ious murder; when there's no DNA evidence or reliable eyewitnesses; when the crime is especially heinous and draws large amounts of pretrial publicity; when defense attorneys have limited resources. If authorities were particularly vigilant when these issues were at play, they might identify problematic cases earlier. Deterrence: Often the first argument of death-penalty supporters. But studies of the subject are all over the lot, with no evidence ever established of a deterrent effect. When parole was more common, the argument carried more logic. But nowadays first-degree murderers can look forward to life without parole if caught, which should in theory deter them as much as the death penalty. It's hard to imagine a criminal's thinking: "Well, since I might get the death penalty for this crime, I won't do it. But if it was only life in prison, I'd go ahead." Inadequate counsel: Beyond the incompetent lawyers who populate any court-appointed system, Congress and the Clinton administration have put the nation's 3*600 death-row inmates in an agonizing Catch22. According to the American Bar Association Death Penalty Representation Project, in a state like California, about one third of death-row inmates must wait for years to be assigned lawyers to handle their state direct appeals. And at the postconviction level in some states, inmates don't have access to lawyers at all. The catch is that the 1996 AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has a statute of limitations requiring that inmates file federal habeas corpus petitions (requests for federal court review)within one year after the end of their direct state appeal. In other words, because they have no lawyer after their direct appeals, inmates often helplessly watch the clock run out on their chance for federal review This cuts down on frivolous appeals-but also on ones that could reveal gross injustice. Fact-finding: Most states aren't as lucky as Illinois. They don't have rep...
