Despite public support for the death penalty being at a 50-year low, executions in America have surged. This is primarily because the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has ceased its former practice of issuing last-minute stays, effectively giving states a green light to proceed with executions without federal oversight or intervention.

Related Insights

The surge in US executions is heavily concentrated in Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis seems to be using capital punishment for political gain. He significantly ramped up the rate of executions while running for president and then halted them after ending his campaign, suggesting the act is treated as a political strategy rather than a matter of justice.

By labeling a problem with a single, highly emotional term (e.g., 'insurgents,' 'fentanyl'), leaders can create a public mandate to act decisively, often ignoring accountability, due process, and congressional oversight.

Contrary to the perception of a peaceful death, lethal injection causes immense suffering. The initial sedative alters blood acidity, making the lungs feel like they are burning. A subsequent paralytic drug prevents the person from crying out, masking their agony while they silently scream in pain.

The Trump administration's strategy for control isn't writing new authoritarian laws, but aggressively using latent executive authority that past administrations ignored. This demonstrates how a democracy's own structures can be turned against it without passing a single new piece of legislation, as seen with the FCC.

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court granted presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts related to their "core constitutional functions," such as pardoning or directing investigations. This protection applies even if the actions are performed in bad faith, creating an unprecedented shield from accountability.

The Supreme Court is systematically dismantling laws that protect heads of independent agencies (like the CFPB and FTC) from being fired at will. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," concentrating power in the presidency and eroding the apolitical nature of regulatory bodies.

Grisham's most pragmatic argument against the death penalty isn't moral but systemic: Texas has exonerated 18 people from death row. He argues that even if one supports the penalty in principle, one cannot support a system proven to make catastrophic errors. This "flawed system" framework is a powerful way to debate high-risk policies.

The historical progression of the death penalty in America, from hanging to lethal injection, was not primarily about making death more humane. Instead, each change was intended to make the act of execution more palatable and acceptable for the public to witness, effectively a public relations strategy.

The focus on pardoning political allies diverts legal resources and attention away from tens of thousands of ordinary inmates with legitimate clemency cases. This creates a two-tiered justice system where political loyalty is prioritized over rectifying potential miscarriages of justice for the general population.

John Grisham asserts the reduction in death sentences isn't due to legal or political change but to "courageous jurors." As defense lawyers present more of a defendant's life story, juries develop empathy and increasingly opt for life imprisonment. This highlights how grassroots decision-making can quietly reshape a legal system from the bottom up.