1987 License Laws for Passenger Cars

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

State		Age for driver's license2
	Regular	Learner's	Restrictive
Alabama	16	15d	14'
Alaska	16	14	14'
Arizona	18	15 & 7 mos.bd	16"
Arkansas	16	d	14"
California	18	15ce	16е
Colorado	21	151/2d	16е
Connecticut	18		16е
Delaware	18	15 yrs. & 10 mo.c	16bc
Dist. of Col.	18	d	16"
clorida	16	15d	15"
Georgia	18	15	16b
Hawaii	18	d	15"
Idaho	16	d	14е
Illinois	18	d	16"°
Indiana	18	159	16 & 1 mo.c
Iowa	18	14	16е
Kansas	16	d	14
Kentucky	18	d	16"
Louisiana	17		15
Maine	17	d	15е
Maryland	18	d	16"c
Massachusetts	18	d	16Уг"с
Michigan	18		16Ьс
Minnesota	19	15"9	16е
Mississippi	15	d
Missouri	16		15е
Montana	18	d	15"°
Mebraska	16	15d	14
Nevada	16	151/2d	14Ь
Mew Hampshire	16C		16d
Mew Jersey	17		16
Mew Mexico	16	15	149
Mew York	17е		16"
Morth Carolina	18	15"	16"°
North Dakota	16	d	14ьс
Ohio	18	16bd	14'
Oklahoma	16		15Угс
Oregon	16	15d	14
Pennsylvania	18	16"e	16"
Rhode Island	18	d	16е
South Carolina	16	15h	15
South Dakota	16	d	14
Tennessee	16	15d	15
Texas	16е	15	15е
Utah	16е	d
Vemont	18	15d	16
Virginia	18	15 & 8 mosM	16"С
Washington	18	15s	16е
West Virginia	18	d	16"
Wisconsin	18	d	16й
Wyoming	16	15"e	14а"

a. Full driving privileges at age set forth in "Regular" column. A license restricted or qualified in some manner may be obtained at age set forth in "Restricted" column.

b. Guardian or parental consent required.

с Must have completed approved Driver Ed

Training course, d. Learner's Permit required.

e. Driver with Learner's Permit must be accompanied by locally licensed operator 18 years or older.

f. Restricted to mopeds.

g. Must be enrolled in Driver Ed.

h. Driver with Learner's Permit must be

accompanied by locally licensed operator 21 years or older.

LAW, CRIME, AND JUSTICE 99

FEDERAL COURTS

SUPREME COURT

EXTENT OF CRIME

The separate system of federal courts, which operates alongside the state courts, handles cases which arise under the U.S. Constitution or under any law or treaty, as well as any controversy to which the federal government is itself a party. Federal courts also hear disputes involving governments or citizens of different states.

All federal judges are appointed for life. A case which falls within federal jurisdiction is heard first before a federal district judge. An appeal may be made to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and, possibly, in the last resort, to the highest court in the land: the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court hears cases in which someone claims that a lower court ruling is unjust or in which someone claims that Constitutional law has been violated. Its decisions are final and become legally binding. Although the Supreme Court does not have the power to make laws, it does have the power to examine actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative institutions of the government and decide whether they are constitutional. It is in this function that the Supreme Court has the potential to influence decisively the political, social, and economic life of the country.

In the past, Supreme Court rulings have given new protection and freedom to blacks and other minorities. The Supreme Court has nullified certain laws of Congress and has even declared actions of American presidents unconstitu­tional.

The U.S. government is so designed that, ideally, the authority of the judicial branch is independent from the other branches of government. Each of the nine Supreme Court justices (judges) is appointed by the president and examined by the Senate to determine whether he or she is qualified. Once approved, a justice remains on the Supreme Court for life. The Supreme Court justices have no obligation to follow the political policies of the president or Congress. Their sole obligation is to uphold the laws of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, politics play a role in a president's selection of a Supreme Court justice. On average, a president can expect to appoint two new Supreme Court justices during one term of office. Presidents are likely to appoint justices whose views are similar to their own, with the hope that they can extend some of their power through the judicial branch.

