A Criminal Enterprise

Rational Responses to the Innocence Crisis Go Further Than Death Penalty Repeal

Posted in News by Bidish J. Sarma on January 22, 2011

In an exciting moment in the anti-death penalty movement, both houses of the Illinois legislature voted to repeal capital punishment. Now, the decision of whether to abolish the state’s death penalty resides in Governor Pat Quinn’s hands.

The Illinois Senate’s decision on the repeal bill came on the eight-year anniversary of former Governor George Ryan’s announcement that he would commute the sentence of 163 death row inmates and pardon another four. The Governor’s decision was motivated in large part by the concern that the State had wrongly convicted over half of the death row inmates whose cases had concluded with either execution or exoneration between 1978 and 2000. See Lawrence Marshall, The Innocence Revolution and the Death Penalty, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 573, 578 (2004). Those numbers, the Governor thought, were shocking and unacceptable.

Innocence has proven to be a driving force in the current effort to push legislatures to repeal the death penalty. After all, the question we must ask ourselves is: can we tolerate the risk – any risk – that we will use the power of the State to execute someone who is innocent of the crime for which they have been convicted? The question raises a powerful and unshakeable inference: a human institution – any human institution – is imperfect. Mistakes are a reality. For many, that reality is enough to win the argument that the death penalty is not a policy option to which we should dedicate precious resources to maintain.

But, as critical a tool as innocence has been to the anti-death penalty movement, I wonder why the alarming error rate has not yet inspired many other changes in the criminal justice system. After all, many innocent individuals who were sitting on death row are now sitting in prison, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Innocence undermines the conviction, not just the punishment.

The elimination of the death penalty responds to the worry that an irreversible act, an execution, permanently prevents an inmate from bringing to light his innocence. But, that cannot be our only worry. How many people in prisons across the country will never be able to muster the immense resources it takes to be exonerated? How many inmates have died in prison without vindicating themselves and enjoying the freedom and opportunities they rightfully deserved? How many of those stories will remain unknown?

Surely, Illinois is attempting to take a step in the right direction. But, legislatures, judges, and lawyers must work greater changes in the criminal justice system to curtail the convictions of innocents. A serious look at the reliability of eyewitness identification and quasi-scientific evidence (like “bite-mark” analysis), legal and disciplinary actions against prosecutors who commit misconduct or fail to disclose exculpatory evidence, a commitment to confrontation and the presumption of innocence, and responsible consideration of evidentiary rules governing the admissibility of the other bad acts an individual has committed – these are just a handful of things that could make a meaningful impact upon the innocence crisis.

This is not to say that criminal justice reform advocates have not been pushing for these kinds of changes for years. But, it seems that innocence is most effectively and most often deployed in the battle against the death penalty. There is no doubt that the fight against the death penalty currently relies upon innocence arguments to gain traction. However, does innocence rely upon the death penalty as well?

Advertisements

A Dearth of Precedent: What Happened to Racism?

Posted in Uncategorized by Bidish J. Sarma on November 30, 2010

It turns out that an exhaustive Lexis-Nexis search for Louisiana Supreme Court cases in the past ten years that discuss “racism” or “race discrimination” or “racial discrimination” yields just 31 results. Of those 31 cases, 27 are capital direct appeals over which the Court has mandatory jurisdiction. These death penalty cases have often raised claims that the State discriminated against racial minorities in the selection of grand or petit jurors. Remarkably, only four other Louisiana Supreme Court cases in the past decade even mention “racial discrimation.” One of these cases involves disciplinary action against two lawyers, and only makes a passing reference to a race discrimination lawsuit one was retained to litigate. See In Re Kelly, 857 So. 2d 451 (La. 2003). Another involved a lawsuit by former police officers that alleged racial discrimination and harassment against the Baton Rouge Police Department. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion did not deal with these heavy allegations, but instead simply remanded the case to lower courts to allow the Police Department to pursue its argument that the plaintiffs’ claims had prescribed (an argument which no lower court recognized as a winning argument). See Alcorn v. City of Baton Rouge, 863 So. 2d 517 (La. 2004). In the end, then, only two Louisiana Supreme Court non-death-penalty opinions meaningfully discuss race discrimination. In one of those cases, the Court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s finding that a civil service board violated the African-American plaintiff police officer’s constitutional right to equal protection when it imposed a fitness qualification upon him at the time he was up for promotion although no similar previous qualification had ever been imposed on white officers. See Moore v. Ware, 839 So. 2d 940 (La. 2003). The Louisiana Supreme Court was not impressed with Mr. Moore’s claim of race discrimination, holding “the facts of the present case do not establish that Moore carried his burden of proving a prima facie case of racial discrimination.” Id. at 950. In the fourth and final non-capital case, the Louisiana Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of the party’s peremptory strikes to find that the civil defendant has intentionally discriminated against African-American prospective jurors on the basis of their race. See Alex v. Rayne Concrete Serv., 951 So. 2d 138 (La. 2007). Perhaps what is most remarkable about the Alex case is that the Louisiana Supreme Court has never engaged in such a detailed review of a claim of race discrimination in jury selection in a death penalty case, where much more is at stake.

