research on death penalty

Deterrence and the Death Penalty (2012)

Chapter: front matter.

DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty Daniel S. Nagin and John V. Pepper, Editors Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL              OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS     500 Fifth Street, NW     Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Grant Number 2010-IJ-CX-0018 from the National Institute of Justice, Grant Number TRF09-01115 from the Tides Foundation, and the Proteus Action League (grant not numbered). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-25416-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-25416-7

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2012). Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty, Daniel S. Nagin and John V. Pepper, Eds. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

COMMITTEE ON DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY

DANIEL S. NAGIN ( Chair ), H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University

KERWIN K. CHARLES, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago

PHILIP J. COOK, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University

STEVEN N. DURLAUF, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin–Madison

AMELIA M. HAVILAND, H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University

GERARD E. LYNCH, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern University

JAMES Q. WILSON, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, and Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy, Boston College

JANE L. ROSS, Study Director

JOHN V. PEPPER, Consultant

KEIKO ONO, Senior Program Associate

CAROL HAYES, Christine Mirzayan Fellow

BARBARA BOYD, Administrative Associate

COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE 2012

JEREMY TRAVIS ( Chair ), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc., Chicago, IL

JOHN J. DONOHUE , III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University

MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Department of Public Policy, University of California, Los Angeles

GARY LAFREE, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland

JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis

GLENN C. LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University

TERRIE E. MOFFITT, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University

DANIEL S. NAGIN, H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University

RUTH D. PETERSON, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University

ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University

DANIEL B. PRIETO, Public Sector Strategy & Innovation, IBM Global Business Services, Washington, DC

ROBERT J. SAMPSON, Department of Sociology, Harvard University

DAVID WEISBURD, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University

CATHY SPATZ WIDOM, Psychology Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

PAUL K. WORMELI, Integrated Justice Information Systems, Ashburn, VA

JANE L. ROSS, Director

IN MEMORIAM James Q. Wilson 1931-2012

“I’ve tried to follow the facts wherever they land.”

This report is dedicated to James Q. Wilson for his long service to the National Research Council, his influential career of scholarship and public service, and his unblinking commitment to the principle that science requires us to interpret the evidence as it is, not as we want it to be.

M ore than three decades ago, in Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, the National Research Council (NRC) (1978, p. 9) concluded that “available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.” That report was issued 2 years after the Supreme Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia ended a 4-year moratorium on execution in the United States. In the 35 years since the publication of that report, especially in recent years, a considerable number of post- Gregg studies have attempted to estimate the effect of the legal status or the actual implementation of the death penalty on homicide rates. Those studies have reached widely varying conclusions.

Against this background, the NRC formed the Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty to address whether the available evidence provides a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions about the magnitude of the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates. At a workshop on April 28-29, 2011, workshop papers commissioned by the committee (which will be published in a special issue of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology ) were presented and discussed by their authors: Robert J. Apel, University at Albany, State University of New York; Aaron Chalfin, University of California, Berkeley; Chao Fu, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Justin McCrary, University of California, Berkeley; Salvador Navarro, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada; John V. Pepper, University of Virginia; and Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley. The workshop also included comments on the presentations by Jeffrey Grogger, University of Chicago; Guido Imbens, Harvard University; Kenneth C. Land, Duke

University; Christopher Sims, Princeton University; and Justin Wolfers, University of Pennsylvania.

The committee appreciates the contributions of these presenters and those who commented on them to the development of its report. In addition, John V. Pepper provided invaluable assistance to the committee throughout its deliberations. The work of staff members from the Committee on Law and Justice of the NRC facilitated the committee’s work in many ways. Thanks are due to Jane L. Ross, study director; Keiko Ono, senior program associate; Carol Hayes, Christine Mirzayan fellow; and Barbara Boyd, administrative coordinator.

Many individuals at the NRC assisted the committee. We thank Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, who shepherded the report through the NRC review process, Eugenia Grohman, who edited the draft report, and Yvonne Wise, for processing the report through final production.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Donohue, III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University; Andrew Gelman, Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University; Kenneth C. Land, Department of Sociology, Duke University; Candice Odgers, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine; Ricardo Reis, Department of Economics, Columbia University; Greg Ridgeway, RAND Safety and Justice Program, RAND Center on Quality Policing, RAND Corporation; Robert J. Sampson, Department of Sociology, Harvard University; Dick Thornburgh, Counsel, K&L Gates, LLP, and former Attorney General of the United States; Petra E. Todd, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania; and Michael Tonry, School of Law, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Gary LaFree, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland, and John T. Monahan, University of Virginia Law School. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully con-

sidered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

This report is dedicated to James Q. Wilson. Jim was a valued member of this and many other NRC committees on which he served over his long and influential career. Jim’s contributions to scholarship and public service will stand as enduring testimony to the power of his intellect. He was a quiet but forceful proponent for balanced and clear-minded assessment of the evidence. I first met Jim in my role as a staff member of the 1978 NRC committee that resulted in report Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effect of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates . I was deeply impressed by the clarity of his thought and gift for communication. He served as a role model for me ever since. I was thus especially honored that he agreed to serve on this committee, which was greatly aided by his constructive participation throughout our deliberations.

Daniel S. Nagin, Chair Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty

Shortcomings in Existing Research

Specification of the Sanction Regime for Homicide

Potential Murderers’ Perceptions of and Responses to Capital Punishment

Strong and Unverifiable Assumptions

Next Steps for Research

1  INTRODUCTION

The Current Debate

Committee Charge and Scope of Work

2  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE POST- GREGG ERA

Executions and Death Sentences Over Time

Use of the Death Penalty

3  DETERMINING THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: KEY ISSUES

Concepts of Deterrence

Sanction Regimes

Data Issues

Variations in Murder Rates

Reciprocal Effects Between Homicide Rates and Sanction Regimes

4  PANEL STUDIES

Panel Studies Reviewed

Methods Used: Overview

The Studies, Their Characteristics, and the Effects Found

Specifying the Expected Cost of Committing a Capital Homicide: f(Z it )

