#US News RSS Feed * US News & World Report * Store * Twitter * Facebook * Google Plus * Sections + Home + News & Opinion + Health + Money + Education + Cars + Travel + Law + Video * Special Reports + Best of 2013 + Best You + Cybersecurity + Hospital of Tomorrow + How to Live to 100 + JFK: 50 Years Later + Jobs in 2020 + STEM * Rankings * ____________________ search News Opinion * News * Opinion + Debate Club + TJS Politics Blog + World Report + Economic Intelligence + Robert Schlesinger + Mort Zuckerman * Science * Cartoons * Photos * Videos Powered by US News [noscript;sz=728x90;pos=leaderboardA;tile=1;ord=000000000?] Home > Opinion > The Debate Over the Death Penalty Hasn't Changed in Decades A Punishing Debate Why the debate over the death penalty is the same today as it was in the 1970s By Kira Zalan October 3, 2013 RSS Feed Print * Comment () * Tweet * * * The use of executions in pursuit of justice has divided the nation for more than four decades. In "A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America," Evan J. Mandery, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and former capital defense attorney, chronicles watershed moments and key personalities that have shaped the debate and thereby the U.S. justice system. Mandery recently spoke with U.S. News about the Supreme Court's controversial rulings, how they've impacted the application of the death penalty today and what may change in the future. Excerpts: Has the death penalty always been legal in America? There was a four-year period between 1972 and 1976, when a Supreme Court decision had the practical effect of ending the death penalty in the United States. What led to that period? There were two pivotal events. In 1963, Justice Arthur Goldberg and his law clerk, Alan Dershowitz, advanced an argument, for basically the first time it had ever been made, that the Constitution was an evolving document and that the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment. Until the early 1960s, with one exception, nobody had argued that the death penalty was unconstitutional. It was not debated. Thereafter, a band of lawyers at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund began a litigation campaign to end executions in the United States. They achieved for an incredible 10-year period – incredible, whatever your views on the death penalty are – a suspension of executions in the United States. And they believed that by tying up the court with legal challenges and creating the backlog of people on death row that it would be harder for the Supreme Court to pass in favor of the constitutionality of capital punishment and thereby allow the floodgates to open. [Check out U.S. News Weekly, an insider's guide to politics and policy.] Why did the court reverse its 1972 decision on the death penalty? The Supreme Court does occasionally reverse itself, so for example Brown v. Board of Education is a reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson. But it's very rare that it happens as quickly as it did here. It's a complete reversal in sentiment, it's not technically a legal reversal, since in 1972 the court did not say the death penalty was unconstitutional in all cases. Even though it didn't say that, everybody, including everybody on the court, believed that Furman v. Georgia meant the end of the death penalty in the United States. Why did the reversal happen so quickly? There was an enormous backlash. People can offer different theories of why the backlash occurred; I'll offer mine. I think it's tied up not just in the sentiment about capital punishment, but as a reaction to other court decisions that were perceived as overreaching – notably, Roe v. Wade and the desegregation and busing decisions. And the difference between Furman, which was a 5-4 decision with nine different opinions, and the [others] is that Furman was correctly perceived [as] vulnerable, whereas the civil rights decisions were not. So states responded either by making the death penalty mandatory [for murder and rape] or by attempting to curtail its arbitrariness. What impact did those two decisions have? A huge impact. Even though [Justice] Potter Stewart was a moral opponent of capital punishment, he said the problem was that it was too random. And so states and people acted as if the problem with [the] death penalty was its arbitrariness. And in 1976, the court said that you can't have [a] mandatory death penalty, and a nonarbitrary death penalty is okay. And for 37 years, states and the Supreme Court have been engaged in an exercise of trying to work out and determine what a nonarbitrary death penalty law is. And it's, to say the least, a very fraught enterprise. [See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.] What does the title "A Wild Justice" mean? It's a quote from Sir Francis Bacon: "Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out." Also, what I'm trying to do is more than just tell the story of the death penalty, [but also to show] how