Death Penalty in America, Legal Studies 485, Spring 2003


04-10-03, Class discussion questions

 

FROM BIENEN ARTICLE IN BEDAU:

  1. In chapter 23, “A Good Murder,” the author looks at which murders in New Jersey were prosecuted as capital murder and which are not.  What are some of the reasons why a capital crime would NOT be prosecuted as a capital case?
  2. What does it mean about justice and fundamental fairness when one county seeks the death penalty in a higher percentage of eligible cases than another county?  What does the author find about urban, inner city prosecutions (Essex County)? What does the author find about prosecutions from the rural, coastline (Ocean County)?  (p. 323-24)
  3. The author’s title, “A Good Murder,” refers to the capital prosecution of Robert Marshall.  Why has this case (and others like it) gotten so much press attention?  (P. 325-329)  What other capital cases are you familiar with?  Do they fit the “good murder” definition?  Do you agree with Bienen’s conclusion that publicity about these cases make people think that the system is working?
  4. The author concludes that: “The Hollywood version of capital murder cases--which implies that the good guy cops are catching bad guy murderers, and that it all ends up all right when a bad person is executed--is reassuring, but inaccurate.”  (P. 331) Do you agree with this?  Does the Timothy McVeigh case promote the “Hollywood version of capital murder cases”?  How?  Why is this description of capital murder cases inaccurate?  How might this phenomenon affect public opinion about the death penalty?

 

FROM SIEVERT ARTICLE IN COURSE PACKET:

  1. What are the factors prosecutors consider in deciding whether to seek the death penalty? How does prosecutorial discretion enter into the selection of defendants? In Texas, who makes the final decision? (p. 51-53)
  2. How does race enter into the process of jury selection?  (p. 53-54)  According to Bienen, race helps explain why urban juries are less likely to convict than rural juries.  (p. 328, 2nd and 3rd paragraph)  Do both authors seems to be saying the same thing?
  3. What type of evidence do prosecutors use at the sentencing phase of the trial?  (p. 55-56)
  4. What do you think about the arguments Sievert made to the jury?  (p. 56 and n. 2 on p. 58)  Do you think they were effective?  Would you feel comfortable making those arguments?  Why or why not?
  5. Do the conclusions Bienen reaches about capital cases in New Jersey hold true for the capital cases Sievert discusses? Why or why not?

 

Return to homepage