1. The Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of the death penalty in Furman v Georgia and Gregg v Georgia. What restrictions on the use of the death penalty have they established? Why have they done so?

2. What are the main moral arguments against the use of the death penalty? What are the main moral arguments in favor of using the death penalty?

3. What role should the question of the sanity of a defendant play in criminal justice proceedings?  Should the finding that a defendant is insane lead to his aquittal and detention in a mental health institution until cured?  Or should such a person be convicted, detained in a mental health  institution  until cured and then imprisoned until his  sentance has been served?  If you take the former view,  be sure to specify  what the appropriate standard for teh insanity defense should be. If you take tha  latter  view,   explain  why  insanity  does  not  eliminate  one's responsibility   for  crime  and  what  the  appropriate  standard   for determining the sentance of insane convicts should be.

 4.  Is the doctrine of strict liability ever morally  appropriate? For  what types  of crimes,  if any,  should consideration of the mental stae  of  a person not play a role in determining his  or  her  criminal liability.