The Death Penalty
Suggested Lesson Plans for Teachers
™ Do you teach Social Studies, English, History, Theology, Debate, Ethics/Human
Rights or Law?
™ Want to capture your students’ interest?
™ Want to engage them in a stimulating and rewarding study of one of today’s most
debated topics?
™ Want to encourage civic participation and leadership?
™ Want to help your students develop critical thinking skills?
This comprehensive, multi-media curriculum on the death penalty will challenge and
engage your students, increase their participation in classroom discussion, help
develop their analytical skills and encourage greater civic responsibility.
Death Penalty Focus
www.deathpenalty.org
The Death Penalty: A Lesson Plan for Teachers
Introduction
The death penalty in the United States has always been a controversial issue and recent developments
concerning the death penalty have once again made an appearance in the public sphere. The purpose of
this curriculum is to encourage civic participation, critical thinking and the development of research
skills among students utilizing a topic of current interest. This lesson plan and its accompanying
materials are designed to assist both teachers and students in an exploration of capital punishment,
arguments for and against its use, as well as the issues of ethics and justice that surround it.
Teachers will find detailed lesson plans for a two-week unit. However, teachers are encouraged to take
a look at the rationales of the units and explore strategies of their own. Supplementary research
materials and Internet links to a wide array of other resources are provided. The curriculum is designed
for upper middle and high school students in such courses as social studies, history, civics, US
Government, ethics, English, law, public speaking, and current events.
The authors of the curriculum have made every effort to ensure that the educational approach is
balanced, respecting the views of all sides in this often-spirited debate.
Preparation
The day before you introduce this unit to students, tell them they will need a separate three ring
notebook for the next two week unit, in which they will keep their notes, assignments, and research
materials. This will be their Death Penalty Notebook.
1
Suggested Activities and Lesson Plans
Introduction of the Issue and Discussion
Movie and Discussion
ƒ Discussion Questions for the film “Dead Man Walking”
Guest Speaker
ƒ Speaker Request Form
Discussion About the Role of the Jury
ƒ Handout: Potential Juror Survey
ƒ Discussion of results
Examination of Actual Cases
ƒ Handout: Actual Case Studies
ƒ Overview of Group Work Roles
ƒ Review Actual Case Outcomes
ƒ Discussion
Mock Legislative Hearings
ƒ Overview of Group Work Roles
ƒ Handout: Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment
ƒ Handout: History of the Death Penalty in the US
ƒ Handout: California’s Capital Punishment Laws
ƒ 6 Group Roles for a Mock Legislative Hearing
Essay Exam
ƒ Sample topics enclosed
Letter Writing Exercise
ƒ Suggestions for students enclosed
Group Discussion Exercise
ƒ Discussion Guide
Book Report Exercise
ƒ Book Report Guidelines
ƒ Suggested General Reading
2
Introduction and Discussion
A. To begin the unit, ask your students to divide a piece of paper into two sections and have them write the
following questions at the top of each section: (Give them approximately 15 minutes to complete this task.)
1. What do you know about the death penalty?
2. What would you like to know about the death penalty?
B. After they have completed this task, ask them to draw a line at the bottom of each section and date it. As
they progress through the unit, they may revisit this activity - adding new information, answering the
questions they initially may have had, adding new questions, etc.
C. Divide the board in half and write down their collective responses and questions. Consider using a
transparency, so you can keep these reactions for later. If you use the board, copy down the responses. This
will provide you with a pre-assessment about what they know. Encourage them to take notes - this will be the
second entry in their “know/ want to know” notes.
D. After this task is completed, discuss what students wrote and clarify issues as necessary, but try to avoid
answering the questions which students will find in their handouts.
E. Explain the purposes of the unit and the plans for the next two weeks.
F. For homework, have the students write an initial position essay. (2-3 pages) Requirements:
A) State your position/views about the death penalty.
B) Provide at least three reasons for your position.
3
Movie and Discussion: “Dead Man Walking”(122 minutes)
Introduction
Dead Man Walking is a highly acclaimed film that raises questions about capital punishment in a powerful
way. It is based on the book Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United
States by Helen Prejean, CSJ. In it, Sister Helen describes her insights and her experiences with ministering to
men facing executions, and later, to the families or murder victims. The film allows audiences to see the
reality of murder and punishment from the viewpoints of death row inmates, their families, and the families of
the victims.
Discussion Questions
Initial Reactions and Feelings
• “Dead Man Walking” is a very powerful film. What were some of the feelings and reactions you had while
viewing it?
• What scenes and images in the film stand out for you? What meanings do these have for you?
• How did the film affect you?
About the Film
• What do you think of Sister Helen’s attempt to minister to “both sides”—to the murderer and to the families
of the murder victims?
• What changes did you see taking place in Matthew Poncelot during the film? What brought about these
changes?
• What new information about the death penalty did you learn from viewing this film?
• What new understandings about the experiences and needs of murder victims’ families did you gain from
viewing the film?
• What new understandings about the experiences and needs of families of persons on death row did you gain
in viewing the film?
• Sister Helen’s family presents the argument that her community of faith would benefit more if she were to
help “honest” people. What do you think this means? Do you agree?
About the Issues Raised
• How were your own beliefs regarding capital punishment affected by watching this film?
• Did you find yourself supporting Matthew Poncelot’s execution, or hoping that his life would be spared?
• Early in Matthew’s relationship with Sister Helen, he tells her that he didn’t kill anybody, but ultimately he
confesses his real involvement in the crime. If Matthew’s original story to Helen had been true -- that he had
been present and had participated in the crime by threatening the two young people but had not killed anyone
-- how would that affect your view of whether he should live or die?
• We are not told of what the alternative to the death penalty is in Louisiana, but if you knew that the
alternative punishment was life imprisonment with no possibility of parole, would you support the death
penalty for Matthew Poncelot or the alternative? Why?
• Do you believe victims’ families should have a role or a voice in determining the sentence in a capital case?
Should they have a role in the clemency process? Why or why not?
• How does healing come to families grieving the loss of a murdered child?
• How does healing occur for the family members of someone convicted of a capital crime, or executed by the
state? What is our role in assisting with their healing?
• Many death penalty abolitionists believe that capital punishment denies the humanity of the individual and
the possibility of rehabilitation. How do you feel about a convicted murderer’s capacity for rehabilitation?
Closing
4
In closing the session(s), help the group summarize or reflect upon the themes or important points that
emerged during your discussion. It will also be helpful to ask whether any individuals, or the group as a
whole, have been moved to take further steps in regard to the issues raised in the film.
[This discussion guide was adapted from Amnesty International’s Faith in Action Resource Guidebook, 2003
Edition, pgs. 62-65]
5
Guest Speaker
A. We recommend that you place your request for a speaker at least two weeks in advance. Always
indicate to the speaker how long you are expecting him/her to speak and what topics you would
like them to cover.
B. Introduce the speaker to your students.
C. Explain to your students that they should be respectful of the speaker and of their fellow students
and let them know in advance if they will need to take notes.
Available speakers may include: wrongfully convicted individuals, capital defense attorneys, former
prosecutors, murder victim family members, family members of death row inmates, family members
of persons that have been executed, or death penalty experts.
Students find interactions with guest speakers very rewarding because they are able hear new
perspectives and ideas from those who are affected most by the issue.
6
DEATH PENALTY FOCUS
SPEAKER REQUEST FORM
Contact Name: ______________________________________________________
Contact Number: ____________________________________________________
Contact Email: ______________________________________________________
Organization Name: __________________________________________________
Date of Event (if flexible please indicate range):____________________________
Time of Event: ______________________________________________________
Audience Size: ______________________________________________________
Purpose of Event: ____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Type of Speaker Requested* (Please Indicate Your Top 3 Choices):
_____ Death Penalty Focus Representative
_____ Attorney/Legal Expert
_____ Wrongfully Convicted Individual
_____ Murder Victim Family Member
_____ Clergy
_____ Other (Please specify) ___________________________________________
*Death Penalty Focus cannot guarantee that a speaker will be available on the dates that you request.
Please return this form to Death Penalty Focus:
870 Market St. Ste. 859 San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel. 415-243-0143 ♦ Fax 415-243-0994 ♦ info@deathpenalty.org
7
Discussion on the Role of the Jury
A. Have students take the Potential Juror Survey (below).
B. Collect their surveys and discuss the real protocol for selecting jurors.
------------------------------------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------------------------Potential Juror Survey
Would You Be Chosen to Serve on a Jury?
A death penalty statute has been enacted in your state. You have been summoned for jury duty in a
death penalty case. In order to determine whether you are qualified to serve on the jury, the judge will
ask you about your views regarding the death penalty.
Question: If the defendant is found guilty of capital murder, which makes him or her eligible for a
death sentence, what would you do?
Please carefully read the five possible answers before choosing one. Check the box to indicate which
of the following views is closest to your own.
1. † I would always vote for a death sentence.
2. † I would consider a sentence of life without possibility of parole, a sentence of life with possibility
of parole after 30 years, or a sentence of death, but it would be very hard for me to vote for a sentence
other than death.
3. † I would be open to consider voting for death or for life without possibility of parole, or for life
with possibility of parole after 30 years.
4. † I would be willing to consider a sentence of death, but it would be very hard for me to vote for
death.
5. † I would never be able to vote for a sentence of death.
------------------------------------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------------------------Answers:
If you chose # 1 you would not be permitted to serve on a real jury. Although there is nothing wrong
with your reply that you would always vote for the death penalty, the law requires that a jury in a death
penalty case be made up of people who are open to giving a sentence other than death in at least some
cases.
If you chose # 2 you might not be permitted to serve on a real jury. Although there is nothing wrong
with your reply that you are uncertain of whether you could impose a life sentence, the defense
attorney would probably argue that since you lean towards the death penalty in all cases, you would
not make a decision on the facts but upon your personal belief in the death penalty and you should be
excluded from the jury by the judge. On the other hand, the prosecutor in the case would likely argue
that you would be able to decide the sentence by listening to both sides since you have not finally
8
made up your mind. The prosecutor would probably want you included on the jury. Both the
prosecutor and the defense attorney would probably ask you further questions to see how deep your
reservations about a life sentence go.
If you chose # 3 you would have a good chance at serving on a jury. Your answer indicates that you
would likely be a person who would consider all the factors regarding the severity of the crime and the
responsibility of the defendant before deciding on whether a death sentence is appropriate. This does
not mean that your position is the "correct" one, but only that you could serve as a juror in this special
kind of case.
If you chose # 4 you might not be permitted to serve on a real jury. Although there is nothing wrong
with your reply that you are uncertain of whether you could impose a death sentence, the prosecutor in
the case would likely argue that you would not be able to decide on the sentence by listening to both
sides, but instead would be making your decision based on your doubts about the death penalty. The
prosecutor would probably want you excluded from the jury by the judge. On the other hand, the
defense attorney would probably argue that since you are not necessarily opposed to the death penalty
in all cases, you could impose it in some cases, and you should be allowed to serve on the jury. Both
the prosecutor and the defense attorney would probably ask you further questions to see how deep
your reservations about the death penalty go.
If you chose # 5 you would not be permitted to serve on a real jury. Although there is nothing wrong
with your reply that you would never vote for the death penalty, the law requires that a jury in a death
penalty case be made up of people who are open to giving a death sentence in at least some cases.
9
Examination of Actual Cases (Group Exercise)
A. Divide the class into 4 groups.
1. Review the Group Work Roles.
2. Give each group a different case to read. (Without the case outcomes)
B. The cases include information about the crime, the defendant, the victim, aggravating
circumstances, and mitigating circumstances. The final outcomes of the cases will be revealed at the
end of the discussion.
C. Explain that differences of opinion are a part of everyday life and that as a citizen group they
represent a cross-section of the public. Have each student review their case and share their opinion
with their group.
D. Ask the students to cast a secret ballot which will be collected by the facilitator. Count the ballots.
Have the group discuss their decision, briefly, and prepare their short presentation. Explain that in
some states, in the event of a deadlock, or hung-jury, the case would have to be retried with a different
jury to reach a unanimous decision. However, in the interest of time the case will remain deadlocked.
E. Have each group briefly share with the class the main points of their case and the decision that they
reached. A general class discussion will certainly emerge. At the end of the period, pass out printed
copies of the final outcomes of each case to the class.
F. Homework: Answer one of the following two questions. (2 pages)
1) What happened in their groups; were there conflicts, negotiations, compromises with regard to their
decision? How did your personal opinions conflict with or support those of other group members?
How did you feel differences of opinion were expressed and handled? What were the differences in
opinion and how were they supported/not supported?
2) How did the real outcomes of the cases differ from what you thought happened? Were you
surprised? Why?
10
Group Work Roles
As many of you know, the selection of group composition can be a difficult task. Depending on the dynamics
of your class, you may decide to have the students select their own groups. If you choose this approach, make
sure that students understand the responsibilities of each group member, as well as the collective
responsibilities of the group. Groups may also be selected randomly, or composed by you. The latter is our
suggestion, given the complexity of the group dynamics for this unit. Given the open-ended nature of the
research and role-play simulation, teacher guidance is of the utmost importance.
Logistics of group work: Emphasize that this is a cooperative endeavor, where individual opinions should be
respected - the students are acting as a citizen research team.
Have the groups identify roles that each member will play (roles may be doubled up, with exception of the
role of the facilitator - only one person should hold this role):
ƒ
Speaker (the primary, although not the only, presenter of the group research; participates in the team)
ƒ
Facilitator (keeps the group on task, focuses questions, oversees issues of quality and time
management; responsible for individual and group assessment)
ƒ
Writer (coordinates the written work of research and the production of the final group brief to be
presented to the team - there may be two, if dissenting opinions emerge)
ƒ
Visual producers (coordinates and produces the visual product highlighting the major points of their
group’s position/research on the proposition on poster board.
Note: This division of labor can be used throughout the year if you utilize group work frequently in your class,
so that before the end of the year everyone will assume one of these roles during some research or group
project.
11
Case Study #1 - Lesley Gosch
The Crime
At approximately 2:30 on the afternoon of September 18, 1985, Frank Patton, president of Castle Hills
National Bank in San Antonio, Texas, received a telephone call at the bank from his wife, Rebecca
Patton. When he answered the phone his wife said, "Hi, Frank, there is someone here who wants to
talk to you," and then a male voice, unfamiliar to Mr. Patton, took over the line. The unknown male
instructed Mr. Patton to gather cash in a briefcase, in $50 and $100 bills, and go directly to the pay
telephones at the food court at the North Star Mall in San Antonio and await further instructions. The
caller told Mr. Patton that he had precisely 45 minutes to comply with these directions, or it would be
"all over."
