Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Permitted comparison of mitigating and aggravating factors to decide death penalty decisions. [3] See also Furman v. Georgia (1972), and Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 1st 1986 Ford v. Wainwright: Preventing the execution [capital punishment] of the insane, requiring an evaluation of competency and an evidentiary hearing 8th 1989 Penry v. Lynaugh
It ruled that the state appellate court, rather than a jury, should reweigh the mitigating and aggravating factors in a habeas corpus review. Background [ edit ]
The Sentencing Council of England and Wales lists the following as possible mitigating factors: [2] Admitting the offense, such as through a guilty plea; Mental illness; Provocation; Young age; Showing remorse; Self-defense is a legal defense rather than a mitigating factor, as an act done in justified self-defense is not deemed to be a crime ...
This scheme is called a non-weighing scheme, because the sentencer is not required to weigh the statutory aggravating factors against mitigating evidence before imposing a death sentence. [ e ] The Court found that, because of the jury's finding at least one aggravating factor was a prerequisite for imposing the death penalty, Georgia's scheme ...
Mitigating factors, including things not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication [4] and partial defenses such as diminished capacity and provocation, are used more frequently. The defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction.
The DSL required judges to impose the middle term unless aggravating factors were found to exist, and those aggravating factors by definition did not include any element of the crime. Thus, the maximum sentence the judge could impose based solely on the jury's findings was the middle term, not the high term. Nevertheless, in People v.
Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona [1] to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.
At a hearing, one of Wiggins' trial counsels testified that he had Wiggins' social services records before sentencing, and knew that it could be a mitigating factor in a capital case, but believed that the way to avoid the death penalty was to create reasonable doubt that petitioner was a principal in the first degree rather than present the ...