For much of its history, the death penalty in the United States has been framed as a tool of justice—a way to hold the most vicious criminals accountable for their heinous acts. Stories of grisly murders and the suffering of victims’ families dominated the narrative, overshadowing questions about fairness or accuracy in the system. In this view, the focus was on the victims, while defense attorneys challenging death sentences were often portrayed as meddlesome “do-gooders” intent on exploiting legal technicalities to obstruct justice.
Today, the story has shifted dramatically. The modern narrative exposes a system riddled with errors, inequities, and deceptions—a bureaucracy that rushes individuals to death row without ensuring they are the right ones. According to the Death Penalty Information Center’s Death Penalty Census, the reality is stark: the most common outcome of a death sentence in the United States is not execution but reversal. Only 15.7% of death sentences ultimately result in execution, with the vast majority overturned due to errors or other issues.
With such a low “success” rate, one must ask: Why does this archaic punishment persist? Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cornwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College addresses this question in his recent posting, Why Does the United States Bother to Impose Death Sentences?, in VERDICT: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia. In his posting, Professor Sarat concludes: