Since 1976, when the U. S. Supreme Court permitted states to reinstate capital punishment, over 100 individuals sentenced to death have been freed from death row because later-considered evidence established their innocence or because other systemic failures prompted officials to conclude that the death sentence was unwarranted. In most of these cases, the system that erroneously convicted these individuals and sent them to death row also failed to discover and correct its errors.

With its emphasis on presumed innocence and protection of individual rights, the United States criminal justice system often has served as a model for other nations. But in death penalty cases, the reality is far from the ideal, often lacking even basic due process. Administration of the death penalty, far from being fair and consistent, is instead a haphazard maze of unfair practices with no internal consistency. As a practical matter, the best way to consider and fix these unfair practices requires removing the pressure of impending executions. The ABA, while taking no position on capital punishment per se, therefore has urged the federal and state governments to halt executions in order to take a hard look at the growing body of evidence showing that race, geography, wealth, and even personal politics can be factors at every stage of a capital case - from arrest through sentencing and execution.

Although the moratorium movement has gained ground in recent years, it no longer can be doubted that many of the 3,500 death row inmates nationwide have not received the quality of legal representation that the severity and the finality of a death sentence demand. Restrictions on meaningful appellate review and inconsistencies in prosecutorial treatment of cases remain serious problems. Racial and ethnic bias still are endemic in the criminal justice system. Geographic disparities still are rampant in the application of the death penalty. Mentally retarded individuals still are being executed. Young people still are being tried and sentenced to death for offenses they committed when they were under age 18. And the innocent still are not protected adequately from erroneous conviction. Indeed, our system cannot protect the innocent unless it is protecting everyone in a criminal justice system that administers capital punishment in a fair and nondiscriminatory way. Until that time, the need for a moratorium remains as urgent as ever, both to prevent further executions of individuals whose convictions and death sentences have been imposed by an unfair and arbitrary system and to ensure an atmosphere conducive to full and objective analysis of systemic problems and remedies.

Return to Homepage