FAQs

We know that over the past three decades people have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. We also know that bias and politics impact which cases are pursued as death penalty cases. While a system run by human beings will always be fallible, efforts to scrutinize death penalty cases can take decades. The long process causes additional harm to the family members of victims whose needs in the aftermath of violence are often unmet, and evidence-based community strategies to reduce violence are underfunded.

Year after year, evidence continues to demonstrate that states that use the death penalty are not safer than states that do not use the death penalty. The data shows that the use of capital punishment is not correlated with lower murder rates; does not increase protections for law enforcement personnel; and does not meaningfully advance public safety. The vast resources currently spent pursuing the execution of a handful of people who are already behind bars would be far better spent solving more crimes, and supporting data-driven programs that have been repeatedly proven to actually improve public safety and reduce crime.

Police and prison guards are no more likely to be harmed in states without the death penalty, than those with it. In fact, one study found that between 1984 and 1989, 88% — or 15 out of 17– of prison guards who were murdered on the job worked in death penalty jurisdictions. Another study found that on-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in states without the death penalty than those that have it. There is simply no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than other severe punishments.

By replacing the death penalty with alternative sentences, the millions of dollars that we are currently spending on the death penalty could be redirected to other priority public safety needs, such as improving our crime labs and investing more resources into solving homicides–all of which will do far to improve public and officer safety than the death penalty.

Only a handful of outlier counties in the U.S. still impose the death penalty. Just two counties out of 3,143 nationwide produced more than five new death sentences in the five-year period between 2021 and 2025. They are: Riverside, CA (6) and Maricopa, AZ, (5). Tarrant Count, TX, came in third with just four death sentences. Only seven states produced five or more death sentences in this same period (California (17), Arizona (6), North Carolina (6), Texas (17), Oklahoma (5), Alabama (18), and Florida (22)). The two leading states for death sentences, Florida and Alabama, are the only two states in the country that allow non-unanimous juries to sentence someone to death.

The death penalty process causes additional harm to the families of murder victims. The long process prolongs the pain for many homicide survivors, forcing them to relive their trauma over and over again as the protracted legal process goes on for years and the person who killed their loved one becomes the focus of ongoing media attention. Most death sentences are eventually overturned, resulting in a different sentence than the one that was initially promised – but only after the family has suffered years of uncertainty and waiting for an execution that may never come. All the while, many immediate needs of victims’ families go unmet. Resources currently spent on capital punishment could be redirected to support the needs of all victims’ families.

Race plays a decisive role in who is sentenced to die and executed in the U.S., and these inequities are nothing new. From slavery to Jim Crow to the present day, the death penalty has been a tool of injustice and discrimination, disproportionately affecting Black and brown communities. Cases involving white victims are three to four times more likely to end in death sentences than those involving nonwhite victims, demonstrating that juries routinely place a higher value on the lives of white people.

Study after study have found that death penalty cases are much more expensive than cases where a sentence of life without parole is sought instead. This is due to the bifurcated trial process (one trial to determine guilt and one to determine sentence) and constitutionally mandated appeals, which are only required in death penalty cases, as well as increased incarceration costs (due primarily to the fact that most death row prisoners must be single-celled and have additional security). The time spent pursuing one capital case could be invested in communities to build public safety strategies that meet their needs, solve scores of other cases, and provide critical services to support the victims of violence and their families.

The Eighth Amendment requires the death penalty be limited to the most aggravated offenses committed by the most culpable offenders, but that is not the reality of who ends up on death row. The death penalty is routinely used against persons with severe mental illnesses, intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, and those with long histories of childhood trauma and abuse, as well as youthful offenders, despite the Supreme Court’s previous rulings that determined juveniles and individuals with intellectual disabilities are not culpable enough to warrant the death penalty. In 2024, 96% of the individuals executed had one or more significant impairment. The broader principle that the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions embraced is that executing people with serious functional impairments crosses a moral line, and is considered to be excessive punishment.

The death penalty is applied in an arbitrary manner, determined primarily by inappropriate factors, such as what county the crime is committed in, the ability of the defendant to obtain and pay for a qualified attorney, and the race and economic status of the victims, instead of the nature of the crime. Two identical crimes that take place just miles apart will frequently result in completely different sentences depending on the whims of the local prosecutor.

The risk of executing an innocent person is real. Since 1976, more than 200 people who were sentenced to death have been released due to wrongful conviction, some of whom came within days or even hours of being executed for crimes they didn’t commit. The advent of DNA testing has given us a window into the ways in which human error and faulty evidence–once thought to be above reproach–can result in innocent people being sentenced to die. A 2014 study published in the National Academy of Sciences estimated that 4.1 percent of the people currently on death row would eventually be exonerated if their executions were delayed indefinitely. There is a growing number of high profile cases of individuals who were executed despite serious doubts about their guilt. Despite our best intentions, human beings simply can’t be right 100% of the time. And one mistake is simply too many.