Publications & Testimony

Testimony and Statements on the Death Penalty

FROM DPIC

For tes­ti­mo­ny by for­mer Executive Director Robert Dunham and for­mer Executive Director Richard C. Dieter, please vis­it our page DPIC Testimony.
 

FROM RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS

FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 

FROM ADVOCACY GROUPS

FROM JUDGES, LEGISLATORS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

FROM MURDER VICTIMSFAMILY MEMBERS

Items: 6291 — 6300


Dec 31, 2002

U.S. Supreme Court: Abdur’Rahman v. Bell

On December 10, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court dis­missed with­out decid­ing the case of Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman, who is on death row in Tennessee. The Court heard argu­ments in the case on November 6, 2002, but declined to issue a rul­ing. Justice Stevens dis­sent­ed from the…

Read More

Dec 31, 2002

Dignity Denied: The Experience of Murder Victims’ Family Members Who Oppose the Death Penalty

Dignity Denied: The Experience of Murder Victims’ Family Members Who Oppose the Death Penalty (2002). This report released by Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation pro­vides an account of the expe­ri­ences of mur­der vic­tims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers who oppose cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and steps that can be tak­en to pro­tect these indi­vid­u­als from dis­crim­i­na­tion based on this oppo­si­tion.​“Dignity Denied”…

Read More

Aug 01, 2002

United States Supreme Court Decisions: 2001 — 2002 Term

The Court denied Toronto Patterson’s appeal for a stay of exe­cu­tion in order to con­sid­er whether the exe­cu­tion of juve­nile offend­ers is cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment. Three Supreme Court Justices — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer — dis­sent­ed, stat­ing that the Court should con­sid­er review­ing the death penal­ty for those who com­mit crimes before the age of 18. In his dis­sent­ing opin­ion, Justice Stevens wrote,​“Given the apparent…

Read More

Jun 24, 2002

U.S. Supreme Court: Ring v. Arizona

In a 7 – 2 deci­sion in the case of Ring v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defen­dant has the right to have a jury, rather than a judge, decide on the exis­tence of an aggra­vat­ing fac­tor that makes the defen­dant eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. The Court based its judg­ment on the broad­er con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ci­ple that the Sixth Amendment right to tri­al by jury encom­pass­es the right to a jury find­ing of all facts that are nec­es­sary to put a defendant…

Read More