In an arti­cle for the University of Richmond Law Review, Stephen Bright (pic­tured), President and Senior Counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, describes the arbi­trary fac­tors that con­tin­ue to influ­ence the death penal­ty. Bright first describes the his­tor­i­cal con­text that led the Supreme Court to strike down the death penal­ty in 1976. He draws com­par­isons between lynch­ings, which he says were ​“used to main­tain racial con­trol after the Civil War,” and cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, which in 1976 ​“was very much tied to race — the oppres­sion of African Americans, car­ried out by this coun­try’s crim­i­nal courts.” He then explains how this lega­cy of racial bias con­tin­ues today, say­ing, ​“The race of the defen­dant and the race of the vic­tim con­tin­ue to influ­ence the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty. The courts remain the part of American soci­ety least affect­ed by the civ­il rights move­ment of the mid-twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry.” Bright also address­es bias against the poor, and those with men­tal ill­ness and intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties. He con­cludes, ​“What pur­pose is the prim­i­tive penal­ty of death serv­ing in a mod­ern soci­ety? When we look close­ly at the issues — race, pover­ty, arbi­trari­ness, con­vic­tion of the inno­cent, men­tal ill­ness, and intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty — from both a moral and prac­ti­cal stand­point, it will not be long before we join South Africa and the rest of the civ­i­lized world in mak­ing per­ma­nent, absolute, and unequiv­o­cal the injunc­tion: ​‘Thou shall not kill.’ ”

(S. Bright, ​“THE ROLE OF RACE, POVERTY, INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY, AND MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE DECLINE OF THE DEATH PENALTY,” 49 University of Richmond Law Review 671, March 2015; Posted by DPIC April 30, 2015.) See Race, Arbitrariness, Mental Illness, and Law Reviews.

Citation Guide