President Reagan's appointments to the Supreme Court were judges with a decidedly conservative view of constitutional law. Conservatives in America hope that the present Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, will override precedents such as the Burger Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion, or that it will vote for limiting the rights of criminal suspects and defendants.

The United States is notorious for its high crime rates. After three years of decline, the crime rate rose 5 percent in 1985. In that year, over 12 million crimes were committed. In urban ghettos, violence is so widespread that homicide is the leading cause of death among black males between the ages of 25 and 45. Auto theft, muggings, robberies, and burglaries occur so frequently, especially in cities, that many people live in constant.fear of crime. In 1983, 45 percent of Americans surveyed admitted they were afraid to go out alone at

Rehnquist, William: born 1925, American jurist, chief justice since 1986.

Burger, Warren Earl: born 1907, American jurist, chief justice of the Supreme Court 1969-86.

100 AMERICA IN CLOSE-UP

RIGHTS OF CRIMINAL SUSPECTS

THE DEATH PENALTY

PROBLEMS FOR LAW ENFORCERS

night in their own neighborhoods. Statistics indicate that only 20 percent of the people involved in illegal activity are apprehended. Many of these criminals belong to organized crime networks, among them, the Mafia, drug smuggling rings, and street gangs.

Courts have the difficult task of striking a balance between the needs of society on the one hand and the rights of the individual on the other. The Constitution's guarantee of equal justice under the law for all citizens not only guarantees the individual's right to freedom and security, but also includes the protection of the rights of criminal suspects. Among these guarantees are the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the suspect's right to decline to testify against himself/herself, the right to counsel, as well as protection from excessive bail and from cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has devised several rules to ensure the protection of these rights, which sometimes result in a guilty suspect being released from charges. One of these rules is the controversial exclusionary rule, which excludes from the trial any evidence gained by unlawful search and seizure. Sometimes the exclusion of evidence from a trial means that some persons who are clearly guilty go free because of a technicality. The Miranda rule is another controversial Supreme Court decision which extends the rights of criminal suspects. In the 1966 case, the Court ruled that suspects must be read their legal rights before being questioned by police. They must be told of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. If the police do not inform the criminal suspect of his or her rights, any evidence gained from questioning cannot be used in court.

Looking for ways to secure community safety amidst rampant crime, many people hope that a more conservative court will weaken these protections, many of which derive from precedents created by the liberal Supreme Court of the 1960s. Conservatives view these protections as serious obstacles to effective law enforcement. Others, however, hold that the weakening of the rights of criminal suspects endangers the rights of all innocent people and gives too much power to the police.

Responding to public pressure to get tough with criminals, many states have been applying the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. Although few criminals were sentenced to death between 1965 and 1983, there has been a surge in recent years in the number of executions. Between 1970 and 1980, three prisoners were executed under the death penalty, and between 1980 and 1985, 47 prisoners were executed. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty, as carried out in most states, was unconstitutional because it was applied disproportionately to blacks and other minorities. States have since revised their death penalty laws, establishing new Court-approved pro­cedures. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is the only appropriate punishment for sadistic murderers. Opponents of capital punishment hope to see it declared unconstitutional. They claim that there is not enough evidence to prove that murderers are deterred by the threat of execution.

Crime-stopping and crime prevention are formidable tasks for law enforce­ment officials, since the social problems which aggravate violence—poverty, unemployment, and unstable families—are likely to persist. In addition to the overcrowding in prisons, the accessibility of handguns is a major problem which further complicates the task of securing public safety.

