Keywords
Retribution; Supreme Court; Death Penalty; Capital Punishment
Abstract
This thesis explores the modern U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of retribution in the context of capital punishment, analyzing how justices have framed and justified the death penalty as a form of justice. Through the examination of key Supreme Court rulings and legal arguments, this study evaluates the evolving role of retribution in the Court’s decisions on death penalty cases, highlighting how judicial reasoning has shifted over time in response to legal, philosophical, and societal developments.
Retribution, long considered one of the primary justifications for capital punishment, is examined through a nuanced lens in this study. While historically viewed as a morally necessary response to the most egregious crimes, the concept of retribution is not applied uniformly. The analysis reveals that its perceived value fluctuates depending on multiple factors, including characteristics of the offender such as age, mental competence, and intent, as well as broader considerations like genealogy, neurological predispositions, environmental influences, and philosophical debates surrounding free will. Increasingly, the Supreme Court has engaged with scientific and psychological research in its deliberations, signaling a growing awareness of how these factors complicate traditional notions of culpability and punishment.
By closely analyzing precedent-setting cases and judicial opinions, this research highlights the ongoing tension between the moral underpinnings of retribution and evolving societal attitudes toward the death penalty. Shifts in legal reasoning, particularly in cases involving juveniles, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and those suffering from severe mental illness, illustrate how retribution is both reaffirmed and redefined within modern jurisprudence. Additionally, scrutiny of procedural flaws in the legal system such as disparities in sentencing and wrongful convictions underscores the imperfections that today’s death row inmates face, further complicating the ethical and legal justification for retribution-based capital punishment.
Ultimately, this thesis contributes to a broader understanding of how retribution is legally and philosophically constructed in capital punishment jurisprudence. By examining Supreme Court trends, the interplay between legal doctrine, evolving social and scientific perspectives, this study offers insights into potential future shifts in Supreme Court decisions regarding the death penalty and the role of retribution in determining justice.
Thesis Completion Year
2025
Thesis Completion Semester
Spring
Thesis Chair
Patrick, Carlton
College
College of Community Innovation and Education
Department
Legal Studies
Thesis Discipline
Legal Studies
Language
English
Access Status
Open Access
Length of Campus Access
None
Campus Location
UCF Downtown
STARS Citation
Forsberg, Paige, "How Does the Modern Supreme Court Treat the Idea of Retribution in the Context of Capital Punishment?" (2025). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 358.
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/hut2024/358
Word dox. Supplemental Content
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Family Law Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Public Interest Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Rights Statement
