American Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective

It is often said that American capital punishment fulfills no purposes, serves no functions, and possesses no coherent rationale. In Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition (2010), David Garland argues that American capital punishment is functional, meaningful, and effective, especially in the cultural realm of death penalty discourse. He also demonstrates that America's radically local version of democracy helps explain why the death penalty has persisted in the United States long after it disappeared in other Western democracies and that many of the peculiar forms through which American capital punishment is now administered have been designed to deny association with the lynchings that have occurred in American history. Garland arrives at these conclusions by comparing capital punishment in contemporary America with death penalty systems from the American past and from other Western nations. This essay argues that comparison with Asia further illuminates what is peculiar—and ordinary—in American capital punishment.     

Reflections of an octogenarian on criminal law and criminology

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that capital punishment is not unconstitutional per se, in part because the high degree of public support for the death penalty indicates that the American public does not consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Court, the public's desire for retribution is an appropriate basis for determining that the death penalty is an acceptable criminal sanction. This paper examines the degree of public support for the death penalty and the basis for that support. It also explores the differences between retribution as just deserts and retribution as revenge, and concludes by asking whether a public desire for revenge is an appropriate, enlightened basis for our capital punishment policy.     

Social science in supreme court death penalty cases: Citation practices and their implications

This study examines the use of evidence based on social science research in Supreme Court capital punishment cases decided between 1963 and 1985. These years mark the beginning of the Court's modern decisions regarding the death penalty and extend to the approximate midpoint in this body of jurisprudence. The frequency and the major correlates of social science research citations in the Supreme Court's death penalty cases are described, and these findings are contrasted with the justices' use of social science evidence in other types of criminal cases. The justices have used social science materials relatively often in capital punishment cases, although it does not necessarily follow that social science findings have been important to the decision of these cases. The results of this research are discussed, along with other issues relevant to the judicial use of research evidence based on social science.     

Death Qualification in Black and White: Racialized Decision Making and Death‐Qualified Juries

Death qualification has been shown to have a number of biasing effects that appear to undermine a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury. Attitudes toward the death penalty have shifted modestly but consistently over the last several decades in ways that may have changed the overall impact of death qualification. Specifically, the very large gap between black and white Americans' current support for capital punishment raises the question of whether death qualification procedures disproportionately exclude African Americans from capital jury participation. In order to examine this possibility, we conducted two countywide death penalty attitude surveys in the California county that has the highest percentage of African American residents in the state. Results show that death qualification continues to have a number of serious biasing effects—including disproportionately excluding death penalty opponents—which result in the significant underrepresentation of African Americans. This creates a death‐qualified jury pool with the potential to be significantly more likely to ignore and even misuse mitigating factors and to rely more heavily on aggravating factors in their death penalty decision making. The implications of these findings for the fair administration of capital punishment are discussed.     

The triumph of vengeance over retribution: the United States Supreme Court and the death penalty

In this article the author uses a review of Welsh S. White'sThe Death Penalty in the Nineties as a framework for analyzing recent trends in the United States Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence. Since 1976 the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment at least in part on the notion that the death penalty serves the useful social purpose of retribution. This article, however, contends that it is imperative to distinguish between retribution and vengeance as rationales for criminal punishment. Modern retributive theory calls for punishments to be guided by considerations of proportionality, fairness, and equality. Vengeance-based punishments, on the other hand, are aimed at satisfying the victim's and society's desire for retaliation and are not limited by the retributive principle that punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The article analyzes recent Supreme Court decisions that are not examined inThe Death Penalty in the Nineties-decisions that allow the introduction of victim-impact evidence into capital sentencing proceedings and permit the death penalty to be imposed on 16-year-old offenders, mentally retarded defendants, and those who neither kill nor intend to kill. These decisions, it is argued, demonstrate that the contemporary Court has bestowed judicial approval on vengeance as an acceptable justification for capital punishment.     

Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment

Numerous studies have examined the influence of victim race on capital punishment, with a smaller number focused on victim gender. But death penalty scholars have largely ignored victim social status. Drawing on Black's (1976) multidimensional theoretical concept, the current research examines the impact of victim social status on the district attorney's decision to seek the death penalty and the jury's decision to impose a death sentence. The data include the population of cases indicted for capital murder in Harris County (Houston), Texas, from 1992 to 1999 (n=504). The findings suggest that victim social status has a robust influence on the ultimate state sanction: Death was more likely to be sought and imposed on behalf of high‐status victims who were integrated, sophisticated, conventional, and respectable. The research also has implications beyond capital punishment. Because victim social status has rarely been investigated in the broader sentencing literature, Black's concept provides a theoretical tool that could be used to address such an important omission.     