LAW, CRIME, AND JUSTICE 101

Methods of Execution¹

State	Method	State	Method
Alabama2	Electrocution	Nevada2	Lethal injection
Alaska	No death penalty	New Hampshire2	Hanging
Arizona2	Lethal gas	New Jersey	Lethal injection
Arkansas2	Lethal injection	New Mexico*	Lethal injection
California*	Lethal gas	New York	No death penalty
Colorado2	Lethal gas	North Carolina2	Lethal gas or injection
Connecticut2	Electrocution	North Dakota	No death penalty
Delaware	Hanging	Ohio2	Electrocution
D.C.	No death penalty	Oklahoma	Lethal injection
Florida	Electrocution	Oregon5	Lethal injection
Georgia2	Electrocution	Pennsylvania2	Electrocution
Hawaii	No death penalty	Rhode Island	No death penalty(3)
Idaho2	Firing squad or	South Carolina2	Electrocution
	lethal injection	South Dakota	Lethal injection
Illinois	Lethal injection	Tennessee2	Electrocution
Indiana2	Electrocution	Texas2	Lethal injection
Iowa	No death penalty	Utah2	Firing squad or lethal
Kansas	No death penalty		injection
Kentucky2	Electrocution	Vermont	Electrocution
Louisiana2	Electrocution	Virginia	Electrocution
Maine	No death penalty	Washington2	Hanging or lethal injection
Maryland2	Lethal gas	West Virginia	No death penalty
Massachusetts5	No death penalty	Wisconsin	No death penalty
Michigan	No death penalty	Wyoming	Lethal injection
Minnesota	No death penalty	U.S. (Fed. Govt.)*	(4)
Mississippi2	Lethal injection	American Samoa	No death penalty
Missouri	Lethal gas	Guam	No death penalty
Montana2	hanging or lethal injection6	Puerto Rico	No death penalty
Nebraska2	Electrocution	Virgin Islands	No death penalty

1. On July 1. 1976, by a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as not being "cruel or unusual." However, in another ruling the same day, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, stated that states may not impose "mandatory" capital punishment on every person convicted of murder. These decisions left uncertain the fate of condemned persons throughout the U.S. On Oct. 4, the Court refused to reconsider its July ruling, which allows some states to proceed with executions of condemned prisoners. The first execution in this country since 1967 was in Utah on Jan. 17, 1977. Gary Mark Gilmore was executed by shooting. 2. Voted to restore death penalty after June 29, 1972, Supreme Court decision ruling capital punishment unconstitutional. 3. Person shall be executed by gas if he commits murder while serving a prison term. 4. Method shall be that used by state in which sentence is imposed. If state does not have death penalty, federal judge shall prescribe method for carrying out sentence. 5. Death penalty has been passed, but not been used. 6. Defendant may choose between hanging and a lethal injection. Source: Information Please questionnaires to the states. NOTE: An asterisk after the name of the state indicates non-reply.

OVERCROWDED PRISONS

The nation's prisons, many of which are old and rundown, must operate above capacity to accommodate the number of inmates. One way to relieve overcrowding is parole, the conditional release of a prisoner before the term of his or her sentence has expired. Nevertheless, many states, responding to public pressure to get tough with criminals, have changed their laws. For example, some states have imposed longer sentences for serious crimes and have restricted parole. The result of heavier prison sentences is that prisons are filling up before state and federal authorities can find the money to build new facilities.

102 AMERICA IN CLOSE-UP

GUN CONTROL

SELF-DEFENSE

Many lawmakers favor stricter gun control laws as a method of curbing crime. Americans now own 65 million pistols and revolvers, two handguns for every three households. Even sophisticated rapid-fire combat weapons are available. An FBI report revealed that firearms were involved in more than half of the murders in the United States in 1984. Proponents of gun control are pressing the government to at least require registration of all handguns and to require background checks on all potential handgun buyers to ensure that they do not have a criminal record. Some opponents of handguns favor a complete ban on their sale and possession. While 70 percent of all Americans surveyed in 1985 favored registration of handguns, only 4 percent favored having a law to ban sale and possession. All the same, the lobbies against gun control are very influential. Congress passed a bill in 1985 to loosen restrictions on firearms, despite protest from law enforcers. Many Americans fear that gun control laws will prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to protect their homes.

