Opinion - Finally, a legal victory against the death penalty
But on April 17, Klapper handed down a stunning indictment of his state's death penalty that would make any abolitionist proud. It is as comprehensive a criticism as has ever handed down from the bench, and highlights a path forward for what I call 'death penalty swing states.'
Those states have the death penalty on the books but no longer execute anyone — and there are lots of them. Some are red states like Kansas and Ohio; some, like California, are deep blue. All of them are stuck in a kind of death penalty limbo.
In Kansas, as the Death Penalty Information center notes, the practice 'has been abolished and reinstated three times' since 1907. No execution has been carried out there since 1965, and no one has received a death sentence since 2016. Currently, there are nine people awaiting execution in the Jayhawk state.
In October 2024, two people, Antoine Fielder and Hugo Villanueva, brought forward a suit claiming that the Kansas death penalty 'constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment' and violates both the state and federal constitutions. They argued that it 'has outlived any conceivable use … [and] is imperfect in its application, haphazard in its result, and of negligible utility.'
At hearings convened by Klapper, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing Fielder and Villanueva presented testimony from a series of nationally known death penalty experts about racial and gender bias, problems in jury selection, the death penalty's economic costs, and whether it deters.
They also put forth a 'targeted challenge to a unique aspect of capital trials known as death qualification,' according to public radio — 'a rule requiring that anyone serving on a capital jury must believe state execution is a valid form of punishment.'
'Under death qualification,' the report states, 'a juror who says they oppose the death penalty on principle is automatically struck. Critics say the practice is discriminatory because some types of people are more likely to be excluded from juries than others.'
The ACLU contends that 'This practice disproportionately discriminates against Black people, women, and people of faith.'
The state cross-examined the expert witnesses but offered no experts of its own. And it argued there was 'no longer a case for the court to consider' since 'the death penalty cannot be a possible punishment' for either of the defendants, and 'the proper way to abolish the death penalty would be to urge legislators to change or repeal the law itself.'
Ultimately, Klapper was convinced that 'a defendant may not challenge the constitutionality of a statute … if it does not affect him but may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally in other circumstances.' But what looked like a defeat for Fielder and Villanueva was a total victory for death penalty abolitionists. The judge incorporated the expert testimony almost verbatim, calling it 'decidedly persuasive and well-reasoned.'
Klapper's opinion put aside the 'moral issues' surrounding the death penalty, focusing instead on the very issues the ACLU had highlighted.
Starting with capital punishment's financial costs, he found that, across the nation, capital cases cost on average '$700,000 more than non-capital cases.' In Kansas alone, 'More than $4 million has been spent with the results being no death penalty sentences and zero executions.'
Beyond their costliness, Klapper determined that 'The factors which distinguish death sentence cases from non-death sentence cases are the race and gender of the victim, and the race and gender of the defendant.' Murder cases involving white and female victims, the judge found, are much more likely to result in capital prosecutions.
And, if that were not enough, Klapper concluded that 'The scientific community has found no reliable evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent to homicides.'
Throughout, his opinion is pragmatic rather than ideological; it offers people in death penalty swing states a way forward by emphasizing the fairness of the death penalty process and its costs and benefits. As Klapper puts it, they should question the 'propriety' of keeping a death penalty as a possible punishment when the state will 'never impose it.'
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
30 minutes ago
- Time Business News
ITUC's New Report Spotights Prison Slavery in the United States
In a chilling revelation that has reignited national debate, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has released a new report exposing the systemic use of prison labor in the United States — a practice the organization likens to modern-day slavery. The report, titled 'Prison Labor in the United States: The Business of Punishment' , details how incarcerated individuals are being exploited under forced labor conditions, often for pennies an hour, with little to no choice in the matter. The United States is home to less than 5% of the world's population — yet it holds nearly 25% of the world's prison population. With over 1.2 million people currently serving time in state and federal prisons, the U.S. correctional system has long been criticized for its mass incarceration rates. But what the ITUC's report brings into sharper focus is how that system is being monetized through what many call 'prison slavery.' The report outlines how incarcerated workers are often compelled to work in unsafe conditions, without proper training or labor rights, for shockingly low wages — sometimes as low as $0.13 an hour. In some states, prisoners aren't paid at all. Refusing to work can result in punishments such as solitary confinement, loss of visitation rights, or denial of parole eligibility. At the center of this issue lies a clause in the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the amendment abolished slavery in 1865, it included a significant exception: slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal as punishment for a crime. 