• There are two warning signs here. First, the question isn't really a question, it's just an invitation to a narrative. "How and why did X change from date B to date C?" is a perfectly sound historical topic, but it's far too unconfined to be a project based on direct encounter with primary sources. Second, your dates are chosen in a fashion that plainly prejudices the inquiry. The Lawes Divine Morall and Martiall aren't a particularly sensible starting point unless one simply wants the harshest early material one can find; as I pointed out originally, they're not in any real sense American law at all. And as you admit yourself, choosing to end with an outlier, the abololition of the death penalty in one state of the northwest frontier in 1846, doesn't accurately depict the state of the law at the end of your period. It does conform to the pace of English abolition, which essentially allows the direct importation of the Radzinowicz story of Whiggery and Beccaria, but while 1650-1850 (or 1856) might be a possible periodization for writing about English capital punishment in a Whiggish "Bloody Code to humanitarian abolitionism" fashion, it doesn't fit the realities of the US context.

One preliminary note: the bounds of my research will generally be restricted to the death penalty in the aforementioned period as it related to those other than slaves (the majority of whom were Blacks)

• The majority? What's the minority you have in mind?

- although the position of slaves at the time is clearly an important topic, I believe that it may be better dealt with in a separate inquiry.

• Why? This is another sign of something being put aside because it doesn't conform to a story. What sense would it make to explore the intense brutality of US criminal justice without observing its central commitment to brutality, which is the crucial importance of the death penalty in maintaining a system of racial subordination? A history of capital punishment in America at any time that excludes the treatment of enslaved people and their descendants would seem to me to be a wedding without musicians.

• The overbroad focus of the question is also reflected in the sources you collect, which look more like a library shelf than a collection of materials that specifically allowed the historian to infer the answer to a specific doubtful question. In the end, the text reads primarily as a set of points taken from Banner, while the sources read as "sources relating to US capital punishment found in the Hong Kong Central Library." I admit to the difficulty of working on this project in Hong Kong, which has not the same advantage when it comes to access to printed primary sources that rests in working in the second-largest law library in North America. I didn't expect you to try to complete such work without access to comprehensive collections of printed sources, and it will be difficult to do. But the key to the revision is to ask a narrow question that has an actual answer, and to find that answer by looking in the primary historical sources that can answer it, keeping a scanned collection of those materials for the benefit of a reader who wants to see the sources on which you rely. One might ask, for example, "Did colonial Pennsylvania employ capital punishment? If so, how did Quaker pacifism accept the institution, and if not, when did the death penalty start being used?" That set of specific questions, which have answers primary sources can disclose, would lead a thoughtful inquirer to some larger questions that future students could pursue....

Notes

39 : See for example the account published in 1826, Mass. - Banner, pg 150

Notes

56 : "How few are the capital crimes, known to the laws of the United States...compared with those, known to the laws of England!" - James Wilson. See Banner, pg 99

• Child_Letters_from_New_York.pdf: Child, Letters from New York (1845)

• Bradford_an_enquiry.pdf: Bradford, An Enquiry How Far the Punishment of Death is Necessary in Pennsylvania (1793)

• Costanzo_chapters.pdf: Costanzo, Just Revenge (1997)

• Eddy_an_account_of_the_state_prison_or_penitentiary_house.pdf: Eddy, An Account of the State Prison or Penitentiary House, in the City of New York (1801)

• Vila_and_Morris_chapters.pdf: Vila and Morris, Capital Punishment in the United States (1997)

• Jefferson_a_bill_for_proportioning_crimes_and_punishments.pdf: Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments (1779)

Work update

I'm currently in Hong Kong, and I visited the reference section of the Hong Kong Central Library, which revealed some relevant material (particularly the Vila and Morris book, which turned out to have a collection of useful primary sources). I am in the process of uploading files containing said material – please excuse the skewed angles of the pages; hurriedly taking photos of books on a library shelf is not conducive to good aesthetics!

Conclusion

Having viewed the evolving regulation of capital punishment from 1611-1846 through several criteria and its move from being widely accepted at the start to being highly contested or abolished by the end of that period, I would tentatively suggest an answer to my inquiry. All things considered, it was probably two factors: 1) the gradual erosion in some states of the original pressing needs for the death penalty (particularly after the invention of the prison), and 2) changing beliefs (with evolution of religious belief being especially important) that ultimately led to successful abolitionist movements. However, this draws us to some appurtenant inquiries: why did even the states that did experience abolition mostly keep the death penalty for crimes such as homicide? Why did some states not have such active abolitionist movements?