Model Assumptions

Benefits of Random Assignment

Fixed Effect Regression Model

Instrumental Variables

Homogeneity

5   TIME-SERIES STUDIES

Basic Conceptual Issues

Execution Event Studies

Studies of Deviations from Fitted Trends

Vector Autoregressions

Evidence Under Existing Criminal Sanction Regimes

Granger Causality and Causality as Treatment Response

Choice of Variables in VAR Studies

Inferences Under Alternative Sanction Regimes

Event Studies

Time-Series Regressions

Cross-Polity Comparisons

Conclusions

6  CHALLENGES TO IDENTIFYING DETERRENT EFFECTS

Data on Sanction Regimes

Perceptions of Sanction Risks

Measurement of Perceptions

Inference on Perceptions from Homicide Rates Following Executions

Identifying Effects: Feedbacks and Unobserved Confounders

Feedback Effects

Omitted Variables

The Equilibrium Effect

Addressing Model Uncertainty with Weaker Assumptions

Model Averaging

Partial Identification

Appendix: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff

Many studies during the past few decades have sought to determine whether the death penalty has any deterrent effect on homicide rates. Researchers have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions. Some studies have concluded that the threat of capital punishment deters murders, saving large numbers of lives; other studies have concluded that executions actually increase homicides; still others, that executions have no effect on murder rates. Commentary among researchers, advocates, and policymakers on the scientific validity of the findings has sometimes been acrimonious.

Against this backdrop, the National Research Council report Deterrence and the Death Penalty assesses whether the available evidence provides a scientific basis for answering questions of if and how the death penalty affects homicide rates. This new report from the Committee on Law and Justice concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates. The key question is whether capital punishment is less or more effective as a deterrent than alternative punishments, such as a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Yet none of the research that has been done accounted for the possible effect of noncapital punishments on homicide rates. The report recommends new avenues of research that may provide broader insight into any deterrent effects from both capital and noncapital punishments.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Criminology

Volume 3, 2020, review article, the rise, fall, and afterlife of the death penalty in the united states.

• Carol S. Steiker 1 , and Jordan M. Steiker 2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA; email: [email protected] 2 University of Texas School of Law, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78705, USA; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 3:299-315 (Volume publication date January 2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024721
• Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

This review addresses four key issues in the modern (post-1976) era of capital punishment in the United States. First, why has the United States retained the death penalty when all its peer countries (all other developed Western democracies) have abolished it? Second, how should we understand the role of race in shaping the distinctive path of capital punishment in the United States, given our country's history of race-based slavery and slavery's intractable legacy of discrimination? Third, what is the significance of the sudden and profound withering of the practice of capital punishment in the past two decades? And, finally, what would abolition of the death penalty in the United States (should it ever occur) mean for the larger criminal justice system?

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Acker JR , Bohm RM , Lanier CS 2014 . America's Experiment with Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the Ultimate Penal Sanction Durham, NC: Carolina Acad, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Alexander M. 2010 . The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness New York: New Press [Google Scholar]
• Atkins v. Virginia Atkins v. Virginia 2002 .)
• Banner S. 2002 . The Death Penalty: An American History Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Barkow RE. 2019 . Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press [Google Scholar]
• Baumgartner FR , Davidson M , Johnson KR , Krishnamurthy A , Wilson CP 2018 . Deadly Justice: A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Baumgartner FR , De Boef SL , Boydstun AE 2008 . The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Baze v. Rees Baze v. Rees 2008 .)
• Bessler JD. 2017 . The Death Penalty as Torture: From the Dark Ages to Abolition Durham, NC: Carolina Acad [Google Scholar]
• Breyer SG , Bessler JD. 2016 . Against the Death Penalty Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
• Buck v. Davis Buck v. Davis 2017 .)
• Bucklew v. Precythe Bucklew v. Precythe 2019 .)
• Callins v. Collins Callins v. Collins 1994 .)
• Caplan L. 2016 . The growing gap between the U.S. and the international anti-death-penalty consensus. The New Yorker Dec. 31. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-growing-gap-between-the-u-s-and-the-international-anti-death-penalty-consensus [Google Scholar]
• Christie N. 2014 . Death as punishment. Capital Punishment: A Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System L Scherdin 61– 75 Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publ [Google Scholar]
• Death Penal. Inf. Cent 2019 . Facts about the death penalty Rep., Death Penal. Inf. Cent Washington, DC: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Furman v. Georgia Furman v. Georgia 1972 .)
• Galliher JF , Ray G , Cook B 1992 . Abolition and reinstatement of capital punishment during the progressive era and early 20th century. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 83 : 538– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Gallup 2019 . Death penalty. Gallup https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx [Google Scholar]
• Garland D. 2010 . Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press [Google Scholar]
• Garland D. 2018 . The concept of American exceptionalism and the case of capital punishment. American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment KR Reitz 103– 20 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Garrett BL. 2017 . End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gibson J , Lain CB. 2015 . Death penalty drugs and the international moral market. Georget. Law J. 103 : 1215– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Girling E. 2005 . European identity and the mission against the death penalty in the United States. The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment A Sarat, C Boulanger 112– 28 Stanford, CA: Stanf. Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Glossip v. Gross Glossip v. Gross 2015 .)
• Gohara MS. 2013 . Grace notes: a case for making mitigation the heart of noncapital sentencing. Am. J. Crim. Law 41 : 41– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Gottschalk M. 2006 . The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia 1976 .)
• Hammel A. 2010 . Ending the Death Penalty: The European Experience in Global Perspective London: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
• Hood R , Hoyle C. 2015 . The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 5th ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Johnson SL. 2009 . Coker v. Georgia : of rape, race, and burying the past. Death Penalty Stories JH Blume, JM Steiker 171– 201 New York: Thompson Reuters [Google Scholar]
• Kirchmeier JL. 2015 . Imprisoned by the Past: Warren McCleskey and the American Death Penalty New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Kovarsky L. 2016 . Muscle memory and the local concentration of capital punishment. Duke Law J 66 : 259– 330 [Google Scholar]
• Lacey N. 2008 . The Prisoners’ Dilemma: Political Economy and Punishment in Contemporary Democracies New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lynch M. 2006 . Stereotypes, prejudice, and life-and-death decision making: lessons from laypersons in an experimental setting. From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America CJ Ogletree Jr., A Sarat 182– 207 New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
• Mandery EJ. 2014 . A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America New York: WW Norton [Google Scholar]
• Mauer M , Nellis A. 2018 . The Meaning of Life: The Case for Abolishing Life Sentences New York: New Press [Google Scholar]
• Maxwell v. Bishop 398 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1968 .)
• McCleskey v. Kemp McCleskey v. Kemp 1987 .)
• McMillen NR. 1990 . Black Mississippians in the Age of Jim Crow Urbana, IL: Univ. Illinois Press [Google Scholar]
• Meltsner M. 2011 . Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books [Google Scholar]
• Monahan EC , Clark JJ 2017 . Tell the Client's Story: Mitigation in Criminal and Death Penalty Cases Chicago: ABA Publ [Google Scholar]
• Novak A. 2019 . After abolition: the empirical, jurisprudential and strategic legacy of transnational death penalty litigation. Comparative Capital Punishment Law CS Steiker, JM Steiker 370– 86 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ [Google Scholar]
• Ogletree CJ Jr. , Sarat A 2006 . From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
• Oshinsky DM. 2010 . Capital Punishment on Trial : Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America Lawrence, KS: Univ. Kansas Free Press [Google Scholar]
• Perkinson R. 2010 . Texas Tough: The Rise of America's Prison Empire New York: Metrop. Books [Google Scholar]
• Reitz KR. 2018 . Introduction: American exceptionalism in crime and punishment: broadly defined. American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment KR Reitz 1– 49 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Ridgeway J , Casella J. 2014 . What death penalty opponents don't get: There are fates worse than death. The Marshall Project Nov. 30. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/30/what-death-penalty-opponents-don-t-get [Google Scholar]
• Roper v. Simmons Roper v. Simmons 2005 .)
• Sarat A. 2006 . The rhetoric of race in the “new abolitionism.”. From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America , ed. CJ Ogletree Jr., A Sarat, pp. 260– 84 New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
• Scherdin L. 2014 . The death penalty: a hazard to a sustainable development of criminal justice?. Capital Punishment: A Hazard to a Sustainable Criminal Justice System ? L Scherdin 19– 59 Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publ [Google Scholar]
• Simon J. 2007 . Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Steiker CS. 2005 . Capital punishment and American exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights M Ignatieff 57– 89 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Steiker CS , Steiker JM. 2016 . Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press [Google Scholar]
• Steiker CS , Steiker JM. 2012 . Entrenchment and/or destabilization—reflections on (another) two decades of constitutional regulation of capital punishment. Law Inequal 30 : 211– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Steiker CS , Steiker JM. 2010 . No more tinkering: the American Law Institute and the death penalty provisions of the model penal code. Texas Law Rev 89 : 353– 421 [Google Scholar]
• Steiker JM. 2012 . Peculiar times for a peculiar institution. Tulsa Law Rev 48 : 357– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Stuntz WJ. 2011 . The Collapse of American Criminal Justice Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press [Google Scholar]
• Tonry M. 2009 . Explanations of American punishment policies. Punishm. Soc. 11 : 377– 94 [Google Scholar]
• United Nations (UN) 2018 . General assembly endorses landmark global compact on refugees, adopting 53 third committee resolutions, 6 decisions covering range of human rights UN Meet. Cover., Dec. 17. https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/ga12107.doc.htm [Google Scholar]
• Vandiver M. 2006 . Lethal Punishment: Lynchings and Legal Executions in the South New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Vandiver M. 2018 . Capital punishment and lynching. Routledge Handbook on Capital Punishment RM Bohm, G Lee 30– 51 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Whitman JQ. 2003 . Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wilson S , Berman M. 2019 . California Gov. Gavin Newsom to impose moratorium on death penalty. The Washington Post Mar. 12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/california-gov-gavin-newsom-to-impose-moratorium-on-death-penalty/2019/03/12/3a3ad1dc-4520-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html?utm_term=.ac948cfc918c [Google Scholar]
• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Death Penalty

