guest Lecture, Carlton Gary: a case study of a wrongful conviction

Optional reading for this guest lecture: David Rose, 2011, The Big Eddy Club: The Stocking Stranglings and Southern Justice http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Big-Eddy-Club-Stranglings/dp/1595586717

18