One might propose a number of answers for the first question. Unlike for less serious crimes, juries were still willing to convict for the most terrible crimes such as homicide. Closely related to this might be one of the aims of capital punishment not discussed in detail so far – retribution; some individuals may have been seen as so atrocious as to merit death. Some support for this hypothesis might be obtained by the fact that as Steelwater notes, capital punishment was often reinstated in a cause-and-effect fashion after a particularly gruesome murder(123). With regard to the second question, two possible reasons have already been alluded to above; viz. 1) prison sentences being ineffective for life prisoners if the death penalty were abolished and 2) the continuing need for capital punishment in the South, where there were large captive populations. Another reason may have been that despite the enthusiastic voices of abolitionists, wider public opinion did not always reflect their agitations. The only referendum held on the issue (New Hampshire, 1844) showed that a great deal of public support still existed for capital punishment. As the Civil War approached, the debate on abolition of the death penalty faded into the background and the debate on abolition of slavery came to the forefront. Finally, the public’s fascination with executions never really went away – a case in point being that the last public execution in the U.S. in 1936 attracted a crowd of some 20,000 people(124).

Sources:

Notes

125 : See Costanzo

Notes

137 : See Morgan

• Morgan_last_expressions_and_solemn_warning.pdf: Morgan, Last Expressions & Solemn Warning of James Morgan (extracted 1687)

• Lownes_an_account_of_the_alteration_and_present_state_of_the_Penal_Laws_of_Pennsylvania.pdf: Lownes, An Account of the Alteration and Present State of the Penal Laws of Pennsylvania (1794)

• Banner_chapters.pdf: Chapters from The Death Penalty: An American History (Banner)

• Kronenwetter_chapters.pdf: Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook (Kronenwetter)

• Rogers_chapter_1.pdf: Murder and the Death Penalty in Massachusetts, Chapter 1 (Rogers)

• Rogers_chapter_2_Part_1.pdf: Murder and the Death Penalty in Massachusetts, Chapter 2 part 1 (Rogers)

• Rogers_chapter_2_part_2.pdf: Murder and the Death Penalty in Massachusetts, Chapter 2 part 2 (Rogers)

• Rogers_chapter_3.pdf: Murder and the Death Penalty in Massachusetts, Chapter 3 (Rogers)

• Bedau_chapters.pdf: The Death Penalty in America (Bedau)

• Steelwater_chapters_part_1.pdf: The Hangman's Knot, Part 1 (Steelwater)

• Steelwater_chapters_part_2.pdf: The Hangman's Knot, Part 2 (Steelwater)

• Beccaria_chapter_28.pdf: On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings, Chapter 28 (Beccaria)

Aims

One can look to Massachusetts for an example of the procedure provided to capital defendants in the 17th century. With respect to murder, a good account is given by Rogers(172). To sum up briefly: capital procedure at trial incorporated elements of English law such as provisions of the Magna Carta (emphasizing judgment by peers and due process) as well local “laws and useage”. Judges also attempted to provide “discretionary justice” to mitigate the imperfections of the law. Moreover, two important steps in 1648 were the recognition of legal practitioners by the legislature and a right to attorney once trial commenced. However, even given all this, said procedure in practice still only afforded limited rights to him or her – Samuel Guile’s 1675 rape trial, in Massachusetts itself, “lasted only so long as was necessary to read “the Indictment & evidences” to the jury, which promptly convicted him” (173). Procedure in other colonies may have been more perfunctory: one defendant was “convicted and sentenced to death, and only then was he asked whether he had anything to say “(174).

Given the harsh nature of the law, several institutions were put in place to make it milder and two illustrations can be given here. One can see that these institutions were later expanded beyond their originally intended scope – so much so that they became part of the arsenal of pro-abolitionists in attacking what they perceived as the inefficacy of the death penalty.

