Eddings v Oklahoma Essay Example

a turbulent family history” (Eddings v.

Oklahoma 2007). During the trial, the sentencing judge apparently had refused even to consider this evidence when analyzing the circumstances. The only mitigating factor he had considered was the defendant's extreme youth, and although giving it "serious consideration," he had not found this one factor alone sufficient to outweigh the aggravating factors in the case. According to his own statements at trial: "the Court cannot be persuaded entirely by the . . . fact that the youth was sixteen years old when this heinous crime was committed.

Nor can the Court in following the law, in my opinion, consider the fact of this young man's violent background" (Eddings v. Oklahoma 2007). Because the sentencing judge had refused to consider the full range of mitigating circumstances pertaining to Eddings disturbed youth, in violation of the rule established in Lockett, the Supreme Court vacated the death sentence (Horowitz 133). Eddings v Oklahoma took into account mental state of the offender and his emotional distress. “Testimony from other witnesses indicated that Eddings was emotionally disturbed in general and at the time of the crime” (Eddings v. Oklahoma 2007).

As the most important, the Court cam to conclusion the chronological age is a relevant factor that should be considered during investigation and trial processes. After this case, in deciding in favor of considering more mitigating factors, the Supreme Court increased the possibility for more fully informed sentencing decisions, but it also increased the likelihood of arbitrary death sentences. In counterpoint to the move to expand the range of relevant mitigating factors, the Court also ruled on the constitutionality of broadening

the types of aggravating factors that might be considered during sentencing.

Here, however, it held the line more rigidly (Siegel et al 45). On one hand, the Court ruled that prosecutors could introduce psychiatric testimony regarding a defendant's potential future dangerousness, even though such testimony often is unreliable. On the other, the Court denied prosecution attempts to introduce victim impact statements, ruling that they were not relevant for determining whether the death penalty should be invoked. Legislative bodies were actively involved in developing new capital statutes and revising existing statutes in response to evolving legal standards and public concerns throughout this period.