Another Year of America's Failed Experiment: The Death Penalty in 2023

In the 1920s and 30s, a stark white-on-black banner would sometimes appear in front of NAACP headquarters in Manhattan. It read simply, “A MAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY.” The proliferating southern NAACP branches of the time would relay information about lynchings back to New York, where Walter White’s NAACP would broadcast the news by hanging out the banner.

The death penalty is out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system: it is barbaric, inequitable, and unjust.

In 2023, the ACLU, inspired by that broadcast, initiated a digital campaign to memorialize the lives of death-sentenced individuals at the time of execution, and called for an end to the death penalty. In 12 months, we memorialized 20 people executed by five states: Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Alabama. The series illustrated the full range of systemic flaws of capital punishment in America: the targeting of people of color, low-income people, people with intellectual disability and mental illness, and other marginalized persons; the rampant police and prosecution dishonesty and demagoguery; the grossly underfunded and incompetent representation; the torturous execution methods; and the slaughter of innocent people.

These executions stood against the backdrop of the ACLU’s work around the country to bring the death penalty’s flaws to light and hasten its abolition. We filed litigation in Florida challenging the discriminatory effects of “death qualification,” a jury selection practice that disproportionately excludes people of color and those with religious objections to the death penalty. We presented evidence in Kansas at a hearing in support of a broad challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty. In North Carolina, we prepared for a hearing seeking relief under the state’s Racial Justice Act, or RJA, and we launched and litigated similar challenges in California under that state’s newly enacted RJA.

Our work this year will be guided by our twin goals of preventing executions and, ultimately, abolishing capital punishment.

We continued representing individual clients who received shockingly ineffective assistance at trials marked by discriminatory jury selection, junk science, and prosecutorial misconduct. Throughout the year, we drafted or joined amicus briefs on issues that included potentially botched executions in Arizona, the State’s suppression of evidence of a capital defendant’s innocence in Louisiana, and an illegal non-public trial in Kentucky.

We will start 2024 with a major hearing under the North Carolina RJA, and then continue our attack on racism in capital cases by seeking relief under California’s Racial Justice Act on behalf of clients facing capital trials in Riverside County, the nation’s heaviest user of the death penalty. We will be the first to challenge on direct appeal Florida’s recent legislation allowing non-unanimous juries to recommend death sentences — a practice that disproportionately silences the voices of people of color — on behalf of our client, Michael Jackson, in the Florida Supreme Court. And our practice of filing friend-of-the-court briefs before the Supreme Court in critical capital cases will continue.

Our work this year will be guided by our twin goals of preventing executions and, ultimately, abolishing capital punishment. The death penalty is out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system: it is barbaric, inequitable, and unjust. The time has come for America to end this failed experiment.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog