A Feminist Look at the Death Penalty

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Contemporary Problems Pub Date : 2002-01-01 DOI:10.2307/1192373
A. Pope
{"title":"A Feminist Look at the Death Penalty","authors":"A. Pope","doi":"10.2307/1192373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amy E. Pope (*) I INTRODUCTION The death penalty has its fervent defenders and critics. In all the debate about the procedure, however, no one has suggested how a feminist perspective might improve the discussion. Feminist theory can be helpful in several ways. First, we can learn from the lives of the women embroiled in the process. Indeed, fifty-four women currently live on death row. (1) Not only are women themselves imprisoned by the state, but women are also the mothers, sisters, and wives of those condemned to die. Countless numbers of women are the victims of the crimes for which men are sentenced to death. And women are, in still small but growing numbers, the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys embroiled in the process. Second, and more importantly, the decision to impose the death penalty and the procedures for doing so present traditionally male ways of looking at the problem, presenting judges and juries with a limited means of considering the issues: Universal standards are divorced from context, dichotomous choices ar e imposed in place of a range of alternatives, and emotions are excised from the procedure. Imposing a feminist lens on the procedure will round out the largely one-sided argument. For these reasons and others, it is appropriate to look at the death penalty from a feminist perspective. How has the system affected the lives of women? How does the process and the punishment reflect the voices of women? Why are so few women sentenced with this penalty, and what does this imply about our culture? What is the feminist response to a procedure that ostensibly rids this country of the people who threaten women in the most violent ways? In Autumn 1998, Law and Contemporary Problems published an issue exploring the American Bar Association's Proposed Moratorium on the Death Penalty. (2) This note advances another argument in favor of the proposed moratorium-that, by employing feminist methodology to examine the death penalty, it becomes clear that the current procedural system fails to represent large numbers of those penalized under the system. Accordingly, the major purpose of this note is to start a conversation about the ways in which thinking from a feminist perspective may help us, as a society, to approach the death penalty in a more productive and holistic fashion. This note points out that, even when there is a horrible crime, and instinct calls for death, there are contextual factors that must be considered. Universal standards that require \"yes\" or \"no\" answers fail to address the needs of both the Victims of crime and its perpetrators. Until criminal procedure is reconfigured to better represent those voices, it is inappropriate for the democratic state to impose such a final and severe sentence. After a brief exploration of the need for a feminist perspective on capital punishment in Part II, Part III begins by determining which feminist methodology is most appropriate to an analysis of the death penalty. The strengths and weaknesses of two of the many models of feminist thought are specifically outlined. I do not attempt to defend the wisdom of one school of thought over the other; rather, my goal is to fuse the two theories to create a different way of looking at the capital punishment system. Part IV applies this hybrid methodology to the leading Supreme Court cases on the death penalty and asks whether we should have the death penalty at all. The note then considers, if we are to have the death penalty, how we might make the procedure more fair. Part V questions the procedures used to employ capital punishment and finds discrepancies in how the law handles cases involving crimes committed in the public and private sphere. Part VI considers victim impact statements as an example of an attempt to universalize the criminal justice system, and considers how the initiative has fallen short. The note concludes by suggesting that, while there is no immediate resolution to the problem, rethinking capital punishment from a feminist perspective will start a more productive discussion of the issue. …","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"50 1","pages":"257-282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1192373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Amy E. Pope (*) I INTRODUCTION The death penalty has its fervent defenders and critics. In all the debate about the procedure, however, no one has suggested how a feminist perspective might improve the discussion. Feminist theory can be helpful in several ways. First, we can learn from the lives of the women embroiled in the process. Indeed, fifty-four women currently live on death row. (1) Not only are women themselves imprisoned by the state, but women are also the mothers, sisters, and wives of those condemned