A new study pub­lished in the Washington Law Review address­es the racial and geo­graph­i­cal dis­par­i­ties in the imple­men­ta­tion of the fed­er­al death penal­ty. The study, con­duct­ed by G. Ben Cohen, Counsel for the Capital Appeals Project in New Orleans, and Robert J. Smith, Counsel for the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School, con­cludes that the dis­par­i­ties in the fed­er­al death penal­ty may exist because fed­er­al cas­es do not use a coun­ty-lev­el jury pool but instead employ a wider pool from the fed­er­al-dis­trict lev­el, result­ing in the dilu­tion of minor­i­ty rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the jury pool. According to the authors, Capital ver­dicts become sep­a­rat­ed from the moral judg­ments of the com­mu­ni­ty when [there are] few­er minor­i­ty group mem­bers in the jury pool.” They pro­posed uti­liz­ing a coun­ty-lev­el jury pool as is done in state cas­es: If fed­er­al cap­i­tal juries come from the coun­ty where the offense occurred, then pros­e­cu­tors are left to deter­mine whether to seek the death penal­ty based on the rel­a­tive fed­er­al inter­est in the crime (and not the pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al inter­est to secure a death sen­tence by any means pos­si­ble). This solu­tion is also more demo­c­ra­t­ic — the cit­i­zens most impact­ed by the effects of high crime, over­ly aggres­sive polic­ing, or poor pub­lic pol­i­cy are the deci­sion-mak­ers respon­si­ble for redress­ing those harms.”

(G. Ben Cohen and R. Smith, The Racial Geography of the Federal Death Penalty,” 85 Washington Law Review 425 (2010)). See Race, Studies and the Federal Death Penalty.

Citation Guide