Articles Posted in Death Penalty

Introduction

Few issues illustrate the continuing moral and legal debate over capital punishment more clearly than the sharply contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and Donald Trump. One approaches the death penalty primarily as a question of the inherent dignity of every human person; the other views it principally as an essential instrument of justice, punishment, and public safety.

This difference is not merely theological or political. It reflects two fundamentally different understandings of criminal justice, the purposes of punishment, and the role of government in responding to the most serious crimes.

Historical Background

The history of capital punishment in the United States reflects a cycle of reform, reinstatement, and continued controversy. In 1972, the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily halted executions nationwide, finding that death penalty statutes were applied in arbitrary and capricious ways. Just four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia  the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. This decision upheld new death penalty statutes that aimed to address the arbitrariness concerns raised in Furman by providing revised sentencing guidelines and procedures for capital cases. These revised guidelines typically included a bifurcated trial process (separate guilt and sentencing phases) and required the identification of aggravating circumstances before a death sentence could be imposed. 

Since then, abolition efforts have proceeded along two main paths: statutory repeal by state legislatures and judicial decisions striking down death penalty schemes. A small number of jurisdictions, such as Michigan and Puerto Rico, have gone further by embedding abolition directly into their constitutions; a step that offers stronger, more lasting protection.

Contact Information