Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


mmw-death-penalty-041212

(The Gallery Collection/Corbis)

The Death Penalty on Life Support

• April 12, 2012 • 3:54 PM

(The Gallery Collection/Corbis)

Forty years ago, Americans’ moral qualms almost ended the death penalty. Now we’re abandoning it again — but not because we object to executions.

(Editor’s Note: The Connecticut Legislature voted today to abolish the death penalty for all future cases, becoming the fifth state in the last four years to do so. The following is a piece written by Vince Beiser for the upcoming debut issue of Pacific Standard. It explores the reasons why the death penalty is falling out of favor.)

You may have noticed something about the debate over the death penalty in the presidential race: there’s hardly been one. That speaks volumes about how this persistent institution is quietly fading away in the U.S. — for the second time in history.

Most Americans support capital punishment, in principle. That majority, however, has shrunk from 80 percent in 1994 to 61 percent today. And when faced with actually using the ultimate sanction, the country is increasingly squeamish.

The number of death sentences imposed by judges and juries has plummeted to record lows. Last year’s total was 78, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center — down from a high of 315 in 1996, and the smallest annual total in decades. Only 43 inmates were executed last year, half the number of a decade ago. Meanwhile, Illinois became the fourth state in as many years to abolish executions, joining New Mexico, New Jersey, and New York.

But Americans aren’t abandoning the death penalty because of an upsurge in concern over taking killers’ lives. Thanks largely to DNA testing and other technological advances, an estimated 140 condemned men and women have been exonerated in recent years. Proof that the system can fail so badly has made juries, judges, prosecutors, and the public wary of
exacting the ultimate punishment.

Forty years ago, when the U.S. briefly abolished capital punishment, it was for very different reasons. Consider Robert Page Anderson. A small-time lowlife with a lengthy rap sheet, Anderson walked into a San Diego pawnshop one morning in 1965, picked out a rifle from the gun display, loaded it, and shot the store’s two clerks. One died instantly. When police cars pulled up in front of the store, Anderson grabbed a few more guns, barricaded the doors, and started blasting. What ensued was the biggest firefight ever on the streets of San Diego. In its course, a journalist dropped dead of a heart attack, Anderson wounded a cop, and then was shot by another.

A black man who shot a white cop and killed a storekeeper would, at most times in American history, have found himself on a fast trip to death row. But Anderson had the good fortune to have committed his crime when Americans were turning against the death penalty to an unprecedented extent.

In the late 1960s, with the injustices highlighted by the civil rights movement prominent in the public consciousness, polls found that more Americans opposed capital punishment than supported it. The NAACP and other groups were challenging the constitutionality of executions. Several states had banned the practice, and prominent politicians denounced it. Even the U.S. Attorney General called for its abolition. In a 1968 ruling, a Supreme Court justice dismissed death penalty advocates as a “dwindling minority.” That year, for the first time in the nation’s history, not a single prisoner was executed.

In 1972, Anderson’s case came before the California Supreme Court. There was no question about his guilt; what was in question was the morality of capital punishment itself. The court declared that, loathsome as his crime was, Anderson would not be executed, because execution was a “cruel and unusual” punishment that “degrades and dehumanizes all who participate in its processes.” By then almost every industrialized nation had scrapped the death penalty. “It is now, literally, an unusual punishment among civilized nations,” noted the state’s justices. More than 100 California inmates had their death sentences commuted to prison terms, including Anderson — who was subsequently paroled in 1976 after 11 years behind bars.

A few months later the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment. As part of that ruling, Justice Thurgood Marshall declared that if they were properly informed, “the great mass of citizens would conclude … that the death penalty is immoral and therefore unconstitutional.”

Only a few years later, however, the nation began an about-face. The U.S. didn’t just bring back the death penalty — it embraced it. In 1976, the Supreme Court declared that states could reinstitute capital punishment, as long as they updated their laws to eliminate the more egregious injustices. Dozens of states did just that.

