Although New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker and Columbia Law School Professor James Liebman fre­quent­ly take oppos­ing sides in pub­lic debates on the death penal­ty, the two men recent­ly revealed their com­mon ground” through a co-authored opin­ion col­umn in the Houston Chronicle. Calling on leg­is­la­tors in Texas and else­where to enact a series of death penal­ty reforms to ensure accu­ra­cy and improve fair­ness, Blecker and Liebman noted:

Despite our dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives, we agree that death as a pun­ish­ment should be inflict­ed, if at all, only upon the worst of the worst; that soci­ety can inca­pac­i­tate with­out killing, so future dan­ger­ous­ness and deter­rence alone are nev­er suf­fi­cient rea­sons to pun­ish some­one with death; and that a state-ordered exe­cu­tion is a ter­ri­ble, solemn act that should occur only after the greatest deliberation.

Limiting the scope of crimes eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty, address­ing racial bias, improv­ing access to qual­i­fied attor­neys and DNA test­ing, and pass­ing com­pre­hen­sive reform pack­ages were among the rec­om­men­da­tions made by Blecker and Liebman.

(Houston Chronicle, May 23, 2003) See New Voices.

Citation Guide