• Children in Adult Prison
• Wrongful Convictions
• Excessive Punishment
• Prison Conditions
• Legacy of Slavery
• Racial Terror Lynching
• Racial Segregation
• Presumption of Guilt
• Community Remembrance Project
• Hunger Relief
• Unjust Fees and Fines
• Health Care
• True Justice Documentary
• A History of Racial Injustice Calendar
• Donation Questions

124 results for "Prison"

The question we need to ask about the death penalty in America is not whether someone deserves to die for a crime. The question is whether we deserve to kill.

EJI won Anthony Ray Hinton’s release after he spent 30 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. (Bernard Troncale)

The death penalty in America is a flawed, expensive policy, defined by bias and error. It targets the most vulnerable people in our society and corrupts the integrity of our criminal justice system. From police officers to family members of murder victims, Americans are recognizing that the death penalty does not make us safer.

EJI provides legal assistance to people on death row, many of whom are innocent or wrongly convicted . We provide representation at trial, on appeal, and in postconviction proceedings to people facing execution. We have documented widespread racial bias in the administration of the death penalty and we challenge racial discrimination in jury selection, sentencing, and throughout the system. We protect vulnerable people facing execution, including people with mental illness who are uniquely at risk, and we produce reports about capital punishment and the ways in which public safety can be undermined by relying on this expensive and flawed punishment.

Innocence and Error

Related Case

Walter McMillian

Mr. McMillian was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death for a crime he didn’t commit.

200 people have been exonerated and released from death row since 1973. 1 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Innocence Database .”

1,595 people have been executed in the U.S. since 1973. 2 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Execution Database .”

For every eight people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated.

The same factors drive wrongful convictions in non-capital cases and death penalty cases, including:

• erroneous eyewitness identifications
• false and coerced confessions
• inadequate legal defense
• false or misleading forensic evidence
• false accusations or perjury by witnesses who are promised lenient treatment or other incentives in exchange for their testimony.

In death penalty cases, perjury/false accusations and official misconduct are the leading causes of wrongful convictions. 3 Robert Dunham, “ The Most Common Causes of Wrongful Death Penalty Convictions: Official Misconduct and Perjury or False Accusation ,” Death Penalty Information Center (May 31, 2017).   A record 111 exonerations in 2018 involved witnesses who lied on the stand or falsely accused the defendant. In 50 of these cases, the defendant was falsely accused of a crime that never happened. 4 The National Registry of Exonerations, “ Exonerations in 2018 ” (Apr. 9, 2019).

Misconduct by police or prosecutors (or both) was involved in 79% of homicide exonerations in 2018. Concealing evidence that casts doubt on the defendant’s guilt is t he most common type of misconduct, which includes police officers threatening witnesses, forensic analysts faking test results, and prosecutors presenting false testimony. 5 The National Registry of Exonerations, “ Exonerations in 2018 ” (Apr. 9, 2019).

