Meaning of Capital Appeals: A Rejoinder to Liebman, Fagan, and West

• NCJ Number: 187024
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 84 Issue: 3 Dated: November-December 2000 Pages: 142-143
• Author(s): Barry Latzer; James N. Cauthen
• Date Published: 2000
• Length: 2 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: For the response to this critique, see NCJ-187025.

Annotation

In the September-October issue of "Judicature," the authors of the current article re-examined a study of error-rate in capital cases (authored by James S. Liebman, Jeffery Fagan, and Valerie West), arguing that the system is not "broken;" the authors of the original study replied; the current article is a rejoinder to that reply.

Abstract

The authors first state that nothing contained in the reply to their critique of the study alters their view that the study presents an incomplete and distorted picture of the death penalty system in the United States. None of the arguments in the reply changes the fact that most reversals in capital cases simply negate, often temporarily, the death sentence of an offender who remains convicted of murder. Liebman and his colleagues claim that the 68-percent appellate reversal rate found in their study is a "valid measure of the risk that our existing capital system mistakenly executes the wrong people." This claim is illogical since the 68 of 100 capital defendants who win their appeals no longer face the risk of execution. Further, their "wrongful execution" claim is misleading, since Liebman and his colleagues provide no evidence to support the inference that innocent people are being executed; their study focused only on appellate reversal rates. Appellate reversals reflect procedural trial error and are unrelated to innocence. Data show that most appellate reversals leave undisturbed the guilt of the offender. Although Liebman and his colleagues do not disprove the finding that most appellate reversals affect only the sentence and not the conviction, they criticize the methodology used to arrive at this conclusion. An assessment of this criticism reveals that Liebman and his colleagues have ignored the distinction between conviction and sentence reversals. Although reforms of the capital appeals system are in order, they must be based on a complete and accurate appraisal of the capital adjudication process. 5 footnotes