Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Pennsylvania’s anomalous status as the only Northeastern state retaining the death penalty despite a de facto execution moratorium, examining the system’s documented flaws—wrongful convictions, racial disparities, geographic inconsistency, and inadequate indigent defense—alongside Governor Josh Shapiro’s public shift toward abolition. Professor Sarat argues that Pennsylvania should abolish capital punishment and that Shapiro, having already refused to sign execution warrants, should use his remaining time in office to press the legislature toward abolition and pursue commutations for those on death row, despite the steep procedural and political obstacles to both paths.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump on capital punishment, set against the backdrop of the Justice Department’s April 2026 announcement to restart and expand federal executions. Professor Sarat argues that the Pope’s moral condemnation of the death penalty as an affront to human dignity—offered without anger or political calculation—exposes the cruelty underlying the Trump administration’s embrace of capital punishment and should reinvigorate the abolition movement in the United States.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Department of Justice’s decision to seek the death penalty for Elias Rodriguez following his 2025 antisemitic murders at the Capital Jewish Museum. Professor Sarat argues that American Jews should oppose the execution because capital punishment contradicts the Jewish values of “repairing the world,” violates long-standing rabbinical skepticism toward state-sanctioned killing, and denies the fundamental human right to make moral amends.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical prominence and systemic flaws of capital punishment in Texas as the state nears its 600th execution since 1977. Professor Sarat argues that Texas’s continued practice of executing intellectually disabled and mentally ill individuals defies constitutional standards and highlights an urgent need for political leaders to abolish the death penalty.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Tony Carruthers, a Tennessee death row inmate scheduled for execution despite significant evidence of innocence and severe procedural failures at trial. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Bill Lee should exercise his clemency power to spare Carruthers’ life, contending that the case exemplifies the systemic failings that make executive clemency a critical but underused safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the moral implications of the wrongful conviction movement and contrasts it with his own focus on humanizing those who have been rightfully convicted of serious crimes. Professor Margulies argues that society’s preoccupation with innocence inadvertently reinforces the dehumanization of the guilty, asserting that we must recognize the shared humanity of all incarcerated individuals rather than dismissing them as monsters.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the societal tendency toward punitive rigidity in the face of criminal conduct, contrasting our current “unforgiving society” with the need for a more compassionate approach. Professor Margulies argues that by shifting our focus from merely asking what a person did to understanding the complex life circumstances that led to their actions, we can move toward a more humanizing justice system that recognizes the potential for atonement and shared humanity.

UC Davis Law professor Irene Joe and restorative justice specialist Jeremiah Mungo examine how ABA advertising restrictions and the absence of meaningful credentialing standards leave criminal defendants—particularly those who can afford private counsel—with little reliable information for choosing a defense attorney, forcing them to rely almost entirely on informal word of mouth. Drawing on Mr. Mungo’s personal experience hiring a private attorney who was later disbarred, Professor Joe and Mr. Mungo argue that modest reforms such as voluntary specialist certification programs, tiered qualification requirements, and publicly available attorney experience data could establish a quality floor in the criminal defense market without dismantling legitimate concerns about lawyer advertising.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin examines the Rhode Island Attorney General’s sweeping report on clergy sexual abuse within the Diocese of Providence, including the diocese’s history of concealment and the AG’s reform recommendations. Professor Griffin argues that the report confirms decades of institutional cover-up and endorses the AG’s calls for stronger laws, expanded statutes of limitations, and greater diocesan accountability.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explains how a federal judge’s decision in the Luigi Mangione case exemplifies the Trump administration’s broader failures to reinstate and pursue the federal death penalty. Professor Sarat argues that political motivations, procedural missteps, and disregard for legal standards have caused multiple courts to block capital prosecutions, undermining the administration’s aggressive death penalty agenda.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes a groundbreaking ruling by Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea that redefines executions as part of the judicial process that includes all preparatory steps leading to death, not just the final moment. Professor Sarat argues that this interpretation could reshape how the Fifth and Eighth Amendments apply to capital punishment cases, particularly in situations where botched execution attempts cause prolonged suffering or where states seek to execute someone a second time after a failed attempt.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the state of clemency in U.S. capital punishment cases during 2025, contrasting a wave of clemency actions in 2024 with a sharp decline the following year under the return of President Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s punitive stance and politicization of clemency discouraged governors from granting mercy and contends that executive leaders should actively use clemency powers to uphold justice and compassion in the face of growing cruelty.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical and contemporary use of the firing squad as a method of execution in the United States, which is currently rare but authorized in a few states, including South Carolina, which recently executed Stephen Bryant using this method. Professor Sarat argues that execution by firing squad is a brutal, cold-blooded killing that is not a humane method of capital punishment and reflects a problematic, violent history, thus lessening society as a whole.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the contrasting legal outcomes of Sean Dunn, who was acquitted for throwing a turkey sandwich at a federal agent in protest of government actions, and Zoe Rosenberg, who was convicted for rescuing chickens from a slaughterhouse as an act of animal rights activism. Professor Dorf argues that Dunn’s acquittal reflects juror sympathies with political protest against authority, while Rosenberg’s conviction exposes society’s deep normalization of animal agriculture and the judicial system’s resistance to acknowledging nonviolent civil disobedience that challenges that norm.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton traces the decades-long movement to reform statutes of limitations (SOLs) for child sex abuse victims, highlighting the legal, political, and cultural progress made and the recent challenges posed by unscrupulous legal practices. Professor Hamilton argues that while the movement has empowered many survivors and exposed hidden abuse, the rise of false claims by unethical mass tort firms threatens its integrity, necessitating legal safeguards like certificate of merit requirements to preserve justice and protect genuine victims.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines the Trump administration’s cover-up of former President Trump’s connections to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and the broader implications for survivors of child sexual abuse seeking justice. Professor Hamilton argues that the effort to obscure the truth has backfired by mobilizing survivors and the public, underscoring the urgent need for legal reform—particularly the elimination of restrictive statutes of limitations—to ensure survivors can seek justice when they are ready.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the importance of competency in death penalty cases, focusing on whether individuals like Ralph Menzies—who suffer from dementia and cannot comprehend their punishment—should be eligible for execution. Professor Sarat argues that executing cognitively impaired individuals violates the core purpose of punishment as a form of moral accountability, and calls for shifting the legal burden onto the state to prove competency in such cases to prevent unjust and inhumane executions.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the recent mass stabbing in Michigan by Bradford James Gille and explores the deeper systemic and personal factors behind seemingly random acts of violence. Professor Margulies argues that before society can decide what justice or punishment looks like in such cases, we must first understand the humanity and complex stories behind individuals like Gille, rejecting questions that strip away their personhood.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the impending execution of Byron Black in Tennessee, highlighting deep flaws in the state’s application of the death penalty, particularly for intellectually disabled and medically vulnerable individuals. Professor Sarat argues that Black’s case exemplifies the cruelty, legal absurdities, and moral failings of the death penalty system, urging an end to a practice that undermines justice and human dignity.

Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, examines how the media and political frenzy over Jeffrey Epstein’s client list has overshadowed the broader epidemic of institutional child sexual abuse in America, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts to USA Gymnastics. Ms. Robb argues that instead of chasing political spectacle and conspiracy theories, lawmakers must implement concrete reforms—including ending statutes of limitations, banning NDAs in abuse cases, mandating institutional transparency, and funding prevention programs—to address what is a widespread public health emergency affecting one in four girls and one in thirteen boys.