Official misconduct is more common in death penalty cases, especially if the defendant is Black. Data shows that 87% of Black exonerees who were sentenced to death were victims of official misconduct, compared to 67% of white death row exonerees. 6 Robert Dunham, “ The Most Common Causes of Wrongful Death Penalty Convictions: Official Misconduct and Perjury or False Accusation ,” Death Penalty Information Center (May 31, 2017).

A person doesn’t have to be innocent to be wrongly sentenced to death. The intense pressure to obtain a death sentence and the political stakes for police, prosecutors, and even judges can cause serious legal errors that contribute to wrongful convictions and death sentences. In Alabama alone, over 160 death sentences have been invalidated by state and federal courts, resulting in conviction of a lesser offense or a lesser sentence on retrial.

Inadequate Counsel

Anthony ray hinton.

Inadequate legal assistance, racial bias, and prosecutorial indifference to innocence make Mr. Hinton’s case a textbook example of injustice.

The failure to provide adequate counsel to capital defendants and people sentenced to death is a defining feature of the American death penalty. Whether a defendant will be sentenced to death typically depends on the quality of his legal team more than any other factor.

Some lawyers provide outstanding representation to capital defendants. But few defendants facing capital charges can afford to hire an attorney, so they are appointed lawyers who are frequently overworked, underpaid, and inexperienced in trying death penalty cases. 

Capital cases are especially complex, time-intensive, and financially draining. Lawyers representing indigent capital defendants often face enormous caseloads, caps on fees, and a critical lack of resources for investigation and expert assistance. Too often they fail to adequately investigate cases, call witnesses, and challenge forensic evidence. 7 Stephen B. Bright, “ Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer “ , 103 Yale Law Journal 1835, 1835, 1843 (1994). Capital defense l awyers have slept through parts of trial, shown up in court intoxicated, or done no work to prepare for sentencing. 8 R. Rosie Gorn, “ Adequate Representation: The Difference Between Life and Death ,” American Criminal Law Review (2018).

Few states provide enough funding for capital defense counsel, and most death penalty states don’t require lawyers to meet the minimum training and experience guidelines set by the American Bar Association . 9 American Bar Association, “ Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases ” (2003).

Inadequate defense lawyers contribute to wrongful convictions and death sentences, and by failing to object at trial, they make it harder to correct errors on appeal. After that first appeal, there’s no right to counsel. That leaves people sentenced to death with little hope for relief in postconviction proceedings, where they have to present new evidence and navigate complicated procedural rules. 10 ACLU, “ Slamming the Courthouse Doors: Denial of Access to Justice and Remedy in America ” (Dec. 2010).

Racial Bias

Related Report

Lynching in America

The death penalty is a direct descendant of racial terror lynching.

The death penalty in America is a “direct descendant of lynching.” Racial terror lynchings gave way to executions in response to criticism that torturing and killing Black people for cheering audiences was undermining America’s image and moral authority on the world stage. 11 Stephen B. Bright, “ Discrimination, Death and Denial: The Tolerance of Racial Discrimination in Infliction of the Death Penalty “ , 35 Santa Clara Law Review 433, 439 (1995).

By 1915, court-ordered executions outpaced lynchings for the first time. Two-thirds of people executed in the 1930s were Black, and the trend continued. African Americans’ share of the South’s population fell to just 22% by 1950, but 75% of people executed in the South were Black. 12 James W. Clarke, “ Without Fear or Shame: Lynching, Capital Punishment and the Subculture of Violence in the American South ,” 28 British Journal of Political Science 269, 287 (Apr. 1998).

In 1972, the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty because it looked too much like “self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.” 13 Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238, 308 (Stewart, J., concurring). “If any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to die,” the Court wrote in Furman v. Georgia , “it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race.”

Southern lawmakers accused the Court of “destroying our system of government” and quickly passed new death penalty laws. “There should be more hangings. Put more nooses on the gallows,” proponents of Georgia’s new law insisted. “It wouldn’t be too bad to hang some on the court house square, and let those who would plunder and destroy see.” 14 David Garland, Peculiar Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition 232, 247-48 (2010). The Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s new death penalty statute in 1976, 15 Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153, 184 (1976). and racial bias in the death penalty persisted.

A decade later, the Court considered statistical evidence presented in  McCleskey v. Kemp showing that Georgia defendants were more than four times as likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white than if the victim was Black. The Court accepted the data was accurate, but it refused to reverse the death sentence because it concluded that racial bias in sentencing is “an inevitable part of our criminal justice system.” 16 McCleskey v. Kemp , 481 U.S. 279, 312 (1987).

African Americans make up 41% of people on death row and 34% of those executed, 17 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Race and the Death Penalty by the Numbers “. but only 13% of the population is Black. 18 U.S. Census Bureau, “ QuickFacts ” (July 1, 2018).

More than 8 in 10 lynchings between 1889 and 1918 and legal executions since 1976 have occurred in the South. 19 EJI, Lynching in America ; Death Penalty Information Center, “ Executions by State and Region Since 1976 .”

75% of executions for murder were in cases with white victims. 20 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Race .”

Race still influences who is sentenced to death and executed in America today. The data in Georgia has actually gotten worse: people convicted of killing white victims are 17 times more likely to be executed than those convicted of killing Black victims. 21 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Study Finds Staggering Race-of-Victim Disparities in Georgia Executions and that the Death-Penalty Appeals Process Makes Them Worse “ (Sept. 18, 2019).

Race and the Jury

Nearly 150 years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection, people of color continue to be excluded from jury service because of their race.

In capital trials, the accused is often the only person of color in the courtroom. Illegal racial discrimination in jury selection is widespread, especially in the South and in capital cases—thousands of Black people called for jury service have been illegally excluded from juries.  

Southern lawmakers today invoke “states’ rights” to defeat anti-discrimination bills just like they did to block federal anti-lynching laws. And regional data demonstrates that the modern death penalty in America mirrors the racial violence of the past. 22 Stephen B. Bright, “ Discrimination, Death and Denial: The Tolerance of Racial Discrimination in Infliction of the Death Penalty ,” 35 Santa Clara Law Review 433, 439 (1995).

Arbitrariness

Madison v. alabama.

EJI won a ruling from the Supreme Court recognizing that people with dementia are protected from execution.

In 1976, the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment so long as it is imposed only on people who “deserve” it. The Court has since barred the death penalty for certain groups of people who are not culpable enough to “deserve” execution.

At least 44 people with intellectual disability were executed before the Supreme Court banned such executions in 2002. 23 Death Penalty Information Center, “ List of Defendants with Intellectual Disability Executed in the United States (1976–2002) .”

