For those of us interested in the Life Without Parole issue, The New York Court of Appeals struck down their capital punishment statute that followed the 3 option--death, life without parole, life with parole--statute, apparently on the ground that the third option was "coercive." Here's a link to a newspaper article: Chronicle article about NY death penalty LWOP statute

I guess I can fathom how a "life" sentence that might mean only 20 years might tend to direct a jury toward a death sentence. But, since NY has LWOP available as a second option it is hard to see where the coercion lays. Guess the court just wanted to avoid death sentences (which apparently has been the case since 1963). To me, our 40-year "life" sentence could never be very coercive (despite the fact that Perry may have used the threat of parole to uphold the jury's decision). While we have 93 year old bank robbers and dangerous 70+ year old murderers, I would think the other side would be arguing how cruel it is to force someone to die in prison. The expense alone is enough to convince me LWOP is not a reasonable alternative. If the jury feels "compelled" to find future dangerousness and insufficient mitigation by the propect of parole, then I have to believe their decision is also based on other relevant things. Until someone proves our death penalty is administered like that in China or Iran, why does that argument have to made ad infinitum? If polls and sound bites are to guide our most important choices I guess it makes sense.

The NY courts have quashed the death penalty there for the foreseeable future, due in part to the fact that NY State Court of Appeals' justices serve 14-year terms ...

NY Times article

"The court's four decisions overturning death sentences under the state's 1995 law have unveiled some of the judges' views on capital punishment. The court has never approved a death sentence. Even if the Legislature moves quickly to repair the flawed jury instructions cited by the court, lawyers say it could be half a dozen years or more before the court again faces the prospect of an execution."