Racial Discrimination and the Death Penalty: An Analysis of the United States\u27 Judicial System

Racial discrimination plays a role in the administration of the death penalty. This research analyzes the history, and past scholarly research, of the death penalty. The purpose of this research is to understand the correlation between racial discrimination and those sentenced to death. This study includes a literature review regarding the different aspects of the death penalty and race. Following the literature review, an analysis is performed of both previous literature and current death penalty statistics that augments the discussion of the death penalty

Contractualism and the Death Penalty

It is a truism that there are erroneous convictions in criminal trials. Recent legal findings show that 3.3% to 5%of all convictions in capital rape-murder cases in the U.S. in the 1980s were erroneous convictions. Given this fact, what normative conclusions can be drawn? First, the article argues that a moderately revised version of Scanlon’ s contractualism offers an attractive moral vision that is different from utilitarianism or other consequentialist theories, or from purely deontological theories. It then brings this version of Scanlonian contractualism to bear on the question of whether the death penalty, life imprisonment, long sentences, or shorter sentences can be justified, given that there is a non-negligible rate of erroneous conviction. Contractualism holds that a permissible act must be justifiable to everyone affected by it. Yet, given the non-negligible rate of erroneous conviction, it is unjustifiable to mete out the death penalty, because such a punishment is not justifiable to innocent murder convicts. It is further argued that life imprisonment will probably not be justified (unless lowering the sentence to a long sentence will drastically increase the murder rate). However, whether this line of argument could be further extended would depend on the impact of lowering sentences on communal security

The Death Penalty Debate: Four Problems and New Philosophical Perspectives

This paper aims at bringing a new philosophical perspective to the current debate on the death penalty through a discussion of peculiar kinds of uncertainties that surround the death penalty. I focus on laying out the philosophical argument, with the aim of stimulating and restructuring the death penalty debate. I will begin by describing views about punishment that argue in favour of either retaining the death penalty (‘retentionism’) or abolishing it (‘abolitionism’). I will then argue that we should not ignore the so-called “whom-question”, i.e. “To whom should we justify the system of punishment?” I identify three distinct chronological stages to address this problem, namely, “the Harm Stage”, “the Blame Stage”, and “the Danger Stage”. I will also identify four problems arising from specific kinds of uncertainties present in current death penalty debates: (1) uncertainty in harm, (2) uncertainty in blame, (3) uncertainty in rights, and (4) uncertainty in causal consequences. In the course of examining these four problems, I will propose an ‘impossibilist’ position towards the death penalty, according to which the notion of the death penalty is inherently contradictory. Finally, I will suggest that it may be possible to apply this philosophical perspective to the justice system more broadly, in particular to the maximalist approach to restorative justice

Ethnographic Advocacy Against the Death Penalty

This article develops the concept of “ethnographic advocacy” to make sense of the humanizing, open‐ended knowledge practices involved in the defense of criminal defendants charged with capital murder. Drawing from anthropological fieldwork with well‐respected figures in the American capital defense bar, as well as my own professional experience as an investigator specializing in death penalty sentencing mitigation, I argue that effective advocacy for life occurs through qualitative knowledge practices that share notable methodological affinities with contemporary anthropological ethnography. The article concludes with a preliminary exploration of what the concept of ethnographic advocacy might reveal about academic anthropology\u27s own advocative engagements

Capital Jurors in an Era of Death Penalty Decline

The state of public opinion regarding the death penalty has not experienced such flux since the late 1960s. Death sentences and executions have reached their lowest annual numbers since the early 1970s and today, the public appears fairly evenly split in its views on the death penalty. In this Essay, we explore, first, whether these changes in public opinion mean that fewer people will be qualified to serve on death penalty trials as jurors, and second, whether potential jurors are affected by changes in the practice of the death penalty. We conducted surveys of persons reporting for jury duty at the Superior Court of Orange County, California. What we found was surprising. Surveys of jurors in decades past suggested ten to twenty percent of jury-eligible individuals would be excludable due to their substantial doubts about the death penalty. Despite Orange County’s status as a redoubt of death sentencing, we find that 35% or more of jurors reporting for jury service were excludable as having such substantial doubts about the death penalty that it would “substantially impair” their ability to perform their role as jurors. Indeed, large numbers went further: roughly a quarter said they would be reluctant to find a person guilty of capital murder knowing the death penalty was a possibility. A final question asked whether the fact that executions have not been conducted in California for a decade impacts whether jurors would be favorable towards the death penalty. We found that, across all types of attitudes towards the death penalty, that fact made jurors less inclined to sentence a person to death. Rare punishments may seem more arbitrary, even to those who find them morally acceptable. We conclude by describing how this research can be useful for scholars, litigators, and judges concerned with selection of jurors in death penalty cases, and we discuss why, as social and legal practices change, more study of public attitudes towards punishment is needed