366 people who were children at the time of their offense were executed before such executions were banned in 2005. 24 Victor L. Streib, “ The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973-February 28, 2005 ” (Oct. 7, 2005).

Mental health experts estimate at least 20% of people on death row today have a serious mental illness. 25 Mental Health America, “ Position Statement 54: Death Penalty And People With Mental Illnesses ” (June 14, 2016). 

Intellectual Disability

In 2002, the Court in Atkins v. Virginia barred the execution of people with intellectual disability because they “do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct” and because “ their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses [can] j eopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings.” 26 Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

But because the Court “le[ft] to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction,” some states created narrow definitions that permit the execution of people who meet the clinical criteria for intellectual disability. 27 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Continuing Issues: Determining Intellectual Disability After Atkins .”

Three years after Atkins , the Court applied the same reasoning in Roper v. Simmons to bar the execution of children because “ juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders.” 28 Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

“Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment.”

When Roper was decided, 71 people were on death row for juvenile crimes.   Two-thirds were people of color, and more than two-thirds of the victims were white. 29 Victor L. Streib, “ The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973-February 28, 2005 ” (Oct. 7, 2005).

Related Article

Court Acknowledges Wrongful Execution of 14-Year-Old George Stinney

Mental illness.

Executing people with mental illness presents the same concerns about culpability and reliability that led the Court to bar the death penalty for children and people with intellectual disability.  People who have a mental illness or disability that significantly impairs their cognitive or volitional functioning at the time of the offense should be exempted from capital punishment because they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.

People with mental illness are more vulnerable to police pressure, are less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel, and are typically poor witnesses. People who have a mental illness that causes delusions are more likely to insist on representing themselves at trial; they are prone to outbursts in front of their juries and some are so heavily medicated that they appear to have no remorse. 30 American Civil Liberties Union, “ Slamming the Courthouse Doors: Denial of Access to Justice and Remedy in America ” (Dec. 2010).

There’s a greater risk that people with mental illness will be executed without review of their convictions or sentences even though the law forbids executing people who are mentally incompetent. Nearly 10% of the people executed since 1976 have been so-called “volunteers” who gave up their appeals, 31 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Execution Volunteers “ (April 23, 2019). and over 75% of those who waive their appeals suffer from documented mental illness. 32 John H. Blume, “ Killing the Willing: “Volunteers,” Suicide and Competency ,” 103 Michigan Law Review 939, 962 (2005).

Mental health experts estimate at least 20% of people on death row today have a serious mental illness. 33 Mental Health America, “ Position Statement 54: Death Penalty And People With Mental Illnesses ” (June 14, 2016). At least 10% of the people currently sentenced to death nationwide are military veterans, many of whom suffer from documented trauma disorders. 34 Richard C. Dieter, “ Battle Scars: Military Veterans and the Death Penalty ,” Death Penalty Information Center (Nov. 2015).

EJI believes that executing people with mental illness is cruel and misguided. Rather than executing people who are themselves victims of trauma, violent injury, or disease as a symbol of society’s moral outrage about violent crime, we should dedicate our resources to providing mental health care and support that would actually reduce violent crime in our communities.

Public Safety

Related Resource

National Catholic Reporter

Over 250 conservative activists signed a statement calling for an end to capital punishment.

After more than three decades of research examining whether the threat of a death sentence deters people from committing aggravated murders, there is no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters murder or that it protects police. The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded that studies claiming the death penalty has a deterrent effect are fundamentally flawed. 35 National Research Council of the National Academies, Deterrence and the Death Penalty 2 (Daniel S. Nagin & John V. Pepper eds., 2012). Studies have shown that murder rates, including murders of police officers, are consistently higher in states that have the death penalty, while states that abolished the death penalty have the lowest rates of police officers killed in the line of duty. 36 Death Penalty Information Center, Capital Punishment and Police Safety (2017).

Geographical Arbitrariness

The likelihood of a death sentence or execution depends more on the county where the crime happened than the severity of the offense. Only 2% of the counties in the U.S. have been responsible for the majority of cases leading to executions since 1976. And only 2% of the counties are responsible for the majority of today’s death row population and recent death sentences. But all state taxpayers have to bear the substantial financial costs of death penalty cases in the handful of counties that cling to this outdated and ineffective policy. 37 Death Penalty Information Center, “ The 2% Death Penalty: How a Minority of Counties Produce Most Death Cases At Enormous Costs to All “ (Oct. 2013).

The death penalty is far more expensive than a system in which life imprisonment without parole is the maximum sentence. Sophisticated studies at the state level show that the death penalty costs taxpayers more than life without parole. 38 Death Penalty Information Center, State Studies on Monetary Costs (2017). Republicans leading a movement for abolition in some of the most conservative states in the country have condemned the death penalty as an expensive government program that is ineffective in deterring crime. 39 Reid Wilson, “ Red States Move to End Death Penalty ,” The Hill (Feb. 4, 2019).

Distraction

The death penalty draws attention away from effective public safety policies and distorts elections of judges and prosecutors by privileging “tough on crime” rhetoric and candidates. A nationwide survey of police chiefs put the death penalty last among their priorities for reducing violent crime—below increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy. Surveyed law enforcement officials said they did not believe the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, and they rated it as one of most inefficient uses of taxpayer dollars in fighting crime. 40 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis “ (Oct. 2009).

Use of the death penalty and public support for it are declining. New death sentences have remained near record lows since 2015 after peaking at more than 300 per year in the mid-90s. Executions have declined significantly over the past two decades. 41 Death Penalty Information Center, “ The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report “ (July 2019).

Eleven of the 23 states that have abolished the death penalty have done so since 2004 :  New Jersey (2007), New York (2007), New Mexico (2009), Illinois (2011), Connecticut (2012), Maryland (2013), Delaware (2016), Washington (2018), New Hampshire (2019), Colorado (2020), and Virginia (2021). In 2019, California joined Oregon (2011) and Pennsylvania (2015) in imposing a moratorium on executions.

Public support for the death penalty has been waning steadily—a record low 49% of Americans said they supported the death penalty in 2016. 42 Death Penalty Information Center, “ Public Support for the Death Penalty Drops Below 50% for First Time in 45 Years ” (Sept. 30, 2016).  

