The jour­nal of Criminology & Public Policy recent­ly asked lead­ing experts to rec­om­mend impor­tant pol­i­cy changes need­ed in the area of crim­i­nal jus­tice and to pro­vide the evi­dence to sup­port such change. Although most of the arti­cles addressed var­i­ous prison and treat­ment issues, the first arti­cle by Prof. James Acker of the University at Albany called for an imme­di­ate mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. Prof. Acker exam­ines the United States’ long his­to­ry of grap­pling with the death penal­ty. He con­cludes that ​“suf­fi­cient evi­dence now exists regard­ing the effec­tive­ness of the death penal­ty and eval­u­at­ing its admin­is­tra­tion to call, at a min­i­mum, for an imme­di­ate halt to exe­cu­tions” while states re-eval­u­ate their death penal­ty poli­cies.

Acker finds flaws with some com­mon per­cep­tions used to sup­port the death penal­ty. He notes that stud­ies on the deter­rent effect of the death penal­ty have been incon­clu­sive. Likewise, cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment fails to pro­vide clo­sure or a sense of jus­tice to the fam­i­ly and friends of vic­tims, espe­cial­ly since exe­cu­tions occur in less than 2% of mur­der cas­es. Along with the high costs of the death penal­ty, con­cerns about the qual­i­ty of defense coun­sel, arbi­trari­ness, and wrong­ful con­vic­tions are all ele­ments of the death penal­ty that need to be care­ful­ly weighed when exam­in­ing pub­lic pol­i­cy. New Jersey, he writes, has already under­tak­en such a delib­er­a­tion, and its Death Penalty Study Commission reached the con­clu­sion that the death penal­ty should be aban­doned and replaced with life impris­on­ment with­out parole.
(“Impose an Immediate Moratorium on Executions” by James R. Acker, 6 Criminology & Public Policy 641 (November 2007)). Posted Dec. 4, 2007. See also Resources.

Tags
Citation Guide