The first of these was ‘benefit of clergy’. Taken from English law, it was intended to allow clergymen to use their status as a bar to prosecution in the common courts (as opposed to ecclesiastical courts) – for efficiency purposes, this came to be done by requiring the defendant to prove that he could read. This may have been a useful indicator in early times, but as time went on laymen began to learn how to read. Thus, ‘benefit of clergy’ was extended to laypeople and soon the literacy test farce was abolished altogether – ‘benefit of clergy’ became a system of leniency for first time offenders for the less serious crimes (some of which nevertheless formally invoked the death penalty, especially in the South)(175).

Another device used to mitigate the severity of the law was clemency. A large number of those sentenced to death never in fact reached the gallows. Whether or not an offender would be pardoned depended on many circumstances, all of which ultimately were decided by the governors who had sole discretion regarding clemency. Connections in high places (to the governors themselves or to the judges, for instance), mildness of the offence or lack of prior criminal record were all relevant factors. Importantly, clemency also provided a method of correcting legal errors at trial since unlike in modern times there was no criminal appeal system in the 17th and 18th centuries. (176). Of particular note were the ‘last minute pardons’ given to offenders who were already standing upon the platform waiting to be executed. These pardons were mostly kept secret from everyone except for the government officials – the stated purpose of this practice was to achieve the effect of a real execution (the severity of the law serving as a deterrent and the creation of angst) and also showcase the “kindness of the individuals administering [the law]” (177).

Given the above institutions, one can see how many of the reasons for having the death penalty no longer held water. The possibility (and proliferation of) pardons, particularly last-minute pardons, raised the expectations of the condemned, “thereby causing them to be too cavalier during their final days” (178). Thus, the goal of encouraging penitence (recall that the death penalty was meant to stimulate repentance during the criminals’ last days) was much diminished, and of course where a pardon was granted, the aim of incapacitation via execution was not met. Similarly, after benefit of clergy became almost a ‘carte blanche’ for first-time offenders to obtain reprieves, the goal of deterrence must have been substantially frustrated since potential criminals could take comfort in the fact that they were ‘immune’ for first-time offences.

There had emerged yet another problem: “the difficulty…of convicting persons who are guilty” (179). Because we have seen that juries often had to either acquit or find someone guilty with the consequence of putting him or her to death, they became unwilling to convict even a clearly guilty person when they did not think that the crime or individual deserved capital punishment. In addition, whilst the development of more stringent due process for capital defendants later on (in Massachusetts at any rate) (180) may have been good for said defendants, it probably resulted in even fewer people being ultimately convicted. Those in favour of retention postulated that this factor actually militated in favour of the death penalty (181)but whatever the merits of their arguments, “a rarely enforced death penalty could scarcely serve as a deterrent” (182)

The result of all this in many cases was reform and abolition. For instance, jury discretion was introduced to make capital punishment optional for some crimes which had previously been punishable only by death(183). Furthermore, the ‘degrees of murder’ that we are familiar with today were introduced, with 2nd degree murder punishable by imprisonment rather than death) (184). Finally, several states abolished the death penalty for crimes such as adultery and incest and substituted ‘symbolic executions’ in its place such as in Massachusetts, requiring the offender to sit for an hour with the hangman’s noose around his neck (followed by whipping) (185). By 1786, Pennsylvania had abolished the death penalty for robbery, burglary, sodomy and buggery(186) and throughout the North at least, the death penalty was “removed from crime after crime”(187) and finally in Michigan, it was abolished for all common crimes in 1846.

Increasing overall wealth of society led to more ‘respectable’ people who started to take notice of sensibilities which had formerly been relegated to the rich upper class. An important development of this “genteel sensibility was an aversion to the sight of death” )(189) and a concurrent feeling of contempt for those who still wished to witness death in a public forum. A prominent advocate of abolishing executions in general was Edward Livingston(190). Amongst other things he argued that seeing executions had the effect of encouraging 'depravity' on the part of the public(191). Charles Spear(192) seems to have had similar views: “Those who become witnesses of sanguinary punishments only want for provocations of poverty or anger to perpetrate the same crime for which the capital offender is punished”.(193) As a consequence of these changing tastes and perceptions, states began abolishing public executions and transplanting them into the prison yard (thus, even though Livingston’s aim of banning executions outright was not achieved, the ‘main act’ of capital punishment – i.e. the public hangings – was whittled away), with Connecticut being the first state to do so in 1830. Several other states followed suit. Another result that arose from increased wealth was that governments were now able to realistically sustain long-term prisons with all their collateral costs (including feeding, housing, clothing prisoners etc.)

