By Sheri Lynn Johnson

With respect to African Americans, the history of racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty is well-known, and the persistence of racial disparities in the modern era of capital punishment is well-documented. In contrast, the influence of Latino ethnicity on the imposition of the death penalty has been studied very little. A review of the limited literature reveals evidence of discrimination against Latinos. Archival studies generally find ethnicity-of-victim discrimination, and some of those studies find ethnicity-of-defendant discrimination disadvantaging Latino defendants; these findings parallel the findings of the much more robust literature investigating bias against African American defendants and victims. The controlled experimental studies generally show both ethnicity-of-defendant and ethnicity-of-victim discrimination disadvantaging Latinos. Related literature investigating stereotypes, animosity, and discrimination in other criminal justice decisions further suggests the likelihood of ethnicity discrimination in the imposition of capital punishment, as well as the need for further research.

Annual Review of Law and Social Science Vol. 16:421-431 2020.

By Carol S. Steiker, and Jordan M. Steiker

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?

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 3 (2020), pp. 299–315

By Jeffrey Fagan, Garth Davies & Raymond Paternoster

Decades of research on the administration of the death penalty have recognized the persistent arbitrariness in its implementation and the racial inequality in the selection of defendants and cases for capital punishment. This Article provides new insights into the combined effects of these two constitutional challenges. We show how these features of post-Furman capital punishment operate at each stage of adjudication, from charging death-eligible cases to plea negotiations to the selection of eligible cases for execution and ultimately to the execution itself, and how their effects combine to sustain the constitutional violations first identified 50 years ago in Furman. Analyzing a dataset of 2,328 first degree murder convictions in Georgia from 1995–2004 that produced 1,317 death eligible cases, we show that two features of these cases combine to produce a small group of persons facing execution: victim race and gender, and a set of case-specific features that are often correlated with race. We also show that these features explain which cases progress from the initial stages of charging to a death sentence, and which are removed from death eligibility at each stage through plea negotiations. Consistent with decades of death penalty research, we also show the special focus of prosecution on cases where Black defendants murder white victims. The evidence in the Georgia records suggests a regime marred less by overbreadth in its statute than capriciousness and randomness in the decision to seek death and to seek it in a racially disparate manner. These two dimensions of capital case adjudication combine to sustain the twin failures that produce the fatal lottery that is the death penalty

Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 4324073; Cornell Law Review, Vol. 107, No. 1565, 2022

By John Clegg, Sebastian Spitz, Adaner Usmani, and Annalena Wolcke

The literature on the prevalence and causes of punishment has been dominated by research into the United States. Yet most of the world's prisoners live elsewhere, and the United States is no longer the country with the world's highest incarceration rate. This article considers what we know about the prevalence and causes of incarceration around the world. We focus on three features of incarceration: its level, inequality, and severity. Existing comparative research offers many insights, but we identify methodological and theoretical shortcomings. Quantitative scholars are still content to draw causal inferences from correlations, partly because (like qualitative scholars) they are often limited to studying the present and the developed world. More data will allow better inferences. We close by defending the goal of building precise and generalizable theories of punishment.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 211 - 231

By Wren Collective

 As we documented in part 1 of Death by Design, in every case that resulted in a death sentence, trial lawyers failed to uncover compelling evidence that could have convinced a district attorney to drop a death sentence or a jury to give life in prison rather than death. Attorneys failed to investigate and did not present evidence of their client’s mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities. They missed galling examples of physical and sexual abuse of their clients because they did not talk to family or witnesses. They did not prepare important experts to testify until the day that they were supposed to take the stand. The first report largely dealt with the failings of the lawyers in capital cases. This report examines why that poor representation has thrived, and the ways that the judges overseeing those cases have enabled it to continue that way. First, judges seemingly ignore the excessive caseloads that many attorneys have, even though they are in charge of appointing lawyers to cases. Second, there is an inherent conflict of interest when judges are in control of both the appointments and the purse strings of a case because it means the attorney’s livelihood is dependent on pleasing the judge. If judges value quick resolution of cases over dedicated representation, a lawyer may feel, consciously or not, pressure to hurry the case along and ask for too little time and money, at the expense of the client. We have heard numerous examples of this occurring, especially when it comes to hiring experts and mitigation specialists, who are tasked with investigating a client’s life history for the punishment phase of trial. Third, the judges in Harris County have never established meaningful training requirements for lawyers, or any requirements at all for the mitigation specialists. Therefore, many people perform their work without the training they need in mental health, trauma, or even interviewing skills. In the end, we recommend a total overhaul to the system of capital representation for poor defendants, with either the public defender absorbing those cases or the judges establishing a new, freestanding capital public defender that is independent from judicial oversight. Such systems exist across the country and have been enormously effective in providing constitutionally compliant representation to individuals facing the ultimate punishment. Harris County should follow suit.    