And the near-universal opposition to capital punishment among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates signifies a major shift from 1992, when Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to oversee an execution in Arkansas. “Smart on crime” policy solutions, including alternatives to the death penalty, are edging out the rhetoric of “tough on crime” even in very conservative states. 43 Gideon Resnick & Sam Stein, “ The 2020 Democratic Field, Minus Joe Biden, Embraces a Death Penalty Moratorium ,” The Daily Beast (March 14, 2019).

Alabama’s Death Penalty

Alabama’s death penalty.

Facts about death sentences, executions, inadequate counsel, and judge override.

EJI has been documenting facts about Alabama’s death penalty for more than 30 years. We have reported on the state’s failure to provide effective lawyers to people facing the death penalty and on its unique and arbitrary practice of judge override. We provide information about death sentences and executions in Alabama—including that the state consistently has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the nation.

Featured Work

EJI has been challenging the death penalty for more than 30 years. We represent people who have been sentenced to death and have won relief for over 130 people. We advocate across the globe and build support for abolition with projects like Just Mercy .

Challenging Alabama's Death Penalty

Alabama is an outlier, with the nation’s highest death sentencing and execution rates.

Defending People with Mental Illness

EJI won an important victory when the Supreme Court recognized that people with dementia, like our client Vernon Madison, are protected from execution.

Documenting Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

EJI’s research shows that people of color continue to be excluded from jury service because of their race, especially in death penalty cases.

Explore more in Criminal Justice Reform

The Death Penalty in the United States

Whereas recent empirical research reviewing all death penalty cases in the United States concluded that two thirds of the death penalty cases from 1973 to 1995 were overturned on appeal with the most common reasons cited as incompetent counsel, inadequate investigative services, or the police and prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. (Liebman, Fagan, & West, 2000); and

Whereas the recent application of DNA technology has resulted in, as of June 2000, 62 post-conviction determinations of actual innocence, with eight of these having been for persons sentenced to death at trial (Scheck, Neufeld, Weyer, 2000; Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000); and

Whereas research on the process of qualifying jurors for service on death penalty cases shows that jurors who survive the qualification process ("death-qualified jurors") are more conviction-prone than jurors who have reservations about the death penalty and are therefore disqualified from service. (Bersoff, 1987; Cowan, Thompson and Ellsworth, 1984; Ellsworth, 1988; Bersoff & Ogden, 1987; Haney, 1984); and

Whereas recent social science research reveals strong inconsistencies in prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty in particular cases, based on factors other than the severity of the crime. The "prosecutor is more likely to ask for a death sentence when the victim is European-American, of high social status, a stranger to the offender, and when counsel is appointed" (Beck & Shumsky, 1997, p. 534); and

Whereas race and ethnicity have been shown to affect the likelihood of being charged with a capital crime by prosecutors (e.g., Beck & Shumsky, 1997; Bowers, 1983; Paternoster, 1991; Paternoster & Kazyaka, 1988; Sorensen & Wallace, 1995) and therefore of being sentenced to die by the jury. Those who kill European-American victims are more likely to receive the death penalty, even after differences such as the heinousness of the crime, prior convictions, and the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator are considered. This is especially true for African-Americans (e.g., Keil & Vito, 1995; Thomson, 1997) and Hispanic-Americans who kill European-Americans (Thomson, 1997); and

Whereas psychological research consistently demonstrates that juries often misunderstand the concept of mitigation and its intended application (e.g., Haney & Lynch, 1994, 1997; Wiener, Pritchard, & Weston, 1995; Wiener, Hurt, Thomas, Sadler, Bauer & Sargent, 1998), so that mitigation factors, e.g., the defendant's previous life circumstances, mental and emotional difficulties and age, have little or no relation to penalty phase verdicts (Beck & Shumsky, 1997; Costanzo & Costanzo, 1994); and

Whereas death penalty prosecutions may involve persons with serious mental illness or mental retardation. Procedural problems, such as assessing competency, take on particular importance in cases where the death penalty is applied to such populations (Skeem, Golding, Berge & Cohn, 1998; Rosenfeld & Wall, 1988; Hoge, Poythress, Bonnie, Monahan, Eisenberg & Feucht-Haviar, 1997; Cooper & Grisso, 1997); and

Whereas death penalty prosecutions may involve persons under 18 (sometimes as young as 14). Procedural problems, such as assessing competency, take on particular importance in cases where the death penalty is applied to juveniles (Grisso & Schwartz, 2000; Lewis et al., 1988); and

Whereas capital punishment appears statistically neither to exert a deterrent effect (e.g., Bailey, 1983; 1990; Bailey & Peterson, 1994; Cheatwood, 1993; Costanzo, 1997; Decker & Kohfeld, 1984; Radelet & Akers, 1996; Stack, 1993) nor save a significant number of lives through the prevention of repeat offenses (Vito, Koester, & Wilson, 1991; Vito, Wilson, & Latessa, 1991); Further, research shows that the murder rate increases just after state-sanctioned executions (Bowers, 1988; Costanzo, 1998; Phillips, 1983; Phillips & Hensley, 1984);

Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association:

Calls upon each jurisdiction in the United States that imposes capital punishment not to carry out the death penalty until the jurisdiction implements policies and procedures that can be shown through psychological and other social science research to ameliorate the deficiencies identified above.

Bailey, W. C. (1990). Murder, capital punishment, and television execution publicity and homicide rates. American Sociological Review, 55, 628-633.

Bailey, W. C. (1983). Disaggregation in deterrence and death penalty research: The case of murder in Chicago. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74(3), 827-859.

Bailey, W. C., & Peterson, R.D. (1994). Murder, capital punishment and deterrence: A review of the evidence and an examination of police killings. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 53-74.

Beck, J. C. & Shumsky, R. (1997). A comparison of retained and appointed counsel in cases of capital murder. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 525-538.

Bersoff, D.N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a case in point. American Psychologist, 42(1), 52-58.

Bersoff, D.N. & Ogden, D.W. (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States Lockhart v. McCree: amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42 (1), 59-68.

Bowers, W. J. (1983). The pervasiveness of arbitrariness and discrimination under post-Furman capital statutes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74(2), 1067-1100.

Bowers, W.J. (1988). The effect of execution is brutalization, not deterrence. In K.C. Haas and J.A. Inciardi (Eds.). Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (49-90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cheatwood, D. (1993). Capital punishment and the deterrence of violent crime in comparable counties. Criminal Justice Review, 18(2), 165-181. Cooper, D. & Grisso, T. (1997). Five-year research update (1991-1995): Evaluations for competence to stand trial. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15(3), 347-364.

