Introduction
The primary aim of the criminal justice system in the United States is to enhance justice, fairness, and deter future illegal activities. Over the years, the US has been at the forefront in using the death penalty as a way of punishing criminals for capital offenses, including first-degree murder, treason, and robbery with violence. Capital punishment involves death as the primary outcome. As such, this means that criminal justice does not have an opportunity to reverse the punishment even in the wake of a new punishment proving otherwise. Studies have now proven that possible miscarriages of justice have happened which led to the execution of innocent people. Currently, 21 states, including the District of Columbia, have abolished the death penalty as part of the punishment for all the crimes committed. 1 It, therefore, shows a genuine commitment to moving away from the error-prone and unethical form of punishment that goes against the basic tenets of justice established in the constitution. My thesis statement is that efficiency should be enhanced in the criminal justice processes to avoid cases of death penalty injustice and the subsequent suffering of the innocent. My paper will first briefly explore the background and historical roots of capital punishment. Next, I will provide the court case analysis with a keen focus on defending my thesis that the criminal justice system requires more screening to prevent death sentence injustices.
Background
The death penalty is not a new concept in the US. The history of its practice can be traced back to the colonial times in around 1600s. The first documented incident of death penalty occurred in Virginia, 1608. During this time, the rules pertaining to death penalty significantly differed from one state to the other. During the colonial days, the death penalty was seen as a deterrent. However, at the beginning of the 19 th century, capital punishment received opponents, especially during the Jacksonian era. They condemned death as a form of punishment and instead suggested more humane ways of punishment. Pennsylvania entered the history books by becoming the first state to take capital punishment to the correctional services and thereby removing it from the public eye in 1834. The 20 th century was largely referred to as the Progressive Era. 2 From 1907 to 1917, six states made the bold move of outlawing the death penalty while three others only limited it within the realms of treason and first-degree murder. Also, it is essential to note that the legality of the death penalty came into question in the 1960s. 3
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Opponents of the law utilized the Eighth Amendment to argue their case by stating that the constitution was against any “cruel and unusual” punishment. Throughout this time, the death penalty was applied disproportionately. In the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional mainly because it was used in a discriminatory way. As such, this led to the overturning of many death sentences cases. In the McCleskey v Kemp case of 1987, the death penalty scheme in Georgia was upheld asserting that the racial bias was inevitable. 4 Until today, the death penalty continues to draw criticism from various quarters, especially the human rights defenders who believe that it is not only inhumane but also erroneous. As such, it could easily result in the death of many innocent people. A recent study showed that approximately 4.1% of individuals sentenced to death in the modern US justice system are innocent. 5 It, therefore, calls for more inquiry into the death penalty as a form of punishment. First, it not only cruel but also possess a higher probability of jeopardizing justice.
Court Case Analysis
The first primary problem associated with the death penalty is that it is irreversible. As such, individuals do not have an opportunity to get parole even if new evidence emerges, that exonerates them from any wrongdoing. A classic example was witnessed in the case of Keaton v State of Florida in 1971. 6 David Keaton was sentenced to first-degree murder. The court heard and determined the case later condemning him to a death sentence. However, Keaton was later exonerated from capital punishment. On a keen analysis, it was found that the conviction was subject to erroneous eyewitness testimony coupled with a coerced confession. With the emergence of new evidence in 1973, the real criminal was discovered, leading to the exoneration of Keaton. 7 From this case, it is correct to conclude that capital punishment carries the inherent risk of killing an innocent individual. Research has shown that more than 160 individuals have been exonerated after wrongful convicting and condemnation to the death penalty since 1973. 8 As such, this is a reason enough for the states and the federal governments to review the death penalty and either set new terms or abolish it altogether given the amount of risk it carries on the life of an innocent individual.
