Struck by Lightning: The Continuing Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty Thirty-Five Years After Its Reinstatement in 1976

Posted on Jun 22, 2011

Executive Summary Top

The United States Supreme Court approved the re-instate­ment of the death penal­ty 35 years ago on July 2, 1976. Although the death penal­ty had ear­li­er been held uncon­sti­tu­tion­al because of its arbi­trary and unpre­dictable appli­ca­tion, the Court was will­ing to sanc­tion new sys­tems that states had pro­posed to make cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment less like being struck by light­ning” and more like ret­ri­bu­tion for only the worst of the worst” offend­ers. The Court also deferred to the states’ judg­ment that the death penal­ty served the goals of ret­ri­bu­tion and deterrence.

After three and a half decades of expe­ri­ence under these revised statutes, the ran­dom­ness of the sys­tem con­tin­ues. Many of the coun­try’s con­sti­tu­tion­al experts and promi­nent legal orga­ni­za­tions have con­clud­ed that effec­tive reform is impos­si­ble and the prac­tice should be halt­ed. In polls, jury ver­dicts and state leg­isla­tive action, there is evi­dence of the American peo­ple’s grow­ing frus­tra­tion with the death penal­ty. A major­i­ty of the nine Justices who served on the Supreme Court in 1976 when the death penal­ty was approved even­tu­al­ly con­clud­ed the exper­i­ment had failed.

Four states have abol­ished the death penal­ty in the past four years, and nation­wide exe­cu­tions and death sen­tences have been cut in half since 2000. A review of state death penal­ty prac­tices expos­es a sys­tem in which an unpre­dictable few cas­es result in exe­cu­tions from among thou­sands of eli­gi­ble cas­es. Race, geog­ra­phy and the size of a coun­ty’s bud­get play a major role in who receives the ulti­mate pun­ish­ment. Many cas­es thought to embody the worst crimes and defen­dants are over­turned on appeal and then assessed very dif­fer­ent­ly the sec­ond time around at retri­al. Even these rever­sals depend sig­nif­i­cant­ly on the qual­i­ty of the lawyers assigned and on who appoint­ed the appel­late judges review­ing the cas­es. In such a hap­haz­ard process, the ratio­nales of deter­rence and ret­ri­bu­tion make little sense.

In 1976, the new­ly reformed death penal­ty was allowed to resume. However, it has proved unwork­able in prac­tice. Keeping it in place, or attempt­ing still more reform, would be enor­mous­ly expen­sive, with lit­tle chance of improve­ment. The con­sti­tu­tion requires fair­ness not just in lofty words, but also in dai­ly prac­tice. On that score, the death penal­ty has missed the mark. 

Additional Resources Top