Death as a Penalty and the Fantasy of Instant Death

In this essay I take up the question of how death can be a penalty, given that each of us will eventually die. I argue that capital punishment in the United States rests on contradictory demands for painless death delivered humanely through pharmaceuticals and yet denies the accused the possibility of natural death. The death penalty must be at once humane and punishing. Analyzing what we mean by ‘botched’ executions, along with the language of the Supreme Court in upholding lethal injection as a humane application of the death penalty, I argue that the fantasy of instant death is at the heart of the tension between death as painless and death as penalty. In the end, I turn to Derrida’s Death Penalty Seminar Volume One, particularly his discussion of Kant’s defence of the capital punishment, and the pivotal role of time in his discussion. Finally, I suggest that the fantasies of instantaneous death and our technological mastery of it result in the fantasy of the ‘good’ punishing death.     

The Tennessee Slave Code

Abstract

Numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty, particularly in the South. In this article, the authors posit that the legal antecedents of modern discrimination in capital cases are found in the codified rules that governed slavery. Using the capital punishment provisions of the 1858 Slave Code of Tennessee, the biases inherent in the laws of the Old South are documented. The discriminatory practices that blacks faced both as victims and offenders under the slave codes are linked through historical analysis and conflict theory to the current discriminatory practices documented by modern death penalty research.     

当代美国的死刑制度

美国最高法院在1972年曾经宣布暂停死刑执行,但是在1976年又恢复了死刑的执行,目前美国是唯一仍然保留并适用死刑的所谓西方文明国家。美国联邦系统和38个州的刑法都规定了死刑,可以适用死刑的罪行还比较多,但是罪名相对比较集中;死刑诉讼程序严格且复杂;相对于美国庞大的犯罪数字,尤其是暴力犯罪而言,其死刑判决和实际执行死刑数量仍属较低;美国死刑执行方式呈现为以注射方式为主多种执行方法并存的特点。美国死刑程序复杂但是死刑错判率仍然较高。     

Slavery's Enduring Legacy

Abstract

Using data on post-Greggexecutions and death sentences, we explore the previously observed, but not well understood, relationship between slavery and the death penalty. We classify modern states into categories focused on their jurisdictional law and practice of slavery circa 1860. Our analyses reveal that the relationship between slavery and modern executions is stronger even than previously recognized, with 90.6% of post-Greggexecutions occurring in states that supported the practice of slavery, whether or not they were in the Confederacy or inside the traditional boundaries of the South. We conclude that capital punishment is one of the enduring legacies of American slavery.     

The death penalty for juveniles: Bridging the gap between an evolving standard of decency and legislative policy

In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the practice of executing juveniles who were age 16 or 17 at the time of their crime(s) did not violate the “evolving standards of decency” (ESD) of American society. This ESD determination was based on legislative authorization of this punishment. Although this interpretation of what constitutes an ESD has been controlling in death penalty cases since Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the high court's original conception of an ESD stressed the importance of other factors in its determination (e.g., historical review and empirical knowledge about executions). Because the ESD is a Court-created measure, legislatures are under no constitutional obligation to acknowledge the scope of concerns embodied in the historical genesis of this concept. Nevertheless, in this paper we oppose a juvenile death penalty and argue that legislatures should consider the importance of historical and research utilization components of the ESD concept when debating the validity of a policy regarding the death penalty for juveniles.     

VICARIOUS HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION AND SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A TEST OF BLACK'S THEORY OF LAW*

This article examines the relationship between experiencing the homicide of a family member, friend, or acquaintance and the likelihood of support for capital punishment. Homicide victims'family and friends are often portrayed as strong advocates of the death penalty. Yet, the effect of vicarious homicide victimization on support for capital punishment has never been systematically examined, and in fact, Donald Black's theory of law suggests an inverse relationship between the two variables. Using data from the 1988 General Social Survey, this research tests hypotheses derived from Black's theory regarding the relationship among social intimacy, cultural status, and the use of law in response to conflict. Multivariate logistic regression models suggest that the experience of personally knowing a homicide victim significantly affects one's likelihood of support for the death penalty, but the effect of vicarious victimization varies for black and white respondents. The empirical patterns indicate that in addition to race, religious orientation and gender also play important roles in determining the relationship between vicarious homicide victimization and support for the death penalty.     

