The standard capital offense case is an eight-stage process ending in either life in prison, years in prison, or execution. Within this process, there are several stages designed to protect the rights of the accused and guard against wrongful execution. One of these is the preliminary trial. Because police are often pressured to find suspects, plenty of innocent people may be accused for capital crimes. It is up to the jury of the preliminary hearing to determine whether or not a person who has been accused may be prosecuted. If the offender is prosecuted, they sit before a judge and grand jury of 23 people (who should be unbiased). The jury will examine both aggravating factors (those that strengthen the prosecutor's case) and mitigating factors (those that strengthen the defendants case). By allowing the review of mitigating factors, the jury can decide if extenuating circumstances (such as mental disablilty, bad background, etc.) play a role in the defendent's life and could give them a more lienient sentance. The defendent also has the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the burden of the prosection to prove guilt, the defendent need not prove their innocence, though they should introduce evidence to affirm it or weaken the prosectuion's accusation of guilt. If the defendent is proven guilty, they no can no longer assume innocence. Now, they must prove that their was some mistake in the proceedings during the appeal process. The defendant can appeal to higher courts, and even petition the Supreme Court for a writ of Ceritorairi (though such cases are rarely accepted). Finally, the defendant can petition the governor of the state or the president for clemency (mercy), otherwise they face execution.
I do not believe that this system is perfect by any means. If a person is wrongfully accused in the first place, and then is convicted, their sentance could be a result of jury bias or other factors. Also, it is a difficult and rigorus process to appeal a case, and if the defendent's representative fails or makes a mistake in the proceedings, they may lose their chance at a new trial, and life. Then, since so few cases are accepted by the Supreme Court, the defendant depends on clemency to save them from execution. If this fails, their execution could be carried out by hanging, gas chamber, leathal injection, electrocution, or firing squad.
All of these methods strike me as cruel and unusual in one way or another. Leathal injection, for instance, is not carried out by a proffesional doctor, which often leads to mistakes that cause inmates extreme pain during execution. As for the firing squad, the execution can either be a quick loss of conciousness as blood is cut off from major vessels and the brain, or, if the squad misses, a slow painful process of bleeding to death. If the methods for hanging are not correctly set up, the inmate can die from slow asphyxiation. Victims of gas chamber executions "nodded their heads" when they felt pain, and doctors likened the process to that of a heart attack, which causes a great deal of pain and anxiety.
Looking at a map of the death penalty and its use, certain trends appear. For instance, the most executions took place in the South (in those states in which the death penalty still exists). Also, the number of inmates on death row was larger in the South/South-East. There also seemed to be a positive correlation between the number of homicides committed in state and the number of executions (more murders may mean more executions). Perhaps the majority views on the death penalty are different depending on the region. This may affect the jury views and cause some bias or risk of arbitrary sentencing in those states where the death penalty is more widely accepted as a norm.
The former IL capital punishment murder statute states the grounds for a perpetrator to receive the death penalty. These include the cold and premeditated murder of an individual, murder caused by hijacking, terrorism, murder of disabled persons, murder of government personnel, school personnel, doctors or EMTs and other emergency responders (ex. firefighters), use of torture on a victim and so on. These are all heinous acts which I believe could warrant a death penalty sentencing. However, I feel that IL has made a mature and just decision in abolishing the death penalty. I would infer that the government did so based on changing public opinion and the gradual change of societal viewpoints on execution as punishment in this day and age.
I am surprised at how expensive the death penalty is for taxpayers compared to sentences of life without parole and so on. One would assume that the one injection costs less than the years in prison, but the numbers say otherwise. I still believe that IL made the right decision in eliminating capital punishment, it appears to be saving taxpayers money. I also believe it was the right choice because of arbitrary sentencing caused by racial discrimination. I was shocked to see the graph that depicted the number of persons executed and wether or not the victim was white and the defendant black or the defendant white and the victim black. Only 17 white defendants were executed for killing black victims, yet a whopping 255 black defendants were executed for killing white victims. This is a huge discrepancy that I believe contributes to a cycle of prejudice, bias, and arbitrary execution based on race, which is unacceptable. Where there is high support for alternative sentencing and such striking examples of abuse, I believe it is the role of the state to abolish the penalty before more innocent people are subjected to needless suffering and more guilty people have their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments revoked. I mainly agree with the position of the death penalty information center, which appears to be against the death penalty and in favor of more humane methods of punishment. Yet, I still find myself waffling on this issue when I think of the families of victims and what kind of closure they need to deal with their loss. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and even then, I wonder if we even have the right to decide issues of life or death. Punishment that is so extreme cannot be taken back and should by no means be given lightly or arbitrarily.
No comments:
Post a Comment