A person should only be tried and sentenced with a backing of sufficient evidence. Without enough evidence, it is unlikely that the ruling made will reflect the true nature of justice. The importance of gathering enough evidence, especially when dealing with capital punishment was witnessed in the 1973 case of Poole v State. Samuel Poole was convicted of first-degree burglary leading to a mandatory death sentencing. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the sentencing asserting that it lacked substantial evidence to warrant that the convict had broken into the home. Death penalty injustice could have happened had Poole not appealed to the Supreme Court. Being risky sentencing that threatens the innocence of a person, measures should be taken to ensure that enough evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, applies in making the court's final decision. Amnesty International recently reported that the rates of global executions are significantly reducing. It, therefore, shows that many countries, including the most unlikely ones, are coming to the realization that the death penalty does not provide the answer. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes that the death penalty goes against the tenets of the Eighth Amendment described in the constitution. 9
Despite the widespread death sentencing injustices, the US has never come out publicly asserting that it had ever executed an innocent personality. A classic example is the 1927 case involving Nicola Sacco and Bartolommeo Vanzetti. The state of Massachusetts engaged in the execution despite the global uproar. Fifty years later, the governor of the state ordered that the names of the person be cleared after a determination showing that the prosecution deliberately utilized unfair and misleading evidence. Most fundamentally, the trial had taken place in an environment that had a prejudice against foreigners. It was also determined that the judge in charge of the case used prejudicial means in his ruling. However, the only problem is that the governor did not mention whether the innocence of the two individuals had been established. Most politicians to date have withdrawn their support to the death penalty, citing that it has a high probability of killing innocent persons as established in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 in the US, Amnesty International has demonstrated several cases where serious doubts have been raised over the guilt of the executed individual. One study even went ahead to assert that between 1900 and 1984, about 23 innocent persons had faced the death penalty. 10 Miscarriages of justice of this proportion have a substantial impact in reducing the faith that people have on the justice system as a whole. By its own admission, the government of the US has been unable to pace mechanisms that reduce the risk of wrongful death sentences.
Another significant aspect to consider regards the fact that new claims of innocence are often ignored during the process of appeal. This has largely been due to the widespread procedural barriers aimed at preventing undue delays in completing the death sentences. As such, this leads to a judicial vacuum, "where substantial doubt over the prisoner's guilt remains, but all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted." 11 Another case study to illustrate the injustices surrounding the death penalty was the sentencing of Roger Coleman in 1992. Several years after his execution, fresh evidence emerged implicating a different person, thereby challenging the prosecution's initial point of view. Such cases prove that the US legal system has some loopholes that need to be addressed. For instance, once a prisoner has been executed, the case is considered closed. 12 The criminal justice does not provide a leeway to investigate claims posthumously hence denying the investigators the opportunity to discover any lethal error. Based on the case of Roger Coleman, it was always difficult to assess whether or not he was guilty of the crime he was put to death for. The structural flaws in the US justice system can increase the probability of erroneous sentencing and mistaken executions. 13
The above cases have shown that criminal justice officials are ready to execute a criminal even when there are substantial doubts regarding the actual guilt of the persons. Historically, the death sentencing has been marked with racial prejudice. 14 Individuals, especially from the racial minority groups, have faced the death sentencing disproportionately. For many years, the death penalty punishment has received significant attention for allegedly showing signs of racial bias. In the 20 th century, about 89% of the death sentencing was directed against black people. 15 When discussing the impact of race in the death penalty, it is crucial to assess the case of Miller-El v Cockrell. The Supreme Court ruled that Miller-EL should have been given a chance to prove that capital punishment came as a result of discriminatory jury practices. One of the discriminatory practices used was known as "Texas shuffle." Here, the primary aim was to reduce the number of African American jurors. Therefore, the case was predetermined to go against Miller-El, leading to the pronunciation of the death sentence. Another important case in this regard was known as the McCleskey v Kemp of 1987. The counsel representing the defendant asserted that capital punishment in Georgia was racially biased as it essentially focused on the victim's race. 16