Costanzo, M. (1997). Just revenge: Costs and consequences of the death penalty. New York: St. Martins Press.

Costanzo, S., & Costanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision-making under the special issues framework. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 151-170.

Cowan, C.L. & Thompson, W. & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-80.

Decker, S. H. & Kohfeld, C. W. (1984). A deterrence study of the death penalty in Illinois, 1933-1980. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 367-377.

Ellsworth, P.C. (1988). Unpleasant facts: The Supreme Court's response to empirical research on capital punishment. In K.C. Haas and J.A. Inciardi (Eds.). Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (177-211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Grisso, T. & Schwartz, R. G. (Eds.). (2000). Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Haney, C. (Ed.). (1984). Death qualification [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 8 (1&2).

Haney, C. & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments, Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 575-595.

Haney, C. & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions, Law and Human Behavior, 18, 411-436.

Hoge, S. K., Poythress, N., Bonnie, R. J., Monahan, J., Eisenberg, M. & Feucht-Haviar, T. (1997). The MacArthur adjudicative competence study: Diagnosis, psychopathology, and competence-related abilities. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15(3), 329-345.

Keil, T. J. & Vito, G. F. (1995). Race and the death penalty in Kentucky murder trials: 1976-1991. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(1), 17-36.

Lewis, D.O., Pincus, J.H., Bard B., Richardson, E. , Princher, L.S., Feldman, M. & Yeager, C. (1988). Neuropsychiatric, psychoeducational, and family characteristics of 14 juveniles condemned to death in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(5), 584-589.

Liebman, J. S., Fagan, J., & West, V. (2000). A broken system: Error rates in capital cases, 1973-1995. [On-line]. Available: www.TheJusticeProject.org

Paternoster, R. & Kazyaka, A. (1988). Racial considerations in capital punishment: The failure of evenhanded justice. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 113-148). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Paternoster, R. (1991). Prosecutorial discretion and capital sentencing in North and South Carolina. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 39-52). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Phillips, D.P. (1983). The impact of mass media violence in U.S. homicides. American Sociological Review, 48, 560-568.

Phillips, D.P. & Hensley, J.E. (1984). When violence is rewarded or punished: The impact of mass media stories on homicide. Journal of Communication, 34, 101-116.

Radelet, M. L. & Akers, R. L. (1996). Deterrence and the death penalty: The views of the experts. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87, 1-16.

Rosenfeld, B. & Wall, A. (1998). Psychopathology and competence to stand trial. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 25(4), 443-462.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, W. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Harper.

Skeem, J. L., Golding, S. L., Berge, G., & Cohn, N. B. (1998). Logic and reliability of evaluations of competence to stand trial. Law & Human Behavior, 22(5), 519-547.

Sorensen, J.R. & Wallace, D.H. (1995). Capital punishment in Missouri: Examining the issue of racial disparity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13(1), 61-81.

Stack, S. (1993). Execution publicity and homicide in Georgia. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(1), 25-39.

Thomson, E. (1997). Research note: Discrimination and the death penalty in Arizona. Criminal Justice Review, 22(1), 65-76.

Vito, G. F., Koester, P., & Wilson, D. G. (1991). Return of the dead: An update of the status of Furman-commuted death row inmates. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 89-99). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Vito, G. F., Wilson, D. G., & Latessa, E. J. (1991). Comparison of the dead: Attributes and outcomes of Furman-commuted death row inmates in Kentucky and Ohio. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 101-111). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Wells, G., Malpass, R., Lindsay, R., Fisher, R., Turtle, J., & Fulero, S. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-594.

Wiener, R., Hurt, L., Thomas, S., Sadler, M., Bauer, C., & Sarget, T. (1998). The role of declarative and procedural knowledge in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 124-144.

Wiener, R., Pritchard, C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455-467

August 2001

Contact APA

Advertisement

Supported by

Death Penalty Information Center

La pena de muerte en Texas depende de las evaluaciones sobre la ‘peligrosidad futura’

Ramiro Gonzales, que mató a una mujer en 2001, iba a ser ejecutado el miércoles. Pero casi dos décadas después, el psiquiatra que insinuó que era probable que reincidiera ha cambiado de opinión.

By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs

Texas Executes Man After Supreme Court Rejects His Last Challenge

Ramiro Gonzales, who killed a woman in 2001, was executed on Wednesday evening. A psychiatrist who once suggested he was likely to reoffend had changed his opinion in recent years.

States Where the Death Penalty Has Stalled Look to Alabama

A bill in Ohio, which hasn’t executed anyone since 2018, would allow the state to adopt a method first used in Alabama last week.

By Natasha Dailey and Anna Betts

What to Know About the Case of Richard Glossip, Death Row Prisoner

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of execution after Oklahoma’s attorney general urged that Mr. Glossip not be put to death, citing problems with his murder trial.

By Remy Tumin

Death Penalty Researchers Call 2022 ‘Year of the Botched Execution’

Even as the total number of executions remained among the lowest in a generation, several high-profile failures forced states including Alabama and Tennessee to temporarily halt executions.

Virus Hits Federal Death Row, Prompting Calls for Delays in Executions

At least 14 of the roughly 50 men held in the secure facility at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind., have tested positive. Staff members involved in executions have also gotten sick.

By Hailey Fuchs

Number of Executions in U.S. Falls Despite Push by Trump Administration

States carried out fewer executions in 2020 than in any year since 1983, but the federal government carried out more than it had in over a century.

U.S. Executes Inmate Who Murdered Two Youth Ministers

Christopher Andre Vialva, 40, was the seventh federal inmate and the first Black man put to death since federal executions resumed in July.

By Michael Levenson

2 Jurors Voted to Spare Nathaniel Woods’s Life. Alabama Executed Him.

Mr. Woods was condemned by a judge even though a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on his sentence.

By Rick Rojas

6 Figures That Tell the Story of the Death Penalty in America

Executions, new death sentences and public support for the death penalty remain low, the Death Penalty Information Center said.

By Mariel Padilla

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Public support for the death penalty ticks up

Public support for the death penalty, which reached a four-decade low in 2016, has increased somewhat since then. Today, 54% of Americans favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 39% are opposed, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in April and May.

Two years ago, 49% favored the death penalty for people convicted of murder, the lowest level of support for capital punishment in surveys dating back to the early 1970s.

While the share of Americans supporting the death penalty has risen since 2016, it remains much lower than in the 1990s or throughout much of the 2000s. As recently as 2007, about twice as many Americans favored (64%) as opposed (29%) the death penalty for people convicted of murder.