the Supreme Court works. And there's no simple theory that explains how this case, and I think many other important cases, are litigated. It's a crazy story filled with twists and turns. And, you know, most legal history and most cases are taught to law students as if justices are operating according to some simple theories of human behavior, and I don't see any evidence that that's the case. It's a complex political institution, as you would imagine. * 1 * 2 * > * Zalan, Kira Kira Zalan is an editor for U.S. News Weekly. You can reach her at kzalan@usnews.com. Read more stories by Kira Zalan You might be interested in... * President Obama Cartoons President Obama Cartoons * Gun Control Cartoons Gun Control Cartoons * Obamacare Cartoons Obamacare Cartoons Tags: crime, Department of Justice, prison sentences, death penalty Reader Comments () Cartoons * 2013: The Year in Cartoons * Check out cartoons on Barack Obama. * See cartoons on Congress. advertisement [noscript;sz=300x250;pos=rectangleA;tile=1;ord=000000000?] Follow U.S. News * [social-icon-facebook.png] * [social-icon-twitter.png] * [social-icon-google.png] * [social-icon-linkedin.png] * [social-icon-rss.png] Like Us On Facebook IFRAME: //www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook. com%2Fusnewsandworldreport&width=316&height=290&colorscheme=light&show_ faces=true&border_color&stream=false&header=true Debate Club Should the Plan B Morning After Pill Be Available to 15-Year-Olds? Should the Obama Administration Do More in Syria? * See more debates » Latest Videos IFRAME: http://embed.newsinc.com/thumbnail/iframe.html?wid=13109 Thomas Jefferson Street Blog UPS' Late Christmas Deliveries Show Private Isn't Always Better Than Public The shipping company's holiday delivery mess shows private doesn't always beat public. Remembering the 1897 Editorial 'Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus' The iconic 1897 editorial still resonates today. 2014 Resolutions for Obama, the Republicans and You Here's what Obama, the Republicans and all of us voters need to do better. Obama Should Have Fired Kathleen Sebelius for the Bungled Obamacare Rollout Obama should have fired Kathleen Sebelius for the bungled Obamacare rollout. 'Twas the Night Before Christmas ... in Washington, D.C. In which Santa expresses his disappointment with America's politicians. Obama's Polls Drop as America Wearies of a Substance-Free President The public has wearied of Obama's substance-free presidency. 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson Is On the Wrong Side of Gay Marriage History Bigots like 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson won't prevent the march towards gay equality. ‘Duck Dynasty’ Defenders Learn the Meaning of the First Amendment Phil Robertson has the right to say what he wants – but not to be protected from his comments. advertisement [noscript;sz=300x250;pos=rectangleB;tile=1;ord=000000000?] * Most Viewed * Most E-Mailed 1. Best Hospitals 2013-14: Overview and Honor Roll 2. A Taxonomy of Tummy Bloating: Your Symptoms Explained 3. 8 Common Digestive Problems and How to End Them 4. Best Places to Retire for Under $40,000 5. Greek Yogurt Vs. Regular Yogurt: Which Is More Healthful? Subscribe U.S. News Weekly An insider's guide to politics and policy, available on the iPad or as a PDF download. * Subscribe today! [FE_DA_130124Husky170x113.jpg] Photos » Photo of the Day [133.jpg] The White House » See the latest editorial cartoons on President Obama. [0225--Capitol170x113.jpg] Congress » 11 Things Wrong With Congress [health-carousel-diets.jpg] Best Diets » Best Diets Ranked [FE_DA_130416HistoryBomb315x210.jpg width=] Terrorism » History of U.S. Bombings [pandp-editorspick-may-cartoon-170.jpg] Political Cartoons » Gallery: Daily Images From Illustrators [18.jpg] Margaret Thatcher » The Life of Margaret Thatcher [FE_130506_3dprinter620x413.jpg] Gun Debate » Should 3-D Printed Guns Be Legal? [ipad_weekly_widget123x113.png] Subscribe » Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly [FE_PR_130329_homebuying425x283.jpg] The Home Front » Consumers' Faith Slumps Previous Next [footer-best-usn-rankings-gray.jpg] From picking a school to buying a car, our rankings help make hard decisions easier. See all U.S. News rankings » Rankings Lists * Best Colleges * Best Grad Schools * Best Hospitals * Best Diets * Best Vacations * Best Cars * Doctor Finder * More Rankings » U.S. News & World Report * About U.S. News * Contact Us * Store * Advertising Info * Press Room * Site Map * Follow: Twitter / Facebook / Google Plus Sections * News & Opinion * Education * Health * Money * Travel * Cars * Science * Law Get all the latest news, politics, opinion, and analysis U.S. News has to offer. Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly » How to Live to 100 (eBook) Buy now » More books in our store Browse books » Copyright © 2013 U.S. News & World Report LP. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use / Privacy Policy.