Austin, TX?: Wren Collective, 2023. 18p.

By Wren Collective

 When he was just 4 years old, Christopher Jackson was sexually abused by a teen boy he lived with—abuse that continued until he turned 9. His grandmother, who took him in afterward, regularly beat him until he passed out. Jeffery Prevost was sexually assaulted when he was a child. His mother physically abused him, at one point firing a gun at him. Mabry Landor, who suffers from bipolar disorder, was sexually and physically abused by his brothers. Roosevelt Smith and Joseph Jean had an IQ of 69; they are both intellectually disabled, and thus, ineligible for the death penalty. Each of these men went to trial in Harris County facing the death penalty. In every case, defense counsel failed to present this evidence, and juries sentenced all these men to death. Sixty years ago, in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that would ultimately ensure every person facing the possibility of having their liberty stripped away would get an attorney if they could not afford one.1 Nowhere is that right more important than in a capital murder case, where the potential sentence is death and where almost every person in this country who is charged with a capital crime is poor. That right, however, has been elusive in death penalty cases in Harris County, Texas, the death penalty capital of the nation and the world.2 Over the last few decades, news outlets have run periodic stories about death penalty lawyers in Harris County with too-high caseloads who have missed critical filing deadlines or who did minimal work on their client’s case. On the 60th anniversary of Gideon, the Wren Collective investigated whether these stories were isolated examples of flawed representation or whether the representation reflected problems that exist throughout the system of capital defense. We interviewed judges, trial and postconviction attorneys, and mitigation specialists.3 We reviewed caseloads, jail visits, and billing records. We read postconviction pleadings from the majority of Harris County capital cases that ended with death sentences in the last two decades. We focused primarily on those cases where individuals are still on death row, but also looked at a few whose sentences have been overturned. In total, we examined 28 cases.4 Our findings are documented in this report. They are difficult to read.5 The system is utterly broken.   

Austin, TX?: Wren Collective, 2023. 40p.

By Douglas Hay, Peter Linebaugh, John G. Rule, E. P. Thompson and Cal Winslow

From one point of view eighteenth-century England, with its settled aristocracy and gentry, its polite arts and culture, its urbane politics of interest and influence, appears as a stable, self-assured civilization. Historians have often described it as such. From another point of view it appears very differently. Year after year new capital offenses were enacted. In the heart of London great crowds asembled at hte regular publichang- ing days, and there were riots beneath the gallows at Tyburn for the possession of the bodies of the condemned. Highwaymen beset the roads of London. Large parties of armed smugglers invested parts of the coast. The estate papers of the great some- times reveal that they were more concerned about wholesale poaching on their lands than they were about rentals or crops.

This book explores these contrasts: a settled ruling class which could only rule through forms of judicial terror; a popu- lace deferential by day but deeply insubordinate by night; a class justice which defended property through the fair form of law. Instead of general description, the authors offer a number of detailed studies. An important introductory chapter discloses the way in which the law replaced religion at the center of the ideology of England's rulers, and analyzes the astonishing adaptability of the legal system to the same pressures of ni- fluence, interest, and property which dominated political life.

