Has Revenge Become a Justification to Legitimize the Death Penalty?

Revenge has played a role in criminal justice systems for thousands of years. From the Code of Hammurabi, to the Bible, to modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, revenge, or “getting even,” has been a consideration in how wrongdoers are punished, especially with respect to the imposition of the death penalty. Historically, revenge has not been viewed as a legitimate justification for punishment under American legal principles. However, in the past year, both the United States Supreme Court and the Department of Justice have signaled that revenge may well have a legitimate role in justifying the death penalty. This Note will explore the development of revenge as a justification for punishment in the American criminal justice system. It will begin by showing that recent remarks from the bench and the Department of Justice signal a willingness to consider the effects of revenge on crime victims. It will then analyze the concept of revenge as part of a criminal justice system and discuss the United States Supreme Court’s historical views on revenge as a justification for the death penalty. Next, this Note will investigate revenge’s role in the Victims’ Rights Movement, specifically how revenge factors into victim impact statements. Finally, this Note ultimately asserts that revenge is not and should not be a goal of the criminal justice system given the public policy implications

Has Revenge Become a Justification to Legitimize the Death Penalty?

Revenge has played a role in criminal justice systems for thousands of years. From the Code of Hammurabi, to the Bible, to modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, revenge, or “getting even,” has been a consideration in how wrongdoers are punished, especially with respect to the imposition of the death penalty. Historically, revenge has not been viewed as a legitimate justification for punishment under American legal principles. However, in the past year, both the United States Supreme Court and the Department of Justice have signaled that revenge may well have a legitimate role in justifying the death penalty. This Note will explore the development of revenge as a justification for punishment in the American criminal justice system. It will begin by showing that recent remarks from the bench and the Department of Justice signal a willingness to consider the effects of revenge on crime victims. It will then analyze the concept of revenge as part of a criminal justice system and discuss the United States Supreme Court’s historical views on revenge as a justification for the death penalty. Next, this Note will investigate revenge’s role in the Victims’ Rights Movement, specifically how revenge factors into victim impact statements. Finally, this Note ultimately asserts that revenge is not and should not be a goal of the criminal justice system given the public policy implications

Transforming Aggressive Prosecution Policies: Prioritizing Victims’ Long-Term Safety in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases

Until fairly recently, prosecutors\u27 offices around the country ignored domestic violence cases, failing to press charges in the vast majority of situations and dropping charges prior to conviction in many others. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the battered women\u27s movement made significant efforts to improve the criminal justice system\u27s response. One way that this effort has met with substantial success is that many prosecutors\u27 offices now have adopted aggressive no-drop policies for domestic violence cases. In these jurisdictions, cases proceed regardless of the victim\u27s preferences about prosecution, even if she recants her original story and testifies for the defense

Using Electronic Monitoring to Enhance the Protection Offered by Civil Protection Orders in Cases of Domestic Violence: A new Technology Offers New Protection

Domestic violence is a widespread epidemic in the United States. Each year, between 1.8 and 4 million domestic violence incidents are reported. One in three women will experience some form of domestic violence in her lifetime. Civil protection orders (also known as protection from abuse orders or restraining orders) are a common remedy employed by the courts to prevent future violence and protect survivors of domestic violence. These orders can be tailored to fit the circumstances, but frequently include no contact provisions. However, no contact provisions can be difficult to enforce because the abuser is usually intimately familiar with the routine of the survivor. [...

Forgiveness in Criminal Procedure

Though forgiveness and mercy matter greatly in social life, they play fairly small roles in criminal procedure. Criminal procedure is dominated by the state, whose interests in deterring, incapacitating, and inflicting retribution leave little room for mercy. An alternative system, however, would focus more on the needs of human participants. Victim-offender mediation, sentencing discounts, and other mechanisms could encourage offenders to express remorse, victims to forgive, and communities to reintegrate and employ offenders. All of these actors could then better heal, reconcile, and get on with their lives. Forgiveness and mercy are not panaceas: not all offenders and victims would choose to take part, there are dangers of fakery and arbitrariness, and some forgiven offenders would reoffend. On the whole, however, this forgiving model offers a humane alternative to state-dominated criminal procedure