After hanging up the phone, Mr. Patton immediately directed a bank cashier to begin gathering the
money, while his secretary called the F.B.I. Seven minutes after the initial extortion call, officers from
the Alamo Heights Police Department arrived at the Patton home to find the body of Rebecca Patton
lying on the floor. She had been shot fatally in the head.
After being informed of his wife's death, and accompanied by several agents from the F.B.I., Mr.
Patton proceeded, briefcase in hand, to the North Star Mall. While plainclothes agents stationed
themselves nearby, Mr. Patton waited by the pay telephones at the food court designated by the caller.
After 40 minutes, however, no one had called or come to collect the money, and Mr. Patton was
advised by the F.B.I. to return to the bank.
State and federal law enforcement agencies swiftly initiated an intensive investigation of Mrs. Patton's
murder. The crime scene was secured, and the home was thoroughly searched for evidence. Seven .22
caliber cartridge casings, believed to be manufactured by an English company called the Eley
Ammunition Company, were found in the home. In addition, at least one foreign hair and several
unknown fingerprints were found in the residence and processed for identification.
The police also conducted a house-to-house canvass of the Pattons' neighborhood to determine if
anyone had noticed anything unusual on the day of the crime. However, despite the impressive law
enforcement resources devoted to investigating the case, the police were without significant leads
several days after the crime.
The Suspect
On September 23, 1985, a group of San Antonio-area bankers held a press conference to announce that
they were offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those
responsible for the murder of Mrs. Patton. Less than two days later, 21-year-old Stephen Hurst was
brought to the Alamo Heights Police Department by his uncle, claiming that he had information that
would lead to the arrest of the individuals responsible for the crime.
At the police station, Hurst produced a briefcase which he claimed had been given to him for
safekeeping by his friend and housemate, John Rogers. Inside police found a Ruger .22 caliber
automatic handgun, several full boxes and one partially full box of Eley pistol ammunition, and two
silencers which fit the weapon. A subsequent firearms comparison by the Bexar County Firearms
Examiner concluded that this handgun was the murder weapon.
Hurst gave a written statement to the Alamo Heights police implicating his roommate Rogers and a
man named Lesley Gosch in the failed extortion plot and subsequent murder of Mrs. Patton.
According to Hurst's statement, Rogers told him of a plan to obtain ransom money but that the plan
had "gone sour" and that "Skipper (Gosch) emptied a clip into her." Rogers told Hurst that "Skipper
went to the house with a big flower box with a gun inside it, he rang the door bell, she opened the door
12
and he forced his way in."
After Hurst turned the briefcase over to the authorities, officers from several law enforcement agencies
acted quickly to secure warrants for the arrests of Rogers and Gosch, and for the search of the
apartment of Rogers and Hurst.
The Trial
Following a change in the venue for the trial, the first phase (to determine guilt or innocence) of
Gosch's trial began in Victoria, Texas on August 26, 1986. The State's evidence was largely
circumstantial. The fingerprints found at the crime scene did not match Gosch. Two witnesses testified
that Gosch had told them that he owned a .22 caliber pistol. Other witnesses testified to conversations
with Gosch indicating his fear of serving time on a pending federal firearms charge, and one witness
said that he had bought the .22 Ruger for Gosch approximately a year before the murder.
Finally, the co-defendant, John Rogers, testified to many of the details outlined above and alleged that
Mr. Gosch was the one who had entered the Patton household and shot Mrs. Patton, and that it was all
part of a scheme to raise a large sum of money to finance Gosch's escape to Belize. Rogers admitted
giving the briefcase containing a number of guns, including the .22 Ruger, to Stephen Hurst, and
acknowledged that Hurst knew about, and at one time was going to participate in, the extortion plan.
The defense presented no witnesses at this phase of the trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty
against Mr. Gosch. The punishment phase of the trial began the next day.
The prosecution presented testimony alleging various prior offenses committed by Gosch which had
never been submitted to a trial, and offered judgments of his earlier convictions. The defense presented
only two witnesses on Gosch's behalf: his adoptive father, Wesley Gosch, and a former co-worker,
Preston Knodell, who had known Gosch for four years. Gosch, himself, did not testify.
The jury found that Gosch acted deliberately and that he represented a future danger to society. The
court sentenced him to die.
Meet the victim
Rebecca Patton lived with her husband, Frank Patton, and her two children. She had been married for
17 years. Mr. Patton was president of the Castle Hills National Bank in San Antonio. Mrs. Patton was
very active and well-known in the local community.
Regarding the death penalty for Gosch, Mrs. Patton's daughter remarked that it was not about revenge,
but about justice. "This man took a life. He took a lot of things. My mom was a lot of things to a lot of
people. He took her away from a lot of people and left a big hole in a lot of people's lives as well as
deprived her of the pleasure of living."
Meet the defendant
Lesley Gosch was a former Eagle Scout. He was 29 years old at the time of the crime. Gosch had
pleaded guilty a month earlier to charges of manufacturing and selling gun silencers. Gosch was facing
sentencing for this earlier federal firearms conviction and the prosecution maintained that he sought
the ransom money for a flight to Belize, Central America, to avoid being incarcerated. He also had
previous convictions for a pair of pharmacy robberies in San Antonio.
Due to injuries Gosch sustained in an accident as a teenager, he would have had a hard time carrying
out his role in the offense. As a result of the accident, Gosch lost one of his eyes and his eyesight was
so poor in the other eye that he was legally blind. Given this disability, it would have been difficult for
Gosch to drive the victim from the crime scene. Moreover, Gosch also lost the distal phalanges of four
13
of his fingers and the thumb on his left hand, as well as portions of the thumb and index finger of his
right hand, from the accident. These disabilities would have made it extremely difficult for him to
brandish a weapon with one hand while binding Mrs. Patton with the other.
Although little was presented at the sentencing phase of Gosch's trial regarding his background, the
defense could have presented to the jury the picture of a physically and emotionally abused child who
nevertheless attempted to, and at times succeeded in, achieving in his academic endeavors; of a boy
who hated violence and seeing animals killed; of a young man who was not a leader but a follower,
and who was struggling to overcome the effects of an overbearing father and a traumatic injury; of an
adult man who had the intellectual and spiritual faculties to make that struggle a success. The
witnesses who provided the information necessary to put together that life history include numerous
members of Gosch's extended family who were never contacted by the defense.
Moreover, it appears that counsel failed to review potentially mitigating records. Records from the
1977 hospitalization following the explosion in Gosch's home offer significant information about the
struggles and successes he experienced while coping with his injuries. Excerpts from those same
records show Gosch's consistent attendance at the therapy sessions five, six and seven years after
counseling was ordered in conjunction with a probationary sentence resulting from his only prior
conviction. Repeatedly, the notations from those sessions show Gosch's honest attempts to confront
the issues and dilemmas presented to him and to reflect on his own life and behavior. For no apparent
reason, however, defense counsel failed to present this evidence to the jury.
14
Case Study #2 – Kenneth Junior French
The Crime
On the night of August 6, 1993, a man stepped out of a truck near Luigi's Restaurant and the Kroger
supermarket in Cumberland County, North Carolina. The man carried a pump shotgun and was
wearing shorts, a T-shirt and a hunting vest. A witness stated that there appeared to be a bottle of beer
in his hunting vest. The man suddenly began firing in the direction of the Kroger store. He then
walked to the back of the restaurant and entered through the kitchen area.
He then went to the restaurant proper, hollering "freeze." Patrons began running out the door and
hiding under the tables. The man walked through the restaurant and killed four people and wounded
numerous others, often firing right in people's faces after they asked for mercy.
A Fayetteville police officer who was working as an off-duty guard for Kroger's, heard the shots and,
after calling for backup, entered the restaurant and shot the man holding the gun. When another officer
approached, the man with the gun raised it and the officer fired twice. Finally, an officer removed the
shotgun and placed the man under arrest. He was taken to a hospital for surgery.
The Suspect
There was little doubt about who had committed the crime. The man who was arrested at the scene of
the crime was Kenneth Junior French, a 22-year-old mechanic in the Army, who had obtained the rank
of Sergeant E-5. He had recently moved into a trailer rented by his fiancée, Elaine Sears, and her two
children. At the time of the crime, Ms. Sears and her children were out of the state.
The Trial
The defendant was charged with four counts of first degree murder, eight counts of assault with a
deadly weapon with the intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and one count of discharging a firearm
into an occupied building. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all counts. After a request by the
defendant's appointed attorney, the trial was moved to New Hanover County.
Jury selection in the case began on February 14, 1994 and the guilt-or-innocence phase of the trial was
completed by the end of March. The jury then deliberated for two and a half days and returned a
verdict of guilty of four counts of first degree murder on the basis of premeditation and deliberation,
guilty of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, guilty of four counts of
assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and guilty of other lesser counts.
The jury was then presented with testimony relaying aggravating and mitigating evidence. The
aggravating evidence attempted to show that the crime was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; that
the defendant knowingly created a risk of death to more than one person; and that the murder was part
of a course of conduct which included other crimes of violence against other persons. The mitigating
evidence is presented in the section about the defendant below.
Meet the victims
Willie McCormick, a cook in the restaurant, was the first person shot, when he tried to walk away
from the defendant. He did not die.
Pete Parrous, the proprietor of the restaurant, approached the man and asked him not to hurt anyone.
He was shot in the face and died instantly. As Mr. Parrous fell to the ground, his wife, Ethel Parrous,
stood up screaming. She was killed and fell by her daughter, Connie Kotsopoulos, who began
screaming and was shot in the thigh.
Wesley Cover, who had been tending to a patron who had been hit by a pellet from the shooting, asked
15
the man with the gun not to hurt the woman he was helping because she was pregnant. Mr. Cover was
shot in the head and died quickly. The woman was also shot, but not fatally.
James Kidd was covering his son and hiding in a booth. The man shot Mr. Kidd, who died almost
immediately. The son was not physically harmed. Other patrons were wounded in the incident.
Meet the defendant
The following facts about Kenneth French were presented to the jury considering his ultimate
sentence:
On August 5, 1993 after work, Ken French went with three friends to several bars near Ft. Bragg,
consuming a great deal of alcohol before returning to the barracks around 3 AM on August 6. French
got up that morning around 9 AM. He visited some friends, played with their children, got a hair cut,
rented some videos and returned to the trailer where he was living. He started watching TV and
drinking beer. In particular, he watched a Clint Eastwood video, "The Unforgiven," imitating some of
the drinking and shooting that was going on in the movie.
At one point, he called an old girl friend, who reported that he sounded strange. He also called his
mother in Florida, during which call he started crying and apologizing for not preventing the spousal
abuse that he witnessed his father direct towards her. He also said he could have prevented the sexual
abuse and rape of his sister by his father. His mother was so concerned that she offered to come to
console him, but he said he was all right.
Ken French has no further memory of the events that then transpired, other than he remembered
putting guns into his truck and he remembered shooting an older woman. French went from his trailer
to a nearby party, where others reported that he drove erratically and that he was carrying several beers
and a bottle of Wild Turkey and that he was hyperactive. He was overheard telling some children at
the party to "shoot or kill" black people (using a pejorative term).
French continued acting strangely and alarmed those who saw him. He told a friend he wanted to go to
a part of town frequented by blacks and that a black man had "raped his sister."
Evidence presented during the penalty phase of the trial included information attempting to show that
French had no significant history of prior criminal activity, that he was relatively young at the time of
the crime, that he had a good reputation in the communities in which he lived, that he was a product of
a violent and chaotic home, and that he accepted responsibility for the shootings.
16
Case Study #3 – Dennis Stockton
The Crime
On July 20, 1978, a young man named Kenny Arnder telephoned Dennis Stockton at his home. Arnder
wanted Stockton to drive him to Kibler Valley, a remote, wooded area in southwestern Virginia.
Arnder said he was scared because someone whom he feared had seen him stealing tires off a car.
Stockton agreed, and drove Arnder to Kibler Valley, dropping him off at 6 PM. Stockton left, but later
returned around mid-night, finding a number of people who were having a party.
Five days later, Arnder's body was found in a gully near a dirt road in North Carolina, close to the
Virginia border. The body was covered with branches and already decomposed, making identification
difficult. Arnder's arms were stretched out in the form of a cross and his hands had been chopped off at
the wrists. He had been shot between the eyes.
The Suspect
Dennis Stockton already had a criminal record and was one of the last persons to see Kenny Arnder.
The police questioned him shortly after Arnder's body was discovered. Stockton readily showed the
police guns he had in his house, but they were different calibers than the murder weapon. Then the
police left.
Later, Stockton heard rumors about who had killed Arnder. However, Stockton did not go to the police
with the information he had heard about the crime.
Two years after the crime, Stockton was in jail on other charges. He heard rumors that the police
suspected him of Arnder's murder. He believed he knew where the rumors were coming from and he
offered to reveal some new information to the police. The police took him to his house, where he
showed them letters from a "prominent citizen" who had written to Stockton, offering him money in
order to have a "rival" killed. Stockton claimed he had been given $2,000, with a promise of $3,000
more if he killed this rival. Stockton said he kept the money, but never killed anyone. Later, he
received another $1,000 and a letter asking him to kill someone else. Again, he kept the money, but
did not act on the offer. He gave the letters to the police, indicating that the author of the letters might
be the one spreading the rumors about Stockton's killing Arnder as a way of getting back at Stockton
for not carrying out the murders requested in the letters. Later, the letters were lost by the police.
Finally, four years after the crime, Stockton was charged in Virginia with the murder-for-hire killing
of Kenny Arnder, when another convicted felon offered to testify that he heard Stockton agree to a
contract on Arnder's life.
The Trial
Dennis Stockton's trial was held in the rural town of Stuart, Virginia in 1983. Stockton was charged
with accepting $1,500 for murdering Kenny Arnder from Tommy McBride. Allegedly, McBride was
angry with Arnder for crossing him on a drug deal and wanted Arnder killed as a message to others.
Arnder's mother testified that the last person she saw with her son was Dennis Stockton.
Randy Bowman testified that he had been at McBride's house trying to sell some stolen goods and
heard McBride offer to pay $1,500 to have Arnder killed. Bowman testified that Stockton quickly
agreed to the deal. Bowman's testimony was the only evidence directly linking Stockman to Arnder's
murder. Bowman stated that he was not given any promises in return for his testimony, although he
was facing criminal charges.
