The Homicide Review Advisory Group (HomRAG) was set up in 2004 to run alongside the work of the Law Commission which was reviewing aspects of the law on murder. This multidisciplinary group was convened on the initiative of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC and Professor Terence Morris; and was initially chaired by the late Very Reverend Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark and now by Sir Louis. In essence, the group is concerned with promoting a just law of murder. As part of this aim and in view of developments in Parliament in late-2011 and continuing into 2012 concerning sentencing and the use of mandatory sentences in particular, HomRAG has published its first report for consideration by law-makers and other interested parties. Harking back to the abolition of capital punishment, the group argue that the mandatory life sentence for murder is both unjust and outdated; a compromise arrived at in the 1960s in order to ensure that abolition of the death penalty made its way through both Houses of Parliament. Neither it nor the present system of tariff-setting allow for sentences which match the seriousness of individual crimes, so that, e.g. a single 'mercy killing' attracts the same penalty as that for a murder which is part of a course of serial killings. Further, the indefinite and misleading nature of the life sentence - which may or may not involve a life spent in prison - is both unjust and incomprehensible to even better-informed lay people. Building on modern research which shows that the public and public opinion are nowadays by no means averse to such a change, the report urges that the time has come for a move to fixed sentences for murder as with any other individual crime so that the exact circumstances of offences can be properly reflected by the courts.

The Homicide Review Advisory Group (HomRAG) was set up in 2004 to run alongside the work of the Law Commission which was reviewing aspects of the law on murder. This multidisciplinary group was convened on the initiative of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC and Professor Terence Morris; and was initially chaired by the late Very Reverend Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark and now by Sir Louis. In essence, the group is concerned with promoting a just law of murder. As part of this aim and in view of developments in Parliament in late-2011 and continuing into 2012 concerning sentencing and the use of mandatory sentences in particular, HomRAG has published its first report for consideration by law-makers and other interested parties. Harking back to the abolition of capital punishment, the group argue that the mandatory life sentence for murder is both unjust and outdated; a compromise arrived at in the 1960s in order to ensure that abolition of the death penalty made its way through both Houses of Parliament. Neither it nor the present system of tariff-setting allow for sentences which match the seriousness of individual crimes, so that, e.g. a single 'mercy killing' attracts the same penalty as that for a murder which is part of a course of serial killings. Further, the indefinite and misleading nature of the life sentence - which may or may not involve a life spent in prison - is both unjust and incomprehensible to even better-informed lay people. Building on modern research which shows that the public and public opinion are nowadays by no means averse to such a change, the report urges that the time has come for a move to fixed sentences for murder as with any other individual crime so that the exact circumstances of offences can be properly reflected by the courts.

Many studies during the past few decades have sought to determine whether the death penalty has any deterrent effect on homicide rates. Researchers have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions. Some studies have concluded that the threat of capital punishment deters murders, saving large numbers of lives; other studies have concluded that executions actually increase homicides; still others, that executions have no effect on murder rates. Commentary among researchers, advocates, and policymakers on the scientific validity of the findings has sometimes been acrimonious. Against this backdrop, the National Research Council report Deterrence and the Death Penalty assesses whether the available evidence provides a scientific basis for answering questions of if and how the death penalty affects homicide rates. This new report from the Committee on Law and Justice concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates. The key question is whether capital punishment is less or more effective as a deterrent than alternative punishments, such as a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Yet none of the research that has been done accounted for the possible effect of noncapital punishments on homicide rates. The report recommends new avenues of research that may provide broader insight into any deterrent effects from both capital and noncapital punishments.

Today, death sentences in the U.S. are as rare as lightning strikes. Brandon Garrett shows us the reasons why, and explains what the failed death penalty experiment teaches about the effect of inept lawyering, overzealous prosecution, race discrimination, wrongful convictions, and excessive punishments throughout the criminal justice system.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty was constitutional if it complied with certain specific provisions designed to ensure that it was reserved for the 'worst of the worst.' The same court had rejected the death penalty just four years before in the Furman decision because it found that the penalty had been applied in a capricious and arbitrary manner. The 1976 decision ushered in the 'modern' period of the US death penalty, setting the country on a course to execute over 1,400 inmates in the ensuing years, with over 8,000 individuals currently sentenced to die. Now, forty years after the decision, the eminent political scientist Frank Baumgartner along with a team of younger scholars (Marty Davidson, Kaneesha Johnson, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Colin Wilson) have collaborated to assess the empirical record and provide a definitive account of how the death penalty has been implemented. Each chapter addresses a precise empirical question and provides evidence, not opinion, about whether how the modern death penalty has functioned. They decided to write the book after Justice Breyer issued a dissent in a 2015 death penalty case in which he asked for a full briefing on the constitutionality of the death penalty. In particular, they assess the extent to which the modern death penalty has met the aspirations of Gregg or continues to suffer from the flaws that caused its rejection in Furman. To answer this question, they provide the most comprehensive statistical account yet of the workings of the capital punishment system. Authoritative and pithy, the book is intended for both students in a wide variety of fields, researchers studying the topic, and--not least--the Supreme Court itself.

Taking on one of the most popular issues of the day—crime and the way we make sense of it—Julian Roberts and Loretta Stalans reveal the mismatch between the public perception of crime and the reality of crime statistics. Discussing such issues as public knowledge of crime, sources of crime information, information processing by the public, public attitudes about crime, and the effectiveness of punishment, this book considers the role that public opinion plays in the politics of criminal justice issues. Based on extensive data from the United States, with comparisons with Canada and the United Kingdom, Roberts and Stalans reveal the truth behind how the public perceives crime and how this perception compares to actual criminal activity.

Over a career spanning nearly four decades, Rick Unklesbay has tried over one hundred murder cases before juries that ended with sixteen men and women receiving the death sentence. Arbitrary Death depicts some of the most horrific murders in Tucson, Arizona, the author's prosecution of those cases, and how the death penalty was applied. It provides the framework to answer the questions: Why is America the only Western country to still use the death penalty? Can a human-run system treat those cases fairly and avoid unconstitutional arbitrariness? It is an insider's view from someone who has spent decades prosecuting murder cases and who now argues that the death penalty doesn't work and our system is fundamentally flawed. With a rational, balanced approach, Unklesbay depicts cases that represent how different parts of the criminal justice system are responsible for the arbitrary nature of the death penalty and work against the fair application of the law. The prosecution, trial courts, juries, and appellate courts all play a part in what ultimately is a roll of the dice as to whether a defendant lives or dies. Arbitrary Death is for anyone who wonders why and when its government seeks to legally take the life of one of its citizens. It will have you questioning whether you can support a system that applies death as an arbitrary punishment -- and often decades after the sentence was given.