The dearth of recent high court rulings on race in this state is surprising, especially given that: the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 found that Jefferson Parish prosecutors discriminated on the basis of race in the selection of Allen Snyder’s capital jury; the Jena 6 episode erupted in December 2006; and incidents like the Danzinger Bridge shootings occurred in Katrina’s wake just five years ago. It is undeniable that race and racism still matter in Louisiana. So, why is so little apparently going on in front of the state’s highest court? I can think of a few possibilities, though these are all speculative:
(1) The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to utilize its discretionary review power in cases which raise issues of racial discrimination, but has been compelled to confront those issues in death penalty cases because state law provides that the Court must decide those cases on the merits;
(2) Civil suits alleging race discrimination are disproportionately settled outside of court;
(3) Potential plaintiffs in Louisiana lack faith in the judicial system’s ability and willingness to decide claims of discrimination fairly;
(4) A paucity of (pro bono/public interest) civil rights lawyers interested in identifying issues and equipped to litigate them means that individuals with legitimate claims can’t afford or find representation;
(5) As some legal commentators recently explained, claims are difficult to mount because systems rather than identifiable and particular individuals perpetuate covert discrimination: “outcomes are rarely attributable to overt racial discrimination; instead, they result from patterns of implicit bias and institutionalized racism that tend to repeat and normalize the status quo.” Eva Paterson, et al., The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection in the 21st Century: Building Upon Charles Lawrence’s Vision to Mount a Contemporary Challenge to the Intent Doctrine, 40 Conn. L. Rev. 1175, 1179 (2008);
(6) The U.S. Supreme Court’s Equal Protection’s “intent” doctrine has made it nearly impossible to prove that the State has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race. See, e.g., id. at 1190-91;
(7) Individuals are reluctant to make allegations of race discrimination because they “are politically incendiary.” Ralph Richard Banks & Richard Thompson Ford, (How) Does Unconscious Bias Matter: Law, Politics, and Racial Inequality, 58 Emory L.J. 1053, 1103 (2009).

Perhaps the explanation is some combination of these factors, plus others I haven’t identified. Whatever the cause, the result is alarming. The reality is: “While the Jena 6 incident was a disturbing and highly visible reminder of the continued prevalence of racism in America, the equally troubling reality is that far less visible forms of racism and discrimination occur everyday and go largely unchallenged.”  Eva Paterson, et al., The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection in the 21st Century: Building Upon Charles Lawrence’s Vision to Mount a Contemporary Challenge to the Intent Doctrine, 40 Conn. L. Rev. 1175, 1177 (2008). Incremental steps must be taken to address each of the factors contributing to the problem of unchallenged racism. But, there certainly exists an opportunity for the courts to step up and meaningfully analyze the claims that are actually presented to them. At the Louisiana Supreme Court, a logical first step would be to give capital defendants meaningful appellate review when they make substantiated claims that the State discriminated against prospective jurors in their cases. Then, it can step beyond the world of mandatory jurisdiction and provide litigants with a realistic hope that their concerns will not fall upon deaf ears. But, a simple Lexis search leaves one to wonder whether the fight for racial equality is fading, despite clear evidence for its need.

