A prosecutor's duty, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1935, "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Yet prosecutors across the U.S. have refused to acknowledge the innocence of defendants who have been wrongfully convicted, obstructing release by retrying death-sentenced defendants despite exonerating evidence, or conditioning their release upon "Alford pleas," which force defendants to choose between clearing their names or obtaining their freedom. In an article for Slate, Lara Bazelon chronicles cases of prosecutors whom she calls "innocence deniers," and the exonerations they have willfully obstructed. Bazelon highlights the retrials of exonerees Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez, wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in Illinois. After their initial conviction, a serial murderer, Brian Dugan, confessed to committing the crime alone, but prosecutors persisted in retrying Cruz and Hernandez. Their second conviction was also overturned, but despite DNA testing that had corroborated Dugan's confession, prosecutors subjected them to trial for a third time. Cruz was acquitted and prosecutors dropped Hernandez's charges. After the exoneration, three prosecutors involved in the case were indicted but acquitted of obstruction of justice and perjury. A related phenomenon, the use of Alford pleas, is described in a New York Times story by Megan Rose. In an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence against him or her would be sufficient to convict, but continues to assert innocence. The prisoner remains convicted of the crime and is resentenced to time already served and allowed to go free. These deals are often used in exoneration cases that involve official misconduct, because defendants who enter these pleas are typically barred from bringing lawsuits against prosecutors. Montez Spradley (pictured), an Alabama death-row prisoner, agreed to an Alford plea in 2015 after his attorneys discovered constitutional violations in his case, including undisclosed payments to a key witness. The agreement ended investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct. In June 2017, Ha'im Al Matin Sharif was released from Nevada's death row, nearly 30 years after he was convicted of killing his girlfriend's 11-month-old daughter, after medical evidence revealed that the baby died from infantile scurvy, rather than from physical abuse. Police had coerced the girlfriend into providing false testimony implicating Sharif by threatening to take her other children away if she did not cooperate. Prosecutors insisted that Sharif plead guilty to second-degree murder to obtain his release. One month earlier, Jimmy Dennis was released from twenty-five years of solitary confinement on Pennsylvania's death row after pleading no contest to lesser charges. His release marked the culmination of three unrelated cases in which misconduct by the same two Philadelphia homicide detectives had framed capital defendants. Innocence denial has the serious side effect of leaving the real perpetrators free while prosecutors continue to oppose release of innocent prisoners. The Innocence Project has secured the DNA exonerations of 353 people, and identified 152 actual perpetrators in those cases who went on to commit at least 150 additional violent crimes. Official misconduct is the leading cause of wrongful capital convictions.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be favoring arguments presented by Louisiana death-row prisoner Robert McCoy (pictured), who was convicted and sentenced to death after his lawyer, in the face of repeated instructions from his client to argue his innocence, instead told the jury that McCoy had killed three family members. McCoy's trial lawyer, Larry English, said he ignored his client's instructions and conceded guilt hoping jurors would then vote against the death penalty because McCoy had "serious emotional issues" that prevented him from "function[ing] in society" or "mak[ing] rational decisions." News coverage of the January 17 oral argument in McCoy v. Louisiana reports that the justices were in "broad agreement" with McCoy's position and "seemed sympathetic to his plight." The question debated during the hour-long Supreme Court argument was "whether the right to a lawyer that’s guaranteed by the Constitution is meaningful if, even with the best intentions, he can ignore his client’s wishes." Seth Waxman, former U.S. Solicitor General under the Clinton Administration, argued on behalf of McCoy, saying that "when a defendant maintains his innocence and insists on testing the prosecution on its burden of proof" then the Sixth Amendment right to counsel "prohibits a trial court from permitting the defendant's own lawyer, over the defendant's objection, to tell the jury that he is guilty." The state's attorney, Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, argued for what the state charcterized as a "narrow exception" that would allow a defense lawyer in a capital case to override the client's wishes and admit the client's guilt if the lawyer believed that was necessary to save the client's life. But even Justices Gorsuch and Alito—two of the Court's most conservative justices—seemed to agree in some respects with McCoy's position. Justice Gorsuch asked Murrill why the error at trial was not "a total denial of the assistance of counsel" and said that the right to counsel included "not to have an agent of the state assist the state in prosecuting you." Justice Alito expressed exasperation that the case had even reached this point, questioning the trial court decisions finding McCoy competent to stand trial and refusing to allow English to withdraw from the case. "[I]f somebody like McCoy really sincerely believes that he did not commit these physical acts, but it was all done by—as part of an elaborate conspiracy, is he—is he capable of assisting in his own defense?," Alito asked. Justices Breyer and Kagan voiced sympathy for English, who they believed was trying to save McCoy's life. Justice Kennedy, often the swing vote in death-penalty cases, asked the Louisiana Solicitor General a single line of questions: was it Louisiana's position that, if "a defendant [in a capital case] wants to plead not guilty, the defense attorney can plead guilty if the defense attorney thinks that's the best way to avoid the death penalty?" When the solicitor general said that a lawyer could not do that, Kennedy followed up, asking "How is that proposition any different from what really happened in this case?" A decision is expected by the end of June 2018.