At the sentencing hearing, a different witness testified that he had seen Stockton kill and bury another
man named Ronnie Tate in North Carolina in 1979. Ronnie Tate had also been at the park in Kibler
17
Valley the night Kenny Arnder was last seen alive. Stockton claimed he killed Tate in self-defense
after Tate had pulled a gun and threatened to shoot him. Although Stockton had admitted to this killing
earlier and had even led police to the body, it helped establish for the jury that Stockton would be a
future danger to society, and he was sentenced to death.
Meet the victim
Kenny Arnder was 18 years old when he was killed. He was the second youngest of Wilma Arnder's
six children. She had raised all the children herself after her husband left her. Kenny was a tall boy,
with long hair that was common in the 1970s. He was easy-going, but in his teens he started
associating with a rough crowd. Sometimes he would live away from home. When his body was
found, he was wearing jeans, a T-shirt with a slogan joking about drugs, and a necklace with a white
stone, the same clothes he had been wearing when he was last seen alive five days before.
Arnder had known Stockton for some months and looked up to him. Mrs. Arnder recognized Stockton
because he had been at their house a few times. Stockton telephoned her after Kenny was reported
missing and again when his body was found. She did not doubt that Stockton was the killer, but she
found it cold-blooded that someone could kill his friend.
Meet the defendant
Dennis Stockton was born in 1940 in North Carolina. He spent most of his adult life in prison, work
camp, or jail. His first stint in jail came when he was locked up for passing bad checks. His parents let
him stay in jail over the weekend to teach him a lesson. He was sexually assaulted by a guard. When
he was 17, he was sentenced to three-to-five years in prison for two counts of passing bad checks in
his parents' names. When he returned home at age 20, he was already a hardened adult.
Stockton's early years were spent in Shelby, North Carolina, where he lived with his parents in a small
rented house near the cotton mills. He did well in school and had an IQ estimated between 130 and
160. He loved baseball and played whenever he could. His father was away for much of his childhood,
fighting in World War II. When he returned, he was often abusive to Dennis.
Stockton played baseball on a prison team and claimed he was scouted by the New York Yankees. But
he never made it to the big leagues. He became heavily involved with drugs, using and dealing,
committing arson by contract, safecracking, and carrying a gun. Police frequently sought him out as a
suspect in crimes. He sported a prison tattoo, and idolized race car drivers. At one point, police
claimed they had seen a human body part preserved in a jar in Stockton's house. He said he had gotten
it from a biker gang and just kept it to show off at parties.
18
Case Study #4 – Walter McMillian
The Crime
On a Saturday morning in November, 1986, Ronda Morrison opened the Jackson Cleaners in
Monroeville, Alabama by herself and served several customers by 10 AM. At around 10:45, some
customers entered the store, but could find no one working there. They looked around and finally
discovered Ronda's body on the floor. She was dead. There was no apparent blood, and it appeared the
victim had been sexually assaulted. It also appeared that money had been taken from the cash register.
The local police began their investigation without waiting for experts from the state crime lab to
arrive. Their search for fingerprints was hindered by the presence of so many prints from customers
and by the police's relative inexperience. They did find five spent shell casings from a .25 caliber
handgun. A subsequent autopsy revealed three slugs in Ronda's body, including one fired from close
range. The coroner concluded that she had lived for about five minutes after being shot. No semen was
found in or on her body, or on her clothing.
When an officer from the Alabama Bureau of Investigation finally arrived on the scene, there was
fingerprint powder on nearly every surface and Ronda's body had already been taken to the funeral
home, thus making accurate fingerprinting and a detailed examination of fibers at the scene, hairs, the
exact location of the body, facial expression, the color of the victim's skin, and similar evidence,
impossible.
The Suspect
Police interviewed several suspects and a reward was posted, but the crime remained unsolved for
seven months. At that time, Ralph Myers, a white man with a long criminal record, was arrested for
the murder of another young woman in Alabama. He was interrogated about Ronda Morrison's murder
and eventually stated that Walter McMillian, a 46-year-old black man from Monroe County, had killed
Ronda. Two other witnessed corroborated parts of Myers's story. McMillian was reputed to be a
marijuana dealer and was dating a white woman from the area. He had a minor criminal record.
The Trial
The defense asked that the trial be moved from Monroe County because of all the publicity
surrounding the case. The judge agreed to move the trial from Monroe County to Baldwin County,
which had a substantially smaller percentage of black people in its population. Testimony at the trial
lasted one and a half days. The evidence against McMillian consisted chiefly in the following
testimony:
1. Ralph Myers said that he and McMillian drove to Jackson Cleaners on November 1. He said that
while waiting for McMillian he heard popping noises, went into the store himself, and saw McMillian
near the victim's body with money in his hands.
2. Bill Hooks testified that he had seen McMillian's "low-rider" truck near the Cleaners on the morning
of the murder and that he had seen Myers and McMillian driving away from the Cleaners. Hooks said
that he had tried to give the police some of this evidence the night of the crime, after he had been
arrested for urinating in public.
3. A surprise witness, Joe Hightower, who the prosecution said had only stepped forward four days
earlier, testified that he, too, saw the "low-rider" truck near the Cleaners on November 1, 1986.
Hightower said that he had seen the same truck many times before and that he knew it was
McMillian's truck because he had been to McMillian's house to buy marijuana. His comment about
buying marijuana was stricken from the record.
19
McMillian's defense attorney called six witnesses who testified that he was at his home on the morning
of November 1, taking part in a fish-fry. McMillian did not testify. He was found guilty of first degree
murder during a robbery.
The penalty phase of the trial to determine if a death sentence should be given began immediately after
the guilty verdict. The prosecution put on no witnesses. The defense put on only one witness, Walter
McMillian. McMillian tried to explain that he was innocent of the crime and that he did not know
Ralph Myers, but the judge cut him off, since this phase was about punishment, not guilt.
In its closing argument, the state emphasized the beauty of Ronda's life and the cruelty of her murder.
The defense argued that only God should decide who lives and who dies. Only once did the attorney
mention McMillian.
Meet the victim and her family
Ronda Reene Morrison was a pretty 18-year-old junior college school student at the time of her death
in November, 1986. She worked part-time at Jackson Cleaners, a dry cleaning establishment in the
town of Monroeville, Alabama. Ronda Morrison was a popular girl who easily made other people
smile. She weighed 120 pounds, but often worried about her weight. In high school, she attended
Monroe Academy, the private all-white high school formed by town parents to avoid racial
integration. Ronda knew few black people, and none of them well. She still liked watching Walt
Disney fairy tales and she believed that basically everyone was good deep down.
Ronda was Charles and Bertha Morrison's only child, and they considered her to be a gift from God.
Mr. Morrison worked at a paper mill and Mrs. Morrison worked at a garment factory. They were not
well-to-do, but had a comfortable house. After the guilty verdict, they prepared a short victim-impact
statement. They said, "Our life had centered around our daughter. Now that she is gone we have no
goal in life." Before submitting their victim-impact statement, they consulted with their minister at
Eastwood Baptist Church. He urged them to forgive Walter McMillian, but also to demand his
execution. The Morrison's wrote: "This man took our daughter's life and should pay with his own."
Meet the defendant
Walter McMillian was married to Minnie McMillian for 25 years. They had met as teenagers. When
Minnie became pregnant in 1962, they were married. During their first year together, they almost
starved, with Walter working as a field hand for $14 per week. They lived in a sharecropper's shack.
Walter often sought better work to support his family. Sometimes Minnie went with him, at other
times she stayed in Monroeville. He suffered some work related injuries and eventually came back to
Monroeville and opened his own land clearing business. On the side, he sold marijuana. One of his
customers was a white woman named Karen Kelly. They became romantically involved. In the midst
of her own legal troubles, Kelly had accused McMillian of another murder. McMillian's arrest record
consisted of one conviction for possession of marijuana, for which he was fined $100; one charge of
selling marijuana, which was dropped; and one charge for cutting another man with a knife outside a
nightclub, for which he was given a year's probation.
It was very difficult for Minnie to raise the money to pay for Walter's defense. Her church and the
local black community helped. At times, the attorneys threatened to stop working if they were not
paid. Minnie was upset when she learned about Karen Kelly, but she steadfastly believed in Walter's
innocence.
20
Case Outcomes
While the death penalty debate involves many issues and data, it is also involves real cases. This curriculum
seeks to give students a sense of how the death penalty is applied by summarizing four representative cases
below. The eventual outcomes, which the students will learn later, are diverse: one inmate was not sentenced
to death, two have already been executed, and one inmate was freed when his conviction was overturned.
Students will receive their first experience of the trial process by answering questions which may lead to their
exclusion or inclusion on a capital case jury. But regardless of whether they would actually be chosen for the
jury, they can review the facts in the cases which follow and decide how they would vote, and why.
The cases are based on actual death penalty trials that took place in four different states around the country.
No case was chosen to demonstrate a single point. Rather cases were chosen because they embodied many
death penalty issues which would likely result in further discussion.
Some of the issues in the cases are understated and may be noticed only by one or two students. It would
certainly be appropriate to encourage further research into such an issue and discuss how it may have played a
role in the ultimate decision reached in the case. For example, a student may recognize that in a particular case
the defendant was black and the victim was white. There may be nothing else said in the brief description
provided about how race may play a role in capital cases, but that is fair ground for debate, especially if the
students find broad factual data to support their assertion in the particular case before them.
Besides the wide variety of issues that may arise in each case, it is hoped that there will be discussion of what
the four cases together say about the practice of the death penalty. No four cases can be truly representative of
how capital punishment is applied in the United States, but once the students have read the final outcomes in
these cases, they will be better prepared to discuss such questions as:
In what kinds of cases is the death penalty pursued?
ƒ
Can you predict the outcome of a death penalty case by reading the facts of the crime?
ƒ
Does the jury always have all the facts it needs to adequately decide the sentence?
ƒ
Who is responsible for bringing important evidence before the jury? What should happen if those
responsible do a poor job?
ƒ
What kind of evidence is used to obtain a conviction; what kind is used to determine the ultimate
sentence?
ƒ
Is it fair that different defendants receive different sentences for similar crimes?
Case 1: Lesley Gosch
Lesley Gosch was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. He was granted last-minute
reprieves of his execution on two occasions. His attorneys on appeal claimed that Gosch’s trial was
unfair because witness Stephen Hurst had given the jury the false impression that he was not interested
in the reward money when he testified. They also maintained that the trial attorneys should have
presented a stronger case that Gosch was not the shooter in this murder. Just prior to his execution, his
attorneys challenged the clemency process in Texas, which initially is handled by a Board which does
not conduct open meetings or allow review of its decision-making. Gosch was executed on April 24,
1998. He had no final statement and made no eye contact with Amy Grammer, the daughter of the
woman he was convicted of killing.
21
After the trial, Stephen Hurst was paid the $100,000 reward offered by the banks. John Rogers
received a prison term of 45 years.
Case 2: Kenneth French
The jury deliberated for two and a half days to determine the sentence. At that time, the jury reported
that it was hopelessly deadlocked. They unanimously found the existence of two aggravating factors
(risk of death to more than one person, and murder in the course of violent conduct). They were able to
agree that the mitigating evidence did not outweigh the aggravating evidence, but were unable to agree
on whether French should be sentenced to death. Upon determining that the jury was deadlocked, the
court imposed a sentence of four consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders, and
additional time to be served consecutively for the other offenses.
French filed a notice of appeal and remains incarcerated in North Carolina.
Case 3: Dennis Stockton
Stockton was found guilty of the murder of Kenny Arnder and sentenced to death in 1983. Prior to his
trial, the prosecutors had offered to recommend against a death sentence if Stockton testified against
Tommy McBride, who allegedly made the offer to have Arnder killed. Stockton refused the
prosecutor’s deal, saying he never heard McBride make any offer.
During his years on death row, there was a major escape by six inmates. From his own diary, it was
clear that Stockton had been involved in the early planning of the escape, but had backed out before it
was attempted. Stockton had always maintained his innocence of the crime that sent him to death row,
and he hoped his appeals would free him.
Stockton’s chief accuser at trial, Randy Bowman, recanted his testimony to a reporter in 1995. At that
time, Bowman stated he never heard Stockton say he would kill Arnder when offered the $1,500.
Later, police investigators visited Bowman, and he took back his recantation. The Virginia and federal
courts denied all of Stockton’s appeals, many of which claimed new evidence. At least three people
submitted affidavits claiming that Bowman had bragged about killing Arnder. There was also evidence
that Bowman had been given a deal for testifying against Stockton. The police, however, produced
evidence that Bowman was in jail when Arnder was killed and maintained that no deal had been made
with Bowman.
Stockton was executed by lethal injection in 1995. Tommy McBride was arrested but never tried in
connection with the murder. The North Carolina authorities declined to prosecute the case because
they did not believe they had enough evidence to convict anyone of murder.
Case 4: Walter McMillian
The jury voted 7-5 in favor of a life sentence for Walter McMillian. However, in Alabama the judge
can override the jury’s recommendation. Judge Robert E. Lee Key decided to sentence McMillian to
die in the electric chair for the murder of Ronda Morrison. At sentencing, McMillian again proclaimed
his innocence, saying, “I’d like for the girl’s parents to know that I did not kill their daughter.”
McMillian’s defense was eventually taken over by the Alabama Resource Center, which discovered
that two of the witnesses had been given favorable treatment in criminal prosecutions and reward
money for their testimony against McMillian, and that this information had not been revealed to the
jury. Ralph Myers told the defense that he had been forced to make false accusations against
McMillian. Moreover, it was discovered that McMillian had not converted his truck to a “low-rider”
22
until six months after the murder, thus undercutting the testimony of those who claimed to see his
truck at the crime scene. McMillian's conviction was eventually overturned, and the prosecution
agreed to drop all charges. McMillian was freed in 1993 after nearly six years on death row.
23
Mock Legislative Hearing Exercise
A. Briefly discuss your state’s laws on capital punishment and review the informational handout with the
class. Allow the class to ask questions. (20 minutes)
B. Explain that the class will now engage in a role playing exercise. Introduce the simulation by reading the
following:
Your state legislature is reconsidering its position on capital punishment. In the spirit of the democratic
experiment in the United States, legislators are calling for citizen input in rendering a decision. Legislators
are holding an open legislative hearing on the death penalty. Your group, motivated by various political and
social reasons assigned below, has chosen to attend this hearing. As citizens concerned with the issues of
fairness and justice, you have the responsibility to act as the voice for your community and its position. The
handouts will provide a substantial amount of information with regard to the death penalty, but you are also
encouraged to draw on current events and publications concerning the issue.