The State of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is in decline in America and most death penalty states do not regularly impose death sentences. In 2016 and 2017, states reached modern lows in imposed death sentences, with just thirty-one defendants sentenced to death in 2016 and thirty-nine in 2017, as compared with over three hundred per year in the 1990s. In 2016, only thirteen states imposed death sentences, and in 2017, fourteen did so, although thirty-one states retain the death penalty. What explains this remarkable and quite unexpected trend? In this Article, we present new analysis of state-level legislative changes that might have been expected to impact death sentences. First, life without parole (LWOP) statutes, now enacted in nearly every state, might have been expected to reduce death sentences because they give jurors a non-capital option at trial. Second, legislatures have moved, albeit at varying paces, to comply with the Supreme Court’s holding in Ring v. Arizona, which requires that the final decision in capital sentencing be made not by a judge, but by a jury. Third, states at different times have created state-wide public defender offices to represent capital defendants at trial. In addition, the decline in homicides and homicide rates could be expected to contribute to the decline in state-level death sentencing. We find that contrary to the expectations of many observers, changes in the law such as adoption of LWOP and jury sentencing, did not consistently or significantly impact death sentencing. The decline in homicides and homicide rates is correlated with changes in death sentencing at the state level. However, this Article finds that state provision of capital trial representation is far more strongly and robustly correlated with reduced death sentencing than these other factors. The findings bolster the argument that adequacy of counsel has greater implications for the administration of the death penalty than other legal factors. These findings also have implications beyond the death penalty and they underscore the importance of a structural understanding of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in our system of criminal justice

Capital Jurors in an Era of Death Penalty Decline

The state of public opinion regarding the death penalty has not experienced such flux since the late 1960s. Death sentences and executions have reached their lowest annual numbers since the early 1970s and today, the public appears fairly evenly split in its views on the death penalty. In this Essay, we explore, first, whether these changes in public opinion mean that fewer people will be qualified to serve on death penalty trials as jurors, and second, whether potential jurors are affected by changes in the practice of the death penalty. We conducted surveys of persons reporting for jury duty at the Superior Court of Orange County, California. What we found was surprising. Surveys of jurors in decades past suggested ten to twenty percent of jury-eligible individuals would be excludable due to their substantial doubts about the death penalty. Despite Orange County’s status as a redoubt of death sentencing, we find that 35% or more of jurors reporting for jury service were excludable as having such substantial doubts about the death penalty that it would “substantially impair” their ability to perform their role as jurors. Indeed, large numbers went further: roughly a quarter said they would be reluctant to find a person guilty of capital murder knowing the death penalty was a possibility. A final question asked whether the fact that executions have not been conducted in California for a decade impacts whether jurors would be favorable towards the death penalty. We found that, across all types of attitudes towards the death penalty, that fact made jurors less inclined to sentence a person to death. Rare punishments may seem more arbitrary, even to those who find them morally acceptable. We conclude by describing how this research can be useful for scholars, litigators, and judges concerned with selection of jurors in death penalty cases, and we discuss why, as social and legal practices change, more study of public attitudes towards punishment is needed

The Death Penalty and the Constitution

[excerpt] The death penalty is back in the news. Last week, President Donald Trump argued that capital punishment should be available to punish drug dealers who have contributed to the opioid crisis. Earlier this month, the New Hampshire Senate voted to prospectively repeal the state\u27s death penalty. These developments provide occasion to review the constitutional issues raised when the federal government or a state seeks to put a convict to death

Racial Disparity and the Death Penalty

McAdams examines the rhetoric and data supporting the mass market version of the racial disparity thesis. The system is racist in that it punishes those who kill whites more severely than those who kill blacks