NY. Pantheon. 1975. 357p. CONTAINS MARK-UP

By William Haller

From the Preface. My intention in these pages is to offer an account of the usually referred to as The Book of Martyrs, in what I conceive to be the context of its own time. The account is based primanly on a study of that book in the successive versions and editions published by the author in his lifetime and of the relevant contemporary literature ofProtestant edification and propaganda. Foxe published two preliminary versions of his book on the Continent in 1554 and 1559, the first English version in 1563. A much revised and greatly enlarged version in 1570, and two editions in 1576 and 138g with some further revisions and additions but no significant changes. In the century after his death five more editions, based on the text of 1583, appeared in 1596, 1610, 1631-2, 1641 and 1684. The same text, slightly bowdlerized and at certain points somewhat awkwardly conflated with the text of 1563, was again reproduced in an edition in eight volumes issued by S.R. Cattley in 1837, later revised by Josiah Pratt,and reissued with pagination unchangedi 1843-9, 1870 and 1877. Quotations from the book in the following pages correspond to the text as it appearsin the Cattley-Pratt edition, corrected as may be necessary according to theoriginal. Spelling and punctuation have been regulated according to present usage. Of the numerous other editions or versions of Foxe's book published subsequentlyto 1684. I have examined a considerable number but not all, and have found none to be complete and many to be grossly corrupt. Most of the stories ofthe Marian martyrs appeared for the first time in print in the pages of Foxe's book, but some were published separately on the Continent during Mary’s reign…”

London. Bayler and Son. 1963. 275p.

By Lane Nelson and Burk Foster

From the cover: Death Watch Is a topical, up-to-date collection of death penalty journalism and personal essays. Drawing on the experiences and perspectives of Lane Nelson, a former death row inmate and current staff writer for "The Angolite," Louisiana's award winning prison news magazine, and Burk Foster, a University of Louisiana-Lafayette criminal justice professor and jail and prison expert witness, Death Watch looks at the death penalty as a legal process, a social reality, and a fundamental issue of public policy. The topics covered in this volume include: ♦  how capital cases are different in the legal process ♦  how death penalty offenders are selected ♦  the selective application of the death penalty to women and juveniles ♦  problems in providing competent counsel to death penalty defendants ♦  medical issues related to organ donation and physician participation in executions ♦  the execution of blacks for rape in the South ♦  how the death penalty was imposed and carried out in the past ♦  reflections on death row life by inmates under death sentence ♦  the last words of men and women before execution ♦  the dilemma of defending the innocent on death row ♦  feature articles on two Louisiana inmates, Antonio James and John A. Brown, Jr., executed in 1996 and 1997. ♦  the ethics of the death penalty today.

Upper Saddle River New Jersey. Prentice Hall. 2001. 307p.

By Ernest van den Haag and John P. Conrad.

From the cover: Never before has there been such a vigorous point- by-point debate in a book on so explosive a topic as the death penalty. Here Ernest van den Haag—a re­nowned conservative—and John P. Conrad—a re­spected liberal—debate with wisdom, sharpness, and vigor yet, in Arthur Goldberg's words, “with scholar­ship, civility, and passion” all questions pertaining to capital punishment. The debaters are well known for their meticulous scholarship and for their distinct compelling styles. Ernest van den Haag is the author of such works as The Jewish Mystique and Punishing Criminals. John P. Conrad's books include Justice and Consequences and In Fear of Each Other. Their debate will provoke the reader with hard-hitting and original arguments for and against the death penalty. Aside from the timeliness of the topic, this book will be appreciated for the sheer excitement of witnessing the ingenious interplay between two brilliant minds.

NY. Plenum. 1983. 302p.

Edited by Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Rebecca Adams, Carol A. Heimer, Kim Lane Scheppele, and Tom W. Smith
D. Garth Taylor.

