Opinion ID: 1621755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 36

Heading: whether the death penalty unconstitutionally infringes upon the appellant's fundamental right to life.

Text: The appellant contends that the Tennessee death penalty statute is unconstitutional in that the right to life is fundamental and the punishment of death is not necessary to promote any compelling state interest. The appellant argues that less severe penalties are available to serve the state's interest in punishing the appellant. Moreover, the appellant asserts that compelling state interests are those which secure our democratic institutions and/or insure national security. While this argument is somewhat novel in its approach, we note that one of the state's most basic functions is to enforce the penal laws as established by the legislature. We quote from the United States Supreme Court decision, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2930, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976): [C]apital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than selfhelp to vindicate their wrongs. The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the state's death penalty statute, per se, meets due process requirements. See State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 190 (Tenn. 1991); see also State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 366, 70 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981). This issue is therefore without merit.