Since the mid-1990s, support for the death penalty has fallen among Democrats and independents but remained strong among Republicans.

About three-quarters of Republicans (77%) currently favor the death penalty, compared with 52% of independents and 35% of Democrats.

Since 1996, support for the death penalty has fallen 27 percentage points among independents (from 79% to 52%) and 36 points among Democrats (71% to 35%). By contrast, the share of Republicans favoring the death penalty declined 10 points during that span (from 87% to 77%).

The trends look somewhat different when considering a more recent time frame. Since 2016, opinions among Republicans and Democrats have changed little, but the share of independents favoring the death penalty has increased 8 percentage points (from 44% to 52%). 

Support for the death penalty has long been divided by gender and race. In the new survey, about six-in-ten men (61%) say they are in favor of the death penalty and 34% are opposed. Women’s views are more divided: 46% favor the death penalty, while 45% oppose it.

A 59% majority of whites favor the death penalty for those convicted of murder, compared with 47% of Hispanics and 36% of blacks.

Young people are somewhat less likely than older adults to favor capital punishment. Those younger than 30 are divided – 47% favor and 46% oppose it – but majorities in older age groups support the death penalty.

There are educational differences in views of the death penalty. Adults who have a postgraduate degree are more likely to oppose the use of the death penalty in cases of murder (56%) than those whose education ended with a college degree (42%) and those who never received a postsecondary degree (36% some college experience; 38% high school degree or less).

White evangelical Protestants continue to back the use of the death penalty by a wide margin (73% favor, 19% oppose). White mainline Protestants also are substantially more likely to support (61%) than oppose (30%) the death penalty. But among Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated, opinion is more divided: 53% of Catholics favor capital punishment, while 42% oppose it. And while 45% of those who are religiously unaffiliated oppose the death penalty, 48% support it.

In 2015, a more detailed study of attitudes toward capital punishment found that 63% of the public thought the death penalty was morally justified, but majorities said there was some risk of an innocent person being put to death (71%) and that the death penalty does not deter serious crime (61%).

Note: The full methodology and topline for the April 25-May 1 survey are available here (PDF).

J. Baxter Oliphant is a senior researcher focusing on politics at Pew Research Center .

Most Popular

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Facts &  Research

Public Opinion

Public opinion polls show that support for the death penalty is currently near historic lows after peaking in 1994 and declining over the last 25  years.

DPIC Report: Smart on Crime

Reconsidering the Death Penalty in Time of Economic Crisis

In a democracy, the substance of the laws is determined by the people. Even the constitution can be changed through the democratic process. Public sentiment can be measured through polling, but it is also reflected in elections and referenda, both on a local and national level.

There is a long history of polls of asking the public whether they favor or oppose the death penalty for the crime of murder. The resultant responses might reflect the public’s philosophical or moral stance on the issue, but they do not measure opinion about the death penalty as it is actually practiced, which requires such information as the availability of alternative sentences, the risks of mistake and bias, and the costs associated with the practice.

The death penalty is sometimes justified because the majority of poll respondents supports it in the abstract. The Supreme Court, in attempting to determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual, asks whether the punishment comports with society’s “evolving standards of decency.” The Court has been reluctant to rely on opinion polls to measure these standards because poll results can vary widely depending on the polling firm and the specific wording of the questions asked. Instead, the Court has looked to the actions of state legislatures and the decisions of juries, prosecutors and governors, as reflecting public will. The myriad of disturbing facts about the death penalty has led to a sharp decline in its use and even to a lowering of support in the abstract poll question. Ultimately, the future of the death penalty will depend on whether it is retaining public support.

What DPIC Offers

DPIC has highlighted the results of many polls on the death penalty over many years, both on a national and state level. Some of these polls go into greater depth than those just asking the abstract question of support or opposition. DPIC has also commissioned its own polls, including surveys of those in law enforcement, and has issued reports on the results.

News & Developments

Sep 16, 2024

NEW RESOURCE : American Bar Association Reports on Capital Punishment and the State of Criminal Justice 2024

The American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section has announced its forth­com­ing annu­al report, The State of Criminal Justice 2024 , exam­in­ing the state of the American crim­i­nal legal…

Sep 05, 2024

Research Roundup: Revisiting David Baldus’s Study to Examine Modern Day Use of the Death Penalty

DPI ’s new series focus­es on aca­d­e­m­ic research and arti­cles in the field of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. This month’s arti­cle is ​ “ Sacred Victims: Fifty Years of Data on Victim Race and Sex as Predictors of Execution ,” in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, co-authored by Professors Scott Phillips (Department of Sociology &  Criminology), Justin Marceau, Sam Kamin, and a J.D. pro­gram alum­na, Nicole King, from the Sturm College of Law at the University of…

Sep 03, 2024

Articles of Interest: The New York Times Editorial Board Argues United States ​ “ Does Not Need the Death Penalty”

In an August 31 , 2024 , edi­to­r­i­al from The New York Times , the newspaper’s edi­to­r­i­al board writes that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is ​ “ immoral, uncon­sti­tu­tion­al and use­less as a deter­rent to crime,” and asserts that President Joseph Biden should fol­low through with his cam­paign pledge to end the fed­er­al death penal­ty. The Times believes ​ “ it would be an appro­pri­ate and humane finale to his pres­i­den­cy for Mr. Biden to ful­fill that pledge and try to elim­i­nate the death penal­ty for federal…

Aug 23, 2024

Student Scholars: Moral Disengagement Theory and Support for Capital Punishment

In this new series, the Death Penalty Information Center will occa­sion­al­ly high­light stu­dent works on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, includ­ing master’s and PhD the­ses, and law review…

Mar 11, 2024

OP-ED : Journalist Recalls Witnessing an Execution and Describes the Importance of Media Witnesses

In May 1990 , Jonathan Eig, then a reporter for The New Orleans Times-Picayune, wit­nessed the elec­tric-chair-exe­cu­tion of Dalton Prejean at Angola State Penitentiary for the 1977 mur­der of a Louisiana state troop­er. Mr. Eig watched Mr. Prejean’s exe­cu­tion through an obser­va­tion win­dow, and report­ed see­ing ​ “ his chest heave, his fists clench and his right wrist twist out­ward. A spark and a puff of smoke shot from the elec­trode attached to his left leg.” In the years fol­low­ing the exe­cu­tion, Mr.