In his Commentaries, Blackstone expressed his opinion that it would “do honor to the English law, to compare it with the shocking apparatus of death…in the criminal codes of almost every other nation in Europe” (194). By the end of the 18th century, those in favour of banning capital punishment in America were similarly beginning to compare America with England and saw abolition as a “mark of the new nation’s progress”(195). They saw the retention of the death penalty especially for lesser felonies as a mark of barbarism of earlier times. The role of sympathy was changing too in the late 18th century: whilst the crowd watching at executions had always felt sympathy for those soon to be hanged, it was only now that spectators would “translate their sympathy for the condemned prisoners into opposition to capital punishment generally” (196).

• Mass_Declaration_of_Rights_1780.pdf: Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (1780)

• Livingston_report_penal_code.pdf: Livingston, Report on the Penal Code (1822)

• Spear_Essays_on_the_punishment_of_death.pdf: Spear, Essays on the Punishment of Death (1845)

• Mather_Pillars_of_Salt_1699.pdf: Mather, Pillars of Salt Chapter XI (1699)

Notes

213 : "Forty thousand persons, of all ranks and degrees...give up their natural quiet night's rest in order to partake of this...which is more exciting than...any other amusement they can have" - William Thackeray, 'Going to See a Man Hanged', see source table. Hangings were similarly popular amongst all classes in America, at least to begin with.

• Thackeray_Going_To_See_A_Man_Hanged.pdf: William Makepeace Thackeray, Going to See a Man Hanged (1840) - part of a collection of his works

Capital Punishment in America, 1611 - 1846

Regardless of how accurate or empirically justified the arguments of abolitionists were, their active efforts and the fact that opposition to capital punishment was part of an "international phenomenon" of transformation in penal thought (a number of European countries would abolish capital punishment entirely)(258) were seminal in triggering the abolition of or at least reform of capital punishment in many (Northern) states, including Michigan, before the Civil War.

• Rush_On_Punishment_of_Murder_by_Death.pdf: Rush, On the Punishment of Murder by Death, 1792

• Rantoul__report_on_the_abolition_of_capital_punishment.pdf: Rantoul, Report on the Abolition of Capital Punishment, 1836

• Changing role of sympathy - though sympathy had always been present (see Banner pg 29), it now came to the forefront

One of the prevailing aims of capital punishment, and one that reflected the circumstances at the start of the period which this inquiry addresses, was incapacitation. The need for a way to ensure that heinous wrongdoers did not repeat their crimes led inexorably (at least formally) to the death sentence until 1790 for the simple reason that before that year, there were no 'prisons' to speak of where offenders could be held long-term instead of simply 'in jail' pending sentencing. However, when the Walnut Street Jail was built in Philadelphia, for the first time in America offenders could be kept in theory more or less permanently incapacitated without execution. Whether these prisons, or penitentiaries as they were sometimes called, were effective and whether they were cost-effective could be the subject of a whole separate inquiry, but the salient point here is that at last a "realistic alternative to hangings" existed(285). We may briefly note however that Pennsylvania, after its pioneering 1786 abolition of capital punishment for 'robbery, burglary, sodomy and buggery' did seem to experience some success with prison sentences as an alternative to the death penalty.(286).

This brings us onto the second and perhaps most oft-touted aims of capital punishment; viz., deterrence. Much was written on the effect (or lack of) that the existence of capital punishment had on would-be criminals.

Note to self - things to write about in this section: -Penitence -Reduced role of ministers

Thus, one begins to see some of the developments which ultimately led to the seeds of the pro-abolitionist movement in America. Perhaps the best way to elaborate upon and track these developments is to shed light upon the key reasons why the death penalty was believed to be desirable, and then show how these reasons became less persuasive over time and thus started to garner less support especially amongst an active and influential sector of the upper class.