Public opinion on the death penalty in Ghana

This publication reports findings from the first empirical study on public opinion on the death penalty in Ghana. The research was inspired by the work of the Constitutional Review Commission, which recommended in its final report to Government the abolition of the death penalty. The Commission advanced four main arguments for its recommendation: the current de facto abolition position does not adequately punish death penalty convicts; the lack of justification for the state arrogating to itself the right to take life; current international trends towards abolition; and belief in utilitarian principles which emphasise reformation as the fundamental aim of the justice system. As can be seen, none of these reasons makes reference to public sentiments about the death penalty. The Commission’s work involved a ‘public’ consultation, but opinion leaders and key stakeholders such as professional bodies and local advocacy groups dominated the process. For various reasons – for example, the structure of the process, lack of awareness of the consultative meetings, and the structure of people’s routine activities – a large section of Ghanaians was unable to participate in the Commission’s work. Yet, a wider public engagement would seem important given the peculiar history of the death penalty in Ghana and concerns about backlash effects in the form of vigilante violence. Moreover, Articles 3(3) and 13(1), which concern the death penalty, are entrenched provisions in the Ghanaian constitution. Therefore, notwithstanding Government’s acceptance of the Commission’s recommendations, a referendum is required to decide whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. Research evidence on the nature of public opinion on the death penalty will contribute to debate preceding the referendum. The research began following a presentation by the authors at the invitation of the European Union Delegation in Ghana and the French Embassy on the 11th World viii Day Against the Death Penalty in 2013. The research was funded by the Smuts Memorial Fund and the Cambridge-Africa Alborada Research Fund, University of Cambridge. The Centre of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Ghana) carried out the study based on a face-to-face survey of 2460 people randomly selected from four communities in Accra. The selected communities reflect the varying socio-economic and ethnic compositions of the capital city and country. The fieldwork was conducted in April and May 2014, and covered a broad range of issues in relation to the death penalty. The results showed that views about the death penalty do not appear to be polarized. The majority of Ghanaian respondents (48.3%) expressed strong opposition to the death penalty. Only 8.6% indicated strong endorsement of this form of punishment. Almost 6 out of every 10 respondents supported abolition of the death penalty in cases of murder. Among those opposed to abolition, 7 in 10 would support a discretionary death penalty in place of the current mandatory death penalty. The most preferred replacement for the death penalty was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Approximately, 71% of people interviewed chose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as the alternative to the death penalty. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Commission. Popular commentary on the death penalty suggests that Ghanaians support retention of the death penalty for reasons of deterrence. The evidence from this study revealed a tripod of reasons: deterrence; retribution; and justice for victims’ families. Among proponents of abolition, sanctity of life and the possibility of executing innocent people were the two prominent reasons. The data show very little evidence of potential backlash in the form of support for vigilante violence or lynching; 26% said they would take the law into their own hands if the death penalty was abolished. The ix findings from a detailed analysis showed that traditional religious beliefs about supernatural punishments were a powerful force shaping attitudes to the death penalty. People who believed in these punishments were more likely to endorse the death penalty and to resist abolition for murder. This is novel finding in the academic literature on the death penalty. However, more research is required to establish more fully the mechanisms that link these beliefs to anti-abolition attitudes. There is evidence of hotspots of death penalty views from this study. Residents of high-class neighbourhoods were likely to oppose the death penalty and to support its abolition for murder. Support for the death penalty was concentrated in low-class migrant areas. An interesting finding emerged that low-class indigenous areas were more opposed to the death penalty than middle-class areas. Finally, a key issue in death penalty research concerns the role of scientific evidence, especially evidence on deterrence effects and wrongful conviction. The findings show that evidence has both transformative and reinforcement effects. While scientific evidence does not lead to a complete rejection of the death penalty, the findings showed that some anti-abolitionists are open to a reasoned debate, and will reconsider their views in the face of scientific evidence. Taken together, the findings from this public opinion survey show a weak public support for the death penalty in Ghana. On the issue of abolishing the death penalty and possible backlash effect, the evidence suggests this is unlikely to be the case. Importantly, the survey reveals the complexity of public opinion on the death penalty and the need for evidence-based approach to understanding the roots of public concerns in order to prevent any possible backlash effects that might lead to pressure to reinstate the death penalty