David Keaton was sentenced to death in Florida. Seven years later, he was proven innocent of the crime, exonerated, and released. In Deadline, his brother says, “Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime. You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” How would you respond to this statement? From watching the film, what role do you think race plays in capital cases?
I agree that the justice system in the United States, as far as the death penalty is concerned, is undeniably corrupt. Juries and judges are influenced by racial stereotypes and prejudices, and often defendants cannot afford an experienced and competent lawyer to defend them. Justice is not blind, it sees race, gender, and social class, and, as a result, innocent lives are sacrificed. The race of persons on trial for homicide as well as their economic status, may condemn them, rather than the facts of the case or the evidence against them. \
The film frequently references the 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision that the death penalty was in violation of the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The 8th Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” How does this constitutional issue play a role in your opinions for or against the death penalty?
This issue is one of the most influential pieces of reasoning that have shaped my views on the death penalty. While I often drift to abolish the penalty when I hear of innocents suffering, then back to re-instating it when truly evil, guilty people are allowed to live, I feel that society as a whole will soon ready for the end of the death penalty. Each method of capital punishment is cruel in itself. Hanging, gunfire, gas, injection. All are painful, and can be botched, leading victims to gruesome ends. I predict that society will soon out grow the need for such barbaric methods of enforcing justice, and so, I am against the death penalty.
John Allen Muhammad (one of the Washington D.C. snipers) and Timothy McVeigh (one of the Oklahoma City bombers) both received the death penalty after widely publicized trials. Their respective counterparts, Lee Boyd Malvo and Terry Lee Nichols were also found guilty of their crimes in similar trials, yet they received life sentences rather than the death penalty. How do you account for this apparent discrepancy in sentencing for heinous crimes?
In cases such as these, the corruption of the justice system becomes vividly apparent. Why is it that two criminals can escape death, while two are killed for the same crimes? The media is the answer. Politics is the answer. Politicians, newspapers and television networks want to entertain and appeal to the public, this is how they gain support. Because Muhammad and McVeigh's cases were highlighted by the media, everyone involved in the case felt the need to act to improve their own images, rather than to seek justice. The public likes it when horrible people are sentenced to death. That is why two men can be killed in the public eye, while two are allowed to live. This is a massive issue with the justice system. Criminals can slip under the radar, or be thrust under the spotlight. Which place one receives is all too arbitrary, and the outcomes of both are all too final to be left to the mere whims of the public.
Unique questions to respond to and clear opinoins posted as a result. In regard to the last one, their were several specific issues that resulted in the different sentences. If you're interested, I encourage you to look at the links to epxlore in more detail.
ReplyDeleteOverall however, sharp use of your blog with a clear voice throughout.