If your state does not currently have the death penalty, it may introduce new legislation to enact it. On the
other hand, if your state does have the death penalty, it may introduce new legislation to impose a
moratorium, or abolish it.
C. Distribute handouts on the death penalty.
ƒ Handout: Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment
ƒ Handout: History of the Death Penalty in the US
ƒ Handout: California’s Capital Punishment Laws
D. Divide the students into six groups. Explain that five of the groups will represent different interest groups,
while one group will be legislators.
E. Randomly select a role for each group. These should be printed out and given to the group facilitator
F. Allow students to discuss their roles with their small groups. The group should assign a work role for each
member. (20 minutes).
G. Remind the students to revisit their “know/ want to know” notes while preparing their presentation.
H. Homework: Read the handouts and take notes.
Note: Although students are given specific propositions to investigate and a specific role to play, they are not
limited to these positions in general class discussions. Students should be encouraged to pass through the
inquiry process: beginning with assessing what they currently know, learning more about the death penalty
through the simulation and the handouts, and then re-examining their views given their investigations and the
new knowledge they acquire.
24
Group Work Roles
As many of you know, the selection of group composition can be a difficult task. Depending on the dynamics
of your class, you may decide to have the students select their own groups. If you choose this approach, make
sure that students understand the responsibilities of each group member, as well as the collective
responsibilities of the group. Groups may also be selected randomly, or composed by you. The latter is our
suggestion, given the complexity of the group dynamics for this unit. Given the open-ended nature of the
research and role-play simulation, teacher guidance is of the utmost importance.
Logistics of group work: Emphasize that this is a cooperative endeavor, where individual opinions should be
respected - the students are acting as a citizen research team.
Have the groups identify roles that each member will play (roles may be doubled up, with exception of the
role of the facilitator - only one person should hold this role):
ƒ
Speaker (the primary, although not the only, presenter of the group research; participates in the team)
ƒ
Facilitator (keeps the group on task, focuses questions, oversees issues of quality and time
management; responsible for individual and group assessment)
ƒ
Writer (coordinates the written work of research and the production of the final group brief to be
presented to the team - there may be two, if dissenting opinions emerge)
ƒ
Visual producers (coordinates and produces the visual product highlighting the major points of their
group’s position/research on the proposition on poster board.
Note: This division of labor can be used throughout the year if you utilize group work frequently in your class,
so that before the end of the year everyone will assume one of these roles during some research or group
project.
25
Mock Legislative Hearing Roles
Instructions
Pass out one role to each of the six groups. Ask each group to select a facilitator, speaker and writer.
Group #1 Role: Law Enforcement Community
You are members of the law enforcement community - police officers, detectives, prosecutors, etc.
You are primarily concerned with preventing crime. If criminals are left on the streets, your jobs will
be tougher; your task is to research the following proposition:
Proposition: The Death Penalty prevents future murders.
You should read over all of the information given on both sides of the issue, including expert
testimony and any other sections of the Web site that might be useful. As people charged with
enforcing the law and preventing crime, you should decide which arguments are most persuasive to
you. You should be prepared to argue this at the legislative hearing when it convenes. As a group, you
should prepare a written statement of beliefs to present to the legislative hearing and a visual product
to illustrate your points (poster board works well).
Group #2 Role: Families of Victims
You represent the families of the victims in the case studies you read. One of your loved ones was
killed in that case. You need to bring some resolution to this terrible tragedy. Do you believe that the
accused must be killed to make up for your loss or for justice to be served (a life for a life) or is it
sufficient to lock the person up for life?
Proposition: A just society requires the death penalty for the taking of a life.
You should read over all of the information given on both sides of the issue, including expert
testimony and any other sections of the Web site that might be useful. As people who have lost a loved
one in a violent crime, you should decide which arguments are most persuasive to you. You should be
prepared to argue this at the legislative hearing when it convenes. As a group, you should prepare a
written statement of beliefs to present to the legislative hearing and a visual product to illustrate your
points (poster board works well).
Group #3 Role: Families of the Accused
You represent the families of the people accused of the crimes in the case studies that you read. You
do not know whether they are guilty or innocent. All you know is that a member of your family is
accused of a terrible crime and faces the loss of his/her life because of it.
Proposition: The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.
You should read over all of the information given on both sides of the issue, including expert
testimony and any other sections of the Web site that might be useful. As family members of an
individual who may face the death penalty, you should decide which arguments are most persuasive to
you. You should be prepared to argue this at the legislative hearing when it convenes. As a group, you
should prepare a written statement of beliefs to present to the legislative hearing and a visual product
to illustrate your points (poster board works well).
26
Group #4 Role: Multicultural Task Force (MTF)
You represent a civil rights organization that advocates equal justice for all people, without regard to
race. You are against discrimination and arbitrariness in the justice system. If your group collectively
advocates the death penalty, how might it be applied more fairly with regard to race? If your group
does not advocate the death penalty and views it as being applied unfairly, what racial issues can you
find to support your position?
Proposition: The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.
You should read over all of the information given on both sides of the issue, including expert
testimony and any other resources that might be useful. As a group that advocates for equal justice for
all people, you should decide which arguments are most persuasive to you. You should be prepared to
argue this at the legislative hearing when it convenes. As a group, you should prepare a written
statement of beliefs to present to the legislative hearing and a visual product to illustrate your points
(poster board works well).
Group #5 Role: Youths for Justice (YFJ)
You are a group that advocates basic human rights for all people, especially juveniles. You are
concerned with how young people are affected by the justice system. Are juveniles treated fairly when
the death penalty is administered?
Proposition: Money should be spent on keeping juveniles in schools and out of prison. The
death penalty wastes resources which could be going to schools.
You should read over all of the information given on both sides of the proposal your group has
selected, including expert testimony and handouts. As people who want to see justice for America’s
youth, you should decide which arguments are most persuasive to you. You should be prepared to
argue this at the legislative hearing when it convenes. As a group, you should prepare a written
statement of beliefs to present to the legislative hearing and a visual product to illustrate your points
(poster board works well).
Group #6 Role: Legislators
You are the members of the legislature in your state. As representatives of both individual citizens and
of the state as a whole, your job is to enact legislation that represents the best overall approach to
capital punishment in your state. While the other groups are researching specific areas, your group
should investigate all of the following arguments: Deterrence, Retribution, Innocence, Arbitrariness,
Cost and Discrimination.
Make sure you are aware of both sides of each of these arguments. When the groups make their
presentations at the legislative hearing, you should be ready to ask questions. You should make up
your mind how you will vote after listening to all of the arguments. (Remember that you will have to
support your final answer. It is certain that some people will disagree with you, so be prepared to
justify your position).
27
Preparation for Mock Legislative Hearings
A. Explain how a legislative hearing works and what will be expected of each group. We
recommend that you require each presentation to be at least 5 minutes.
B. Ask the students to meet with their small groups to discuss what position they will present to the
legislators. (30 minutes)
C. Once the students have decided on their group’s position, each student should be asked to prepare
a written statement giving at least one reason they chose that position (1 page). The students will
be expected to present this information on the following day.
C. Homework: Prepare visual aides for the presentation.
Set-up for Mock Legislative Hearings & Follow-up Discussion
A. Arrange the room so that there is a large table at the front (if no table is available, arrange the desks
so your legislators face the room) and the desks sit in a semi-circle facing the front. There should be a
separate place for the presenter to stand, as well as a place for the visual products (an easel if you are
using poster board).
B. Remind students that they will all prepare their own position papers when this is over, and that the
information from the presenters may help them in preparing their views. Suggest that they record any
notes in their death penalty notebook.
C. Choose groups randomly to go first, second and so on. Allow each group to make its presentation
and answer any questions from the legislative committee. It is important to note that other groups may
want to rebut what the speaker has said or to ask questions - don’t allow this; however, encourage
them to take notes for the general discussion/debriefing on the last day.
D. After all the speakers have presented and given the legislators their written position statements,
have the legislators go to the hallway or some other conference area to deliberate. (Given time
constraints, this may have to take place the following day.) There they should discuss what they have
seen and heard, and make a determination for your state regarding the death penalty. While the
legislators are deliberating, discuss with the students remaining in the room where they stand on the
death penalty. Should your state enact the death penalty? Why or why not? If so, what methods of
execution would they want to have? If not, have them revisit the compelling arguments against the
death penalty. There will be further discussion after the legislators announce their findings.
E. Legislators announce their decision - a debate and discussion will emerge. Drawing on what they
have learned during the course of the unit, the simulation, the arguments presented and the notes they
have taken during the presentations, revisit the themes that have emerged. (20-30 minutes)
28
Handouts for Mock Legislative Hearings
1) Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty
Deterrence
The death penalty is not a Deterrent
Those who believe that deterrence justifies the
execution of certain offenders bear the burden
of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent.
The overwhelming conclusion from years of
deterrence studies is that the death penalty is,
at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence
of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been
widely discredited. In fact, some
criminologists, such as William Bowers of
Northeastern University, maintain that the
death penalty has the opposite effect: that is,
society is brutalized by the use of the death
penalty, and this increases the likelihood of
more murder. Even most supporters of the
death penalty now place little or no weight on
deterrence as a serious justification for its
continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ
the death penalty generally have lower murder
rates than states that do. The same is true when
the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it.
The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher
murder rate than the countries of Europe or
Canada, which do not use the death penalty.
The death penalty is not a deterrent because
most people who commit murders either do not
expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh
the differences between a possible execution
and life in prison before they act. Frequently,
murders are committed in moments of passion
or anger, or by criminals who are substance
abusers and acted impulsively. As someone
who presided over many of Texas's executions,
former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has
remarked, "It is my own experience that those
executed in Texas were not deterred by the
existence of the death penalty law. I think in
most cases you'll find that the murder was
committed under severe drug and alcohol
abuse."
The death penalty is a Deterrent
Society has always used punishment to discourage
would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since
society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it
should use the strongest punishment available to deter
murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are
sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers
will think twice before killing for fear of losing their
own life.
For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see
if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted
murderers being executed, but the results were
inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a
new kind of analysis which produced results showing
that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were
spared because others were deterred from committing
murder. Similar results have been produced by
disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.
Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence
are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty
is rarely used and takes years before an execution is
actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and
sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or
countries which do not use the death penalty have
lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not
evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high
murder rates would have even higher rates if they did
not use the death penalty.
Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at
Fordham University who has studied the question of
deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical
demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot
be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than
other punishments because people fear death more
than anything else. They fear most death deliberately
inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever
people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the
threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers
who otherwise might not have been deterred. And
surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could
deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and
29
There is no conclusive proof that the death
penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat
of life imprisonment. A survey of the former
and present presidents of the country's top
academic criminological societies found that
84% of these experts rejected the notion that
research had demonstrated any deterrent effect
from the death penalty.
Once in prison, those serving life sentences
often settle into a routine and are less of a
threat to commit violence than other prisoners.
Moreover, most states now have a sentence of
life without parole. Prisoners who are given
this sentence will never be released. Thus, the
safety of society can be assured without using
the death penalty.
tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be
arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will
not be deterred. But they would certainly not be
deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection
we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks."
Finally, the death penalty certainly "deters" the
murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a
form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put
in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets.
Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them
from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if
they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form
of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to
prevent future crime.
Retribution
Retribution is necessary.
When someone takes a life, the balance of
justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is
restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence.
Only the taking of the murderer's life restores
the balance and allows society to show
convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime
which will be punished in kind.
Retribution has its basis in religious values,
which have historically maintained that it is
proper to take an "eye for an eye" and a life for
a life.
Although the victim and the victim's family
cannot be restored to the status which preceded
the murder, at least an execution brings closure
to the murderer's crime (and closure to the
ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that
the murderer will create no more victims.
For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones
for which the death penalty is applied, offenders
deserve the worst punishment under our system
of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser
punishment would undermine the value society
places on protecting lives.
Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma
City, described his concept of the need for
retribution in one case: "In 1991, a young
mother was rendered helpless and made to
Retribution is not necessary.
Retribution is another word for revenge. Although
our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain
on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a
mature society demand a more measured response.
The emotional impulse for revenge is not a
sufficient justification for invoking a system of
capital punishment, with all its accompanying
problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice
system should lead us to higher principles that
demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the
life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives
of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends
the chain of violence. Allowing executions
sanctions killing as a form of 'pay-back.'
Many victims' families denounce the use of the
death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the
wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only
causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch's
daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City
bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to
wish that those who committed this terrible crime
be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing "is
simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed
Julie.... Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion.
But it has no place in our justice system."
The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life,
is a simplistic one which our society has never
30
watch as her baby was executed. The mother
was then mutilated and killed. The killer should
not lie in some prison with three meals a day,
clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless
appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just
need to die."
endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or
raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a
similarly disproportionate punishment, especially
in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a
small percentage of those convicted of murder, and
these defendants are typically not the worst
offenders but merely the ones with the fewest
resources to defend themselves.
Innocence
The death penalty should not be used because
innocent people may be executed.
The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence.
Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make
amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable
evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing
people to death. Since 1973, at least 114 people have been
released from death row after evidence of their innocence
emerged. During the same period of time, over 900 people
have been executed. Thus, for every nine people executed,
we have found one person on death row who never should
have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable
risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer
operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of
business.
Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A recent study
by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of
all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases
were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced
to death and 7% were completely acquitted.
Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row
came about as a result of factors outside of the justice
system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were
assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled
to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his
legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had
lied at the original trial, and they were able to find the true
killer, who confessed to the crime on videotape. The
innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he
was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned
citizens, not because of the justice system.
In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row
inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that
these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death
penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early
The necessity of using the
death penalty outweighs the
risk of executing an innocent
person.
There is no proof that any innocent
person has actually been executed
since increased safeguards and appeals
were added to our death penalty
system in the 1970s. Even if such
executions have occurred, they are
very rare. Imprisoning innocent people
is also wrong, but we cannot empty
the prisons because of that minimal
risk. If improvements are needed in
the system of representation, or in the
use of scientific evidence such as
DNA testing, then those reforms
should be instituted. However, the
need for reform is not a reason to
abolish the death penalty.
Besides, many of the claims of
innocence by those who have been
released from death row are actually
based on legal technicalities. Just
because someone's conviction is
overturned years later and the
prosecutor decides not to retry him,
does not mean he is actually innocent.
If it can be shown that someone is
innocent, surely a governor would
grant clemency and spare the person.