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' This clause has paved the way for what critics describe as a legalized form of slavery inside America's prisons — disproportionately affecting Black and brown communities. According to the Sentencing Project, Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans. The ITUC's findings suggest a complex web of beneficiaries — including private corporations, state governments, and correctional institutions. Prison labor is often used to manufacture everything from furniture to military equipment, and to provide services such as food preparation, laundry, and even customer service for government agencies. Some of the corporations linked to prison labor — either directly or indirectly — include major household names. While many of these companies have stated that they are unaware of or do not directly manage prison labor programs, the opacity of the supply chain often leaves room for unethical practices to go unchecked. Beyond the economics, the human cost of this system is enormous. Incarcerated individuals working in these conditions often lack basic labor protections: no right to unionize, no worker's compensation if injured, and no pathway to upward mobility. These jobs rarely provide the kind of training or education that would help with rehabilitation or re-entry into society after release. Furthermore, the emotional toll is immense. Many inmates describe their labor as coercive and dehumanizing, where the daily routine mimics slavery more than rehabilitation. Families of prisoners have also spoken out, saying their loved ones are being punished twice — once by incarceration, and again through exploitative work. The ITUC is not alone in sounding the alarm. Human rights organizations, lawmakers, and advocacy groups have been pushing for reform — calling for the removal of the 13th Amendment's exception clause and the implementation of fair labor standards within the prison system. States like California and Colorado have already taken steps to address these issues. In 2020, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that removed the exception for slavery from the state constitution. In California, a similar measure failed to pass in 2022, but the push continues. Representative Nikema Williams of Georgia and Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon have introduced federal legislation — the Abolition Amendment — which seeks to end the 13th Amendment loophole. While support is growing, the road to constitutional change remains steep and politically charged. The ITUC's report serves as a critical reminder that reforming America's criminal justice system isn't just about reducing prison populations — it's also about protecting human rights within prison walls. Ending exploitative prison labor will require more than just public outcry. It demands legislative action, corporate accountability, and a cultural shift in how we view incarceration. Rehabilitation, not exploitation, must be the cornerstone of any just and humane correctional system. Until then, the voices of those inside — working against their will for next to nothing — will continue to echo the old abolitionist cry: 'Am I not a man and a brother?' TIME BUSINESS NEWS
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Chicago Democrats issue warnings about their mayor amid Zohran Mamdani's rise
Before New York City mayoral primary winner Zohran Mamdani made a splash, another big-city Democratic mayoral candidate with progressive bona fides unexpectedly burst onto the national political scene. Two years later, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's tenure has captured so much negative attention (dubbed 'America's Worst Mayor' by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board) that Mamdani's campaign has taken note. Mamdani's camp is tracking Johnson's challenges and trying to avoid repeating Second City missteps, according to a person close to both Mamdani's and Johnson's teams. Johnson isn't the only progressive major-city mayor in the country, and his troubles wouldn't automatically translate to ideological allies. Mamdani himself has 'repeatedly cited' another progressive mayor as a role model, as The Boston Globe noted: Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. But Johnson's tenure in Chicago does serve as a useful early warning system for some of the issues Mamdani could confront in New York, whether in a multiway general election or as mayor, if he wins in November. Chicago Alderwoman Jeanette Taylor, a strong campaign ally who has also criticized some of the mayor's early decisions, noted how critics often trot out the word 'socialism' to cast blame on Johnson for long-standing issues facing the city. It's a phenomenon, she added, that Mamdani could similarly face. 'People make this a bad word. People make this into something that it is not. Let's just call all of this what it is: This is the way the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, because they get us fighting on s--- that just does not even matter,' she said. Johnson was a county commissioner, schoolteacher and union organizer when he leapfrogged far more battle-tested candidates to clinch the city's mayoralty. While Mamdani knocked out former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary in New York City, before Cuomo began a third-party run, Johnson with his rise. Johnson, who does not call himself a democratic socialist but believes in many of the same principles as Mamdani, was swept into office by a coalition underpinned by the powerful Chicago Teachers Union and the city's Black and brown voters. He vowed to unite fractured coalitions and lift up the most vulnerable. He represented change, and his strong roots in the community as an activist, a parent and a resident of a neighborhood that struggles with crime gave hope around new efforts toward equality across a city long deeply segregated by race and income. The young, energetic activist with a passion for fighting wealth inequality and lifting up the city's left-behind neighborhoods entered office with much promise. But it hasn't gone well since then. 'They lost the plot,' the person close to both Mamdani's and Johnson's teams said of Johnson's tenure. The person noted that while both Johnson and Mamdani have specific visions, they said Mamdani is 'pragmatic and he wants to succeed' but described Johnson as unbending at times. One of the most significant missteps, the person said, was whom Johnson brought into his administration, adding: 'Staffing is very important. You need professionals who can execute your vision. Those may not be the same people who ran your campaign.' One of Mamdani's recent communications hires comes with deep experience. Dora Pekec, who once served as a campaign manager for Chicago Alderman Bill Conway, also worked with House Majority PAC before heading communications for Brad Lander in his New York mayoral run. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio also recently suggested staffers under his administration would be ripe for picking. It was a point that Rep. Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia, D-Ill., also underscored. Garcia was among those who lost in the first round of Chicago's 2023 mayoral election. 'When progressives run for high office it's critical to be ready to govern,' Garcia wrote in a text message. 