Articles

An edi­to­r­i­al in the Baptist Standard, pub­lished in Texas, recent­ly called for repeal­ing the death penal­ty in the next leg­isla­tive ses­sion. Among the rea­sons cit­ed by the paper for end­ing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment were prin­ci­ples of reli­gious faith, the risk of exe­cut­ing inno­cent defen­dants, its inef­fec­tive­ness in deter­ring crime, the high costs of pros­e­cu­tion, and its unfair­ness in affect­ing the poor and peo­ple of col­or. The edi­to­r­i­al quot­ed the recent report from the National Research Council crit­i­ciz­ing the ​“fun­da­men­tal flaws in the research” about deter­rence and dis­cour­ag­ing reliance on such studies…

Commentary from nation­al­ly syn­di­cat­ed colum­nist E.J. Dionne (pic­tured) and the New York Times reflect­ed on the chang­ing state of the death penal­ty in the U.S. in light of recent devel­op­ments. Dionne cit­ed the repeal of the death penal­ty in Connecticut as an exam­ple of a ​“remark­able piv­ot in the pol­i­tics of the death penal­ty, the pre­mier issue on which an over­whelm­ing con­sen­sus favor­ing what’s tak­en to be the con­ser­v­a­tive side has begun to crum­ble.” He observed that ​“sig­nif­i­cant groups of lib­er­tar­i­an Republicans and oppo­nents of abor­tion have crossed to the…

In an op-ed writ­ten for the 25^th anniver­sary of the U.S. Supreme Court​’s deci­sion in McCleskey v. Kemp, nation­al­ly acclaimed death penal­ty expert James Acker (pic­tured) called for a reassess­ment of how race is affect­ing death penal­ty deci­sions. Prof. Acker ques­tioned the Court’s refusal to find bias in the wake of the strong sta­tis­ti­cal evi­dence pre­sent­ed in that case. He wrote, ​“The time has sure­ly come for a sober reassess­ment of this rul­ing” and ​“we must ques­tion if jus­tice tru­ly has been served when racial prej­u­dices influ­ence cap­i­tal case decisions.”…

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the New York Times called Connecticut​’s deci­sion to repeal the death penal­ty part of ​“a grow­ing move­ment against cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment.” The edi­to­r­i­al attrib­uted the trend away from the death penal­ty to new research that shows ​“gross injus­tice in its appli­ca­tion and enor­mous costs in con­tin­u­ing to impose it.” The prob­lem of arbi­trari­ness recent­ly came to light in Connecticut, where ​“a pow­er­ful, com­pre­hen­sive study pro­vid­ed evi­dence that state death sen­tences are hap­haz­ard­ly met­ed out, with vir­tu­al­ly no con­nec­tion to the heinous­ness of the crime.” The Times also…

Charles Hoffman, an assis­tant defend­er in the Office of the Illinois State Appellate Defender, recent­ly wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times, mark­ing a year since the death penal­ty was repealed in Illinois. Hoffman, who has argued more than 30 death penal­ty cas­es before the Illinois Supreme Court, says that repeal­ing the death penal­ty was the right choice for the state: ​“The right­ness of that deci­sion is more clear than ever. Violent crime rates have not climbed. The pub­lic is no less safe. And the pur­suit of jus­tice has been…

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in The Washington Post high­light­ed ongo­ing prob­lems with Maryland​’s death penal­ty despite leg­is­la­tion passed in 2009 meant to reform the sys­tem. According to the edi­to­r­i­al, ​“the legislature’s reform fixed noth­ing; if any­thing, it cod­i­fied a sys­tem even more arbi­trary than the one it replaced. Now the nature of the evi­dence, rather than the bar­bar­i­ty of the crime, is the crit­i­cal fac­tor. So a mur­der con­vic­tion based on DNA evi­dence might result in a death sen­tence, but not a Virginia Tech-style killing spree whose per­pe­tra­tor is iden­ti­fied by…

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in Nebraska​’s Journal Star urged sup­port for a bill to replace the death penal­ty with a sen­tence of life in prison. Among the rea­sons cit­ed for its posi­tion was the risk of exe­cut­ing an inno­cent per­son. The edi­to­r­i­al not­ed that advance­ments in DNA test­ing have shown the fal­li­bil­i­ty of the cur­rent sys­tem: ​“Seventeen peo­ple who were on death row have been set free after DNA test­ing proved they were wrong­ly con­vict­ed.” The edi­to­r­i­al also point­ed to more than 250 con­vic­tions that have been over­turned nation­wide because of…

An edi­to­r­i­al in the Sunday edi­tion of the New York Times on January 8 looked at recent stud­ies point­ing to the arbi­trari­ness of the death penal­ty. The edi­to­r­i­al not­ed that the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 1972 because its arbi­trary imple­men­ta­tion ren­dered it uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. In par­tic­u­lar, the Times cit­ed a recent study of Connecticut’s death penal­ty indi­cat­ing the death penal­ty was not being imposed on the worst offend­ers, but rather that a death sen­tence depend­ed on var­i­ous irrel­e­vant fac­tors such as geog­ra­phy and the race of…