For the second time in four months, a Missouri judge has imposed a death sentence after a capital-sentencing jury did not reach a unanimous sentencing decision. Greene County Circuit Judge Thomas Mountjoy sentenced 49-year-old Craig Wood (pictured) to death on January 11 for the February 2014 killing of 10-year-old Hailey Owens. Wood was convicted of first-degree murder in November 2017, but the jury—empaneled from out-of-county jurors as a result of extensive pretrial publicity—could not reach a unanimous decision on whether to sentence Wood to life without possibility of parole or death. In more than 70 percent of states that have the death penalty, this would have resulted in Wood being sentenced to life. A DPIC analysis of capital-sentencing statutes in effect in the 31 death-penalty states and the federal government found that 22 states, plus the federal government mandate an automatic life sentence if a jury cannot reach a unanimous sentencing verdict. While seven states consider a non-unanimous sentencing vote a "hung jury," Missouri and Indiana stand alone in removing the sentencing decision from the jury following a deadlock and transferring fact finding and decision-making authority to the judge. The jury in Wood's case reportedly split 10-2 in favor of the death penalty and Wood's lawyers had filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of Missouri's hung-jury death-sentencing procedure. That motion argued that Wood's right to a jury trial included a requirement that a death sentence could not be imposed without a unanimous jury vote. In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court struck down provisions in their death-penalty laws permitting judges to impose death sentences based upon non-unanimous jury recommendations for death. Alabama still permits that practice if ten jurors have voted for death. No jury has sentenced anyone to death in Missouri since 2013. However, on October 6, 2017, St. Charles County Judge Kelly Wayne Parker disregarded an 11-1 jury vote in favor of a life sentence and imposed the death penalty against 50-year-old Marvin Rice, a former Dent County deputy sheriff and state correctional officer. Rice was the only person sentenced to death in Missouri in 2017.
With the backing of the state's governor and attorney general, Democratic and Republican sponsors of a bill to repeal Washington's capital-punishment statute have expressed optimism that the state may abolish the death penalty in 2018. In 2017, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, was joined by former Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, in calling on the legislature to end the state's death penalty. Ferguson, who has said "[t]here is no role for capital punishment in a fair, equitable and humane justice system," is pressing legislators to take up the bill this year. Governor Jay Inslee featured the bill in his January 9, 2018 State of the State address, urging legislators to "leave a legacy that upholds the equal application of justice by passing a bill to end the death penalty in the state of Washington." The bill, now numbered SB 6052, has bipartisan backing: two of its sponsors in each house are Republicans. And Senator Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), the chair of the Senate Law and Justice Committee, to which the bill has been referred, said "[t]he stars may be aligning now for support of doing away with the death penalty." Both Republican sponsors in the Senate have questioned the value of the death penalty for murder victims' families and stressed that capital punishment runs counter to conservative values. Sen. Mark Miloscia (R-Milton) wrote in a recent op-ed, "many murder victims’ families oppose capital punishment because it’s little more than a long, re-traumatizing process that doesn’t give them the justice that they deserve." He said continuing with the death penalty is unjustifiable given its failure to contribute to public safety, its high cost, and the "ever-present risk of killing an innocent person." Sen. Maureen Walsh (R-Walla Walla) said, "The death penalty isn’t really accomplishing a wonderful relief to [victims'] families." The repeal bill was stalled in 2017 when Senator Mike Padden, the former judiciary committee chairman, refused to hold hearings on the bill. When Democrats gained control of the state senate after the November 2017 elections, Pederson replaced Padden, paving the way for committee action on the bill. “The votes are there,” Attorney General Ferguson said. “I’m reasonably optimistic that this could be the year.” Miloscia said he, too, is “highly optimistic .... I think this is something that people on both sides of the aisle want to get done.” Washington has a similar profile to other states that have recently abolished the death penalty. Its murder rate is significantly below the national average and, as with most of the states that have done away with capital punishment, it has a very low rate of murders of police officers. The high cost of the death penalty is also a factor for legislators. According to a 2015 Seattle University study, each death-penalty prosecution cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case in which the death penalty was not sought. In an email to the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, Senator Walsh said "taxpayers foot the multi-million dollar appeals process for the accused and we spend $50,000/year for incarceration. ... A life sentence with no chance of early release saves money and issues the ultimate punishment by denying the convicted their freedom and liberties for life.” Washington has not carried out an execution since 2010, and Governor Inslee—who imposed a moratorium on executions in February 2014—has said he will not allow executions to take place while he is in office.