Hypothetical claims of innocence are
usually just delaying tactics to put off
the execution as long as possible.
Given our thorough system of appeals
through numerous state and federal
courts, the execution of an innocent
individual today is almost impossible.
31
1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not
been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates
would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been
applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the
1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven
that some of them were innocent as well.
Even the theoretical execution of an
innocent person can be justified
because the death penalty saves lives
by deterring other killings.
Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost.
We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers
will be killed during construction; we take great precautions
to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful
executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence
of life without parole, we meet society's needs of punishment
and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and
irrevocable punishment.
Arbitrariness and Discrimination
The death penalty is used arbitrarily.
In practice, the death penalty does not single out the
worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group
based on such irrational factors as the quality of the
defense counsel, the county in which the crime was
committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.
Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot
afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent
on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state,
many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are
so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case
properly. A poorly represented defendant is much
more likely to be convicted and given a death
sentence.
With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown
that a death sentence is far more likely where a white
person is murdered than where a black person is
murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive
because it appears to count white lives as more
valuable than black lives. Since the death penalty was
reinstated in 1976, 158 black defendants have been
executed for the murder of a white victim, while only
11 white defendants have been executed for the
murder of a black victim. Such racial disparities have
existed over the history of the death penalty and
appear to be largely intractable.
It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state
receives the death penalty, but someone who commits
a comparable crime in another county or state is given
a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion
The death penalty is nether arbitrary
or discriminatory.
Discretion has always been an essential part
of our system of justice. No one expects the
prosecutor to pursue every possible offense
or punishment, nor do we expect the same
sentence to be imposed just because two
crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique,
both because the circumstances of each
victim are different and because each
defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme
Court has held that a mandatory death
penalty which applied to everyone convicted
of first degree murder would be
unconstitutional. Hence, we must give
prosecutors and juries some discretion.
In fact, more white people are executed in
this country than black people. And even if
blacks are disproportionately represented on
death row, proportionately blacks commit
more murders than whites. Moreover, the
Supreme Court has rejected the use of
statistical studies which claim racial bias as
the sole reason for overturning a death
sentence.
Even if the death penalty punishes some
while sparing others, it does not follow that
everyone should be spared. The guilty should
still be punished appropriately, even if some
do escape proper punishment unfairly. The
death penalty should apply to killers of black
32
about when to seek the death penalty and when to
settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only
afford a minimal defense are selected for the death
penalty. While race and other arbitrary factors, like
economics and geography, are a determinant of who
lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.
people as well as to killers of whites. High
paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to
get some defendants off on technicalities.
The existence of some systemic problems is
no reason to abandon the whole death
penalty system.
Cost
The death penalty is too expensive and takes
resources away from other important issues,
like education.
Death penalty cases are much more expensive than
other criminal cases and cost more than imprisonment
for Life Without Parole (LWOP). In California, capital
trials are six times more costly than other murder trials.
A study in Kansas indicated that a capital trial costs
$116,700 more than an ordinary murder trial. Complex
pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses
for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in
death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death
sentence requires courts to follow heightened due
process in the preparation and course of the trial. The
separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even
longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial.
And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial
when they are facing a possible death sentence. After
conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals
which involve both prosecution and defense costs.
Most of these costs occur in every case for which
capital punishment is sought, regardless of the
outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty
includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful"
trials in which the death penalty is sought but not
achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not
given the death sentence, the state will still incur the
costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased
trial expenses.
For the states which employ the death penalty, this
luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty
case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about
three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single
cell at the highest security level for 40 years. In
Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.
In financially strapped California, one report estimated
that the state could save $90 million each year by
abolishing capital punishment. The New York
Department of Correctional Services estimated that
We could greatly reduce the cost of the
death penalty if we limited the excessive
appeals process.
The death penalty is only more expensive
than Life Without the Possibility of Parole
(LWOP) because the appeals process drags
on for ten, fifteen and sometimes twenty
years. Defense attorneys are constantly
trying to find some small technicality that
will allow their client to have a new trial.
These appeals are unnecessary and are a
drain on state and county resources.
Death Row inmates should be limited to
one automatic appeal. They should not be
allowed to appeal the same issues over and
over again until they can find a judge who
agrees with them. The system already has
many checks and balances. These checks
and balances help prevent wrongful
conviction and allow the process to move
forward. If the courts fail to address an
error, the Governor can prevent the
execution from going forward until the
issue is addressed. There are many
safeguards built into the system; excessive
appeals simply keep the system from
working efficiently. Once the defendant’s
guilt is determined, he or she should not be
able to manipulate the system endlessly.
If death row inmates were executed after a
few years, instead of ten or twenty years, in
addition to saving money on legal fees, the
state would not have to pay to house and
feed the inmates for years and years. This
would decrease overcrowding in our
prisons and reduce to total operational cost
of the prison.
The death penalty is less expensive than
33
implementing the death penalty would cost the state
about $118 million annually.
If the death penalty was abolished, the state could
direct more funds into education, after-school
programs, job training centers, community safety
programs or drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs.
Life Without the Possibility of Parole when
it is implemented in a swift and efficient
manner.
2) History of the Death Penalty in the United States
The following is a brief summary of the history of capital punishment, with an emphasis on
developments in the United States. The sources used in this summary are listed at the end to allow
more in-depth research.
Early Death Penalty Laws
The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of
King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death
penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code, the Seventh Century B.C.'s
Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes, and the Fifth
Century B.C.'s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as
crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement.
In the Tenth Century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain. In the following
century, William the Conqueror would not allow persons to be hanged or otherwise executed for any
crime, except in times of war. This trend would not last, for in the Sixteenth Century, under the reign
of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. Some common methods
of execution at that time were boiling, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and drawing and
quartering. Executions were carried out for such capital offenses as marrying a Jew, not confessing to
a crime, and treason.
The number of capital crimes in Britain continued to rise throughout the next two centuries. By the
1700s, 222 crimes were punishable by death in Britain, including stealing, cutting down a tree, and
robbing a rabbit warren. Because of the severity of the punishment of death, many juries would not
convict defendants if the offense was not serious. This led to reforms of Britain's death penalty. From
1823 to 1837, the death penalty was eliminated for over 100 of the 222 crimes punishable by death.
(Randa, 1997)
The Death Penalty in America
Britain influenced America's use of the death penalty more than any other country did. When
European settlers came to the new world, they brought the practice of capital punishment. The first
recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony
of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, Virginia Governor Sir
Thomas Dale enacted the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even
minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.
Laws regarding the death penalty varied from colony to colony. The Massachusetts Bay Colony held
its first execution in 1630, even though the Capital Laws of New England did not go into effect until
years later. The New York Colony instituted the Duke's Laws of 1665. Under these laws, offenses
such as striking one's mother or father, or denying the "true God," were punishable by death. (Randa,
1997)
34
Early Questions about the Death Penalty: Colonial Times
Those who did not support the death penalty found support in the writings of European theorists
Montesquieu, Voltaire and Bentham, and English Quakers John Bellers and John Howard. However, it
was Cesare Beccaria's 1767 essay, On Crimes and Punishment that had an especially strong impact
throughout the world. In the essay, Beccaria theorized that there was no justification for the state's
taking of a life. The essay gave abolitionists an authoritative voice and renewed energy, one result of
which was the abolition of the death penalty in Austria and Tuscany. (Schabas 1997)
American intellectuals as well were influenced by Beccaria. The first attempted reforms of the death
penalty in the U.S. occurred when Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill to revise Virginia's death
penalty laws. The bill proposed that capital punishment be used only for the crimes of murder and
treason. It was defeated by only one vote.
Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and founder of the Pennsylvania
Prison Society, challenged the belief that the death penalty served as a deterrent. In fact, Rush was an
early believer in the "brutalization effect." He held that having a death penalty actually increased
criminal conduct. Rush gained the support of Benjamin Franklin and Philadelphia Attorney General
William Bradford. Bradford, who would later become the U.S. Attorney General, believed that the
death penalty should be retained, but that it was not a deterrent to certain crimes. He subsequently led
Pennsylvania to become the first state to consider degrees of murder based on culpability. In 1794,
Pennsylvania repealed the death penalty for all offenses except first degree murder. (Bohm, 1999;
Randa, 1997; and Schabas, 1997)
Changes in Death Penalty Laws: Nineteenth Century
In the early part of the nineteenth century, many states reduced the number of their capital crimes and
built state penitentiaries. In 1834, Pennsylvania became the first state to move executions away from
the public eye and carry them out in correctional facilities.
In 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes except treason.
Later, Rhode Island and Wisconsin abolished the death penalty for all crimes. By the end of the
century, the world would see the countries of Venezuela, Portugal, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Brazil and
Ecuador follow suit (Bohm, 1999 and Schabas, 1997).
Although some U.S. states began abolishing the death penalty, most states held onto capital
punishment. Some states made more crimes capital offenses, especially for offenses committed by
slaves. In 1838, in an effort to make the death penalty more palatable to the public, some states passed
laws against mandatory death sentencing, instead enacting discretionary death penalty statutes. With
the exception of a small number of rarely committed crimes in a few jurisdictions, all mandatory
capital punishment laws had been abolished by 1963 (Bohm, 1999).
During the Civil War, opposition to the death penalty waned, as more attention was given to the antislavery movement. After the war, new developments in the means of executions emerged. The electric
chair was introduced at the end of the century. New York built the first electric chair in 1888, and in
1890 executed William Kemmler. Soon, other states adopted this method of execution (Randa, 1997).
Early and Mid-Twentieth Century
From 1907 to 1917, six states completely outlawed the death penalty and three limited it to the rarely
committed crimes of treason and first degree murder of a law enforcement official. However, this
reform was short-lived. There was a frenzied atmosphere in the U.S., as citizens began to panic about
the threat of revolution in the wake of the Russian Revolution. In addition, the U.S. had just entered
World War I and there were intense class conflicts as socialists mounted the first serious challenge to
35
capitalism. As a result, five of the six abolitionist states reinstated their death penalty by 1920. (Bedau,
1997 and Bohm, 1999)
In 1924, the use of cyanide gas was introduced, as Nevada sought a more humane way of executing its
inmates. Gee Jon was the first person executed by lethal gas. The state tried to pump cyanide gas into
Jon's cell while he slept, but this proved impossible, and the gas chamber was constructed. (Bohm,
1999)
From the 1920s to the 1940s, there was a resurgence in the use of the death penalty. This was due, in
part, to the writings of criminologists, who argued that the death penalty was a necessary social
measure. In the United States, Americans were suffering through Prohibition and the Great
Depression. There were more executions in the 1930s than in any other decade in American history, an
average of 167 per year. (Bohm, 1999 and Schabas, 1997)
In the 1950s, public sentiment began to turn away from capital punishment. Many allied nations either
abolished or limited the death penalty, and in the U.S., the number of executions dropped dramatically.
Whereas there were 1,289 executions in the 1940s, there were 715 in the 1950s, and the number fell
even further, to only 191, from 1960 to 1976. In 1966, support for capital punishment reached an alltime low. A Gallup poll showed support for the death penalty at only 42%. (Bohm, 1999 and BJS,
1997)
Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America
The 1960s brought challenges to the fundamental legality of the death penalty. Before then, the Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting
the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel
and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In 1958, the
Supreme Court decided in Trop v. Dulles (356 U.S. 86) that the interpretation of the Eighth
Amendment contained an "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing
society." Although Trop was not a death penalty case, abolitionists applied the Court's logic to
executions and maintained that the United States had, in fact, progressed to a point that its "standard of
decency" should no longer tolerate the death penalty. (Bohm, 1999)
In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began "fine tuning" the way the death penalty was administered.
To this effect, the Court heard two cases in 1968 dealing with the discretion given to the prosecutor
and the jury in capital cases. The first case was U.S. v. Jackson (390 U.S. 570), where the Supreme
Court heard arguments regarding a provision of the federal kidnapping statute requiring that the death
penalty be imposed only upon recommendation of a jury. The Court held that this practice was
unconstitutional because it encouraged defendants to waive their right to a jury trial to ensure they
would not receive a death sentence.
The other 1968 case was Witherspoon v. Illinois (391 U.S. 510). The Supreme Court held that a
potential juror's mere reservations about the death penalty were insufficient grounds to prevent that
person from serving on the jury in a death penalty case. Jurors could be disqualified only if
prosecutors could show that the juror's attitude toward capital punishment would prevent him or her
from making an impartial decision about punishment.
Suspending the Death Penalty
The issue of the arbitrariness of the death penalty was brought before the Supreme Court in 1972 in
Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238). Furman, bringing an Eighth Amendment challenge, argued that
capital cases resulted in arbitrary and capricious sentencing.
In 9 separate opinions, and by a vote of 5 to 4, the Court held that Georgia's death penalty statute,
36
which gave the jury complete sentencing discretion without any guidance as to how to exercise that
discretion, could result in arbitrary sentencing. The Court held that the scheme of punishment under
the statute was therefore "cruel and unusual" and violated the Eighth Amendment. Thus, on June 29,
1972, the Supreme Court effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes, thereby commuting the
sentences of 629 death row inmates around the country and suspending the death penalty because
existing statutes were no longer valid.
Reinstating the Death Penalty
Although the separate opinions by Justices Brennan and Marshall stated that the death penalty itself
was unconstitutional, the overall holding in Furman was that the specific death penalty statutes were
unconstitutional. With that holding, the Court essentially opened the door to states to rewrite their
death penalty statutes to eliminate the problems cited in Furman. Advocates of capital punishment
began proposing new statutes that they believed would end arbitrariness in capital sentencing. The
states were led by Florida, which rewrote its death penalty statute only five months after Furman.
Shortly after, 34 other states proceeded to enact new death penalty statutes. To address the
unconstitutionality of unguided jury discretion, some states removed all of that discretion by
mandating capital punishment for those convicted of capital crimes. However, this practice was held
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Woodson v. North Carolina (428 U.S. 280 (1976)).
