Australian Institute of Criminology

Skip to content

Death penalty

  1. Bedau, Hugo Adam, eds. 1982, The Death Penalty in America, Oxford University Press, New York.

    This book gives the views of people on both sides of the death penalty issue and sets out to cover a selection of the best recent writing on capital punishment in America. The book aims to achieve this by looking at the background and developments of the death penalty, the arguments for the death penalty and the arguments against it.

  2. Robbins, I. P. 1990, Toward a More Just and Effective System of Review in State Death Penalty Cases, A Report Containing the American bar Association's Recommendations Concerning Death Penalty Habeas Corpus and Related Materials from the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section's Project on Death Penalty Habeas Corpus, American Bar Association, Illinios.

    This was prepared as a guide to provide a greater understanding of the issues surrounding death penalty habeas corpus cases. It is also intended as a tool to help enhance the administrative handling of these cases and bring about meaningful improvements to the law in this area. It lists the recommendations made by the American Bar Association for litigation of death penalty cases. In 1988, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section formed a Task Force to study judicial review of cases in which defendants have been sentenced to death. The purpose of this study was to formulate comprehensive recommendations that, when implemented, would enhance both the efficiency and the fairness of state and federal review procedures. It was particularly important to address the chaotic character of state and federal reviews in death penalty cases, which present unique problems and require special solutions. The Task Force proposed a new process that would be fairer and facilitate rational review. It is anticipated that the process outlined in the recommendations will shorten the total time required for the review of death penalty cases. Two recommendations stand out as critical: 1) the provision of competent counsel to ensure that the streamlined process is capable for fairly rectifying constitutional errors and 2) the implementation of a statue of limitations to speed up the process.

Recent publications