Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the history of public executions in America in light of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s scrapped plan to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan. Professor Sarat argues that the plan, though stopped, reflects the Trump administration’s contempt for the American public, which it treats as a prop for its displays of cruelty.

Amherst College professor Austin Sarat discusses Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s record-setting pace of executions, using the scheduled November 5 execution of Jesse Guardado to examine DeSantis’s refusal to grant clemency, his sole control over death warrants, and Florida’s history of wrongful death sentences. Professor Sarat argues that DeSantis has turned capital punishment into cruel, arbitrary assembly-line justice that ignores remorse and rehabilitation, disregards the risk of executing the innocent, and serves his political ends.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Trump’s authorization of a firing-squad execution for Nidal Hasan, the first U.S. military execution since 1961, placing it within the history of military executions, the current military death row, and Secretary Hegseth’s push to revive the practice. Professor Sarat argues that reviving military executions reflects a cruelty-focused “warrior ethos” that departs from the modern military’s tradition of mercy, and that it will damage the teamwork and community on which military effectiveness depends.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the Massachusetts Attorney General’s report on 70 years of clergy sexual abuse in the Fall River, Springfield, and Worcester Dioceses, including the church’s cover-ups and its post-2002 reforms. Professor Griffin argues that those reforms remain incomplete and that Massachusetts must do more to protect survivors, including eliminating civil statutes of limitations and the charitable immunity cap, improving trauma-informed oversight, and disclosing abusers’ names.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the botched lethal injection of Christa Pike in Tennessee in the context of America’s long history of failed executions and court rulings allowing states to try again. Professor Sarat argues that Pike’s case is unlikely to end lethal injection because states rarely abandon an execution method after it fails, and switching methods is costly and no guarantee of improvement.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses how child sex abuse and the Epstein files could affect the midterm elections, focusing on Republican candidates and on Pennsylvania’s failure to pass a law letting past abuse victims sue. Professor Hamilton argues that voters of both parties want powerful people held accountable, and that Republican leaders who ignore survivors will lose votes.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Georgia’s planned execution of Stacey Humphreys and the related lawsuit by Appen Media Group challenging the state’s secrecy rules for lethal-injection procedures, while placing that dispute in the broader national fight over execution secrecy. Professor Sarat argues that Georgia’s restrictions are constitutionally and normatively unjustified because they give the state too much unchecked control over what the press can observe, and that the court should grant access to ensure transparency and accountability.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent resurgence of capital punishment in the United States, examining rising execution numbers, shifting public opinion, and the pro-death-penalty influence of the Trump administration. Professor Sarat argues that abolitionists must urgently adapt their messaging and political strategies to counter these developments and prevent further erosion of the movement's progress.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a lawsuit by two Idaho death row inmates challenging the secretive, unexplained process behind the state’s newly adopted execution protocol, which grants officials broad discretion to deviate from procedures at will. Professor Sarat argues that such vague protocols undermine accountability when executions go wrong, and urges Idaho courts to resist the troubling trend of relaxing administrative law norms whenever the death penalty is at stake.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the parallels between Iran’s aggressive use of capital punishment—including record execution numbers, hangings, and executions for drug offenses—and President Trump’s own enthusiasm for expanding and intensifying the death penalty in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s fixation on capital punishment reflects an authoritarian impulse akin to Iran’s use of executions as a tool of control and intimidation, and warns that while global trends favor abolition, the U.S. under Trump risks moving in the opposite, regressive direction.

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.