Who challenges disparities in capital punishment?: An analysis of state legislative floor debates on death penalty reform

Abstract

Abstract In McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court tasked legislatures, rather than courts, with redressing racial disparities in capital punishment. Elected officials must then decide to amend disparate death penalty procedures. Analyzing floor debates, we explore why legislators make arguments for racial disparity or fairness in deliberations of death penalty reforms. Results suggest views on race and the death penalty are products of partisanship, constituency composition, and the race/ethnicity of legislators, with the interaction of these factors being most predictive of argumentation. Findings illuminate who leads discourse on fairness in criminal justice and the limits of legislative responses to racial injustice.