The court eventually ruled against the defendant leading to his execution in 1991 through the process of electrocution. The injustice was furthered by the court, which argued that the death penalty did not violate the defendant's right to equal protection under the law. Kentucky was the first state to rise above the issue of race when making decisions about the death penalty. In 1998, the state passed a law known as the racial Justice Act. The law prohibited seeking the death penalty on the basis of race. The success of Kentucky prompted other states to adopt a similar policy without significant success. Other than the racial prejudice, disproportionality has also been contributed by the tendency to punish the mentally challenged people that are prone to confess to particular wrongdoing simply to placate the interrogators. Some defendants can also become victims simply by association. They can become falsely accused due to their prior criminal record. The police have also propelled the injustice of the death sentence in their daily professional role. Due to their inadequacies, the police can target the wrong suspect due to their inability to find a valid suspect. Another major perception in the eyes of the public revolves around the fact that the lengthy appeals associated with the death sentences tend to reduce the errors. 17
However, the reality is that confidence should not be taken seriously. In many instances, the post-conviction review only plays one function. The role of the review is to ensure that all the judicial safeguards and rules are keenly observed. Contrary to the widespread belief, the courts of appeal in the US do little to reconsider the guilt and innocence of the sentenced prisoner. In cases where the individuals were exonerated; the positive outcomes have largely been due to a combination of private initiative and luck. In many occasions, the death row inmates have found reprieve only as a result of the tireless work placed by a few people willing to sacrifice both their energy and time. A classic example to prove this is the case of Dennis Williams and Verneal Jimerson both of whom were exonerated from a death row in 1996. First, their lawyers had worked on the case for up to 6 years. 18 They were also helped by a crop of journalist students who proved their innocence as part of a class project they were working on. It, therefore, shows that the criminal justice system is inherently unjust when it comes to matters relating to the death sentencing. The few cases that have succeeded owes to the individual brilliance of the defense, including the hard work that has been put in place.
Keen insight into the US system has shown that the criminal justice system lacks the necessary safeguards to prevent arbitrary capital punishment of suspects. Delays witnessed in the execution of suspects as witnessed in the case of Thomas barefoot in 1982 speaks volume to the inefficiencies of the court system. Another example of the arbitrariness demonstrated by the court was witnessed in the 1982 case of Charlie Brooks Jr. Brooks faced the death penalty via lethal injection. Woodie Lourdes, his partner, was convicted of a similar offense. However, the court noted that Lourdes would qualify for parole in six and a half years. Later on, the prosecutor, who pushed for the death penalty, confessed that it would be hard to determine if at all they executed the person responsible for the murder crime. The prosecutor, in his words, said, "It may well be, as horrible as it is to contemplate, that the state of Texas executed the wrong man." 19 Death sentencing in the US has been marred with widespread inefficiencies in the court system. The laws have largely been rigid, thereby causing the judges and the courts to merely act like robots and conveyor belts without the ability to demonstrate their open-mindedness on certain issues. Justice will, therefore, begin by changing the basic principles on which the criminal justice system operates.
It is without a doubt that death is an irrevocable form of punishment. It also goes against the principles enshrined in the country’s Bill of Rights. Although the law clearly states the circumstance under which the death penalty should be applied, this has not always been the case. Only one percent of the suspects engaging in the homicide crimes end up receiving the punishment. It is believed that the process is marred with a lack of evenhandedness, fairness, and consistency. More importantly, reports have shown that cases of corruption and bribery come into play in dealing with the problem. The criminal justice system has, therefore shown a deviation towards the adherence to the laws and statutes governing the operation of the death sentences. The overall impact includes the unnecessary suffering of innocent individuals whose fate is determined by the lackluster attitudes of the criminal justice system. In numerous instances, the wrongful convictions have been reversed. However, this does not mean that the cases end. In many circumstances, they have continued to retry the defendants. As such, they end up ignoring a plethora of evidence pointing to their innocence. A good example involves the case of Curtis Kyles, where the Supreme Court played a crucial role in overturning his capital convicting after a whopping 11 years. Kyles faced five different trials within a span of 14 years for a crime he had not committed. 20
In a bid to end the death sentence injustice and the subsequent risking of innocent lives, the prosecuting attorney has much to do. Most fundamentally, they are advised against engaging in inappropriate methods which end up leading wrongful convictions. The primary role of any prosecutor should not be to win a case but rather to ensure that justice has prevailed. Such assertions were emphasized by the Supreme Court Burger v United States ruling of 1935. 21 Evidence has clearly shown that the justice system in the US has failed to complete its highest duty, which is to protect innocent people from unwarranted death sentences. It is also critical to appreciate the fact that capital punishment has been politicized for many years. For instance, many state officials have run for office based on their track records as regards capital punishment. Improvements and efficiencies must also be placed in the area of selecting the jurors in capital cases. "There are strong indications that the procedure for selecting capital juries is a significant risk factor contributing to wrongful convictions.” For the case to be fair and free from any bias, it is critical to eliminate any form of juror bias.