Why the reversal? By the mid-1970s, much of middle America had grown deeply anxious about how society seemed to be unraveling. Drug use and crime were rising. Minorities, women, and homosexuals were demanding power and respect. In this milieu, politicians increasingly learned that crime could pay — for them. From federal candidates to county sheriffs, would-be officeholders began vying to out-tough each other on law-and-order issues.

Capital punishment became a litmus test of a candidate’s law-and-order bona fides. Michael Dukakis was slammed for opposing it in the 1988 presidential elections, and was trounced by George H.W. Bush, who advocated executing drug dealers. Then-Governor Bill Clinton took notice; in 1992, he made a point of leaving the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to personally sign an inmate’s death warrant. Shortly afterward, Newt Gingrich declared that the keys to building a conservative majority in the U.S. were “low taxes and the death penalty.”

By the 1990s, a record majority of Americans favored capital punishment. Courts were handing down hundreds of death sentences every year, and dozens of new crimes were being made capital offenses. By the start of the new millennium, the number of annual executions shot up to nearly 100.

Those years turned out to be the high-water mark of the resurgence. One exoneration after another began exposing how fallible the system is. “Although the dissatisfaction with capital punishment has many roots, the common and principal concern heard throughout the country is the risk that innocent people may be caught up with the guilty,” declared a 2007 Death Penalty Information Center study based on a poll of 1,000 adults. Even among death penalty supporters, nearly two-thirds are worried about that risk, a 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found.

For capital punishment abolitionists, this is grounds for optimism. They hope the public’s growing concerns will lead to a complete ban, something 16 states have already enacted.

But the pendulum could just as easily swing the other way again. As DNA testing becomes more widespread, the number of wrongful convictions is likely to drop. That might bolster capital punishment’s advocates, who could claim the process has been perfected.

Unlike 40 years ago, Americans don’t object to executing criminals; they object to executing innocent people. Unless that changes, the death penalty seems certain to remain on the books — even if it is an increasing rarity in courtrooms.

Vince Beiser
Vince Beiser is an award-winning journalist based in Los Angeles, California. Follow him on Twitter @vincelb.

More From Vince Beiser

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

December 20 • 10:28 AM

Flare-Ups

Are my emotions making me ill?


December 19 • 4:00 PM

How a Drug Policy Reform Organization Thinks of the Children

This valuable, newly updated resource for parents is based in the real world.


December 19 • 2:00 PM

Where Did the Ouija Board Come From?

It wasn’t just a toy.


December 19 • 12:00 PM

Social Scientists Can Do More to Eradicate Racial Oppression

Using our knowledge of social systems, all social scientists—black or white, race scholar or not—have an opportunity to challenge white privilege.


December 19 • 10:17 AM

How Scientists Contribute to Bad Science Reporting

By not taking university press officers and research press releases seriously, scientists are often complicit in the media falsehoods they so often deride.


December 19 • 10:00 AM

Pentecostalism in West Africa: A Boon or Barrier to Disease?

How has Ghana stayed Ebola-free despite being at high risk for infection? A look at their American-style Pentecostalism, a religion that threatens to do more harm than good.


December 19 • 8:00 AM

Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.


December 19 • 6:12 AM

All That ‘Call of Duty’ With Your Friends Has Not Made You a More Violent Person

But all that solo Call of Duty has.


December 19 • 4:00 AM

Food for Thought: WIC Works

New research finds participation in the federal WIC program, which subsidizes healthy foods for young children, is linked with stronger cognitive development and higher test scores.


December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.


December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.


December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.


December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.


December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.


December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.


December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.


December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.


December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. Substance.com asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.


December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.


December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.


December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.


December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?


December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.


December 17 • 6:00 AM

White Kids Will Be Kids

Even the “good” kids—bound for college, upwardly mobile—sometimes break the law. The difference? They don’t have much to fear. A professor of race and social movements reflects on her teenage years and faces some uncomfortable realities.



Follow us


Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.