In 2016, of the 50 states which make up the United States of America, 19 had abolished the death penalty⁴², and four retentionist states respected a moratorium on executions⁴³. Six others had not executed any prisoners for more than 10 years⁴⁴, therefore acting as de facto abolitionist states..

When considering the figures relating to the number of capital punishment sentences and executions in the United States in 2016, 2013 and 2000, it is clear that the situation surrounding the death penalty is undergoing change. In 2000 for example, 223 people were sentenced to death, compared to 83 in 2013 and 49 in 2015. The same is true for executions which have significantly dropped: 85 executions in 2000 compared to 39 in 2013 and 17 in 2016⁴⁵. As well as a drop in the numbers, it is interesting to note that, in addition to traditional allies, such as civil liberties defenders and defence lawyers, new, more unlikely allies have joined the conversation concerning abolition of the death penalty. These unlikely allies are composed of men and women who have been traditionally known for their support for the death penalty: Republicans, representatives of the law who used to support the death penalty and victims or their families, among others. This list is not exhaustive.

Public prosecutors and former and current judges today find themselves criticising a legal system in decline and application of the death penalty which is unreliable, unequal, discriminatory and very costly.

This mosaic of new unlikely allies means that a wider audience can be reached, an audience which is perhaps not to be found in the more usual abolitionist arguments.
Republicans are often characterised as supporters of the death penalty⁴⁶. One of the arguments for such support is that the families of the victims must be supported and the imposition of very harsh sentences, such as capital punishment, allegedly has a deterrent effect⁴⁷. However, it is important not to generalise this shared space. Some particularly criticise the high cost of the death penalty system which is far too high when compared to that of life imprisonment without parole, as well as the overly large role of the Government when Republicans, generally conservatives, advocate limited intervention by government⁴⁸.
A reassessment of the death penalty has also taken place within the judicial system itself. Public prosecutors and former and current judges who used to support the death penalty today find themselves criticising a legal system in decline and application of the death penalty which is unreliable, unequal, discriminatory and very costly, and in which it is impossible to have full confidence⁴⁹, particularly with regard to the number of innocent people executed. For example, Mark White, a former public prosecutor and governor of Texas, and Mark Earley, former public prosecutor of Virginia⁵⁰, have supported the death penalty and sentenced and signed numerous executions. Today, they have become fervent abolitionists, deploring the fallibility of the system for applying the death penalty and recognising that the death penalty does not serve anyone and is quite simply cruel at all levels⁵¹.
Among these new unlikely voices are also victims and the families of victims who have also chosen to fight against the death penalty. Although they can be perceived as seeking an uncompromising crackdown on the crimes committed and supporting the death penalty, it appears today that this is not, or not necessarily, the case. Their voices are increasingly present and heard in the debate around abolition of the death penalty. These families of victims, a new ‘unlikely’ ally, denounce a traumatic process which “does not keep” its promises. They would prefer a life sentence which, in their opinion, would probably be more effective, given that the individual sentenced would actually serve out his sentence without having to continually reopen old wounds over the course of appeals; without an eternal feeling of expectation and hopelessness⁵². This new category of ally also redefines the discussion which very often focuses on the prisoner sentenced, forgetting the victims and their families and how the death penalty affects them too⁵³.
The strength of these allies lies in their journey and their story. This is not about defending abolition of the death penalty from a theoretical point of view anymore; these new unlikely allies describe the reality they have faced and which has pushed them to say no to the death penalty. The abolitionist message of a former public prosecutor who used to support the death penalty or the family of a victim will therefore have a different impact to that of traditional allies. These messages can be circulated through the media in particular, informing an audience which too often lacks information about the issue. That may help the American public to forge its own opinion about the death penalty.
The public is an important actor as, depending on the state, it must elect legislators who support, or otherwise, the death penalty and give its opinion about the future of the death penalty through referendums on the issue. It is therefore essential that it is informed and that it recognises itself in the arguments used in messages advocating abolition of the death penalty.
The strength of these new unlikely allies is that they are not afraid to reveal the flaws of the American judicial machine in general, and the death penalty in particular, resulting in a more open, diversified debate which is therefore closer to the American public. The quality of these new allies and the debates they engender are breathing new life into the American abolitionist movement, thereby proving that the death penalty is indeed in the process of changing in the United States.

In Nebraska, a referendum invalidated the decision taken by the State Parliament in May 2015 to abolish the death penalty by 60%, while Californian voters rejected a proposal for abolition for the second consecutive time.

Brief summary of the latest progress

In Connecticut, the State Supreme Court, which abolished the death penalty for new crimes in 2012, declared that the death penalty was unconstitutional in the State of Connecticut vs. Eduardo Santiago in 2015; abolition is thereby being applied retroactively to prisoners sentenced to death before 2012⁵⁴. The American Supreme Court also declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional in Florida in its decision on Timothy Lee Hurst vs. Florida passed on 12 January 2016. In this instance, the Court denounced the unconstitutional nature of the statutes governing the death penalty in Florida, particularly the fact that they give the judge disproportionate power by enabling him or her to exceed the recommendations of the jury which is not, indeed, forced to make a unanimous decision for death sentences⁵⁵. Since then, the same Court has recalled the state of Alabama to order. Suffering from the same malady as Florida, it was ordered to reconsider its death sentences in the light of Hurst vs. Florida. In Delaware, the State Supreme Court followed this trend and, in August 2016 (Rauf vs. State of Delaware), declared that the texts governing the death penalty in the state of Delaware were unconstitutional. Finally, to conclude this brief summary of progress, in 2016 the pharmaceuticals company Pfizer let it be known through an official press release that it does not allow its products to be used in lethal injection protocols for executions.

However, there were a few significant setbacks at the end of 2016⁵⁶: firstly, the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States strongly reduces the possibility of a change at the Supreme Court due to his power over future nominations. At the same time, Oklahoma voted for the inclusion of the death penalty in its Constitution by 67%. This stipulates henceforth that “any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution.” This measure, unique of its kind, followed serious problems connected to executions in Oklahoma. In 2014, the execution of Clayton Lockett caused indignation as the prisoner spent a long time moaning and writhing on the stretcher. In Nebraska, a referendum invalidated the decision taken by the State Parliament in May 2015 to abolish the death penalty by 60%, while Californian voters rejected a proposal for abolition for the second consecutive time.