Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent for crime? The research says no. Leading criminologists overwhelmingly agree that there is no evidence capital punishment deters violent crimes. Not only is the death penalty unjust and inconsistent with the fallibility of our justice system, but application of the death penalty is racially biased.

Reports and other resources related to the death penalty.

Nation’s Criminal Defense Bar Applauds Repeal of the Death Penalty in Colorado -- Washington, DC (March 23, 2020) – This afternoon, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law a bill repealing the death penalty in Colorado, making Colorado the 22nd state in the United States, in addition to the District of Columbia, to abolish or overturn the death penalty.

Mercy does not surface often on death row. That is what makes the story of Jason McGehee so remarkable.

Willie Herring’s case cried out for mitigation. The cry went unanswered. The 5-4 decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in Herring’s case does not break new ground. It does, however, provide important reminders about the duty of capital defense attorneys to ensure that a comprehensive mitigation investigation is conducted in every case.

NACDL President Lisa Wayne's comments to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy regarding a proposed rule that would allow states to limit federal review of capital post-conviction cases.

Comments to the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs regarding proposed regulations in capital cases to address competent and well-funded counsel, post-conviction review, wrongful conviction, and racial disparity issues.

NACDL President Jim Lavine's comments to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy regarding a proposed rule that would allow states to limit federal review of capital post-conviction cases.

NACDL's letters and testimony submitted in support of death penalty repeal efforts and in opposition to efforts to expand the death penalty. 

This month Robert Sanger reviews Capital Defense: Inside the Lives of America’s Death Penalty Lawyers by Jon B. Gould and Maya Pagni Barak.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions illustrate how the continued use of the death penalty will inevitably invite arbitrary results and fails to serve any legitimate sentencing purpose.

The Supreme Court decided Gregg more than 40 years ago, and the promise of a reliable death penalty has still not been met.

Attorneys representing clients in capital post-conviction proceedings should focus on the “prejudice” that the law requires they prove in order to win relief for their clients. Too many lawyers focus on “error” at the trial court level without marshaling their resources to address the “so what?” question that is usually the impediment to relief in the courts. Ty Alper’s approach — which he calls “reverse investigating” — applies to capital and non-capital post-conviction cases.

As of January 2013, there are a total of 3,125 inmates on death row in the United States.²  It is estimated that five to ten percent of all inmates on death row suffer from mental illness.³ In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Ford v. Wainwright, that it is unconstitutional to execute the insane.⁴ What about the severely mentally ill individual whose symptoms do not, at the moment of the competency determination, indicate that the individual is “floridly psychotic”?

Capital punishment is on the wane. Executions and the number of states that permit capital punishment both declined in 2012. Moreover, the ABA Death Penalty Due Process Review Project identified 12 distinct flaws that are prevalent in jurisdictions that still allow capital punishment. These flaws create an unacceptably high risk of injustice and inadequate safeguards to minimize the potential that innocent people will be executed.