Lacking confidence in the ability of the courts, the police, and legislators to deal swiftly with the problem of crime, many Americans look for ways to protect themselves from attacks and burglaries. Refusing to be victimized, some people are willing to break the law in order to defend themselves. When New York subway passenger Bernhard Goetz took the law into his own hands to avoid being the victim of another crime, he was hailed as a hero by most New Yorkers. The incident occurred in 1984 on a subway train when four youths demanded five dollars from him. Goetz, a man with no criminal record who had already been mugged and severely beaten several months earlier, reacted by pulling out a gun and shooting the four youths, all of whom had criminal records, including convictions for armed robbery and burglary. In a three-month trial in 1987 Goetz was finally acquitted of all but the relatively minor charge of illegally possessing a gun. The public's support for Goetz indicates Americans' frustration with the criminal justice system's inadequacy in protecting individual rights. Until measures are taken to address the soda] factors which cause violence, crime wi\\ continue to aftect a \axge segment d the population.

103

_{part в Texts}

О About Men

BY BRENT STAPLES

_{A BROTHER'S MURDER}

IT HAS BEEN MORE than two years since my telephone rang with the news that my younger brother Blake - just 22 years old — had been mur­dered. The young man who killed him was only 24. Wearing a ski mask, he emerged from a car, fired six times at close range with a massive .44 Magnum, then fled. The two had once been insepar­able friends. A senseless rivalry — beginning, I think, with an argument over a girlfriend — escalated from posturing, to threats, to violence, to murder. The way the two were living, death could have come to either of them from anywhere. In fact, the assailant had already survived multiple gunshot wounds from an incident much like the one in which my brother lost his life.

As I wept for Blake I felt wrenched backward into events and circum­stances that had seemed light-years gone. Though a decade apart, we both were raised in Chester, Pa., an angry, heavily black, heavily poor, industrial city southwest of Philadelphia. There, in the 1960's, I was introduced to mortality, not by the old and failing, but by beautiful young men who lay wrecked after sudden explosions of violence. The first, I remember from my 14th year — Johnny, brash lover of fast cars, stabbed to death two doors from my. house in a fight over a pool game. The next year, my teenage cousin, Wesley, whom I loved very much, was shot dead. The summers blur.

Milton, an angry young neighbor, shot a crosstown rival, wounding him badly. William, another teenage neighbor, took a shotgun blast to the shoulder in some urban drama and displayed his bandages proudly. His brother, Leonard, severely beaten, lost an eye and donned a black patch. It went on.

I recall not long before I left for college, two local Vietnam veterans — one from the Marines, 6ne from the Army — arguing fiercely, nearly at blows about which outfit had done the most in the war. The most killing, they meant. Not much later, I read a

magazine article that set that dispute in a context. In the story, a non­commissioned officer — a sergeant, I believe — said he would pass up any number of affluent, suburban-born recruits to get hard-core soldiers from the inner city. They jumped into the rice paddies with "their manhood on their sleeves," I believe he said. These two items — the veterans arguing and the sergeant's words — still characterize for me the circumstances under which black men in their teens and 20's kill one another with such frequency. With a touchy paranoia born of living battered lives, they are

104 AMERICA IN CLOSE-UP

1. continued

desperate to be real men. Killing is only machismo taken to the extreme. Incursions to be punished by death were many and minor, and they re­main so: they include stepping on the wrong toe, literally; cheating in a drug deal; simply saying "I dare you" to someone holding a gun; crossing territorial lines in a gang dispute. My brother grew up to wear his manhood on his sleeve. And when he died, he was in that group — black, male and in its teens and early 2()'s — that is far and away the most likely to murder or be murdered.

I left the East Coast after college, spent the mid- and late-1970s in Chicago as a graduate student, taught for a time, then became a journalist. Within 10 years of leaving my home­town, I was overeducated and "up­wardly mobile," ensconced on a quiet, tree-lined street where voices raised in anger were scarcely ever heard. The telephone, like some grim umbilical, kept me connected to the old world with news of deaths, im­prisoning and misfortune. I felt emotionally beaten up. Perhaps to protect myself, I added a psycho­logical dimension to the physical dis­tance I had already achieved. I rarely visited my hometown. I shut it out.

As I fled the past, so Blake em­braced it. On Christmas of 1983, I

traveled from Chicago to a black sec­tion of Roanoke. Va., where he then lived. The desolate public housing projects, the hopeless, idle young men crashing against one another — these reminded me of the embittered town we'd grown up in. It was a place where once I would have been comfortable, or at least sure of my­self. Now, hearing of my brother's forays into crime, his scrapes with police and street thugs, I was scared, unsteady on foreign terrain.

