Skip to main content

Lockett v. Ohio (1978)

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
  • 152 Accesses

Definition

The US Supreme Court ruled in Lockett v. Ohio (1978) that in the case of a defendant facing the death penalty, one is allowed to present any aspect of character or record or any circumstance related to the offense that could create a basis for a lesser sentence than the death penalty. The 8th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution required, in all but the rarest capital cases, that the triers of fact be allowed to consider a number of mitigating factors, both statutory and nonstatutory, before imposing the death penalty. The Court held that the Ohio statute did not permit the type of individualized consideration of mitigating factors required by the Constitution. Despite this decision in favor of presenting mitigating factors, certain arguments have not been allowed to be presented by the defendant. Specifically, issues related to the morality of the death penalty and issues related to the execution process have not been allowed in any court.

Historical Background

Sandra...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References and Readings

  • Cunningham, M. D., & Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Sentencing determinations in death penalty cases. In A. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 11). Forensic psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denney, R. L. (2005). Criminal responsibility and other criminal forensic issues. In G. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbronner, R. L., & Waller, D. (2008). Neuropsychological consultation in the sentencing phase of capital Cases. In R. Denney & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C., Price, J. R., & Niland, J. (2003). Applications of neuropsychology in capital felony (death penalty) defense. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 3, 89–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert L. Heilbronner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Heilbronner, R.L. (2018). Lockett v. Ohio (1978). In: Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J., Caplan, B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1003

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics