Capital Punishment

Should someone die if there is not enough justifiable evidence? Should someone die if that person has no respect for life and humanity? These are two very strong issues that are debated about capital punishment. These issues are completely opposite, but both have the justice system in question. To justify the means of capital punishment; one must look at the current flaws in the system, review the court processes and activity, and understand the punishment meant by a life for a life. I am for the death penalty under the circumstances that there are some improvements to the court process and the national system.

Addressing the current flaws in the system includes the time served on death row, the lack of consistency among states in review and appeal issues, and the age limit for sentencing the death penalty. Most criminals sentenced to death serve an average time of 10 years and 2 months. I feel that this is to long for any punishment to have an impact of general deterrence. In this usage, the death penalty does not seem to have the severity that it should have. It is my belief is that most death rows candidates have the false hope of years of review boards and appeal processes. Capital punishment is supposed to be exactly what it says, the capital punishment. It is to be the most harsh and severe.

That brings up the next issue, the inconsistency among states in appeal processes. As an example, Virginia has a statue of 30 days after sentencing to have an appeal. This puts the severity of the punishment in the hands of the jury, and both the prosecution and defense. The case has to be presented to the best ability, from both sides. This is how the appeal process should be, not taking a shot in the dark and hoping for a conviction on half presented and circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately this is not so, there are convictions handed out without all possible evidence to prove guilt or innocence. This being so, in states such as Virginia, the question about possible convicted innocent suspect arises.

The last issue to take into factor is the age limit for sentencing a person to death. There are only 18 states that state that the legal age for sentencing the death penalty is 18, 14 states believe that sentencing someone 14-17 years old to death is fine, and as if that was not shocking enough, there are still 6 states the have no limit on the age. There needs to be a set standard across the board, like the drinking age and age to vote. As noted there are several inconsistencies throughout the system. This leads to more of a guessing game, allowing a person planning to commit murder to have the ability to preplan his/her sentence due to the states beliefs.

Another main topic is the court processes and the activity throughout the sentencing process. Some of the things in question are; the fair representation by defense council, the ability of the jury to weigh the evidence, and the possible need for a review panel after the sentence has been issued. It is stated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics the over two thirds of the case brought to trial are represented by either public or panel defenders. This static suggests that there are several clients that can not afford proper counsel. Also as noted in the in class video, public defenders are highly over booked and chances are that most do not even review the case or meet the defendant until minutes prior to the trial. This is highly disturbing to know that a client can be so misrepresented, that a person's financial situation is a determination of their innocence.

To be trialed by a jury of your peers can be misleading, are they really equal to you? Do they have the intelligence to determine the weight of evidence and can they separate them selves from the crime and their beliefs about that crime? Mr. John Mcllwain gave the example of a trial that an officer falsified