'Governing entails striking a balance between promises made (ideals) and making the wheels of government turn. Need to assemble a team that understands your priorities and deliver services, keep relationships with stakeholders especially a base while expanding through engagement. Intergovernmental relationships need to be really keen.' 'Experience in developing and executing plans is most important. This applies to Johnson and when Mamdani is elected,' he continued. Agendas and obstacles While attempting to make headway on his agenda, Johnson was confronted with a rash of challenges facing Chicago, and his popularity began to slide. With some exceptions, observers say it was less about Johnson pushing far-left policies and more about the mayor's confrontational style, his struggles to communicate and his inability to forge alliances with state and federal officials. Even as he made headway in the areas of public safety and mental health, Johnson grew entrenched in battles big and small, cultivating an air of drama over his City Hall. While Johnson eschewed criticism during his campaign that he would be owned by the teachers union, those concerns persisted. He did hammer out a teachers contract without a disruption to the school year — no small feat — but it proved to be a bad-tempered and messy ordeal that could bring lasting political reprisal. He went to war with and fired a popular schools CEO, and also saw the resignations of the entire board of education, which Johnson had appointed. Johnson almost immediately saw his coalition splinter over an influx of migrants whom Texas Gov. Greg Abbott bused into Chicago without warning. Like other major cities at the time, Chicago grappled with how to adequately house families vying for legal status. The city clashed with its own residents, including in neighborhoods of color, with much of the political backlash affecting Johnson. He and Gov. JB Pritzker, a fellow Democrat, share a frosty relationship at best. He locked horns with his city council over major policy decisions. He broke a campaign promise by seeking a $300 million property tax increase then suffered the humiliation of a 50-0 council defeat. William Daley, the son of longtime Mayor Richard J. Daley and brother of longtime Mayor Richard M. Daley, said Johnson's troubles at least partially stem from lacking experience in managing an expansive budget and overseeing tens of thousands of employees. He predicted that, if elected, the 33-year-old Mamdani could face similar political troubles as Johnson. 'It's a very tough job if you've never been in politics or in a job that manages something big,' Daley said, noting his brother's prior experience before his mayorship. 'Rich had eight years as state's attorney. … He had that experience for eight years — running something. It's not an easy task for these people who have never run anything.' Johnson's predecessors had their own shortcomings, from public corruption to massive civil rights failures, relentless crime and poor fiscal management that still haunts the city today. In 2008, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley sold the city's parking meters to private investors for a staggering 75 years, trading billions of dollars in future revenue to plug a budget hole for a one-time payment. Taylor, the Chicago City Council member, said that while Johnson 'made some rookie mistakes' he is unfairly getting the brunt of the blame for mistakes shared by predecessors. 'You think in 22 months we have dug a $1.5 billion hole?' she said of those blaming Johnson. 'The math ain't mathing.' New beginnings Politically, things have potential to look up for Johnson. Trump has sicced his Department of Justice on the mayor to investigate his hiring practices after Johnson had discussed hiring Black individuals for key positions. Johnson fired back that his hiring reflected the country and the city, while Trump's hiring reflected a 'country club.' It caught on in conservative circles, with cable news hosts bashing Johnson just as they had done with Lightfoot. In an interview, she said Mamdani could expect the same. Lightfoot often hit back, and that brought its own repercussions. 'It's hard to fight against the guy who's got the biggest megaphone in the world,' Lightfoot said. 'Many of us who were Black women, like me in Chicago, like Muriel Bowser in D.C., like Keisha Lance Bottoms in Atlanta, when he mentioned us by name in a disparaging way, candidly, the death threats went through the roof.' Moving into the second half of his term, Johnson can point to public safety as one of his biggest achievements. Observers largely applaud his choice of Superintendent Larry Snelling to lead the police department, as well as policies the mayor has put into place, like boosting mental health services, restructuring the detectives bureau and backing violence intervention methods. The number of murders in the city has fallen for two consecutive years, and Chicago could be on pace to reach the mayor's goal of having fewer than 500 homicides this year for the first time in a decade. 'Mayor Johnson's primary focus over his first two years in office has been on driving down violent crime in Chicago. Since taking office, Chicago has seen historic reductions in crime and violence under the Johnson administration's holistic approach,' a spokesperson from Johnson's office said in a statement, citing a 33% drop in homicides in the first six months of 2025 and a 38% drop in shootings in that same period. It also boasted of having the highest homicide clearance rate in more than a decade. As far as Johnson's poll numbers, 'the narrative that Mayor Johnson is unpopular has been constructed by a small number of well-funded political organizations opposed to the Mayor's progressive agenda,' the statement said.
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
Judges Keep Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Arrests, in Setback for Trump Agenda
The Trump administration's agenda suffered another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision that temporarily halts federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's finding that the raids appeared to exclusively rely on a person's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. The administration's immigration raids have stirred protests and fear for many Latinos across the city, its suburbs and agricultural regions. The panel's decision merely allows a temporary restraining order that had been imposed by the lower court to remain in place. It curtails, for now, the far-reaching operations that began in June as the case proceeds through the courts. Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she weighs a longer-lasting order known as a preliminary injunction. In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke and where they lived or worked. Civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