One of the key purposes of the Christian faith as it relates to the capital punishment seems to have been its fundamental use in justifying the use of the death penalty. The 'Capital Laws' section of the 'Massachusetts Body of Liberties' is a clear example of this - each capital crime is accompanied by one or more references to the text of the Bible. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was perhaps unique in that it was heavily driven by (or indeed perhaps primarily founded because of) Puritan ideals; hence the use of capital punishment for a variety of 'moral' crimes until more secular views took hold. Contrast this with the much more prominent use of the death penalty for minor property crimes in the South, not least motivated by need to keep 'order' amongst a population dominated by the presence of slaves and characterized by more uneven distribution of property. However, though other colonies were perhaps not quite as fervently driven by religious beliefs, their early laws nonetheless reflected the paramountcy of faith, much more so then than in the present day. For instance, the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall of Virginia is entitled with, opens with, and is peppered throughout with religious references. The 'Almightie God' is essentially made out to be the fount of all justice, with offences such as blasphemy featuring prominently at the beginning of the text, punishable by death.

In the early period, religion also played a key role when it came to the executions themselves. Up until 1830 when Connecticut banned public executions(304), it appears that executions were carried out in public in all colonies (later states) and when it came to the actual 'ceremony' of hanging ministers were, during the early period, often in the limelight. Steelwater describes ministers in the Puritan hierarchy, for example, as "the masters of law, of innocence and guilt"(305).

• Capital_Laws.pdf: Extract from the 'Massachusetts Body of Liberties' (1641)

• Lawes_Divine,_Morall_and_Martiall.pdf: Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, Virginia (1611)

Aims and updates

Leon Radzinowcz's multi-volume study of the history of English criminal law(312) devotes much attention to the death penalty and illustrates that certainly by the 18th century, capital punishment was widely prescribed for crimes ranging from murder to petty property offences. A good example of the English legislature's advocacy of harsh punishments, including the death penalty, is the Waltham Black Act of 1723 which declared a vast spectrum of crimes sanctionable by death. The then-widely read Newgate Calendar contains an extract from the Act itself and a description from the then-popular read Newgate Calendar of the original 'Waltham Blacks' whose activities led to Parliament's hasty enactment of said legislation(313). Incidentally, the fact that the Newgate Calendar was so prevalent in English homes during the period shows the wide acceptance of capital punishment in English society at the time - this acceptance naturally carried over into early America, where the death penalty was possibility 'required' even more so than in England due to the necessity of carving out what the Colonists perceived as 'law and order' in their new territories, often with harsh methods being the most effective ones.

Although early American lawmakers were influenced strongly by English law (both common law and statute), it would be erroneous to believe that they simply imported the English law on capital punishment (or indeed any English laws) wholesale into their respective colonies. For example, the Royal Charter for South Jersey (1646) did not use the death penalty at all (though this changed)(314), and petty property crimes were often punished less harshly (at least in the North) than back in England. Especially in the early period, the law did vary from colony to colony despite cross-influencing, and the capital crimes in each reflected the purposes and needs of that specific community. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, for instance, was heavily driven by (or indeed perhaps primarily founded because of) Puritan ideals; hence the use of capital punishment for a variety of 'moral' crimes until more secular views took hold. Contrast this with the much more prominent use of the death penalty for minor property crimes in the South, not least motivated by need to keep 'order' amongst a population dominated by the presence of slaves. Aside from adoption of the law itself, English practices such as the benefit of clergy also found their way across the Atlantic. Thus England's fingers touched not only the substantive laws on capital punishment in America - they also colored the actual use (or non-use) of the death penalty (benefit of clergy and other devices which gradually helped to ameliorate the perceived harshness of the death penalty - and their effect on abolition - will be discussed further in sections below).

Of course, Americans were not immune from influences from the rest of Europe. In terms of practices, the carrying out of 'simulated hangings', known throughout early modern Europe(315), came to have a significant role on this side of the Atlantic. Of possibly even greater importance was the effect that the Enlightenment in Europe had on thinking in America (with attitudes towards capital punishment being no exception) and the resulting growing criticism of the extent of the death penalty. Again, all of this will be explored further in the following sections.

• Newgate_Calendar_Volume_2.pdf: Newgate Calendar, Volume 2

The 'death penalty' was carried out chiefly in the form of hanging both in England and America at the time (although there were, as Banner notes, other forms of execution 'worse than death' reserved for the most heinous crimes(318)); it was the form of execution which required the least in terms of equipment and prowess. What hangings lacked in technical expertise, however, they more than made up for in ceremony.(319)

The public nature of executions facilitated many of the purposes of the death penalty, such as deterrence and retribution (explored further in 'Utilitarianism and Philosophy', below). Shifts in attitude in these respects, together with wider social changes and key developments such as the advent of prisons, may help us answer the question which this paper poses.