Other states sought to limit that discretion by providing sentencing guidelines for the judge and jury
when deciding whether to impose death. The guidelines allowed for the introduction of aggravating
and mitigating factors in determining sentencing. These guided discretion statutes were approved in
1976 by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia (428 U.S. 153), Jurek v. Texas (428 U.S. 262), and
Proffitt v. Florida (428 U.S. 242), collectively referred to as the Gregg decision. This landmark
decision held that the new death penalty statutes in Florida, Georgia, and Texas were constitutional,
thus reinstating the death penalty in those states. The Court also held that the death penalty itself was
constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
In addition to sentencing guidelines, three other procedural reforms were approved by the Court in
Gregg. The first was bifurcated trials, in which there are separate deliberations for the guilt and
penalty phases of the trial. Only after the jury has determined that the defendant is guilty of capital
murder does it decide in a second trial whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or given a
lesser sentence of prison time. Another reform was the practice of automatic appellate review of
convictions and sentence. The final procedural reform from Gregg was proportionality review, a
practice that helps the state to identify and eliminate sentencing disparities. Through this process, the
state appellate court can compare the sentence in the case being reviewed with other cases within the
state, to see if it is disproportionate.
Because these reforms were accepted by the Supreme Court, some states wishing to reinstate the death
penalty included them in their new death penalty statutes. The Court, however, did not require that
each of the reforms be present in the new statutes. Therefore, some of the resulting new statutes
include variations on the procedural reforms found in Gregg.
The ten-year moratorium on executions that had begun with the Jackson and Witherspoon decisions
ended on January 17, 1977, with the execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad in Utah. Gilmore did
not challenge his death sentence. That same year, Oklahoma became the first state to adopt lethal
injection as a means of execution, though it would be five more years until Charles Brooks became the
first person executed by lethal injection in Texas on December 7, 1982.
Limitations on the Death Penalty
37
Limitations within the United States
After World War II, many European countries abandoned or restricted the death after signing and ratifying the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent human rights treaties. The U.S. retained the death
penalty, but established limitations on capital punishment.
In 1977, the United States Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia (433 U.S. 584) that the death penalty is an
unconstitutional punishment for the rape of an adult woman when the victim was not killed. Other limits to
the death penalty followed in the next decade.
Mental Illness and Mental Retardation
In 1986, the Supreme Court banned the execution of insane persons in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399).
However, in 1989, the Court held that executing persons with mental retardation was not a violation of the
Eighth Amendment in Penry v. Lynaugh (492 U.S. 584). Mental retardation would instead be a mitigating
factor to be considered during sentencing. The Court modified their decision in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia
citing “evolving standards of decency” and a developing national consensus against the execution of the
mentally retarded as their reasons for the change.
Race
Race became the focus of the criminal justice debate when the Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky
(476 U.S. 79 (1977)) that a prosecutor who exercises his or her preemptory challenges to remove a
disproportionate number of citizens of the same race in selecting a jury is required to show neutral reasons for
the strikes.
Race was again in the forefront when the Supreme Court decided a 1987 case, McCleskey v. Kemp (481 U.S.
279). McCleskey argued that there was racial discrimination in the application of Georgia's death penalty by
presenting a statistical analysis showing a pattern of racial disparities in death sentences, based on the race of
the victim. The Supreme Court held, however, that racial disparities would not be recognized as a
constitutional violation of equal protection of the law unless intentional racial discrimination against the
defendant could be shown.
Juveniles
In the late 1980s, the Supreme Court decided three cases regarding the constitutionality of executing juvenile
offenders. In 1988, in Thompson v. Oklahoma (487 U.S. 815), four Justices held that the execution of
offenders aged fifteen and younger at the time of their crimes was unconstitutional. The fifth vote was Justice
O'Connor's concurrence, which restricted Thompson to states without a specific minimum age limit in their
death penalty statute. The combined effect of the opinions by the four Justices and Justice O'Connor in
Thompson is that no state without a minimum age in its death penalty statute can execute someone who was
under sixteen at the time of the crime.
The following year, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty
for crimes committed at age sixteen or seventeen. (Stanford v. Kentucky and Wilkins v. Missouri (collectively,
492 U.S. 361)). At present, 31 states, the U.S Government, and the U.S. Military bar the execution of anyone
under 18 at the time of his or her crime.
In 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6(5) of
this international human rights treaty requires that the death penalty not be used on those who committed their
crimes when they were below the age of 18. However, although the U.S. ratified the treaty, they reserved the
right to execute juvenile offenders.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of juveniles is unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons).
38
Current Issues and Topics
Innocence
The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of executing someone who claimed actual innocence in
Herrera v. Collins (506 U.S. 390 (1993)). Although the Court left open the possibility that the Constitution
bars the execution of someone who conclusively demonstrates that he or she is actually innocent, the Court
noted that such cases would be very rare. The Court held that, in the absence of other constitutional violations,
new evidence of innocence is no reason for federal courts to order a new trial. The Court also held that an
innocent inmate could seek to prevent his execution through the clemency process, which, historically, has
been "the 'fail safe' in our justice system." Herrera was not granted clemency, and he was executed in 1993.
Public Support
Support for the death penalty has fluctuated throughout the century. According to Gallup surveys, in 1936
61% of Americans favored the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Support reached an all-time
low of 42% in 1966. Throughout the 70s and 80s, the percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty
increased steadily, culminating in an 80% approval rating in 1994. Since 1994, support for the death penalty
has declined. Today, 66% of Americans support the death penalty. However, research shows that public
support for the death penalty drops when poll respondents are given the two choices a juror in the penalty
phase of a typical capital trial would be given: death or life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of
parole. Given that choice, support for the death penalty drops to around 50%.
Religion and the Death Penalty
In the 1970s, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), representing more then 10 million conservative
Christians and 47 denominations, and the Moral Majority, were among the Christian groups supporting the
death penalty. NAE's successor, the Christian Coalition, also supports the death penalty. Today,
Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormons), support the death penalty typically on biblical grounds, specifically citing the Old Testament
(Bedau, 1997). Although formerly also a supporter of capital punishment, the Roman Catholic Church now
opposes the death penalty. In addition, most Protestant denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians,
Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ, oppose the death penalty.
Women and the Death Penalty
Women have, historically, not been subject to the death penalty at the same rate as men. From the first woman
executed in the U.S., Jane Champion, who was hanged in James City, Virginia in 1632, to the 1998
executions of Karla Faye Tucker in Texas and Judi Buenoano in Florida, women have constituted only 3% of
U.S. executions. In fact, only ten women have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. (O'Shea,
1999, with updates by DPIC).
The Federal Death Penalty
In addition to the death penalty laws in many states, the federal government has also employed capital
punishment for certain federal offenses, such as murder of a government official, kidnapping resulting in
death, running of a large-scale drug enterprise, and treason. When the Supreme Court struck down state death
penalty statutes in Furman, the federal death penalty statutes suffered from the same constitutional infirmities
that the state statutes did. As a result, death sentences under the old federal death penalty statutes have not
been upheld.
A new federal death penalty statute was enacted in 1988 for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin
conspiracy. The statute was modeled on the post-Gregg statutes that the Supreme Court has approved.
In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that expanded the
federal death penalty to some 60 crimes, some of which do not involve murder. There have been three federal
executions under these laws: Timothy McVeigh and Juan Garza in June of 2001, and Louis Jones in March
39
2003.
In response to the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996. The Act, which affects both state and federal prisoners, restricts review in federal courts
by establishing tighter filing deadlines, limiting the opportunity for evidentiary hearings, and ordinarily
allowing only a single habeas corpus filing in federal court. Proponents of the death penalty argue that this
streamlining will speed up the death penalty process and significantly reduce its cost, although others fear that
quicker, more limited federal review may increase the risk of executing innocent defendants. (Bohm, 1999
and Schabas, 1997)
International Views
In April 1999; the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed a resolution supporting a worldwide
moratorium on executions. The resolution calls on countries which have not abolished the death penalty to
restrict its use, including not imposing it on juvenile offenders and limiting the number of offenses for which
it can be imposed. As of April 2004, 117 countries are abolitionist in law or practice, leaving just 78 countries
active in the use of the death penalty. Of the more than 1500 executions to take place in 2002, 81% were
carried out by the United States, China, and Iran. (Amnesty International, 2003)
ABOLITIONIST FOR ALL CRIMES
Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime
ANDORRA
ANGOLA
AUSTRALIA
AUSTRIA
AZERBAIJAN
BELGIUM
BHUTAN
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
BULGARIA
CAMBODIA
CANADA
CAPE VERDE
COLOMBIA
COSTA RICA
COTE D'IVOIRE
CROATIA
CYPRUS
CZECH REPUBLIC
DENMARK
DJIBOUTI
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
EAST TIMOR
ECUADOR
ESTONIA
FINLAND
FRANCE
GEORGIA
GERMANY
GUINEA-BISSAU
HAITI
HONDURAS
HUNGARY
ICELAND
IRELAND
ITALY
KIRIBATI
LIECHTENSTEIN
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG
MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic)
MALTA
MARSHALL ISLANDS
MAURITIUS
MICRONESIA (Federated States)
MOLDOVA
MONACO
MOZAMBIQUE
NAMIBIA
NEPAL
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NICARAGUA
NORWAY
PALAU
PANAMA
PARAGUAY
POLAND
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA
SAMOA
SAN MARINO
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
SEYCHELLES
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
SLOVENIA
SOLOMON ISLANDS
SOUTH AFRICA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
TURKMENISTAN
TUVALU
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM
URUGUAY
VANUATU
VATICAN CITY STATE
VENEZUELA
40
ABOLITIONIST FOR "ORDINARY CRIMES" ONLY
Countries whose laws provide for the death penalty only for exceptional crimes such as crimes under military
law or crimes committed in exceptional circumstances
ALBANIA
ARGENTINA
ARMENIA
BOLIVIA
BRAZIL
CHILE
COOK ISLANDS
EL SALVADOR
FIJI
GREECE
ISRAEL
LATVIA
MEXICO
PERU
TURKEY
ABOLITIONIST IN PRACTICE
Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes such as murder but can be considered
abolitionist in practice in that they have not executed anyone during the past 10 years and are believed to
have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. The list also includes countries which
have made an international commitment not to use the death penalty
ALGERIA
BENIN
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
BURKINA FASO
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
CONGO (Republic)
GAMBIA
GRENADA
KENYA
MADAGASCAR
MALDIVES
MALI
MAURITANIA
NAURU
NIGER
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
SENEGAL
SRI LANKA
SURINAME
TOGO
TONGA
TUNISIA
RETENTIONIST COUNTRIES
Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes
AFGHANISTAN
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
BAHAMAS
BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH
BARBADOS
BELARUS
BELIZE
BOTSWANA
BURUNDI
CAMEROON
CHAD
CHINA
COMOROS
CONGO (Democratic Republic)
CUBA
DOMINICA
EGYPT
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ERITREA
ETHIOPIA
GABON
GHANA
INDIA
INDONESIA
IRAN
IRAQ
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN
KAZAKSTAN
KENYA
KOREA (North)
KOREA (South)
KUWAIT
KYRGYZSTAN
LAOS
LEBANON
LESOTHO
LIBERIA
LIBYA
MALAWI
MALAYSIA
MONGOLIA
MOROCCO
MYANMAR
PHILIPPINES
QATAR
RWANDA
SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES
SAUDI ARABIA
SIERRA LEONE
SINGAPORE
SOMALIA
SUDAN
SWAZILAND
SYRIA
TAIWAN
TAJIKISTAN
TANZANIA
THAILAND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TUNISIA
UGANDA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UZBEKISTAN
41
GUATEMALA
GUINEA
GUYANA
NIGERIA
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
VIET NAM
YEMEN
ZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE
Sources for “History of the Death Penalty in the United States”
1. Amnesty International, "List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries,"
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ACT500052000
2. D. Baker, "A Descriptive Profile and Socio-Historical Analysis of Female Executions in the
United States: 1632-1997"; 10(3) Women and Criminal Justice 57 (1999)
3. R. Bohm, "Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the
United States," Anderson Publishing, 1999.
4. "The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies," H. Bedau, editor, Oxford University
Press, 1997.
5. K. O'Shea, "Women and the Death Penalty in the United States, 1900-1998," Praeger 1999.
6. W. Schabas, "The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law," Cambridge University
Press, second edition, 1997.
7. "Society's Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty," L. Randa, editor,
University Press of America, 1997.
8. V. Streib, "Death Penalty for Female Offenders January 1973 to June 1999," Ohio Northern
University, June 1999.
9. Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
42
3) California’s Capital Punishment Law
Number of Death Row Inmates in California: 645
Number of Executions Since 1976: 13
Minimum Age to Receive the Death Penalty: 18
Death Row Location:
Men: San Quentin, CA
Women: Chowchilla, CA
Date Death Penalty Was Reenacted after Furman: August 11, 1977
On November 7, 1978, voters approved a broader death penalty law that replaced the 1977 statute. This is
known as the Briggs Initiative.
Year of First Execution: 1992
Does California Forbid the Execution of the Mentally Retarded: Yes
Does California Have Life Without Parole (LWOP): Yes
Method of Execution:
California authorizes lethal injection and lethal gas. Lethal Injection will be used if the inmate fails to choose
a method.
When lethal gas was challenged in Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F. 3d 301 (1996), the Ninth Circuit held this method
of execution unconstitutional. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in
light of California changing its statute to provide that lethal injection be administered unless the inmate
requests lethal gas. The Ninth Circuit, on remand, held that since Fierro had not chosen lethal gas, his claim
was moot. However, the court held left open the reinstatement of the issue for an inmate actually facing the
gas chamber.
Clemency Process:
The Governor has the exclusive authority to grant clemency, unless the prisoner has twice been convicted of a
felony. In that case, a recommendation of the State Supreme Court with four justices concurring is necessary.
There have been no clemencies granted since Furman.
Capital Offenses:
First Degree Murder with “special circumstances”. There are more than 30 “special circumstances”. These
include: train wrecking, treason, perjury causing execution, rape, burglary, etc.
Is Felony Murder A Capital Crime: Yes (Cal. Penal Code Sec. 189, 109.2(17))
Who Decides Sentence: Jury
(Source: Death Penalty Information Center)
43
Essay Exam
Essay exam: Allow for some flexibility with regard to this essay so students can situate their own
personal positions, reflect on what they have learned, and support their positions with compelling
arguments. It is difficult to anticipate a format for this essay, since the specificity of the emergent issues
may differ between classroom contexts and student populations. However, the essay should address two
important themes of the unit:
1) Their position with regard to the death penalty through the lens of fairness and justice.
2) The group decision-making process in dealing with a controversial issue.
Assessment should be based on how well students make and support their positions/arguments using
information provided in the handouts as well as the arguments made by their peers during the
simulation.
Letter Writing Exercise
Letter Writing Exercise: Ask the students to write a 2-page letter to California’s Governor, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, addressing one or more of the following issues:
1) Their experience learning about the death penalty
2) Their position on the death penalty before and after this experience
3) Their feelings about death row inmate Stanley Williams and his request for Clemency from the
governor
4) The impact that Stanley Williams’ books, message, or movie (Redemption) had on them. How did it
make them feel about his scheduled execution?