to die. Countless numbers of women are the victims of the crimes for which men are sentenced to death. And women are, in still small but growing numbers, the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys embroiled in the process. Second, and more importantly, the decision to impose the death penalty and the procedures for doing so present traditionally male ways of looking at the problem, presenting judges and juries with a limited means of considering the issues: Universal standards are divorced from context, dichotomous choices ar e imposed in place of a range of alternatives, and emotions are excised from the procedure. Imposing a feminist lens on the procedure will round out the largely one-sided argument. For these reasons and others, it is appropriate to look at the death penalty from a feminist perspective. How has the system affected the lives of women? How does the process and the punishment reflect the voices of women? Why are so few women sentenced with this penalty, and what does this imply about our culture? What is the feminist response to a procedure that ostensibly rids this country of the people who threaten women in the most violent ways? In Autumn 1998, Law and Contemporary Problems published an issue exploring the American Bar Association's Proposed Moratorium on the Death Penalty. (2) This note advances another argument in favor of the proposed moratorium-that, by employing feminist methodology to examine the death penalty, it becomes clear that the current procedural system fails to represent large numbers of those penalized under the system. Accordingly, the major purpose of this note is to start a conversation about the ways in which thinking from a feminist perspective may help us, as a society, to approach the death penalty in a more productive and holistic fashion. This note points out that, even when there is a horrible crime, and instinct calls for death, there are contextual factors that must be considered. Universal standards that require "yes" or "no" answers fail to address the needs of both the Victims of crime and its perpetrators. Until criminal procedure is reconfigured to better represent those voices, it is inappropriate for the democratic state to impose such a final and severe sentence. After a brief exploration of the need for a feminist perspective on capital punishment in Part II, Part III begins by determining which feminist methodology is most appropriate to an analysis of the death penalty. The strengths and weaknesses of two of the many models of feminist thought are specifically outlined. I do not attempt to defend the wisdom of one school of thought over the other; rather, my goal is to fuse the two theories to create a different way of looking at the capital punishment system. Part IV applies this hybrid methodology to the leading Supreme Court cases on the death penalty and asks whether we should have the death penalty at all. The note then considers, if we are to have the death penalty, how we might make the procedure more fair. Part V questions the procedures used to employ capital punishment and finds discrepancies in how the law handles cases involving crimes committed in the public and private sphere. Part VI considers victim impact statements as an example of an attempt to universalize the criminal justice system, and considers how the initiative has fallen short. The note concludes by suggesting that, while there is no immediate resolution to the problem, rethinking capital punishment from a feminist perspective will start a more productive discussion of the issue. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
死刑的女权主义视角
死刑有其狂热的捍卫者和批评者。然而,在所有关于手术的争论中,没有人提出女权主义的观点如何能改善讨论。女权主义理论可以在几个方面提供帮助。首先,我们可以从卷入这一过程的妇女的生活中学到东西。事实上,目前有54名妇女被关押在死囚牢房中。妇女不仅自己被国家囚禁,而且她们还是那些被判死刑的人的母亲、姐妹和妻子。无数妇女是男性被判处死刑的罪行的受害者。参与这一过程的法官、检察官和辩护律师中,女性人数仍然不多,但数量在不断增加。第二,也是更重要的是,判处死刑的决定和执行死刑的程序呈现了传统上男性看待问题的方式,向法官和陪审团提供了一种有限的考虑问题的手段:普遍标准脱离了具体情况,用二分法代替了一系列备选办法,并从程序中剔除了感情因素。从女权主义的角度来看待这一过程,将使基本上一边倒的争论变得圆满。由于这些原因和其他原因,从女权主义的角度看待死刑是恰当的。这个制度是如何影响女性的生活的?这个过程和惩罚如何反映了女性的声音?为什么很少有女性被判这种刑罚,这对我们的文化意味着什么?女权主义者对这个表面上让这个国家摆脱那些以最暴力的方式威胁女性的人的程序有什么反应?1998年秋,《法律与当代问题》出版了一期杂志,探讨美国律师协会暂停死刑的提议。(2)本说明提出了赞成暂停执行死刑的另一个论点,即通过采用女权主义方法来审查死刑,很明显,目前的程序制度未能代表在该制度下受到惩罚的大量人。因此,本说明的主要目的是展开一场对话,讨论从女权主义角度思考如何有助于我们整个社会以更富有成效和更全面的方式对待死刑问题。这篇笔记指出,即使发生了可怕的犯罪,本能要求死亡,也必须考虑环境因素。要求回答“是”或“否”的普遍标准未能同时满足犯罪受害者和犯罪者的需要。在刑事诉讼程序被重新配置以更好地代表这些声音之前,民主国家施加如此最终和严厉的判决是不合适的。在第二部分简要探讨了从女权主义角度看待死刑的必要性之后,第三部分首先确定哪种女权主义方法最适合于对死刑的分析。本文特别概述了女权主义思想的两种模式的优缺点。我并不试图维护某一学派的智慧胜过另一学派;相反,我的目标是融合这两种理论,以创造一种看待死刑制度的不同方式。第四部分将这种混合方法应用于最高法院关于死刑的主要案件,并询问我们是否应该拥有死刑。该照会随后考虑,如果我们要判处死刑,我们如何才能使程序更加公平。第五部分对使用死刑的程序提出质疑,并发现法律在处理涉及在公共和私人领域犯下的罪行的案件方面存在差异。第六部分认为受害者影响陈述是试图普及刑事司法制度的一个例子,并审议了该倡议如何不足。该说明的结论是,虽然没有立即解决这个问题的办法,但从女权主义的角度重新思考死刑将开始对这个问题进行更有成效的讨论。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Re-Selection on Independent Decision Making in State Supreme Courts Voting Rights and the “Statutory Constitution” Challenging Gender in Single-Sex Spaces: Lessons from a Feminist Softball League Treaties and Human Rights: The Role of Long-Term Trends Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1