Tagged with: ,

Montejo v. Louisiana (II) Cert Petition

Posted in Cases, News by Bidish J. Sarma on November 22, 2010

The cert petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to take a second look at this important case involving a defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.  You can access the pleadings here (Cert Petition _ Montejo v. Louisiana II), here (State’s Brief in Opposition), and here (Reply to Brief in Opposition).

To see thoughts on why this is a crucial issue at this time, see Prof. Ron Sullivan’s post here.

Williams v. Louisiana – Cert Conference on May 13th

Posted in Cases, News by Bidish J. Sarma on May 6, 2010

The previous post contains a link to our cert petition in Williams v. Louisiana, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of proportionality review of capital sentences in Louisiana.  Since the time of that post, the State has filed its Brief in Opposition, and we filed a Reply.  The Court is set to meet on the petition on May 13th. 

Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and the State have taken the position that race did not play a role in the death sentence in this case because there is no evidence that Mr. Williams intended to kill the victim because of her race.   But, there is disquieting statistical evidence that the race-of-the-defendant and race-of-the-victim play a significant role in determining which defendants receive death sentences out of East Baton Rouge Parish.  The last thirteen people sent to death row from the parish are African-American, and there is evidence a black man convicted of killing a white woman has a 1 in 2 chance of being sentenced to death, while a white man has never been sentenced to death for killing a black person in the last thirty years (or perhaps ever).

The State’s Brief in Opposition can be found here: State’s Brief on Cert 

Our Reply to the State’s Brief in Opposition can be found here: Cert Reply to BIO FINAL

Cert Petition on Proportionality Review in Louisiana

Posted in Uncategorized by Bidish J. Sarma on March 16, 2010

On March 10, our office filed a cert petition in the case Williams v. Louisiana.  The petition asks the Supreme Court to review his core claim that the current administration of the death penalty in Louisiana leads to unconstitutional arbitrariness.  The question presented is: “Whether the Petitioner’s death sentence violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment where: (1) the Louisiana Supreme Court failed to provide meaningful appellate proportionality review; and (2) the jury did not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that death should be imposed.”

The cert petition brings attention to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s woefully deficient proportionality review.

You can view the petition in its entirety right here: Cert Petition FINAL

Sentencing Law & Policy Blog Features Rob’s Piece on “The Racial Geography of the Federal Death Penalty”

Posted in Uncategorized by Bidish J. Sarma on February 9, 2010

The piece, co-authored by blog contributor Rob Smith and attorney G. Ben Cohen, is available on SSRN.  Professor Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy recently spotlighted the piece here.

The abstract states:

Scholars have devoted substantial attention to both the over-representation of African-Americans on federal death row and the disproportionate number of federal defendants charged capitally for the murder of white victims.  This attention has not provided an adequate explanation for (much less resolution of) these disquieting racial disparities.  Little research has addressed the unusual geography of the federal death penalty, in which a small number of jurisdictions are responsible for the vast majority of federal death sentences.  By addressing the unique geography, we identify a possible explanation for the racial distortions in the federal death penalty: that federal death sentences occur disproportionately where the expansion of the venire from the county to the district level has a dramatic demographic impact on the racial make-up of the jury.  This inquiry demonstrates that the conversation concerning who should make up the jury of twelve neighbors and peers – a discussion begun well before the founding of our Constitution — continues to have relevance today.

After documenting both the historical and racial relationships between place and the ability to seat an impartial jury, and the unique impact demographic shifts in the jury pool have on death penalty decision making, we propose three possible solutions: 1) A simple, democracy-enhancing fix: a return to the historical conception of the county as the place of vicinage in federal capital trials; 2) A Batson type three-step process for rooting out the influence of race on the decision to prosecute federally; 3) Voluntary measures by the Attorney General to mask demographic and location identifiers when deciding whether to provide federal death-authorization.  We explain why a return to county-level jury pools in federal capital cases (whether through statutory construction, legislative change, or through the authority of an fair-minded Attorney General) prospectively limits the impact of race on the operation of the federal death penalty, without establishing the intractability of the federal death penalty as a whole.  Finally, we observe that any effort to study the federal death penalty cannot merely address those federal cases in which the Attorney General has considered whether to approve an effort to seek the death penalty, but must also include an assessment of the cases prosecuted in state court that could be prosecuted federally and the prosecutorial decision concerning when and whether to prosecute in federal court.