I saw that Blake's romance with the street life and the hustler image had flowered dangerously. One eve­ning that late December, standing in some Roanoke dive among drug dealers and grim, hair-trigger losers, I told him I feared for his life. He had affected the image of the tough he wanted to be. But behind the dark glasses and the swagger, I glimpsed the baby-faced toddler I'd once watched over. I nearly wept. I wanted desperately for him to live. The young think themselves immortal, and a dangerous light shone in his eyes as he spoke laughingly of making fools of the policemen who had raided his apartment looking for drugs. He cried out as I took his right hand. A line of stitches lay between the thumb and index fmger. Kickback from a shotgun, he explained, nothing

serious. Gunplay had become part of his life.

I lacked the language simply to say: Thousands have lived this for you and died. I fought the urge to lift him bodily and shake him. This place and the way you are living smells of death to me, I said. Take some time away, I said. Let's go downtown tomorrow and buy a plane ticket anywhere, take a bus trip, anything to get away and-cool things off. He took my alarm casually. We arranged to meet the following night — an appointment he would not keep. We embraced as though through glass. I drove away.

As I stood in my apartment in Chicago holding the receiver that evening in February 1984, I felt as though part of my soul had been cut away. I questioned myself then, and I still do. Did I not reach back soon or earnestly enough for him? For weeks I awoke crying from a recurrent dream in which I chased him, ur­gently trying to get him to read a document I had, as though reading it would protect him from what had happened in waking life. His eyes shining like black diamonds, he smiled and danced just beyond my grasp. When I reached for him, I caught only the space where he had been.

LAW, CRIME, AND JUSTICE 105

_{О LAW & JUSTICE}

r

ARMING CITIZENS

^{to Fight Crime}

"The right to defend oneself is the highest natural law, more self-evident than any law chiseled in stone by some legislature."

by Frank Borzellieri

ONE of the basic issues the case of Bernhard Goetz - New York's "subway vigilante" - has brought to light is a person's right to defend himself, once again focusing the public opinion spotlight on gun control.

The knee-jerk reaction of many dealing with the gun control question is simple: guns are evil and therefore must be banned. This train of thought has dominated the New York area and similar crime-plagued areas through­out the country. It has also shown itself to be not only ineffective, but naive and dangerous. New York, despite the tightest gun control law in the nation, has not even remotely provided adequate protection for its citizens.

In 1980, New Yorkers viewed their mayor on a television commercial proudly proclaiming the passage of what was hailed рч "the toughest gun law in America." As Ed Koch strode through a city prison, he informed the

Mr. Borzellieri is a free-lancejournalist from Glendale, N. Y.

public of the consequences of being caught possessing an illegal handgun. "If you've got the gun, we've got the space," Koch said as he opened a cell door.

Koch's intentions were noble, but wouldn't the subway riders prefer the "space" be reserved for the armed mugger, rather than the decent, though illegally armed, janitor who works the midnight shift to support his family and feels it necessary to carry a weapon to ensure that he can arrive at his destination safely? More recently, the mayor rekindled mem­ories of his 1980 proclamation with another profound statement imme­diately following the Goetz shooting of four alleged muggers. "We will not tolerate vigilantism in New York," Koch warned the potential copycat shooters. Again, wouldn't his consti­tuents feel more secure if Koch assured, "We will not tolerate crime."? The sad truth is that New York does tolerate crime, and its gun law insures this toleration.

"They don't protect you in New York, but then they tell you, 'Don't you dare have a gun.'" Those words,

Roy Innis: "With the armed criminal and the restrictive laws disarming the citizen, we have, in fact, aided and abetted- the criminal by making his work less difficult."

spoken by Bernhard Goetz, hit the nail precisely on the head and reveal certain inconsistencies in the gun control question. When an astute pol­itician like Koch, normally a tough, anti-crime mayor, fails to see these misconceptions, it is time to reveal to the public the truth behind the entire gun issue.

