Bio
I started out as a wee child with a love of magazines -- the old fashioned magazines with really good writing, such as Saturday Review or really powe...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Pro-death Penalty Legal Group Abandons Capital Punishment Work

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 2
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

For nearly 50 years, legal theorists, policy makers and law school educators have referred to the American Legal Institute in articulating and clarifying the case for capital punishment. As the New York Times reported yesterday, the ALI has abandoned its work on the issue. The development may accelerate the trend of states and juries backing away from imposing capital punishment, and it may also affect the way lawyers are educated.

Or maybe not. The Times article quotes a blogger for one pro-death penalty group who argues that the real headline is that the group rejected a call for the ALI to come out against capital punishment altogether.

First, some background. As the Times story explains, the ALI's "Model Legal Code" has exerted powerful influence on death penalty law:

"In 1962, as part of the Model Penal Code, the institute created the modern framework for the death penalty, one the Supreme Court largely adopted when it re-instituted capital punishment in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. Several justices cited the standards the institute had developed as a model to be emulated by the states."

The ALI resolution, adopted last October, strikes down the portion of the Model Penal Code that sets conditions for executions because of, "intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.” The resolution is a compromise between members who wanted the ALI to come out against the death penalty outright, and those who said such an about-face would hurt the group's credibility. 

Photo from 2009 ALI Annual meeting

The stance taken by the ALI reflects a critical view of the death penalty that is widely shared, even among some advocates. The Headmistress at The Common Room blog expresses the ambivalence felt by many:

"In reality, I am not sure our trials are fair, our juries are truly a jury of peers, or our lawyers and judges as judicious as they should be, our standards of evidence as sound as they should be, so I am deeply ambivalent about the application of the death penalty and would not be able to vote for it were I serving on a jury."

Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal noted that the ALI resolution seems to be part of a trend:

"Just last month, we blogged the news out of the Death Penalty Information Center that, while executions were up slightly in ‘09, juries appear increasingly less willing to impose them. In the meantime, states continue to abandon the practice (New Mexico being the latest), and hardly a month passes without word of another death-row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence."

Indeed, FindLaw's Kamika Dunlap reports that death penalty opponents see the ALI resolution as a "turning point" in the debate over capital punishment. That's certainly the way Jill Filopovic at Feministe sees it:

"When the one group who tried to make an intellectual argument for the death penalty admits defeat, we are headed in the right direction."

Kent Scheidegger, the pro-death penalty blogger for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation mentioned earlier, argues that the ALI's Model Penal Code had really been mucking up the administration of capital punishment, so this resolution removes an obstacle. Beyond that, he contends that the ALI-commissioned study that buttressed the resolution was conducted by two death-penalty opponents who infected the findings with their bias. The bottom line, Scheidegger says:

"This is a mixed bag. The reasons stated in Part V are neutral overall, noting arguments for and against and recommending that the ALI endorse neither. The last clause gives the opponents a small fraction of what they asked for. It implies the status quo is inadequate (which supporters agree with, for different reasons) and opines that the obstacles are "intractable." Whether they are "tractable" or not remains to be seen, and the ALI's statement doesn't add much to the debate."

 

However, if it's true that the ALI's work has a major influence on legal education and policy, it's hard to see how this resolution can fail to have an impact. What do you think?

Media credit: American Legal Institute

Kim BlogHer Contributing Editor|KimPearson.net|

  • 2
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Willful Woman 5 pts

Thank you, Kim, for another thoughtful and timely piece. You may remember I wrote in when John Muhammed (the so-called D.C. Sniper) was put to death by the state of Virginia. As I detailed then, I am morally opposed to the death penalty. But, as you recount here, even those who don't stand against the death penalty on ethical grounds have increasing discomfort with it for practical reasons. The unavoidable prejudices and flaws in our legal system, the lack of adequate defenses (due to lack of funds combined with our overburdened public defenders), increased discoveries of innocent death row inmates via new DNA evidence (when it can be funded)....all these things add up to a disturbing lack of finality which most people find necessary to execute another human being.

I'm not a professor or a researcher and I don't know what the numbers are about people of color being executed versus white people. I've always heard it was higher. I'm not familiar with the studies the previous person was referring to. I do know that there is a much higher percentage of people of color in prison compared with white people. And that that is not right. I don't know if that extends to death row.

Always a... Willful Woman @ ( http://twitter.com/ ) www.besidethestonewall.com ( http://www.besidethestonewall.com ) Visitors always welcome! Bring your stories to share!

dudleysharp 5 pts

Has the ALI become non academic or is this the new academia?

The ALI chose two anti death penalty activist law professors to prepare the ALI's final review of the death penalty before their final vote against the death penalty.

ALI could not have been duped idiots here.

Even a non academic could rip some significant holes in their report.

ALI, be a bit more subtle next time and pick anti death penalty folks that some ignorant few might think are neutral. At least give some appearance of objectivity, as opposed to a blatant disregard for it.

They even misinterpreted McCleskey v Kemp, for goodness sakes. No surprise. Well, a bit of a surprise.

Jordon Steiker, one of the authors of the ALI report, was in the audience at a death penalty debate at U of Texas Law School, wherein he asked me a question, along the lines of,

"Dudley, are you telling me I have been improperly teaching McCleskey". My reply was along the lines of "Yes, I suspect most, if not all law professors do." Then, I explained why. I guess he forgot.

As in:

From ALI's death penalty review, page 29 PDF, http://www.ali.org/doc/Capital%20Punishment_web.pd..., as roughly, in McCleskey,

" . . . the study concluded that defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks . . ."

Complete, utter nonsense.

The study results were by an odds multiplier of 4.3, not 4.3 times. What's the difference? An odds multiplier of 4.3 MAY FIND a differential of only 2-4%, whereas 4.3 times is a differential of 330%.

Huge variables. Some explanation:

1) "The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics"
http://8.12.42.31/1998/jul/12/opinion/op-2965

2) See "The Odds of Execution" within "How numbers are tricking you"
http://reocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/barnett.htm

NOTE: In the first review, by Paulos, I did an analysis of the Philadelphia study by Baldus. The oft wrongly interpreted 4 times differential, was an odds multiplier of 4. My analysis found that if only 2% more whites were sentenced to death and 2% fewer blacks, there would be zero statistical difference in sentencing, as opposed to the wrongly interpreted 300% differential represented by 4 times.

Baldus could have fully explained this in the Philadelphia study, just as he could have, way back in McCleskey.