The piece poses a lot of interesting questions about race, federalism, jury selection, and the geographic arbitrariness of the death penalty.  As always, we invite commentary and discussion here.

Louisiana Executes Gerald Bordelon

Posted in Cases, News by Bidish J. Sarma on January 8, 2010

The State of Louisiana took Gerald Bordelon’s life yesterday.  Mr. Bordelon volunteered for execution.  After a jury convicted him of first-degree murder at the guilt phase of his capital murder trial, he asked his trial attorneys not to present any mitigating circumstances at the penalty phase – the phase where the jury had to decide whether the convicted murderer would be executed, or would serve a life-without-parole sentence.  After the jury sentenced him to death by execution, Mr. Bordelon waived his right to challenge that sentence in front of the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The Louisiana Supreme Court nonetheless issued an opinion in his case that ultimately dismissed the appeal.  The Court indicated that it was legally obligated to decide whether Bordelon was competent to waive his appeals and also to determine if his sentence was proportionate.  In October, the Court cleared the path for today’s execution, and ruled that Mr. Bordelon is competent to waive his rights to an appeal, and that the death sentence in this case is not disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.

Generally, it isn’t uncommon for death-sentenced defendants to “volunteer” for execution by waiving their appeals.  According to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, roughly 12% of defendants waive appellate review.  Yet, Bordelon was the first person to successfully volunteer in Louisiana since the death penalty was reinstated here in 1976.  And, while every case in which someone “volunteers” presents complex legal, ethical, moral, and philosophical questions, Gerald Bordelon’s case is worth thinking about carefully.

From my perspective, Mr. Bordelon’s execution is unsettling because it was not the product of an adversarial process, and the American legal system requires that final adjudicated judgments be informed by the zealous advocacy of lawyers in adversarial positions.  Instead, Mr. Bordelon’s death was the result of multiple, compounded perversions of our criminal justice system.   

First, the jury that sentenced Mr. Bordelon to death did not hear any mitigating circumstances.  According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, “[t]he penalty phase . . . began with a waiver by defendant of his right to present mitigating evidence . . . .”  Without mitigating evidence, the jurors had incomplete information about the person the State implored them to condemn.  Not everyone who commits a first-degree murder should be executed.  Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that some individuals cannot be constitutionally executed.  Mitigating evidence must be presented in order for the jury to make an accurate assessment of whether this particular defendant deserves the harshest penalty available.  Was Bordelon mentally ill?  Did he suffer abuse throughout his childhood?  Would he be able to live peacefully in a controlled environment?  Did he feel remorse for the crime?  These and other critical questions were left unanswered at trial.  The penalty phase did not pit two opposing parties against each other in the way we all learn how American trials are supposed to unfold.  The jurors sat and watched, as the State’s lawyers were not challenged when they asked the jury to order Bordelon’s execution.  Not surprisingly, the jury returned a death sentence.

Second, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the defendant was competent to waive his appeals even though no party took the position that he may not be competent.  To determine competence, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the case and asked a sanity commission to make a finding upon which the Court could later rely.  The Court made the work of this sanity commission sound grave: “When a defendant asserts that he is eligible for execution because he has terminated all further legal proceedings, the consequences of an erroneous determination of his competency to make that decision are so severe that the record of the proceedings conducted on the sanity commission’s findings must show by clear and convincing evidence that he has the capacity to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to appellate review of his capital conviction and sentence of death.”  What the Court did not say is that these commissions do not typically produce conclusions in a non-adversarial setting.  When neither party provided reasons to question the inmate’s competence, the work of the commission was basically done before it even really began.  I don’t suggest here that Mr. Bordelon was not competent to waive his appeals (although the Supreme Court made the competency standard sound a whole lot more difficult to meet than it really is), but point out that the entire process by which this execution was approved does not comport with our system’s purported notion of justice.