Civil rights leader Roy Innis, chair­man of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), has studied the gun question for many years. Innis, who offered to defend Bernhard Goetz for nothing even before he surrendered, is the only prominent black leader to back Goetz. Innis blasts those who offer what he terms "liberal knee-jerk" arguments:

The conventional wisdom around the gun question in the society we live in is that guns are dangerous, guns should be restricted, guns should be kept out of the hands of people. But when you look at this conventional wisdom, it doesn't stand up, really, to reason because the fault of the question of keeping guns out of the hands of people, is the mistaken assump­tion that you can, in fact, keep guns out of the hands of people.

106 AMERICA IN CLOSE-UP

2. continued

Innis speaks wisely of the pragmatic effects, the tangible effects, that re­strictive gun laws have demonstrated: New York, with the toughest gun law in the country, has not done very much to disarm the criminal. It has effectively disarmed the citizen. It has effectively made the citizen prey to the armed cri­minal. Carrying a gun, to a lifelong criminal, is just another felony in a series of felonies that that person has dedicated

his life to. So the fact that criminals are armed should not be strange to us. What is the problem is that, with the armed criminal and the restrictive laws disarm­ing the citizens, we have, in fact, aided and abetted the criminal by making his work less difficult. A well-thinking criminal will have to be a strong advocate of tight gun control.

Roy Innis has done more than reveal the tragic results of this gun law situation. He has proposed a plan

that will loosen the gun laws, allowing decent citizens to carry weapons. The Innis plan is a manifold, high-result program. What he is trying to do is give the public back what is rightfully theirs according to the Constitution and to do so in the perspective of what is pragmatically best for society, not what simply seems the best. . ..

USATODAY/JULY 1985

Koch, Edward I.: see page 19.

Congress of Racial Equality: (CORE), a black nationalist organization founded in 1942. ".. .what is rightfully theirs according to the Constitution. ..": 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

ОParting Thoughts

by Donald B. Walker

The Death Penalty: Legal Cruelty?

THE execution of Gary Mark Gilmore by a Utah firing squad on Jan. 17, 1977, marked the end of a 10-year moratorium on the use of capital punishment in the U.S. Since that time, seven more executions have taken place — one each in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, Virginia, and Texas. The latest innova­tion in the manner of killing was revealed in Texas on Dec. 14, 1982, when Charlie Brooks, Jr., was put to death by lethal injection. This new method of execution raises additional ethical issues in the debate over the death penal­ty. As a consequence of these eight executions and the impending death of numerous other death row inmates; the issue of capital punish­ment is once again in the public forum.

In 1972, at the time of the Furman v. Georgia decision, 629 persons were housed on death rows throughout the U.S. Today, just over 10 years later, the death row population exceeds 1,100 - 500 condemned persons more than at the time of Furman! While the debate over capital punishment has continued sporadically, and for the most part academically, over the past 20 years, the issue today takes on a greater sense of urgency. The sheer size of the death row population creates a significant moral dilemma for our society. In addition, since the appeals process for many of these condemned persons has been virtually exhausted, the debate takes on a heightened sense of immediacy. In short, under the present conditions, the debate

LAW, CRIME, AND JUSTICE 107

is far less an academic exercise over the signi­ficant levels of deterrence data than it is a signi­ficant public issue related to the concept of justice in our society.

The fundamental question which must be addressed with respect to the death penalty is under what circumstance does the state have the right to take the life of one of its citizens? That question, with respect to the use of capital punishment for first-degree murder convictions, was answered by the Supreme Court in the Furman and Gregg decisions. In those cases, the Court held that the death penalty itself does not contravene the Eighth Amendment's prohibi­tion against cruel and unusual punishment as long as it is applied in a fair and impartial manner. The Gregg decision further clarified the procedure which the sentencing court must use in determining the fate of the guilty defendant.

What has been overlooked in these decisions is that the Supreme Court has answered the question only in a legal and not in any moral or ethical sense. One hard lesson which the world should have learned as a consequence of the Holocaust is that law and justice are independent concepts. Law is the derivation of a society's interpretation of justice which is relative both to time and place. Furthermore, the creation of law is more frequently the result of the inter­pretation of justice by the powerful in the society which is then applied at the expense of the powerless. A moral and humane society con­stantly seeks to bring the law into closer harmony with the widest interpretation of justice in that society at any given time. The civil rights move­ment in the U.S. is an excellent example of this process.