On Martin Luther King Day, DPIC looks at the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's views on the death penalty. Dr. King's philosophy of non-violence had no room for capital punishment. In one of his most famous sermons, "Loving Your Enemies," Dr. King preached: "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." In 1952, Jeremiah Reeves, a 16-year-old African-American Montgomery, Alabama high school student was arrested for allegedly raping a white woman with whom he was having an affair. The teen was interrogated for two days, deprived of sleep, strapped into an electric chair, and told the only way to escape the death penalty was to confess. He did so, then recanted. The trial judge barred the defense from telling the all-white jury the circumstances of the "confession," and Reeves was sentenced to death. Six years later, Alabama executed him. On Easter Sunday 1958, nine days after the execution, Dr. King preached to a crowd of 2,000 on the steps of the state capitol about the "tragic and unsavory injustice." Dr. King said: "A young man, Jeremiah Reeves, who was little more than a child when he was first arrested, died in the electric chair for the charge of rape. Whether or not he was guilty of this crime is a question that none of us can answer. But the issue before us now is not the innocence or guilt of Jeremiah Reeves. Even if he were guilty, it is the severity and inequality of the penalty that constitutes the injustice. Full grown white men committing comparable crimes against Negro girls are rare ever punished, and are never given the death penalty or even a life sentence." Dr. King continued: "But not only are we here to repent for the sin committed against Jeremiah Reeves, but we are also here to repent for the constant miscarriage of justice that we confront everyday in our courts. The death of Jeremiah Reeves is only the precipitating factor for our protest, not the causal factor. The causal factor lies deep down in the dark and dreary past of our oppression. The death of Jeremiah Reeves is but one incident, yes a tragic incident, in the long and desolate night of our court injustice. ... Truth may be cruficied and justice buried, but one day they will rise again. We must live and face death if necessary with that hope." According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 455 people were executed for rape in the United States between 1930 and the Supreme Court's decision declaring the nation's death penalty statutes unconstitutional in 1972. 405 (89.1%) were black. The use of the death penalty for rape remained almost exclusively a Southern phenomenon: 443 of the executions for rape (97.4%) occurred in former Confederate states. Noting the different punishment of blacks and whites for allegations of interracial rape, Dr. King later wrote in his memoir, Stride Toward Freedom, it was "[f]or good reason the Negroes of the South had learned to fear and mistrust the white man's justice." In a November 1957 interview Ebony asked Dr. King: "Do you think God approves the death penalty for crimes like rape and murder?" He responded, "I do not think that God approves the death penalty for any crime, rape and murder included.... Capital punishment is against the better judgment of modern criminology, and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of God."