Group Discussion Exercise
Group Discussion Exercise: Share opinions and group work dynamics in dealing with a controversial
issue in a democratic fashion; discuss issues of fairness, justice and the democratic decision-making
process. Much of this will be drawn from what students have written on the previous day, the issues that
emerged as a result of the participating in the mock legislative hearings, and their experiences with
working in groups concerning a controversial issue. This may also be a time when you may reflect,
along with your students, on the effectiveness of the unit, the materials, group work, and student
interaction. Your comments to us are encouraged.
Book Report Exercise
Book Report Guidelines
Book reports are a way to think more deeply about a book you've read and to demonstrate your understanding
of its contents. The following outline includes the general elements that should be included in a book report.
I. Introduction
Here you want to provide basic information about the book, and a sense of what your report will be about. You
should include:
1.
Title (underlined)/Author
44
2.
Publication Information: Publisher, year, number of pages
3.
Genre
4.
A brief (1-2 sentences) introduction to the book and the report/review.
II. Body
There are two main sections for this part. The first is an explanation of what the book is about. The second is
your opinions about the book and how successful it is. There are some differences between reports on fiction
and reports on non-fiction books.
But for both, a good place to start is to explain the author's purpose and/or the main themes of the book. Then
you can summarize.
A. For fiction or other creative writing:
Provide brief descriptions of the setting, the point of view (who tells the story), the protagonist, and
other major characters. If there is a distinct mood or tone, discuss that as well.
Give a concise plot summary. Along with the sequence of major events, you may want to discuss the
book's climax and resolution, and/or literary devices such as foreshadowing. Be careful not to give
away important plot details or the ending.
B. For non-fiction:
Provide a general overview of the author's topic, main points, and argument. What is the thesis?
What are the important conclusions?
Don't try to summarize each chapter or every angle. Choose the ones that are most significant and
interesting to you.
III. Analysis and Evaluation
In this section you analyze or critique the book. You can write about your own opinions; just be sure that you
explain and support them with examples. Some questions you might want to consider:
•
Did the author achieve his or her purpose?
•
Is the writing effective, powerful, difficult, and/or beautiful?
•
What are the strengths and weakness of the book?
•
For non-fiction, what are the author's qualifications to write about the subject?
•
Do you agree with the author's arguments and conclusions?
•
What is your overall response to the book? Did you find it interesting, moving, and/or dull?
•
Would you recommend it to others? Why or why not?
IV. Conclusion
Briefly conclude by pulling your thoughts together. You may want to say what impression the book left you
with, or emphasize what you want your reader to know about it.
45
Suggested General Reading
CLEMENCY
"Justice Denied, Clemency Appeals in Death Penalty Cases" - In "Justice Denied: Clemency Appeals in
Death Penalty Cases," (Northeastern University Press, 2002) Professor Cathleen Burnett examines Missouri's
administration of the death penalty. While researching all 50 applications for executive clemency submitted to
Missouri governors since the state's reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, Burnett discovered a series of
problems directly related to flawed police investigations, instances of prosecutorial misconduct, examples of
inadequate defense counsel, and the appellate court's review of capital cases. She also investigated the political
ramifications of death penalty cases for trial judges in capital cases and Missouri governors.
COST
"Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty"
Should we kill murderers? Do executions deter potential murderers, save money, and inspire respect for the
law? Or, is the death penalty cruel and immoral, expensive and discriminatory? Just Revenge presents a
groundbreaking analysis of the complex and contentious issue of capital punishment. Mark Costanzo looks
beneath stale, abstract arguments and shines a bright light on the reality of how the death penalty is actually
used and what we really accomplish by executing murderers.
St. Martin's Press, New York, 1997
DEATH PENALTY CRITIQUES
"Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?"
A new book edited by Hugo Bedau and Paul Cassell, brings together judges, lawyers, prosecutors and
philosophers to debate the death penalty in a spirit of open inquiry and exchange. The book discusses issues
such as deterrence, innocence, life in prison without parole, and race. In addition to the editors, those who have
chapters in the book inlcude: Judge Alex Kozinski, Stephen Bright, Joshua Marquis, Bryan Stevenson,
Professor Louis Pojman and former Governor George Ryan. (Oxford University Press, 2004)
”Kiss of Death: America's Love Affair with the Death Penalty”
Attorney John Bessler presents arguments against capital punishment based on his work as a pro bono attorney
for death row inmates in Texas. Woven into Bessler's personal account is an examination of U.S. capital
punishment practices in contrast to the absence of the death penalty in other nations. The book also addresses
the toll executions take on those who participate in the process. (Northeastern University Press, 2003)
“Ultimate Punishment”
In his latest book, "Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty," attorney
and author Scott Turow provides a detailed look at his personal journey with the death penalty issue from his
days as a federal prosecutor to his more recent service as a member of the Illinois Commission on Capital
Punishment. In addition to Turow's first-hand account, the book analyzes the potential reasons for and against
the death penalty, discusses its impact on victims' families and politicians, and tells "the stories behind the
statistics." (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003)
"The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment" is a new book by Franklin E. Zimring, professor and
Director of the Justice Research Program at the University of California, Berkeley. The book explores how
American values have helped to shape the nation's death penalty debate. Zimring examines the connection
between lynching and the death penalty, and why the United States and its international allies have taken
different paths regarding this issue. (Oxford University Press, 2003)
46
"The Death Game: Capital Punishment and the Luck of the Draw," by Mike Gray uses a series of death
penalty cases from across the nation, to examine issues of innocence, police brutality, pressures on prosecutors
and judges seeking career advancement, and the questionable accuracy of eyewitness accounts. (Common
Courage Press, 2003)
"Beyond Repair? America's Death Penalty"
This book by Stephen P. Garvey is a collection of essays focusing on trends in the modern death penalty era. It
includes findings of the Capital Jury Project, a nationwide research project that has interviewed over one
thousand former jurors in death penalty cases. Contributors to the book include highly regarded capital
punishment experts and investigative reporters Ken Armstrong, John H. Blume, Theodore Eisenberg, Phoebe C.
Ellsworth, Stephen P. Garvey, Samuel R. Gross, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Steve Mills, William A. Schabas, Larry
W. Yackle, and Franklin E. Zimring. (Duke University Press, 2002).
"Deathwork: Defending the Condemned"
This book by Michael Mello provides a behind-the-scenes look at the life and work of a death row lawyer and
his clients. Mello, a law professor who represented many death row inmates, examines issues such as the
execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally ill, wrongfully convicted death row inmates, and inadequate
defense. (University of Minnesota Press, 2002)
"When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition."
This book by Austin Sarat considers what the death penalty does to us as a society, rather than what it does for
us. (Princeton University Press, 2001)
"Who Owns Death? Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions." Authors
Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell provide a powerful analysis of the status of the death penalty in the U.S.
today, including psychological insights and pieces of history not found in most other sources. They contend
that, despite cases like Timothy McVeigh's, the death penalty is slowly losing its support in America and will be
abolished. (William Morrow, 2000)
”Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty”
This book by Mark Costanzo, Ph. D. provides an up-to-date and comprehensive review of the reasons why
capital punishment remains so controversial. This is a very readable and informative book. (St. Martin's Press,
1997)
“Dead Wrong: A Death Row Lawyer Speaks Out Against Capital Punishment”
Michael Mello, Wisconsin Press (1997). Professor Mello has been Joseph Spaziano's lawyer for many years.
(Spaziano recently won a new trial after 20 years on Florida's death row.) Mello eloquently writes about what's
wrong with this system.
"Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice and the Death Penalty"
Few leaders in American public life can speak with the moral authority of Jesse Jackson. Regardless of what
you think of his politics or rhetorical style, Jackson can take debate to places where most public leaders dare not
tread. In Legal Lynching, Jackson bravely takes aim at capital punishment. The argument he makes is not all
bluster and bravado or simple preaching to the choir. Jackson recites the specifics of cases in which innocent
men were sentenced to death--and even executed. He does not deny the popularity of the punishment, rather the
purpose of his argument is to make it less popular. The racial injustice of sentencing and the application of
capital punishment come in for particular attention, as Jackson sketches the moral case for reforming the
American criminal justice system to conform to what he sees as morally sound notions of justice and human
rights. (Marlowe & Company, 1996)
"Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States"
47
In 1982, Sister Helen Prejean became the spiritual advisor to Patrick Sonnier, the convicted killer of two
teenagers who was sentenced to die in the electric chair of Louisiana's Angola State Prison. In the months
before Sonnier's death, the Roman Catholic nun came to know a man who was as terrified as he had once been
terrifying. At the same time, she came to know the families of the victims and the men whose job it was to
execute him--men who often harbored doubts about the rightness of what they were doing. Out of that dreadful
intimacy comes a profoundly moving spiritual journey through our system of capital punishment. Confronting
both the plight of the condemned and the rage of the bereaved, the needs of a crime-ridden society and the
Christian imperative of love, Dead Man Walking is an unprecedented look at the human consequences of the
death penalty, a book that is both enlightening and devastating.
(Random House, New York, 1993)
DEATH PENALTY LAW
"Understanding Capital Punishment Law"
This new book published as part of the LexisNexis Understanding series, law professors Linda Carter and Ellen
Kreitzberg offer students in capital punishment courses an overview of this complex area of law. The book
includes a thorough review of constitutional law and current issues related to capital punishment in the U.S.
(Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. 2004)
“Death Penalty ‘In a Nutshell’”
The "In a Nutshell" series of law reference books has added a death penalty edition by capital punishment
expert and professor Victor Streib. The book provides a brief history of the death penalty debate in the United
States and reviews the constitutional issues that are most often addressed in death penalty cases. In addition to
the different stages and unique aspects of a capital trial, Streib uses the resource to explain trial and post-trial
procedures, as well as issues such as competent counsel, race and gender bias, innocence, and international
death penalty law. (West Group, 2002).
DEATH ROW STORIES/ BIOGRAPHIES
“Life in Prison”
“The true stories I've written in this book are my living nightmares. My greatest hope is that the lessons the
stories offer will help you make better choices than I did,” writes Stanley "Tookie" Williams, cofounder of the
notorious Crips gang, is a death-row inmate. But in his two decades of incarceration, Williams has also become
a respected author and activist whose dedication to ending gang warfare in the lives of inner-city children has
earned him a 2001 Nobel Peace Prize nomination. In this award-winning book--which has drawn praise from
educators, government leaders, and families alike--Williams describes the brutal reality of being an inmate. He
debunks myths of prisons as "gladiator schools" with blunt, riveting stories of overwhelming homesickness, the
terror of solitary confinement, and the humiliation of strip-searches. Williams' words are a frank challenge to
adolescent readers to educate themselves, make intelligent decisions, and above all, not to follow in his
footsteps. (SeaStar Books, February 1, 2001)
"Still Surviving"
Nanon Williams, who was 17 at the time of the crime that placed him on death row, provides a first hand
account of living under a sentence of death in Texas. The book details Williams's journey from teenage boy to
adulthood while living in the shadow of the nation's busiest execution chamber. His text introduces readers to
the experiences of solitary confinement and having friends executed, as well as to maintaining relationships
with those on the other side of the prison gate. (Breakout Publishing Co., 2003)
“Afterlife: a Death Row Anthology”
Afterlife is a collection of writings by several California death row inmates, including poetry, prose, and
opinion pieces, compiled by editor Dolly Sen in 2002. (Hole Books UK, 2002)
”Life on Death Row”
48
A first-person account of living under a death sentence in Arizona. Written by Arizona death row inmate Robert
W. Murray, the book explores how inmates cope with execution warrants, lethal injection, prison politics, and
day-to-day life in a supermax prison facility. Find more information about this book. (www.1stbooks.com)
(Albert Publishing Co. in association with 1st Books Library, 2003)
"Poetic Justice: Reflections on the Big House, the Death House and the American Way of Justice"
This is Professor Robert Johnson's first collection of poems about prison and capital punishment. The collection
explores the day-to-day life of prisoners and examines the emotional impact of serving time on death row.
Johnson, a professor of justice, law and society at American University, is an award-winning author of several
social science books on crime and punishment and has won the Outstanding Book Award from the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences. (Northwoods Press, 2003)
”Kiss of Death: America's Love Affair with the Death Penalty’
Attorney John Bessler presents arguments against capital punishment based on his work as a pro bono attorney
for death row inmates in Texas. Woven into Bessler's personal account is an examination of U.S. capital
punishment practices in contrast to the absence of the death penalty in other nations. The book also addresses
the toll executions take on those who participate in the process. (Northeastern University Press, 2003)
“The Execution of a Serial Killer: One Man's Experience Witnessing the Death Penalty”
This new book details the experiences of author Dr. Joseph Diaz, Ph.D., a criminologist who witnessed the
execution of Florida death row inmate Edward Castro in December, 2000. In the book, Diaz explores not only
Castro's criminality, but also Diaz's own reservations about executions. The book challenges readers to ask
themselves if they, too, could witness an execution. (Poncha Press, 2002)
“Within These Walls: Memoirs of a Death House Chaplain”
Rev. Carroll Pickett recalls his 15 years as chaplain to death row inmates in Huntsville, Texas, and provides an
account of ministering to 95 men in their final hours before execution. Rev. Pickett examines the death penalty
based on his professional and personal experiences in Texas. "Like so many Texans, I was raised in an
atmosphere that insisted the only real justice was that which claimed an eye for an eye. I was wrong," he said.
"As I participated in the endless process that would earn my state infamous recognition for its death penalty
stance, I found myself wondering just what we were accomplishing." (St. Martin's Press, 2002)
"A Life in the Balance: The Billy Wayne Sinclair Story"
A powerful, graphic and disturbing prison memoir from a former death row inmate who has spent 35 years in
Louisiana's prison system. This book exposes the arbitrariness and violence of extreme punishment, and yet
also tells the story of a person's ability to change. (Arcade Publishing 2001)
"A Dream of the Tattered Man: Stories From Georgia's Death Row"
In this book, Loney writes about the impact that his 15 years as pastor, family liaison and witness to the
executions of the condemned men on Georgia's death row has had on him. In each of the chapters, Loney
reveals the lessons he has learned from these men and expresses his refusal to dismiss them as people beyond
redemption. (Randolph Loney , William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001).