The contention here is that the continued use of the death penalty in the U.S. constitutes a flagrant example of the continuing gap between law and justice in our society. While the Su-

preme Court has upheld the legality of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment, it has ignored the moral and ethical implications of the "cruel and unusual" clause.

If one considers the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on others to be "cruel," then capital punishment, regardless of its legal inter­pretation, must fit that definition. Both the actual manner of execution and the long period of confinement in death row preceding its appli­cation cause acute pain and mental suffering to the condemned person. The uneasiness which we, in the U.S., feel towards the infliction of pain on the condemned prisoner has led to a continuous search for more refined and "humane" means of carrying out the execution order.

Charlie Brooks, Jr., the first person killed by lethal injection, has now taken his place in history along with other objects of experimen­tation in this quest to kill people painlessly. However, the use of otherwise life-saving medical techniques and drugs to carry out exe­cutions raises serious ethical questions for the society as a whole and the medical profession in particular. Even though Texas District Judge Doug Shaver feels that death by lethal injection "will make it more palatable," it surely can not make it more ethical. On the other hand, if we remain convinced that capital punishment is both a necessary and just means of ensuring social defense, why is it necessary to make it "palatable"? Despite the legal interpretation of the concept "cruel," the moral interpretation of that concept and its relationship to justice in our society remains unsettling.

Dr. Walker is assistant professor of criminal justice studies, Kent (Ohio) State University

USATODAY/NOVEMBER 1983

Furman v. Georgia decision: In Furman v. Georgia the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty in Georgia was unconstitutional because it was applied inconsistently as far more blacks than whites were executed for similar crimes. The court, however, did not rule that the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment.

Gregg v. Georgia decision: the Court ruled that the death penalty was not unconstitutional as such under the 8th and 14th Amendments.

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

108 AMERICA IN CLOSE-UP

Thoughts on the Supreme Court

An Interview with Tom Clark (excerpts)

This interview was conducted on August23, 1976, in Justice Clark's chambers in the Supreme Court. The late Justice Clark spent more than 50 years as a lawyer and judge. He served as attorney general of the United States from 1945 to 1949, when President Truman appointed him an associate justice of the Supreme Court. He then served on the Court until 1967, when he resigned because of a potential conflict of interest that arose when his son, Ramsey Clark, was named attorney general.

QUESTION: Woodrow Wilson once called the Supreme Court "the balance wheel" in our system. Justice Robert H. Jackson said that the Court's func­tion was nothing less than to be an arbiter among rival forces in our society. After your many years of ser­vice on the Court, how do you see its role in our political system?

Justice Clark: Well, I think that Chief Justice (War­ren) Burger put it pretty well when he said, "If you want to play a baseball game, what do you have? You have an umpire, otherwise the game is going to end up in a riot before the nine innings are played." I rather think that the Court is somewhat of an umpire. It con­siders what the Congress proposes, or what the ex­ecutive proposes, or what some individual claims, and rules upon these laws, proposals, and claims by com­paring them with the law as laid down by the Constitu­tion...and then calls the strikes and the balls.

The Watergate case was a good example of the Supreme Court's responsibility to decide whether or not the Congress or the president had exercised authori­ty in a constitutional way.

You also should remember that we on the Court serve another role. If the decisions of the other two branches are in keeping with constitutional doctrine, we use our authority to uphold these decisions. And if a citizen doesn't voluntarily follow the rules laid down by the Congress or by the president or by other courts, why then it's our job to enforce those rules so that that individual will be punished or reprimanded. QUESTION: Justice William H. Taft once said that courts are composed of people, and one would be foolish to deny that courts are not affected by the time

in which the justices live. How much do you think the needs of the times affect the decisions of the Court? How is public opinion brought into the process of tak­ing cases and making decisions?

Justice Clark: Well, I served 18 years on the bench and frankly, I myself doubt if any public clamor or any political manipulation on the Court can be effec­tive. I did get quite a few letters from all over the coun­try about various things, but I don't think any of those things influenced my thinking on the legal matters which were involved.