States that have recently abolished the death penalty have not experienced the “parade of horribles”—including increased murder rates—predicted by death-penalty proponent, according to death-penalty experts who participated in a panel discussion at the 2017 American Bar Association national meeting in New York City. Instead, the panelists said, abolition appears to have created opportunities to move forward with other broader criminal justice reforms. The transcript of that panel presentation, Life After the Death Penalty: Implications for Retentionist States, which was posted by the ABA on January 3, features discussion of the political factors that contributed to repeal and research into the effects of death-penalty abolition in those states in which repeal has recently occurred. The panel discussion, jointly hosted by the American Bar Association Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice and the New York City Bar Association in August 2017, featured four speakers with backgrounds in death-penalty activism, reform, or research: Thomas P. Sullivan, Co-Chair of the 2000 Commission on Capital Punishment in Illinois; Shari Silberstein, Executive Director of Equal Justice USA; Celeste Fitzgerald,& former Director of New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; and Robert Dunham, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center. The first three speakers described the circumstances that led to abolition in the six states that legislatively repealed or judicially abolished capital punishment between 2007 and 2014 and explained how abolition sponsors overcame opponents' arguments that, as Fitgerald characterized it, “abolition would bring about a 'parade of horribles.'” Silberstein summarized those worries, saying, “The death penalty proponents' arguments were all the traditional ones you would expect. They talked about the bloodbath that would come if there were no death penalty: murders would spike; the killings of police officers would spike; killings of corrections officers would spike.” Dunham discussed DPIC's research on three decades of murder rates in the U.S., which, he said, shows that abolition of the death penalty had no discernible effect on murder rates in general or murder rates of police and corrections officers killed in the line of duty. Dunham said that if the arguments advanced by death-penalty proponents were factually supported, murder rates in general and the rates at which police and corrections officers were killed should have risen after states abolished the death penalty, both in those states and in comparison to trends in other states. And, Dunham said, “if—as opponents of death-penalty abolition had argued—police officers were especially vulnerable without the death penalty and its repeal would lead to 'open season on police officers,' you'd expect to see not just an increase in the rate at which police officers were killed, but an increase in the number of murders of police officers as a percentage of all homicides.” None of this happened, he said. Instead, murders of law enforcement officers were much lower in the states that recently abolished the death penalty. “[T]he death penalty appears to make no measurable contribution to police safety,” Dunham said. The panelists also observed that repeal of capital punishment had created an opportunity for additional criminal justice reform. Sullivan noted that, prior to repeal, “[a] great deal of time, attention, and effort were spent on the few cases that involved the death penalty in Illinois, while little attention was given to the huge number of people who were convicted and incarcerated for crimes. All that time, attention, and money can now be shifted to reforming the entire Illinois criminal justice system. That would mean that there has been a double benefit from having abolished the death penalty in Illinois.” Silberstein said that in New York, abolition permitted “stakeholders who could not talk to each other in the same way when the death penalty was on the table because [of] differences over the death penalty” to discuss “how best to achieve the key goals of safety and healing [and] work on increasing funding and programs to reduce violence.”
To deter future use of the death penalty in their county, the Blaine County, Idaho County Commissioners on January 2 voted to consider withdrawing from the state's Capital Crimes Defense Fund as a way to choke off state funding in capital prosecutions. “This is a way for our county to say we don’t support the death penalty, and that we don’t want the prosecutor seeking it in Blaine County,” said Commissioner Larry Schoen (pictured), who proposed the withdrawal. Two days later, however, the commissioners backtracked after learning that participation in the fund was a prerequisite for the county to be eligible to receive the services of the State Appellate Defender's office in a wide range of non-capital appeals. The commissioners had believed that, by requiring the county to absorb the entire cost of defending death penalty cases, pulling out of the fund would create a disincentive for local prosecutors to seek the death penalty. At a minimum, Schoen said, “the prosecutor would have to certainly be aware that [a capital prosecution] would be an enormous financial burden on the county.” Blaine County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Thomas, who has not sought the death penalty since assuming office in 2000, strongly opposed the proposal, saying that decisions to seek the death penalty should not be based on cost. “It’s probably the most important, weighty decision that I would make,” he said. “And to think that we would make it on the basis of finances, I think that’s probably what insulted me most, frankly.” After considering a letter from Thomas and reviewing the conditions of Blaine County's agreement with the appellate defender's office—under which the county would lose an estimated $22,000-$25,000 annually in state appellate assistance in non-capital felony cases if it withdrew from the Capital Crimes Defense Fund—the commissioners decided against withdrawing. “My underlying thoughts haven’t changed," Schoen said. “But at this point, there would likely be too many unintended consequences and negative implications involved with not participating.” As a result, he recommended that the county “continue participation in the Capital Crimes Defense Fund, though I hope we can pursue a legislative solution to decouple that from access to the state’s public defenders.” A 2014 study of death-penalty costs in Idaho by the Idaho Legislature’s Office of Performance Evaluations found that the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent 44 times more billable hours on the average death-penalty appeal than on cases in which a life sentence had been imposed. The study also concluded that, on average, capital trials took seven more months to reach a conclusion than non-capital cases. More than half of the 40 people sentenced to death in Idaho since 1977 have had their death sentences overturned on appeal and then received lesser sentences. In November, the commissioners in Ada County—the state’s largest county and the county that most aggressively seeks the death penalty—voted to leave the fund to reduce payments for capital defense services. The commissioners reconsidered that decision after realizing that withdrawal from the fund would make the county responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in appellate costs for non-capital cases.