From the cover: In the past thirty-five years, Americans have become more fearful of crime and more punitive toward criminals—at least in the sense of being more favorable toward capital punishment and other harsh penal­ties. But at the same time they have become more tolerant regarding a whole series of social and civil liberties issues generally associated with a more humane attitude toward criminals. This new book analyzes survey data collected over the years, especi­ally from the Gallup polls and the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Surveys, in order to explore various aspects of these contradictory developments. The authors consider the hypothesis that rising crime rates cause increased fear of crime and that this in turn causes people to become more punitive. They find that exposure to high crime rates does cause in­creased fear but that fearful people are only slightly more punitive than other people. Furthermore, white people who live in high crime areas are no more punitive than peo­ple living in safer areas, and black people (who tend to live in high crime areas) are less punitive than people living in safer areas. To determine why the liberalization of public opinion on issues of race and civil liberties has not led to more tolerant atti­tudes on questions of crime and punish­ment, the authors examine in detail the relationship between general liberalism in regard to racial or civil liberties and more humane attitudes toward criminals. They also consider why increased fear of crime has not led to increased support for gun registration. This study breaks new ground by using recent innovations in the techniques of sur­vey analysis to study trends in public opin­ion and to analyze the causes of those trends. It thus represents a contribution to the lit­erature on subjective social indicators as well as a model for further explorations of the reasons for change in public opinion over time.

San Francisco, Josses-Bass Inc. Publishers. 1980. 168p.

By Jan Gorecki

From the Preface: Capital punishment is today among the most controversial prob­lems in America. On the one hand, the heat of the controversy exceeds the weight of the problem; as is pointed out in this book, it is not the presence or absence of capital punishment but other legal reforms that are essential for effective functioning of the criminal justice system in this country. On the other hand, how­ever, whether we send criminals to the gallows presents a moral dilemma of utmost importance. Owing to the heat of the controversy, recommendations abound both for and against retaining the death penalty. This book does not explicitly support either of these stands; the pur­pose here is to understand rather than to recommend. More specifically, the purpose is to analyze and explain what has oc­curred to the death penalty in the United States and to anticipate cautiously what may occur in the future. This does not, how­ever, mean that the book is void of practical implications. If a reader accepts the analysis and explanation to be offered, he may, and probably will, be aided in accepting a stand on what the legal system should do—abolish the death penalty or retain it.

The book starts with a brief analysis of the law of capital pun­ishment. It is a vacillating and confused law, recently shifting from near-abolition to retention. Its development is influenced by a clash of two conflicting forces—the general tendency of social evolution toward milder criminal sanctions and the in­creasingly punitive attitudes in America today. These two forces are scrutinized and accounted for in the second and third parts of the book. The scrutiny not only explains the development of the law but also throws some light on the future of the death penalty in America.

NY. Columbia University Press. 1983. 163p.

By Rachel E. Bennett.

Capital punishment has a long and storied global history. Within the annals of this penal narrative, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have offered a sustained attraction to historians of Western Europe. However, studies of the Scottish capital punishment experience have remained limited by comparison. This book seeks to redress this scholarly lacuna. Based upon an extensive gathering and analysis of previously untapped resources, it takes the reader on a journey from the courtrooms of Scotland to the theatre of the gallows. It introduces them to several of the malefactors who faced the hangman’s noose and explores the traditional hallmarks of the spectacle of the scaffold. The study demonstrates that the period between 1740 and 1834 was one of discussion, debate and fundamental change in the use of the death sentence and how it was staged in practice. In addition, it contextualises the use of capital punishment against the backdrop of key events in Scottish history in this period including Anglo-Scottish relations in the wake of the 1707 Act of Union, the aftermath of the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion and the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation witnessed by the country. In doing so, the current study goes beyond redressing a scholarly gap and instead demonstrates that an exploration of Scotland’s unique capital punishment history enhances the current feld in some areas but provides a crucial caveat to the broader narrative in others. Finally, this study writes the post-mortem punishment of the criminal corpse into Scotland’s capital punishment history. In demonstrating that the journey of several capitally convicted offenders, predominantly murderers, did not end upon the scaffolds of Scotland, it takes the reader from the theatre of the gallows to the dissection tables of Scotland’s main universities and to the foot of the gibbets from which criminal bodies were displayed. In doing so it identifes an intermediate stage in the long-term disappearance of public bodily punishment.

Basingstoke, UK: Springer Nature, 2018. 243p.

By David T. Johnson.

“By arguing that he opposes capital punishment but not in this case, Murakami is articulating a sensibility—the death penalty is “unavoidable” (yamu o enai)—that is ubiquitous in Japan’s culture of capital punishment.”

Palgrave (2019) 139p.