Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
FORUM 1: Abolish death penalty and life without parole
SHOULD THE DEATH PENALTY BE ABOLISHED IN THE U.S.?

FORUM 1: Abolish death penalty and life without parole

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

THE American criminal justice system has been getting some much-needed renovations: People with nonviolent and low-level convictions are not receiving harsh sentences, prison populations are declining in many states, and policymakers are open to new approaches to addressing crime.

At the deep end of the system, we also see reforms: efforts to eliminate the death penalty are gaining ground and public support for it is at its lowest point in 40 years.

For the first time in Gallup’s polling history, a majority (60 percent) of Americans say that life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is a better punishment for murder than the death penalty. Ten of the current Democratic presidential candidates publicly support abolishing the death penalty.

The declining support for the death penalty is indeed a victory for successful abolition campaigns that bring together unlikely allies.

Exonerations based on new evidence, exorbitant costs and the drawn-out appeals process means far fewer people are being sentenced to death than in the past. Executions have become increasingly uncommon. Death row currently comprises 2,500 people, reflecting a steady decline for nearly 20 years. Maintenance of the death penalty has become difficult to justify as concerns about efficacy, deterrence value and morality converge.

But the presence or absence of the death penalty should not be our sole barometer for a proportionate sentencing regime. The sentence of life without parole—touted as “the humane alternative” to death—is highly problematic for many of these same reasons.

The well-documented deficiencies of the death penalty process should raise serious concerns about sentences of life imprisonment that receive substandard critical review. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently expressed her uneasiness with life sentences without parole, writing, “A statute that shields itself from judicial scrutiny of sentences of life without the possibility of parole raises serious constitutional concerns.”

Capital punishment is routinely set apart from all other sentences in terms of the judiciary’s willingness to regulate it, based on the notion that “death is different.” This has led to a separate, heightened system of review of death-eligible cases.

Take, for example, the fact that attorneys in death penalty cases often receive specialized litigation training. And while procedural errors and substandard representation still occur with these protections in place, there is an established protocol for review when such claims are made.

But the heightened standard of review does not take place with life imprisonment, creating an increased likelihood that innocent individuals will be convicted. In the absence of a rigorous review process, one cannot know precisely how widespread the errors in life imprisonment cases are.

Capital defendants sentenced to death also have a right to state-appointed counsel for appellate reviews, but those sentenced to life imprisonment do not. In addition, appeals are time-barred in all but death penalty cases. Even with stringent regulations around the death penalty, errors are rampant.

Just imagine the scale of errors among the 53,000 people serving their life sentence—21 times the number on death row.

The logical inference from the U.S. Supreme Court’s categorical finding that “death is different” is that all other sentences are not different and can thus be held to a different (lower) level of scrutiny.

(The sole instance where this categorical ban has been reconsidered comes from recent rulings disqualifying most juveniles from receiving life without parole on the basis of the categorical ban that “children are different.”)

In public polling on the death penalty, the only alternative punishment offered is life imprisonment with no chance for release. But why must we limit punishment for our most serious crimes to only these two terminal sentences which are, in the end, the same: both result in an individual dying in prison at the hand of the state?

There are many other sentencing options that could be made available. Those that afford regular review and a meaningful opportunity for parole are ideal. Sanctions can accommodate a legitimate desire to punish, but allow for the chance for evaluation at regular intervals.

Though it seems counterintuitive, the science on offending tells us that in most cases, even individuals who commit serious crimes grow beyond their poor judgment and learn to abide by the law.

The United States should follow the lead of other Western democracies in abolishing both the death penalty and life without parole.

Ashley Nellis is senior research analyst at The Sentencing Project. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Ashley Nellis is senior research analyst at The Sentencing Project. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Wednesday’s violent rampage at the U.S. Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump—while members of Congress were there counting the nation’s electoral votes—was not only a disgrace, it was also a serious crime. All those who broke into the building where the nation’s laws are made should be arrested and punished to the full extent of those laws. No exceptions.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News

News Alert