Mccleskey V. Kemp Case Summary

Interpreting The McCleskey V. Kemp (1983) Decision
In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318). Here, McCleskey relied on the Baldus study, a statistical study that shows a “disparity in the imposition of the death sentence…based on the race of the murder victim and…the race of the defendant” (McCleskey v. Kemp 300). The study showed that black defendants have the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty; therefore, McCleskey did in fact belong to a group that has historically been singled out. The Court denied McCleskey’s claim, stating that the sole reliance …show more content…
Kemp 318). McCleskey used the Baldus study to demonstrate the considerable likelihood that race was the deciding factor in his death sentence. The Court argued that the extent to which McCleskey has received differential treatment cannot be established by the use of race as the determining factor because the murder he committed during the robbery is a “crime for which this Court has determined that the death penalty constitutionally may be imposed” (McCleskey v. Kemp 305). The “particularized nature of the crime” was the deciding factor for his death sentence, not race (McCleskey v. Kemp 305). Therefore, McCleskey had no valid proof of the degree of this differential treatment because he would receive such a harsh punishment regardless of his race, since the “punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to offense” (McCleskey v. Kemp 303). The Court determined that since McCleskey could not demonstrate the degree to which the racial disparities were constitutionally unacceptable in his case, his claim of differential treatment had no …show more content…
Kemp 318). In other words, he had to show that there was room for discretion, and therefore a racial bias, in the decision-making process. Here, the Court didn’t actually address the issue but only claimed that there is a “constitutionally permissible range of discretion in imposing the death penalty (McCleskey v. Kemp 304). Even though there is some risk of racism entering the procedure, the Court has increased efforts to eliminate “racial prejudice from [its] criminal justice system” (McCleskey v. Kemp 305). However, instead of producing an actual claim as to whether or not there was a possibility of misuse from the prosecutor who imposes the death penalty, the Court went off on a tangent and hypothesized that if the Baldus study was correct, then the “aggravation level in black victim cases where a life sentence was imposed would be higher than in white-victim cases” (McCleskey v. Kemp 320). Unfortunately, the Court didn’t test its own hypothesis and left the suggestion out in the open. Even though the Court did not provide evidence that the prosecution was not open to discretion, it still claimed that there was “no evidence of a deliberate intent to discriminate” and that the “risk of racial prejudice was permissible”

Show More

Related Documents: Mccleskey V. Kemp Case Summary

Alexander V. Sandoval Case: The End Of An Era