Yet we are influenced by the necessities of the time.

Every year there are new cases, new people who come "knockin' on our door" with constitutional questions which need to be resolved. Take for example the

criminal field. We started out with the case of Griffin v. Illinois* in which Griffin said, "I'm being charged with murder, which is a felony, and I ought to be en­titled to read the transcript of what went on in the courtroom. I'm just a layman and couldn't remember everything. Without a transcript, I wouldn't be able to appeal to a higher court." So when this came to us (the Supreme Court) on appeal, we ruled that defen­dants are entitled to a transcript.

But once they got the transcript they couldn't tell much about it without a lawyer and they commenced again to "knockin' on our door." In an old case before I became a justice, the Court had ruled that only in felony cases should a lawyer be appointed. Exceptions were made to this case over the years as additional cases came before the Court, until we had the Gideon case.** In this one we ruled that everyone accused of a crime was entitled to a lawyer. What happened was, they kept "knockin' on our door," and finally we extended the ruling to misdemeanors as well.

So you had it going full sway. That's because of the necessities that were brought to our attention. Now you say, well, weren't those brought before? Possibly they were, but not with the impact that they were brought to us.

The same was true in segregation. We had one case which had to do with segregation in the field of graduate education. We ruled that this was unconstitu­tional and later there came the case of Brown v. Board of Education,*** which was on the grade school level. Then other questions came up. What about public ac­commodations? What about swimming pools and things like that? And the first thing you know they're "knockin' on the door." I don't know whether you'd say that the individual citizen who felt the pinch knocked on the door, or whether the lawyer looking out saw the pinch and tried to minimize it. I rather think that the pinch was what caused it.

•Editor's Note: In the case of Griffin v. Illinois (1956) the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who is appealing a court decision should not be denied a copy of the transcript of his trial because of inability to pay for it.

••Editor's Note: In Gideon v. Wainwrighl (1963) the Court ruled that all defendants are entitled to a lawyer appointed by the court if they are unable to pay for one themselves. See the "How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court" diagram for more details on the Gi­deon case.

•••Editor's Note: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954) the Court ruled segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional.

LAW, CRIME, AND JUSTICE 109

How a Case Reaches the Supreme Court While there are certain cases that can be brought directly to the Supreme Court, the majority of cases are brought on appeal. If either party in a case is unhappy with the decision of a lower court, it has the right to appeal that decision to a higher court. An appeal is not a new trial, but rather a reexamination of the evidence, procedures and legal or constitutional principles on which the decision was based in the previous trial. Only a very small percentage of cases appealed are considered by the Supreme Court. During its 1976—77 term, the Court received petitions for 4,731 cases, yet agreed to hear oral arguments for only 176. Generally speaking, the Court will be inclined to hear a case if it involves a basic constitutional principle, an important question of federal law or a conflict between state and federal law. Appeals are brought to the U.S. Supreme Court from the highest courts in each state or from lower federal courts. From Federal District Court Brown v. Board of Education
	"My Rights Have Been Violated" September 1950 - An eight-year-old black student named Linda Brown was denied admission to an all-white elementary school in Topeka, Kansas.
	4>
	Trial in Federal District Court February 1951 — Her father, Oliver Brown, and 12 other black parents sued the city's Board of Education in the United States District Court. The case was officially titled Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
	Appeal to the United States Supreme Court While many cases must be appealed from district court to the court of appeals, this case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. June 1952 — The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Brown case. December 1952 - Arguments were heard from lawyers for both sides. However, the Court was divided and unable to arrive at a decision. December 1953 — A year later, arguments were again heard for both sides. During that time, a significant change had occurred on the Court. Chief Justice Fred Vinson had died in September and President Eisenhower had appointed Earl Warren to replace him.
	4>
	The Supreme Court Decides May 1954 - By a 9 to 0 vote the Supreme Court overruled the district court's decision. It stated that segregated schools were uncon­stitutional because segregation "deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities." It nullified the "separate but equal" principle of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.

110

_{PART C Exercises}