“Finding Life on Death Row: Profiles of Six Inmates”
A new book by Katya Lezin, (Northeastern University Press, 1999), offers profiles of six convicted murders,
two of whom have been executed. The profiles provide insight into the lives, crimes, and families of six men
and women on death row. Lezin shows how an array of factors can lead people to commit capital crimes and
how their poor treatment within our justice system leads them to death row. The cases profiled reveal how the
inherently flawed death penalty is most often imposed not on the worst criminals, but on those who are most
vulnerable and least able to defend themselves in our criminal justice system.
49
“Death Work: A Study of the Modern Execution Process”
This superb book takes the reader inside the execution process and accurately conveys the significance of state
killing. The chapters on the history of the death penalty are among the most-detailed sources available and help
crystallize the motivations behind the use of the death penalty. (Prof. Robert Johnson of American University,
Wadsworth Publishing, 1998, 2nd edition)
"Death at Midnight: The Confession of an Executioner"
Now a criminal-justice professor, Cabana spent 20-plus years in corrections in Massachusetts (his home state),
Florida, Missouri, and Mississippi; he began his post college prison work at the Magnolia State's notorious
Parchman Penitentiary and closed his administrative career as its superintendent and the state's interim
corrections commissioner. This memoir blends three stories: Cabana's career; the shift in his views on capital
punishment; and the relationship he developed with convicted murderer Connie Ray Evans, the second man
whose execution Cabana supervised as warden at Parchman. (Cabana, Donald A., Northeastern University
Press, Boston, 1996)
"Live From Death Row"
Once a prominent radio reporter Mumia Abu-Jamal is now in a Pennsylvania prison awaiting his statesanctioned execution. In 1982 he was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Philadelphia police
officer Daniel Faulkner after a trial many have criticized as profoundly biased. Live From Death Row is a
collection of his prison writings--an impassioned yet unflinching account of the brutalities and humiliations of
prison life. It is also a scathing indictment of racism and political bias in the American judicial system that is
certain to fuel the controversy surrounding the death penalty and freedom of speech. (Jamal, Mumia Abu:
Plough Publishing, 1996)
HISTORY
"America's Experiment with Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the
Ultimate Penal Sanction"
The Second Edition of this book provides an overview of the history, politics, law, empirical evidence, and
other aspects of the contemporary debate about the death penalty in America. Updated from the original 1998
text of the same name, the book includes essays by noted death penalty experts. (Edit. by J. Acker, R. Bohm, &
C. Lanier, Carolina Academic Press, 2003)
"The Hangman's Knot: Lynching, Legal Execution and America's Struggle with the Death Penalty"
This book by Eliza Steelwater is a historic exploration of public executions. The book uses narrative, personal
stories, and rare archival photographs to put capital punishment in a historical context. (Westview Press, 2003)
“Legacy of Violence: Lynch Mobs and Executions in Minnesota”
This book by John D. Bessler examines the history of illegal and state-sanctioned executions in Minnesota, one
of twelve states that currently does not have the death penalty. The book is timely in that the current governor,
Tim Pawlenty, has proposed reinstating the death penalty, which was abolished in 1911. The book includes
detailed personal accounts from those who were involved in the events, as well as a history of Minnesota's antiexecution and anti-lynching movements, a review of historical wrongful convictions, and an analysis of the role
that the media played in the death penalty debate. The author recounts the details of the largest mass execution
in the U.S. of 38 Native Americans in Mankato in 1862 at the order of President Lincoln, and the brutal
lynching in Duluth of 3 African-Americans accused of rape. (University of Minnesota Press, 2003)
“The Death Penalty, An American History”
America's experience with capital punishment is the focus of a new book by Stuart Banner, "The Death Penalty:
An American History." The book is a detailed exploration of the nation's implementation of the death penalty,
50
including the evolution of crimes punishable by death and methods of execution. The book also addresses the
public's view of capital punishment over the past four centuries. (Harvard University Press, 2002)
“Executioner's Current: Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse and the Invention of the Electric Chair”
In this book, author Richard Moran examines the development of the electric chair and the related debate that
ensued between electrical pioneers Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse. Moran's book explores news
stories and witness accounts regarding electrocutions and how these contributed to the search for a more
"humane" method of execution. (Knopf, 2002)
“Against Capital Punishment - The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994”
This book by Herbert H. Haines is moving account of abolitionist activism in the United States since the end of
the 10-year moratorium in the late-1970s. (Oxford University Press, 1996)
INNOCENCE
"The Wrong Men: America's Epidemic of Wrongful Death Row Convictions"
This book by Stanley Cohen tells the story of how more than 100 innocent people found themselves on death
row in the United States. Through an examination of eyewitness error, jailhouse snitches, racism, junk science,
prosecutorial misconduct, and incompetent counsel, Cohen provides a behind-the-scenes look at the problems
leading to wrongful convictions. He also captures the stories of those individuals whose dogged determination
helped exonerate the innocent. Among the cases highlighted in this book are those of Anthony Porter, Randall
Dale Adams, and Earl Washington. (Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003)
"An Expendable Man"
Virginian-Pilot editorial writer Margaret Edds uses the case of death row exoneree Earl Washington, Jr. to
examine "the secret, shameful underbelly" of capital punishment. Washington, a black, mentally retarded farmhand, spent 9 years on death row and almost 18 years in Virginia prisons for a crime that DNA evidence proved
he did not commit. Edds uses Washington's case to demonstrate the relative ease with which individuals who
live at society's margins can be wrongfully convicted, and the extraordinary difficulty of correcting such a
wrong once it occurs. (New York University Press, 2003)
"Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice"
This book features a collection of essays and articles about wrongful convictions by some of the nation's most
respected lawyers, sociologists, criminologists, and psychologists. The essays consider the causes of wrongful
convictions, the social characteristics of the innocent men and women sent to prisons and death rows, personal
stories and case studies of these innocent inmates, and suggestions for system-wide reforms in order to prevent
future wrongful convictions. (Saundra D. Westervelt and John A. Humphrey, eds., Rutgers University Press,
July 2001)
"The Wrong Man: A True Story of Innocence on Death Row"
This is the story of the author’s twenty-year fight to save "Crazy Joe" Spaziano from execution for a murder he
didn't commit. In a gripping personal account, Mello, a well-known author, activist, and legal commentator,
describes the details of the case and the controversial extremes to which he was driven by it. (Michael Mello,
with foreword by Mike Farrell)
“Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted”
This excellent new book by DNA experts Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and columnist Jim Dwyer, tells the
stories of ten innocent men wrongly convicted and sentenced to death or to prison and the effectively explains
how such miscarriages of justice come about. (Doubleday, 2000)
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
51
"The Death Penalty: A World-Wide Perspective"
In the six years which have elapsed since publication of the first edition, many changes have taken place in
respect of the death penalty; the number of countries which have abolished the death penalty has increased at an
unprecedented rate, although a few have re-introduced it; the range of offences subject to the death penalty has
contracted in many countries, but expanded in others; there are new facts to report on the number of executions
carried out; much more is known about the extent to which states abide by the United Nation's Safeguards
Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty. This new edition is a revised and
updated version of the already-acclaimed first edition. (Revised and Updated Edition, Hood, Roger: Oxford
University Press, 2002. Originally published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1996)
"The Death Penalty: Condemned"
Published by the International Commission of Jurists, (September, 2000), this book contains a collection of
papers presented at the International Commission of Jurists' April 12, 1999 roundtable, "The Death Penalty:
Some Key Questions." Papers address such issues as the needs of victims, and the use of the death penalty in
the United States, the Russian Federation, and Trinidad and Tobago.
"The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law"
This is the second edition of William Schabas's highly-praised study of the abolition of the death penalty in
international law. Extensively revised to take account of developments in the field since its original publication
in 1993, the book details the progress of the international community away from the use of capital punishment,
discussing in detail the institution of the death penalty in international humanitarian law, European human rights
law, and inter-American human rights law. An extensive list of appendices contains many of the essential
documents for the study of capital punishment in international law. The Abolition of the Death Penalty in
International Law is introduced by Judge Gilbert Guillaume, from the International Court of Justice. (Schabas,
William A.,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)
MORAL/RELIGIOUS ISSUES
“Within These Walls: Memoirs of a Death House Chaplain”
Rev. Carroll Pickett recalls his 15 years as chaplain to death row inmates in Huntsville, Texas, and provides an
account of ministering to 95 men in their final hours before execution. Rev. Pickett examines the death penalty
based on his professional and personal experiences in Texas. "Like so many Texans, I was raised in an
atmosphere that insisted the only real justice was that which claimed an eye for an eye. I was wrong," he said.
"As I participated in the endless process that would earn my state infamous recognition for its death penalty
stance, I found myself wondering just what we were accomplishing." (St. Martin's Press, 2002)
“Capital Punishment and the Bible”
This book by Gardner C. Hanks, "Capital Punishment and the Bible," explores the death penalty by reviewing
biblical references to capital punishment in their historical context and by examining the U.S.'s current
application of the death penalty in light of these scriptures. The book is a follow-up to an earlier work by Hanks,
"Against the Death Penalty." (Herald Press, 2002)
“An Eye for An Eye? The Immorality of Punishing by Death”
In this second edition, author Stephen Nathanson evaluates the arguments for and against capital punishment.
Nathanson argues that the death penalty is inconsistent with the principles of commitment to justice and respect
for life. (Bowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001)
“Executing Justice: The Moral Meaning of the Death Penalty”
This book by Lloyd Steffen, (The Pilgrim Press, 1998) explores the moral justification for the death penalty as it
analyzes the philosophical and humanitarian arguments for and against capital punishment. The book debunks
52
the legal and ethical arguments for the death penalty and uses the case of executed inmate Willie Darden to
illustrate the moral deficiencies in the death penalty.
“Against the Death Penalty: Christian and Secular Arguments Against the Death Penalty”
This book by Gardner C. Hanks, Herald Press, 1997 is a fine and very readable overview of the case for
abolishing the death penalty.
VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' FAMILIES
"Don't Kill in Our Names: Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty”
Author Rachel King presents the stories of 10 Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation members.
Throughout the book, King examines the reasons why these survivors choose reconciliation over retribution and
why they actively oppose capital punishment. Using first-hand accounts and third-person narrative, King
presents the stories in the context of the nation's on-going death penalty debate. King is legislative counsel for
the American Civil Liberties Union. (Rutgers Press, 2003)
"Choosing Mercy: A Mother of Murder Victims Pleads to End the Death Penalty"
Written in the spirit of "Dead Man Walking," this book by Antoinette Bosco conveys both the powerful
personal experience of a mother whose son was murdered and a wealth of information about the criminal justice
system in America. (Orbis Books, 2001)
WOMEN
“Women and the Death Penalty in the United States: 1900-1998”
This book, written by Kathleen A. O' Shea, looks at the penal codes in the various states that have given women
the death penalty and the personal stories of women who have been sentenced to death, executed, or are
currently on death row. (Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT)
“Inner Lives: Voices of African American Women in Prison”
The rate of women entering prison has increased nearly 400 percent since 1980, with African American women
constituting the largest percentage of this population. However, despite their extremely disproportional
representation in correctional institutions, little attention has been paid to their experiences within the criminal
justice system. Inner Lives provides readers the rare opportunity to intimately connect with African American
women prisoners. By presenting the women's stories in their own voices, Paula C. Johnson captures the reality
of those who are in the system, and those who are working to help them. Johnson offers a nuanced and
compelling portrait of this fastest-growing prison population by blending legal history, ethnography, sociology,
and criminology. These striking and vivid narratives are accompanied by equally compelling arguments by
Johnson on how to reform our nation's laws and social policies, in order to eradicate existing inequalities. Her
thorough and insightful analysis of the historical and legal background of contemporary criminal law doctrine,
sentencing theories, and correctional policies sets the stage for understanding the current system. (Paula C.
Johnson, New York University Press, April 1, 2003)
53
Sources for this Curriculum
This curriculum was adapted from the “Educational Curriculum on the Death Penalty” developed by the
Michigan State Communications Technology Laboratory in conjunction with the Death Penalty Information
Center in 2001. You can view the original document at www.teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu. Death
Penalty Focus modified this document to emphasize issues that are relevant in California and update the
statistical information.
Additional sources have been cited throughout this document.
For more information contact:
Death Penalty Focus
870 Market St., Ste. 859
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel. 415-243-0143
Fax 415-243-0994
info@deathpenalty.org
www.deathpenalty.org
About Death Penalty Focus
Founded in 1988, Death Penalty Focus is a non-profit organization dedicated to the abolition of capital
punishment through grassroots organizing, research, and the dissemination of information about the death
penalty and its alternatives.
With over 10,000 members nationwide, Death Penalty Focus is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors
comprised of renowned political, religious, and civic leaders, along with legal scholars and attorneys involved
in death penalty litigation. In addition, DPF has an Advisory Board comprised of community and religious
leaders, celebrities, writers, and representatives of labor and human rights organizations who support our
work. We conduct research on behalf of lawyers, educators, and the general public, and sponsor a variety of
public education and media campaigns. DPF also serves as a support network for our ten chapters throughout
California and as a liaison among anti-death penalty groups nationwide.
We believe that the death penalty is an ineffective and brutally simplistic response to the serious and complex
problem of violent crime. By diverting attention and financial resources away from preventative measures that
would actually increase personal safety, the death penalty causes more violence in society. We are convinced
that when the public is informed about the inherent racism, injustice, and the true human and financial cost
associated with the death penalty, the United States will join the growing community of nations throughout
the world who have already abolished capital punishment.
Read more about Death Penalty Focus at www.deathpenalty.org
54
Please Complete This Evaluation
Your input will help us make this curriculum even better!
What was the most helpful section of the curriculum?
What section did you find least helpful?
What could be improved?
Please circle the number which best represents your opinion. (1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Great,
5=Excellent)
How would you rate the enclosed reading materials?
How would you rate the guest speaker?
(Name of Speaker____________________________)
Was the curriculum well organized?
Was the curriculum grade-level appropriate?
How would you rate the film Redemption?
Were the online resources helpful?
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Would you recommend this curriculum to other teachers? Yes or No (Please Explain Below)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Will you use this curriculum again? Yes or No
Name (Optional) ________________________________________________
Please return this evaluation to Death Penalty Focus:
870 Market St. Ste. 859 San Francisco, CA 94102 or Fax 415-243-0994.
55
Spread the word!
Tell us the names of four teachers that should receive information on how to order this curriculum.
Name:
School:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Name:
School:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Name:
School:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Name:
School:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Please return this form to Death Penalty Focus with your completed evaluation:
870 Market St. Ste.859 San Francisco, CA 94102 or Fax 415-243-0994.
56