| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Shafer v. South Carolina ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Shafer v. South Carolina
''Shafer v. South Carolina'', (532 U.S. 36 ) (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole. While the question had been decided in the case of ''Simmons v. South Carolina'', this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.
==Background==
In 1994, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of ''Simmons v. South Carolina''. The U.S. Supreme Court held in this case that where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process requires that the jury be informed of the defendant's parole ineligibility. The state of South Carolina had changed its sentencing laws in the succeeding years to include the actual possibility of parole in absence of the death penalty, after sentencing questions were answered by the jury.〔Baarsma, William. ''Shafer v. South Carolina''. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2002, p. 1-3.〕〔(532 U.S. 36 ) at 41.〕
In the late Fall of 1997, Wesley Aaron Shafer, Jr., was found guilty of, inter alia, murder. During the sentencing phase, Shafer's counsel argued that ''Simmons'' required the trial judge to instruct the jury that under South Carolina law, a life sentence carries no possibility of parole. The prosecution responded that because the state did not plan to argue to the jury that Shafer would be a danger in the future, no ''Simmons'' instruction was required. During deliberations, the jury asked under what conditions someone convicted of murder could become available for parole. The trial judge stated that parole eligibility or ineligibility was not a matter for the jury's consideration.〔(532 U.S. 36 ) at 41-43.〕 Ultimately, the jury recommended the death penalty and the judge imposed the sentence. In affirming, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that ''Simmons'' generally did not apply to the State's sentencing scheme because an alternative to death other than life without the possibility of parole existed.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Shafer v. South Carolina」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|