LEADER 03548nam 2200577 450 001 9910798526103321 005 20231206213801.0 010 $a0-8157-2890-5 035 $a(CKB)3710000000760408 035 $a(EBL)4551816 035 $a(OCoLC)948669357 035 $a(MdBmJHUP)muse53661 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL4551816 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr11241957 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL985524 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4551816 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000760408 100 $a20160823h20162016 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 10$aAgainst the death penalty$b[electronic resource] /$fJustice Stephen Breyer ; edited by John Bessler 210 1$aWashington, District of Columbia :$cBrookings Institution Press,$d2016. 210 4$dİ2016 215 $a1 online resource (174 pages) 300 $aIncludes index. 311 $a0-8157-2889-1 327 $aFront Cover; Front Flap; Title Page; Copyright Information; Table of Contents; Introduction; Justice Breyer's Dissent in Glossip V. Gross; Appendices; Notes; Index; Back Flap; Back Cover 330 $a"A landmark dissenting opinion arguing against the death penalty Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argues that it does: that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently, and thus violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. "Today's administration of the death penalty," Breyer writes, "involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty's penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use." This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross, which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty. Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts - including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia - as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions"--$cProvided by publisher. 606 $aCapital punishment$zUnited States 606 $aCapital Punishment 606 $aPolitical Activism 606 $aPolitical science 610 $aGlossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. -- (2015) 615 0$aCapital punishment 615 2$aCapital Punishment. 615 2$aPolitical Activism. 615 0$aPolitical science. 676 $a345.73/0773 686 $aPOL040030$aPOL022000$aPOL035010$aPOL016000$2bisacsh 700 $aBreyer$b Stephen G.$f1938-$0263548 702 $aBessler$b John D. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910798526103321 996 $aAgainst the death penalty$93679593 997 $aUNINA