Since 1989, there have been over 200 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. On the surface, the release of innocent people from prison could be seen as a victory for the criminal justice system: the wrong person went to jail, but the mistake was fixed and the accused set free. A closer look at miscarriages of justice, however, reveals that such errors are not aberrations but deeply revealing, common features of our legal system. The ten original essays in When Law Fails view wrongful convictions not as random mistakes but as organic outcomes of a misshaped larger system that is rife with faulty eyewitness identifications, false confessions, biased juries, and racial discrimination. Distinguished legal thinkers Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., and Austin Sarat have assembled a stellar group of contributors who try to make sense of justice gone wrong and to answer urgent questions. Are miscarriages of justice systemic or symptomatic, or are they mostly idiosyncratic? What are the broader implications of justice gone awry for the ways we think about law? Are there ways of reconceptualizing legal missteps that are particularly useful or illuminating? These instructive essays both address the questions and point the way toward further discussion. When Law Fails reveals the dramatic consequences as well as the daily realities of breakdowns in the law’s ability to deliver justice swiftly and fairly, and calls on us to look beyond headline-grabbing exonerations to see how failure is embedded in the legal system itself. Once we are able to recognize miscarriages of justice we will be able to begin to fix our broken legal system. Contributors: Douglas A. Berman, Markus D. Dubber, Mary L. Dudziak, Patricia Ewick, Daniel Givelber, Linda Ross Meyer, Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Austin Sarat, Jonathan Simon, and Robert Weisberg.

The stories of some 400 innocent Americans who were falsely convicted of capital crimes.

Experts on both side of the issue speak out both for and against capital punishment and the rationale behind their individual beliefs.

An innovative, comprehensive overview of capital punishment. This book offers an objective, policy-oriented examination of the death penalty as practiced in the United States.

Death Penalty Cases presents significant verbatim excerpts of death-penalty decisions from the United States Supreme Court. The first chapter introduces the topics discussed throughout the book. It also includes a detailed history of the death penalty in the United States. After this introduction, the remaining eighteen chapters are divided into five parts: Foundational Cases, Death-Eligible Crimes and Persons, The Death Penalty Trial, Post-Conviction Review, and Execution Issues. The first part, consisting of five chapters, talks about the mandatory death penalty, mitigating evidence and racial bias. The next part covers death-eligible crimes, such as rape and other crimes that do not involve homicide and murder. The middle part presents the trial process, from choosing the appropriate decision-makers through the sentencing decision. Followed by this is a chapter focusing on the aftermath of conviction, such as claims of innocence. The book concludes by exploring issues related to execution, such as not executing insane convicts. Finally, execution methods are presented. - Provides the most recent case material--no need to supplement - Topical organization of cases provides a more logical organization for structuring a course - Co-authors with different perspectives on the death penalty assures complete impartiality of the material - Provides the necessary historical background, a clear explanation of the current capital case process, and an impartial description of the controversies surrounding the death penalty - Provides the latest statistics relevant to discussions on the death penalty - Clearly explains the different ways in which the states process death penalty cases, with excerpts of the most relevant statutes

Did the Supreme Court's upholding of Miranda in 2000 adversely impact law enforcement, as conservatives have complained, or was it a reaffirmation of individual rights? Welsh S. White looks at both sides of the issue, emphasizing that Miranda represents just one stage in the Court's ongoing struggle to accommodate a fundamental conflict between law enforcement and civil liberties, and assessing whether the Court's present decisions (including Miranda) strike an appropriate balance between promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining reliable evidence and the individual's interest in being protected from overreaching police practices. Welsh S. White is Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He is best known for his work on capital punishment and has published and lectured on the death penalty for the past twenty years.