Third, the Court’s comparative proportionality review is far from meaningful.  In the Bordelon opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court insisted that it had an independent duty to conduct its “Rule 28 Review” of the death sentence “to determine . . . whether the sentence is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.”  As we’ve established here, the Court has not conducted a serious proportionality review in roughly three decades.  And, the way that Louisiana Supreme Court Rule 28 is written and the way that records are kept in Louisiana, the Court simply cannot make an effective comparative proportionality review without the full adversarial participation of both parties.  In Bordelon, the Court yet again: only truly evaluated cases that resulted in death sentences (and not those that came back with life-or-less sentences); cherry-picked death sentences from other jurisdictions without looking at the life-or-less cases from those jurisdictions; and failed to look into the mitigating circumstances present or absent in those other capital cases.  It is unclear whether the Court enforced the Rule 28 command that “[d]efense counsel shall file a [sentence review] memorandum on behalf of the defendant . . . .”  Moreover, the Court never identified or reviewed any mitigating circumstances because none were presented at trial.  How could the Court meaningfully compare “considering both the crime and the defendant” when it had utterly incomplete mitigating information about the defendant in this case?  Perhaps an intellectually honest and rigorous proportionality review would have revealed that Mr. Bordelon’s sentence was proportionate.  However, the breakdown of the adversarial process and the Court’s unwillingness to look beyond what was presented to it made a meaningful proportionality review impossible.

One could certainly argue that Mr. Bordelon was rightly allowed to waive his appeals.  And, maybe that’s true.  Even if the system functioned the way it was designed to in this case, Gerald Bordelon may still have been executed today (in accordance with his wishes).  However, the system did not work in the manner intended, and that is what troubles me.  The judges and lawyers involved ignored fundamental legal principles to facilitate the result that all interested parties apparently wanted in the end.  When we sacrifice principle for expediency, we undermine the very institutions which stand upon those principles.  Once again, the death penalty proves to be arbitrary and unprincipled above all else.

“The Numbers Speak”

Posted in Uncategorized by Bidish J. Sarma on November 29, 2009

Jeff Gamso at “Gamso – For the Defense” put up a thoughtful post that is responsive to the question I posed in my entry on the Gallup poll numbers.  You can visit check out his insightful analysis here: http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2009/11/numbers-speak.html.

 

Do People Actually Care If the State Executes Innocent Defendants?

Posted in Uncategorized by Bidish J. Sarma on November 29, 2009

In October, Gallup released figures regarding its most recent poll on the death penalty.  The report is available on the Death Penalty Information Center website here.

The most cited figures from Gallup reflect two continuing trends: (1) “65% of Americans continue to support the use of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder (show[ing] little change over the last six years);” and (2) when posed with life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty for convicted murderers, “47% said they preferred the death penalty (48% favored life imprisonment).”  While these numbers are obviously important to people who care about the death penalty, I took a particular interest in a somewhat surprising and perverse related Gallup finding.

According to the Poll, “59% of Americans agree[] that within the last five years, ‘a person has been executed under the death penalty who was, in fact, innocent of the crime he or she was charged with.’”  As the report points out:

However, for many Americans, agreement with the assertion that innocent people have been put to death does not preclude simultaneous endorsement of the death penalty. A third of all Americans, 34%, believe an innocent person has been executed and at the same time support the death penalty. This is higher than the 23% who believe an innocent person has been executed and simultaneously oppose the death penalty.

In August, the Supreme Court of the United States granted an original writ for habeas corpus and ordered a District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing in Troy Davis’s innocence case.  Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas dissented from the order.  In his dissent, Scalia suggested that the U.S. Constitution may not actually prohibit the execution of an innocent individual:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Although his statement about the Court’s precedent is legally accurate, that Scalia might not find the execution of an innocent person constitutionally objectionable seemed to shock the consciousness of many members of the legal community (including Alan Dershowitz, Dahlia Lithwick, and other observers).

But, in this instance, the views of those offended in the legal profession may not accurately reflect the views of people in society at large.  Although I thought Scalia’s comments would generate more public outrage on a wide scale, people seemed relatively unmoved.  Could it really be that people who believe that the State executes innocent people support the death penalty nonetheless?  How could one simultaneously hold both beliefs?

