Aplicação da pena de morte no Direito norte-americano de 1937 a 2002

REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS:

ABU-JAMAL, Mumia. Live from Death Row. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995.

ACKER, James R; BOHM, Robert M; LANIER, Charles S. America’s Experiment with Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the Ultimate Penal Sanction. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1998.

ARRIENS, Jan. Welcome to Hell: Letters and Writings from Death Row. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997.

ATKINS v. VIRGINIA (2002). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 23/06/2009.

BEDAU, Hugo Adam. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University, 1998.

COKER v. GEORGIA (1977). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 29/05/2009.

DAWSON v. DELAWARE (1992). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 13/06/2009.

EDDINGS v. OKLAHOMA (1982). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 30/05/2009.

ENMUND v. FLORIDA (1982). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 29/05/2009.

ENMUND v. FLORIDA (1982). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 04/06/2009.

ESTADOS UNIDOS. Constituição dos Estados Unidos da América. Disponível em: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Acesso em: 15/05/2009.

FURMAN v. GEORGIA (1972). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 12/05/2009.

GREGG v. GEORGIA (1976). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 03/05/2009.

JAPIASSÚ, Carlos Eduardo Adriano. O Princípio do NE BIS IN IDEM no Direito Penal Internacional. Disponível em: http://www.fdc.br/Arquivos/Mestrado/. Acesso em: 26/06/2009.

JUREK v. TEXAS (1976). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ Acesso em: 23/05/2009.

LOCKETT v. OHIO (1978). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 15/05/2009.

LOCKHART v. McCREE (1986). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 17/06/2009.

LOUSIANA EX EL. FRANCIS v. RESWEBER (1947). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 20/05/2009.

PALKO v. CONNECTICUT (1937). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 29/05/2009.

PROFFITT v. FLORIDA (1976). Disponível em: http://www.oyez.org/ Acesso em: 12/05/2009.

SCHICK v. REED (1974). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 27/05/2009.

WITHERSPOON v. ILLINOIS (1968). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 21/06/2009.

NOTAS:

1. ABU-JAMAL, Mumia. Live from Death Row. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995, p. 22.
2. ARRIENS, Jan. Welcome to Hell: Letters and Writings from Death Row. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997, p. 304.
3. 5ª Emenda à Constituição dos Estados Unidos: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Disponível em: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Acesso em: 15/05/2009.
4. JAPIASSÚ, Carlos Eduardo Adriano. O Princípio do NE BIS IN IDEM no Direito Penal Internacional. Disponível em: http://www.fdc.br/Arquivos/Mestrado/. Acesso em: 26/06/2009.
5. PALKO v. CONNECTICUT (1937). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 29/05/2009.
6. PALKO v. CONNECTICUT (1937). Disponível em: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 03/06/2009.
7. 8ª Emenda à Constituição dos Estados Unidos. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". Disponível em: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Acesso em: 15/05/2009.
8. LOUSIANA EX EL. FRANCIS v. RESWEBER (1947). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 20/05/2009.
9. LOUSIANA EX EL. FRANCIS v. RESWEBER (1947). Disponível em: http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 22/05/2009.
10. ACKER, James R; BOHM, Robert M; LANIER, Charles S. America’s Experiment with Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the Ultimate Penal Sanction. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1998.
11. BEDAU, Hugo Adam. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. 4ª ed. New York: Ed. Oxford University, 1998.
12. 6ª Emenda à Constituição dos Estados Unidos: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense" Disponível em: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Acesso em: 15/05/2009.
13. 14ª Emenda à Constituição dos Estados Unidos: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Disponível em: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Acesso em: 04/06/2009.
14. WITHERSPOON v. ILLINOIS (1968). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ Acesso em: 21/06/2009.
15. FURMAN v. GEORGIA (1972). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 12/05/2009.
16. SCHICK v. REED (1974). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 27/05/2009.
17. SCHICK v. REED (1974). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 06/05/2009.
18. GREGG v. GEORGIA (1976). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 03/05/2009.
19. PROFFITT v. FLORIDA (1976). Disponível em:
http://www.oyez.org/ Acesso em: 12/05/2009.
20. JUREK v. TEXAS (1976). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ Acesso em: 23/05/2009.
21. WOODSON v. NORTH CAROLINA (1976). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 12/05/2009.
22. COKER v. GEORGIA (1977). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 29/05/2009.
23. LOCKETT v. OHIO (1978). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 15/05/2009.
24. EDDINGS v. OKLAHOMA (1982). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 30/05/2009.
25. ENMUND v. FLORIDA (1982). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 29/05/2009.
26. ENMUND v. FLORIDA (1982). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 04/06/2009.
27. LOCKHART v. McCREE (1986). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 17/06/2009.
28. 1ª Emenda à Constituição norte-americana: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Disponível em: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Acesso em: 25/06/2009.
29. DAWSON v. DELAWARE (1992). Disponível em:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/. Acesso em: 13/06/2009.
30. ATKINS v. VIRGINIA (2002). Disponível em:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. Acesso em: 23/06/2009.