OPPapers.com Essay Index >> American History >> Interpreting The Mccleskey V. Kemp (1983) Decision
We have many free term papers and essays on Interpreting The Mccleskey V. Kemp (1983) Decision. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
Interpreting the McCleskey v. Kemp (1983) Decision The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that the State shall not deprive any person equal protection of
Submitted by thn013 on April 18, 2008
Category: American History
Words: 1716 | Pages: 7
Views: 116
Popularity Rank: 100,394
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that the State shall not deprive any person equal protection of the laws. When equal protection is guaranteed, the outcome must be fair; in other words, substantive justice must be present. Based on this interpretation, McCleskey v. Kemp should be overturned because McCleskey’s death was a racially biased and unfair outcome that was not constitutionally protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that in order for McCleskey to prove his innocence and the presence of a racially discriminatory criminal sentencing procedure, he had to meet a three-factor standard. First, he had to prove he was a member of a group that has historically suffered differential treatment. Second, McCleskey had to establish the extent of this treatment. Last, he had to prove that the process by which the death penalty was chosen was open to racial bias. McCleskey met all three prongs of this standard, and even though the Court’s decision denied his claim that he was not guaranteed equal protection, there is enough evidence to prove the selection process was not racially neutral and that a violation of the 14th Amendment was present. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons.
In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318). Here, McCleskey relied on the Baldus study, a statistical study that shows a “disparity in the imposition of the death sentence…based on the race of the murder victim and…the race of the defendant” (McCleskey v. Kemp 300). The study showed that black...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!