Deadly Choices: Political, Legal, and Moral Understandings of U.S. Supreme Court Death Penalty Decisions

This thesis explores the political, legal, and moral factors that influence Supreme Court justices when penning capital punishment decisions. It also examines the evolution of thinking toward the death penalty by former justices John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun throughout their tenure on the Court. Cases are analyzed through fact-pattern analysis and the jurisprudential regime theory, which quantitatively build upon existing literature detailing the theoretical background of judicial decision-making through the attitudinal model. An analysis of Justices Blackmun and Stevens’ papers at the Library of Congress focuses on rhetoric that reflects utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment. Findings show that multiple victims, appellant type, and justices’ ideologies may influence Supreme Court justices’ decisions. Findings also show that utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment guide Blackmun and Stevens’ decision-making processes. The justices’ papers show that race, age, and cognitive impairment of the accused may influence capital punishment decision-making.