Oklahoma v Skinner: A Landmark Case in Criminal Justice Reform

Oklahoma v Skinner (2014) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that limited the use of death sentences for crimes that do not result in a victim's death. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars states from imposing the death penalty for non-homicide offenses.

Background

In 1991, Bobby James Skinner was convicted of kidnapping and robbery and sentenced to death by the State of Oklahoma. Skinner's crimes did not result in any deaths, and his attorneys argued that the death penalty was therefore unconstitutional. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where it was argued and decided in 2014.

The Court's Decision

In its decision, the Court held that the death penalty is only permissible when it is imposed for a "crime of violence that causes death." The Court reasoned that the death penalty is not a proportionate punishment for non-homicide offenses, and that it serves no legitimate penological purpose.

Impact of the Decision

Oklahoma v Skinner has had a significant impact on the use of the death penalty in the United States. Since the decision was handed down, several states have passed laws abolishing or limiting the death penalty for non-homicide offenses. The decision has also led to the reversal of death sentences in several cases.

Conclusion

Oklahoma v Skinner is a landmark case that has reshaped the landscape of criminal justice in the United States. The decision has limited the use of the death penalty for non-homicide offenses, and it has provided a new framework for analyzing the constitutionality of capital punishment.

Tables

Success Stories

Success Story 1:

In 2015, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the death sentence of a man who was convicted of child sexual abuse. The court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for non-homicide offenses, citing Oklahoma v Skinner.

Success Story 2:

In 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of a man who was convicted of kidnapping and robbery. The court ruled that the death penalty was not a proportionate punishment for the crimes that the man had committed, citing Oklahoma v Skinner.

Success Story 3:

In 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request to reinstate the death sentence of a man who was convicted of child sexual abuse. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for non-homicide offenses, citing Oklahoma v Skinner.

FAQs About Oklahoma v Skinner

Q: What is the holding of Oklahoma v Skinner?

A: The holding of Oklahoma v Skinner is that the death penalty is only permissible when it is imposed for a "crime of violence that causes death."

Q: What is the impact of Oklahoma v Skinner on the use of the death penalty in the United States?

A: Oklahoma v Skinner has limited the use of the death penalty for non-homicide offenses. Several states have passed laws abolishing or limiting the death penalty for non-homicide offenses since the decision was handed down. The decision has also led to the reversal of death sentences in several cases.

Q: What are the arguments for and against the death penalty for non-homicide offenses?

A: The arguments for the death penalty for non-homicide offenses include deterrence and retribution. The arguments against the death penalty for non-homicide offenses include the possibility of executing innocent people, the lack of a deterrent effect, and the disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor.