INDEX

Almost everyone agrees that indigent defense in America is underfunded, but workable solutions have been hard to come by. For the most part, courts have been unwilling to inject themselves into legislative budget decisions. And, when courts have become involved and issued favorable decisions, the benefits have been only temporary because once the pressure of litigation disappears so does a legislature’s desire to appropriate more funding. This Article proposes that if an indigent defense system is under-funded, the state supreme court should impose a default rule raising the standard of proof to “beyond all doubt” to convict indigent defendants. The legislature would then have the opportunity to opt out of this higher standard of proof by providing enough funding to bring defense lawyers’ caseloads within well-recognized standards or by providing funding parity with prosecutors’ offices. Such an approach will create an incentive for legislatures to adequately fund indigent defense without miring courts in detailed supervision of legislative budget decisions. At the same time, because courts can check once per year to determine whether there is funding parity with prosecutors’ offices or compliance with caseload guidelines, there will be constant pressure on legislatures to maintain adequate funding in order to avoid the higher standard of proof.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This article argues that because prosecutors have discretion to seek the death penalty in too many cases, they lack the incentive to police themselvesand choose carefully. Put simply, because there are few legal constraints — and virtually no political constraints — on the sheer number of cases in which prosecutors can pursue the death penalty, the Government is not under sufficient pressure to limit its use of capital punishment to only the most heinous cases. As a result, two things happen. First, the death penalty is sought and meted out in some cases, which though terrible, are no worse than the thousands of other murder cases in which prosecutors pursue only life imprisonment. Second, because prosecutors file too many capital cases, the criminal justice system lacks the resources to focus sufficient attention on each one.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Arbitrariness, Most Serious Crimes,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Many human rights organizations and intergovernmental organizations, such as the European Union, see the death penalty as one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time and have taken an active role in persuading countries to halt executions. The debate over capital punishment in the United States—be it in the courts, in state legislatures, or on nationally televised talk shows—is always fraught with emotion. The themes have changed little over the last two or three hundred years. Does it deter crime? If not, is it necessary to satisfy society’s desire for retribution against those who commit unspeakably violent crimes? Is it worth the cost? Are murderers capable of redemption? Should states take the lives of their own citizens? Are current methods of execution humane? Is there too great a risk of executing the innocent?

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Deterrence ,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

To a great extent, those who believe that our criminal justice system rarely convicts the factually innocent and those who believe such miscarriages are rife have generally talked past each other for want of any empirically-justified factual innocence wrongful conviction rate. This article remedies at least a part of this problem by establishing the first such empirically justified wrongful conviction rate ever for a significant universe of real world serious crimes: capital rape-murders in the 1980’s. Using DNA exonerations for capital rape-murders from 1982 through 1989 as a numerator, and a 406-member sample of the 2235 capital sentences imposed during this period, this article shows that 21.45%, or around 479 of those, were cases of capital rape murder. Data supplied by the Innocence Project of Cardozo Law School and newly developed for this article show that only 67% of those cases would be expected to yield usable DNA for analysis. Combining these figures and dividing the numerator by the resulting denominator, a minimum factually wrongful conviction rate for capital rape-murder in the 1980’s emerges: 3.3%. The article goes on to consider the likely ceiling accompanying this 3.3% floor, arriving at a slightly softer number for the maximum factual error rate of around 5%. The article then goes on to analyze the implications of a factual error rate of 3.3%-5% for both those who currently claim errors are extremely rare, and those who claim they are extremely common. Extension of the 3.3%-5% to other capital and non-capital categories of crime is discussed, and standards of moral duty to support system reform in the light of such error rates is considered at length.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Innocence,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The question of how societies should respond to their most serious crimes if not with the death penalty is ‘perhaps the oldest of all the issues raised by the two-century struggle in western civilization to end the death penalty’ ( Bedau, 1990: 481 ). In this article we draw attention to the rapid and extraordinary increase in the use of ‘life imprisonment without parole’ in the United States. We aim to critically assess the main arguments put forward by supporters of whole life imprisonment as a punishment provided by law to replace the death penalty and argue against life-long detention as the ultimate sanction.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Sentencing Alternatives,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This article examines the potential impact of the new lay assessor system, or saiban-in seido, on capital punishment in Japan, and considers whether it may reduce death sentences to the point of effectively abolishing them at trial stage in the District Court. The article posits that the introduction of the lay assessor system may create the momentum for Japan to align its criminal justice system with that of other developed countries—that is, abolition of the death penalty as an available criminal sanction.

• Document type Article
• Countries list Japan
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

There are two puzzles that confront observers of American capital punishment at the start of the 21st century. One concerns the legal and administrative arrangements through which it is enacted, which strike many commentators as irrational, or at least poorly adapted to the traditional ends of criminal justice. The other concerns the persistence of capital punishment in the USA in a period when comparable nations have decisively abandoned its use. In this essay, I will address both of these two questions, beginning with the first and offering conclusions that bear upon the second.The historical struggles around issues of capital punishment, structured as they have been by the American polity with its distinctive mix of federalism, sectionalism, and democratic populism, form the necessary basis for understanding the American present and for comparing America’s current practices with those of other western nations. Any explanation of American capital punishment ought to begin by focusing attention on these structures and these struggles.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

There is a lack of research on attitudes toward capital punishment in China, and there is even less research on cross-national comparisons of capital punishment views. Using data recently collected from college students in the United States and China, this study finds that U.S. and Chinese students have differences in their views on the death penalty and its functions of deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. This study also reveals that the respondents’ perspectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, and incapacitation all affect their attitudes toward the death penalty in the United States, whereas only the first three views affect attitudes toward capital punishment in China. Furthermore, retribution is the strongest predictor in the United States, whereas deterrence is the strongest predictor in China.

• Document type Article
• Countries list China
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Public opinion, Public debate,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This Article analyzes the factors that influence the decisions of South Carolina prosecutors to seek the death penalty. Professor Unah and Mr. Songer employ statistical methods to examine the legal and nonlegal factors that shape this decision-making process. Controlling for political factors, this Article finds that the race of the victim, gender, and rural crime locations are significant considerations in the decision to seek the death penalty. Further, Professor Unah and Mr. Songer argue that these nonlegal factors undermine the legal guidelines that are intended to channel and steer the decision-making process. This Article highlights the arbitrary nature of the decisions that result from these considerations, and it concludes by challenging the legitimacy of a process influenced by these factors.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This Article examines one case in which students and lawyers from Golden Gate University’s Innocence Project won the exoneration of Peter J. Rose, a man who served nearly ten years of a twenty-seven year State Prison sentence for the rape and kidnap of a child before DNA proved his innocence. The analysis of this case focuses on how the conduct of two police detectives, the prosecutor and the defense attorney contributed to this miscarriage of justice.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Innocence,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127