An empirical examination of commutations and executions in post-Furman capital cases

A review of the literature on capital punishment reveals evidence that the death penalty was imposed capriciously in the past. Previous research on executive clemency in capital cases revealed similar forces in operation. In the voluminous literature surrounding capital punishment, however, relatively little contemporary empirical work focuses directly on the characteristics of the final clemency decision to commute or execute, especially post-Furman. In this paper I explore some of these elements and find that several extralegal factors, possibly including political motivation, still may play a role in this highly discretionary decision-making process.     

Framing Capital Punishment in Japan: Avoidance,Ambivalence, and Atonement

This article examines how two of Japan’s largest newspapers frame death penalty issues. Through a content analysis of 7,153 Asahi and Nikkei articles in the 66-month period from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012, 11 death penalty frames are identified: inevitability, atonement by dying, atonement by living, victims’ rights and emotions, human rights, miscarriage of justice, calls for discussion, life without parole, deterrence, public support, and retribution. In addition to frames, we examined who the main voices are in each article on capital punishment. We found that avoidance and ambivalence are the two main approaches taken by Asahi and Nikkei to cover death penalty issues, and the most surprising finding is the high salience of atonement as a frame for thinking about capital punishment. In Japan, atonement is used to justify (atone by dying) and oppose (atone by living) the death penalty. Although atonement by living in prison and atonement by dying at the gallows imply radically different outcomes, the flexibility of the atonement frame may suggest new possibilities for Japan’s anti-death penalty movement.     

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

Putting kids to death: Specifying public support for juvenile capital punishment

Using a statewide sample of 539 Tennessee residents, we explored the extent to which the public supports the death penalty for juveniles. The analysis revealed that a majority of respondents favored juvenile capital punishment, often for young offenders. The respondents, however, were less supportive of juvenile than of adult execution. Most important, as an alternative to juvenile capital punishment, nearly two-thirds of the sample favored life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP); four-fifths favored a life sentence with work and restitution requirements (LWOP+W/R). Notably, even among those who endorsed capital punishment for juveniles, a clear majority supported LWOP+W/R. Taken together, these findings reveal that although the public is willing to execute juveniles who commit first-degree murder, they prefer alternative sentencing options that avoid putting youths to death.     

Capital punishment in Poland: The debate continues

Throughout its modern history, Poland has not escaped controversies surrounding the use of the death penalty. Tracing the historical development of laws dealing with the issue demonstrates an evolution influenced by various legal, political, social, philosophical, and international factors, leading up to the current absence of the penalty from the Polish legal system. The debate in society revolves around some stereotypical views held by different social groups. One of the biggest challenges is how to reconcile those views with empirical evidence, especially on issues like the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The authors describe the death penalty debate in Poland from these perspectives and take a retentionist position with regard to some selected crimes. As long as there are individuals willing to take other people's lives in a premeditated and deliberate manner demonstrating callous contempt for another person's existence, death remains the only punishment satisfying a sense of social justice and upholding the value of human life.     

Karl Marx and the Death Penalty

This study is a Marxist analysis of capital punishment or the death penalty. The only detailed treatment of the subject by Marx appeared in an article published in the New York Daily Tribune, February 18, 1853, and that treatment was only a sketch. Thus, the following study is an attempt to suggest what a reading of Marx may contribute to an understanding of capital punishment. I conclude that abolition of the death penalty does not need a Marxist justification, but a Marxist justification adds to the many arguments for that course of action.     

The states and capital punishment: Executions from 1977–1984

The execution of Gary Gilmore in 1977 ended a ten-year de facto moratorium on executions in the states. Between 1977 and 1984 only 32 individuals were executed in 11 states, yet there were more than 1,000 inmates on death rows in 33 of the 38 states which provide for capital punishment. Because of the background characteristics of these 32 people and the crimes of which they were convicted, their executions have not served to renew anti-death penalty sentiment. Although the debate over the efficacy of its use continues, these executions have not validated any of the major arguments made by either pro or anti-death penalty forces.