Family members of murder victims share no single, uniform response to the death penalty, but two recent publications illustrate that a growing number of these families are now advocating against capital punishment. In From Death Into Life, a feature article in the January 8, 2018 print edition of the Jesuit magazine America, Lisa Murtha profiles the stories of how several prominent victim-advocates against the death penalty came to hold those views. And in a recently released compilation of essays, Not in Our Name, nine family members of murder victims share their stories of coping, grieving, and reconciliation in the face of losing a loved one to murder, and tell how their experiences transformed their views about capital punishment. “While each has endured the extreme pain of losing a loved one to murder, they all are staunchly opposed to what they say is more violence in the form of a state-sanctioned execution and a death penalty,” said Ron Steiner, leader of Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, which released the essays in November. The death penalty is often characterized as providing justice and closure for family members of the victims. But, Murtha writes, "for many, the death penalty provides neither the closure nor the healing that legal and political systems oftentimes promise. Instead, a growing number of victims’ families are saying it inhibits that healing." Murtha reports on the different reasons offered by five different victims’ families who spoke out against the death penalty in 2016. "One learned how profoundly the murderer had changed in prison, another just wanted the appeals to stop and another discovered that the men originally convicted of the crime were actually innocent," she writes. Murtha also recounts the emotional journeys of Bob Curley, Marietta Jaeger Lane, and Bill Pelke, who are now vocal opponents of the death penalty. After his 10-year-old son Jeffrey was murdered, Curley launched a years-long crusade to reinstate capital punishment in Massachusetts, believing the death penalty might prevent something like this from happening [again].” He came to oppose the death penalty after seeing that the man he believed was less culpable for the death of his son received a harsher sentence and became convinced that "the system is just not fair" and could not be trusted to reach the right result in capital cases. Lane, a lifelong practicing Catholic, said she initially wanted to kill the man who abducted and murdered her 7-year old daughter, but she said, "I surrendered [and] did the only thing I could do, which was [give] God permission to change my heart.” Pelke's 78-year-old grandmother was robbed and murdered by group of teenage girls, and 15-year-old Paula Cooper was sentenced to death. Pelke was convinced his grandmother "would have had love and compassion for Paula Cooper and her family and that she wanted me to have that same sort of love and compassion. I learned the most important lesson of my life .... I didn’t have to see somebody else die in order to bring healing from Nana’s death.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has directed a federal appeals court to reconsider whether Georgia death-row prisoner Keith Tharpe (pictured) is entitled to federal court review of his claim that he was unconstitutionally sentenced to death because he is black. On January 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion sending Tharpe's case—in which a racist juror used an offensive slur to describe the defendant and doubted whether African Americans have souls—back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration whether the federal courts should hear his claim of juror bias. Seven years after Tharpe was sentenced to death, his attorneys obtained a sworn affidavit reviewed and initialed by Barney Gattie, a white man who served as a juror at Tharpe's trial. In his statement, Gattie said, "After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls," and, "there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Ni[**]ers." Gattie also expressed his belief that Tharpe "wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, [and] should get the electric chair for what he did." According to Gattie, the victim was one of the "nice black folks," but "[i]f [the victim] had been the type Tharpe is, then picking between life and death for Tharpe wouldn’t have mattered so much." Despite these statements, the Georgia state courts rejected Tharpe’s racial-bias claim after prosecutors obtained a second affidavit from Gattie asserting that he was not a bigot. State prosecutors have not denied that Gattie made these statements, but have attempted to defend them by saying that Gattie had been drinking when he signed the affidavit. The Georgia federal courts had also denied Tharpe relief on the claim, deferring to the fact-finding of the state courts that Gattie's bigoted statements were not prejudicial. However, in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two