Whatever the explanation, the Gallup numbers present anti-death penalty advocates with a serious dilemma.  Many anti-death penalty folks believed that a public understanding that the system fails to ensure that people who are executed were actually guilty of the crime for which they have been convicted would lead to a decline in support for capital punishment.  The Gallup numbers undercut the force of this assumption.  Indeed, the controversy surrounding Texas’s execution of Cameron Todd Willingham – though serious – has not yet generated a societal backlash against the death penalty.  The numbers also partly rebut the Marshall Hypothesis.  Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall speculated that support for the death penalty would decline as people came to understand how the system breaks down at numerous points in the process.  The Gallup poll suggests that he may have been too hopeful.

All things considered, the recent Gallup poll may leave one to wonder what can be done… As always, I look for suggestions…

The Right Wing Recognizes the Need for De-Criminalization

Posted in Uncategorized by Bidish J. Sarma on November 24, 2009

I was pleased to read this piece, entitled “Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice” by Adam Liptak in the New York Times today. The article documents an important trend in the politics that govern the criminal justice system: many right-wing politicians and activists have taken a position against over-criminalization. Liptak effectively explains the varying conservative interests that have come together under the “anti-criminalization” banner:

Several strands of conservatism have merged in objecting to aspects of the criminal justice system. Some conservatives are suspicious of all government power, while others insist that the federal government has been intruding into matters the Constitution reserves to the states. . . . Some religious groups object to prison policies that appear to ignore the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption, and fiscal conservatives are concerned about the cost of maintaining the world’s largest prison population.

This trend stands in sharp contrast to the “tough-on-crime” conservative line that emerged in the 1980s and swept over the country. The realpolitik need for politicians to support tougher criminal sanctions and the death penalty became self-evident in the past two decades. Criminal punishment, for many years, looked like a one-way ratchet (see this post, explaining “just one single seemingly too lenient sentence has prompted an immediate legislative response, but often decades of seemingly too harsh sentences . . . will barely create a political ripple.”): sentences could only become harsher and the scope of behavior considered criminal could only expand. But, times have apparently changed. For now.

Ideologically, it makes sense that individuals skeptical of government power should hesitate to entrust life and liberty to the same State that they believe is incompetent to administer social welfare programs, regulate the economy, and efficiently tax its citizens. If conservatives harbored such doubts about the government, why did they so willingly give the federal and state government greater power in the criminal context? Why did they support more expansive criminal laws and harsher criminal sentences? Why did they profess such unyielding confidence that the government protects the individual’s right to a fair trial, and does not wrongfully convict and execute innocent people? The simple answer: political expediency.

I firmly believe that the current conservative alignment with liberal thinking on criminal justice issues is a temporary marriage of political convenience. But, it represents an important opportunity to correct some of the harm that has been done in the past 30 years. So long as the economy is a shambles, right-wing politicians can point to overcrowded prisons, burgeoning criminal court dockets, and massive government deficits and say – “see, we need to try something different.”

The Times article indicates that some conservatives have declared the shift in viewpoint to be fundamental. For example:

Mr. Meese acknowledged that the current climate was not the ideal one for his point of view. “We picked by accident a time,” he said, “when it was not a very popular topic in light of corporate frauds.”

Though I wish the shift was truly ideological in nature – as Meese suggests it is – this statement strikes me as nothing more than political posturing. Now is an opportune time to oppose “big government,” and the conservatives know it. Certainly some ideologues will continue to sing the same tune even if the economy rebounds or anti-crime legislation becomes politically expedient again. However, the emerging coalition is realistically a fragile one. I certainly hope that we make progress now.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I am encouraged by the state legislatures that have sought to cut costs by eliminating capital punishment or limiting the circumstances in which it can be sought. My hope is that we can make enough progress to signal to the Supreme Court that our “standards of decency” have evolved as far as the Eighth Amendment is concerned, and that the perverse institution known as the death penalty will be done away with forever. Though anti-death penalty advocates must first win the battle in the states, those victories are not permanent; instead, they are subject to the will and whims of political opportunism. The fight can only end once-and-for-all in a court of law. Meanwhile, advocates of change in the criminal justice system should seize this moment to push forth the policies that will shrink government budgets, encourage rehabilitation and re-integration, and decrease criminalization.