skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 203935   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Getting to Death: Fairness and Efficiency in the Processing and Conclusion of Death Penalty Cases After Furman, Final Technical Report
  Document URL: PDF 
  Dataset URL: DATASET 1
Author(s): Jeffrey Fagan ; James S. Liebman ; Valerie West ; Andrew Gelman ; Alexander Kiss ; Garth Davies
Corporate Author: Columbia University
School of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 06/2002
Page Count: 122
  Annotation: This document discusses why the death penalty system makes so many mistakes, and how these mistakes might be prevented.
Abstract: The hypothesis was that the more a jurisdiction used the death penalty relative to homicide rates, sentences would be found legally invalid and overturned. Error rates were computed within States from 1973, when capital punishment was reinstated in the United States following the Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S.238(1972)), through 1995. Every death sentence imposed during the study period under a valid post-Furman capital statute was reviewed across three stages of appeal: direct appeal in State court, State post-conviction review in the State’s highest court, and Federal habeas corpus appeals. For each State and sentence year, reversal rates were computed at each stage, and a composite error rate across the three stages within years and again over time within States. Multivariate statistical methods were employed to identify factors that predict where and when death verdicts are more likely to be reversed based on serious error. It was concluded that heavy and indiscriminate use of the death penalty created a significantly higher risk that reversible mistakes will occur. The more often officials use the death penalty, the wider the range of crimes to which it is applied, and the more it is imposed for offenses that are not highly aggravated, the greater the risk that capital convictions and sentences will be seriously flawed. It was also concluded that the conditions pressuring States to overuse the death penalty and thus increase the risk of unreliability and error include race, politics, and poorly performing law enforcement systems. Error was also linked to overburdened and underfunded State courts. Policy options include limiting capital punishment to a small number of offenses, stopping the use of the death penalty, and limiting the death penalty to “the worst of the worst” cases. The reforms that might help to limit the death penalty to these cases include barring the death penalty for defendants with inherently extenuating conditions; making life imprisonment without parole an alternative; and insulating capital-sentencing and appellate judges from political pressure. 22 tables, 66 references, 2 appendices
Main Term(s): Case studies ; Capital punishment
Index Term(s): Cruel and unusual punishment ; Punishment ; Life sentences ; Death row inmates ; Abolishment of capital punishment ; Murderers
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 2000-IJ-CX-0035
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Type: Report (Technical)
Country: United States of America
Language: English
Note: Dataset may be archived by the NIJ Data Resources Program at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.