Conclusion
In conclusion, efficiency should be enhanced in the criminal justice processes to avoid cases of death penalty injustice and the subsequent suffering of the innocent. The death penalty remains one of the most controversial aspects of the criminal justice system. Due to its irrevocable nature, many irreversible errors have been made before due to the inefficiencies in the justice system. First, evidence shows that several persons have been exonerated from capital punishment due to insufficient evidence or the emergence of new evidence that proves their innocence. Despite such cases, the court system, from prosecution to the selection of juries, have contributed to the arbitrary capital punishment in the US. It is also crucial to take notice of the racial connotation associated with capital punishment. Evidence has illustrated that most individuals that face this form of punishment are mainly from the racial minority groups. The criminal justice system should, therefore, invest more in developing its processes where evidence is handled properly to determine innocence or guilt. Secondly, prosecutors should focus more on enhancing justice rather than winning cases. Lastly, the courts should have a mechanism of posthumously reviewing cases to determine where the right decision was made at the time of execution.
Bibliography
Clarke, Alan W. "Procedural labyrinths and the injustice of death: A critique of death penalty habeas corpus (part one)." U. Rich. L. Rev. 29 (1994): 1327.
Cullen, Francis T., James D. Unnever, Kristie R. Blevins, Jennifer A. Pealer, Shannon A. Santana, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Brandon K. Applegate. "The myth of public support for capital punishment." In Public opinion and criminal justice, pp. 91-113. Willan, 2013.
Death Penalty https://eji.org/history-racial-injustice-death-penalty
Devins, Neal, and Roy Brasfield Herron. "The Injustice of the Death Penalty." (1983).
Fatal Flaws: Innocence and the Death Penalty in the USA https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/152000/amr510691998en.pdf
Garland, David. Peculiar institution: America's death penalty in an age of abolition. OUP Oxford, 2010.
Kleinstuber, Ross, Sandra Joy, and Elizabeth A. Mansley. "Into the Abyss: The Unintended Consequences of Death Penalty Abolition." U. Pa. JL & Soc. Change 19 (2016): 185.
Meltsner, Michael. Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and capital punishment. Quid Pro Books, 2011.
Ogletree, Charles J., and Austin Sarat, eds. Life without Parole: America's New Death Penalty? NYU Press, 2012.
Sarat, Austin. When the state kills: Capital punishment and the American condition. Princeton University Press, 2018.
Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. "The American death penalty and the (in) visibility of race." The University of Chicago Law Review (2015): 243-294.
Stroud III, A. M. "Capital Punishment: The Great American Paradox." Ark. L. Rev. 70 (2017): 369.
Tabak, Ronald J., and J. Mark Lane. "Execution of Injustice: A Cost and Lack-of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty, The." Loy. LAL Rev. 23 (1989): 59.
Van Cleve, Nicole Gonzalez. Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America's largest criminal court. Stanford University Press, 2016.
Van den Haag, Ernest, and John Phillips Conrad. The death penalty: A debate. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