major cases that Tharpe said required the federal courts to reconsider his claim: Buck v. Davis, a Texas death-penalty case in which the racially biased testimony of an expert witness created an unacceptable risk that Buck was sentenced to death because he was black, and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a case that overturned a state-court rule that prevented defendants from using racially biased statements made by a juror as evidence of juror misconduct during deliberations. Georgia was scheduled to execute Tharpe in September 2017, but the Supreme Court granted him a last-minute stay to decide whether to review his case. The Court ultimately accepted review of the case, issued a per curiam ruling in Tharpe v. Sellers without further briefing or argument, and returned the case to the Eleventh Circuit, which must now consider whether to issue a Certificate of Appealability—a procedural prerequisite to considering an issue on appeal. Brian Kammer, Tharpe's attorney, said, "We are thankful that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the serious implications for fundamental fairness of the clear evidence of racial animus on the part of one of the jurors who sentenced Mr. Tharpe to death." Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, criticizing the Court for interfering in the case and failing to respect the lower courts' judgments.
From October 2016 to October 2017, support for capital punishment among those identifying themselves as Republicans fell by ten percetage points. Two op-eds published towards the end of the year illustrate the growing conservative opposition to the death penalty. Writing in The Seattle Times on December 27, Republican State Senator Mark Miloscia (pictured, l.) called for bipartisan efforts to repeal Washington's death-penalty statute. In a December 13 commentary in the Washington Times, conservative political strategist Richard Viguerie (pictured, r.) describes what he calls the "stunning" surge in Republican sponsorship of bills to end capital punishment. Setting forth moral and practical reasons for his support of Washington Senate Bill 5354, Miloscia writes that "[i]t is time to pass a strong, bipartisan repeal of the death penalty." Miloscia cites his Catholic pro-life beliefs as the primary reason for his opposition to capital punishment and highlights Pope Francis' calls for an end to the death penalty. He writes, "Given our modern prison system and ability to neutralize individuals as threats without killing them, it is never imperative to execute someone." But beyond religious beliefs alone, Miloscia sees "many practical reasons why conservatives of all faiths are rethinking the death penalty." Among them, he cites the high cost of capital punishment and the "ever-present risk of killing an innocent person," which he says are "even more unjustifiable" given the absence of any valid evidence that executions affect murder rates. Further, he writes, "many murder victims’ families oppose capital punishment because it’s little more than a long, re-traumatizing process that doesn’t give them the justice that they deserve." Miloscia sees a major shift underway in Republican thinking on the issue, paving a path for bipartisan repeal: "Republicans are turning against the death penalty, which means that opposition to capital punishment is no longer a partisan stance. As the death penalty slowly loses its supporting constituency, the punishment’s future becomes doubtful." Conservative leader Richard Viguerie also sees a dramatic change in how conservatives view the death penalty. Viguerie cites a 2017 report by Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, which found a surge in Republican sponsorship of death-penalty abolition bills that Viguerie says "has been gaining momentum." As part of this "massive shift," he writes, one-third of all sponsors of death-penalty repeal bills in 2016 were Republicans. Viguerie writes, "conservatives are recognizing that capital punishment is a broken government program that runs counter to conservatism’s foundational tenets of valuing life, fiscal responsibility and limited government." He, too, points to religion, and Catholicism in particular, as a reason for conservative opposition, but says that the Tea Party movement—with its support of limited government—and the election of younger legislators who are statistically more likely to oppose the death penalty, has contributed to the change. He foresees a continuing decline in conservative support for the death penalty: "As state legislatures undergo their makeovers, the public turns against the death penalty, and political leaders voice their capital punishment concerns, we should expect to see even more from Republican officials. Republicans will likely continue to sponsor repeal bills with increasing frequency and reverse the flawed criminal justice policies once advocated by their ideological predecessors of the 1980s and 1990s."