Wealth, Class, and Public Opinion

Introduction

• A brief outline of capital punishment in early America (different degrees of capital punishment, how it differed from modern times, some preliminary reasons for having the death penalty the way it was)

Influences from England and the Continent

• The early adoption and modification of English capital punishment offences; similarities and differences vis-à-vis early America
• How Americans perceived themselves as compared to Europe on the subject of the death penalty, and how this perception helped shape the regulation of capital punishment in America
• Changes in thinking and philosophy inspired by trends from across the Atlantic

Religion and the Role of Ministers

• How faith led to the law; shifting relations between the law and the Bible
• Justification for the death penalty in the Bible,
• Public executions as religious events with Ministers playing a key role; how this changed as penitence began to be seen as a private matter rather than one best administered by public institutions
• Evolving and diversifying ideas of religion and dilution of religious sense of purpose that permeated the origins of many colonies (e.g. Mass.)

Utilitarianism and Philosophy

• Cesare Beccaria's pervading influence
• The rise of abolition in America and the thinkers behind it (e.g. Rush, Livingston, Jefferson)
• Fading utility of capital punishment as a widely applied sentence; subsequent narrowing of range of crimes for which death penalty was prescribed
• Changing view of human nature and the importance of scientific development
• Growing population meant that death penalty was a less viable option; the crucial importance of the introduction of prisons (where offenders could be held long-term instead of simply in 'jail' pending sentencing)
• A brief note on differences in the North and the South

Judges, Juries et al.

• Juries unwilling to convict those who they believed did not deserve to die, even if they were clearly guilty according to the letter of the law - undermined efficacy of the law
• Judges also increasingly likely to avoid imposing death penalties, by virtue of finding 'errors in due process'
• Clemency and benefit of clergy
• Development of 'fake punishments' and repercussions

Wealth, Class and Public Opinion

• More wealth led to ability to support institutions such as penitentiaries
• Diverging tastes between classes, upper classes began to view public executions as unseemly
• Changing role of sympathy
• 'Gradual abolition of death penalty for lesser crimes was increasingly understood as a mark of the new nation's progress' (Banner), public began to view the imposition of capital punishment for minor crimes as 'barbaric'
• Development of abolitionist movement may have been due to the efforts of a small group of determined upper-class persons (Banner) (the 1844 New Hampshire referendum, where the public voted resoundingly against abolishing the death penalty, shows that at least in some states public opinion did not reflect the agitations of that group)?

Potential sources:

• Banner_The_Death_Penalty.pdf: Banner, The Death Penalty (2002)

• Bedau_Titlepage.pdf: Bedau, The Death Penalty in America (1968)

• Kronenwetter_Title_Page.pdf: Kronenwetter, Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook (1993)

• Rogers_Title_Page.pdf: Rogers, Murder and the Death Penalty in Massachusetts (2008)

• Steelwater_Title_Page.pdf: Steelwater, The Hangman's Knot (2003)

• Beccaria_Title_Page.pdf: Chapter 28 from Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings (first published 1764), edited by Richard Bellamy

Capital Punishment in America, 1607 - 1846

Aims

This project is intended to investigate the changing nature of the legal regulation of capital punishment in America between 1607 and 1846. More specifically, I would like to explore the following question: how and why did the death penalty evolve from its position as the favored sanction for a whole array of crimes (taking the year of the first permanent British settlement in America - 1607 - as our starting date) to its legal abolition for all common crimes for the first time (Michigan, 1846)(320) ?

One preliminary note: the bounds of my research will generally be restricted to the death penalty in the aforementioned period as it related to those other than slaves - although the position of slaves at the time is clearly an important topic, I believe that it may be better dealt with in a separate inquiry.

I have tentatively identified a few questions to frame my inquiry:

• To which crimes did the death penalty attach? How did this change between 1607 and 1846?
• To what extent was the evolving legal regulation of capital punishment linked to shifting legal, political, and social views?

Potential sources:

• Banner, The Death Penalty (2002) Banner_The_Death_Penalty.pdf