Wrongful Convictions - Death Penalty and Innocence - Report Example

? Wrongful Convictions – Death Penalty and Innocence Donna G. Turner Kaplan Ethics and the Professional: LS501-01 Beth Persky April 17, 2012 Wrongful Convictions – Death Penalty and Innocence Introduction "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." Professor John McAdams, Marquette University Law is one of the most intricate aspects of socio-political life; it revolves around the life of individuals and helps them coexist in tandem with one another. It is based on a philosophy as talked about by eminent thinkers and its very features emanate a sort of philosophical thinking on the basis of what law exactly is. Law generates human behaviour and is answerable for the actions of the people; it thus control and regulates the manner in which people exist around each other and thus, it poses an intellectual question as to how it carries out the same function. Within a society thus, if people commit crimes or harass others and intrude upon their peaceful living, they are bound to be punished, and since times immemorial, one of the worst punishments that a person may be given is a death penalty. The definition of the term death penalty is ‘putting a condemned person to death’. (Definition - Death Penalty). This means that if a person kills someone, in most cases, he himself will get sentenced to death. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that many countries around the world have abolished the charge of a death penalty to their citizens despite the heinous acts that they may commit. Other countries, for example, India, still make use of the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases. Current trends in the United States of America suggest that the death penalty is administered to people committing crimes ranging from drug trafficking to aggravated murder, and one of the most common forms of the execution involves the use of a lethal injection which has been opposed by numerous human rights groups. In 2011 itself, 43 executions have taken place with the lethal injection (Facts About Death Penalty). However, there are many states within the US, for example, Michigan, Hawaii, and Alaska, which have banned the death sentence altogether. In America, there is acclaimed public support for death penalties as well because the people believe in truly punishing those that commit grave crimes like murders. Since the 1980s, this trend seems to be in the proposition of the public. Michigan was the first state with an English-speaking government that banned the death sentence for all crimes except for treason. Giving any individual the death penalty is a tough task to process because it involves pin pointing a certain crime onto a person that has shocked all of society; since the punishment depends on the gravity of the crime committed, it is pertinent to understand the reason for giving a death penalty in many parts of the world even today. However, according to personal opinion, the death penalty should only be reserved for the worst crimes and the rarest of rare cases because as discussed within this paper, it is difficult to segregate the innocent people from those that are indeed guilty and wrongfully giving the death penalty will result in creating many more criminals rather than fix the society. Causes of Wrongful Conviction Eyewitness error The memory of an individual may be either blurry or deceive him especially when it comes to remembering events that may have occurred in the past, especially with respect to other individuals. In the case of a rape and kidnapping, a man in Florida, Alan Crotzer, was wrongfully convicted to a long time in prison, awaiting a decision when he had not committed a crime at all, despite the eyewitnesses stating the facts as him being the criminal (Stutzman, R). According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, nearly 45 out of 50 cases of wrongful conviction arise due to eyewitness errors which can be very fatal as an innocent man is convicted. Unethical police and prosecutor The police or the prosecutor might have unethical conduct towards people which may lead to suppression of evidence or wrongful conviction; many a times, bad behaviour on part of officials might be the cause for civilians in prison without reasonable justification and this may lead to an innocent person facing a death row or awaiting a death sentence, if the prosecutor or police fails to understand the proper facts regarding the happening of an event leading to a crime. Fraud Fraud may be committed by the police, lab analysts, those acquitted, or absolutely anyone related to the crime. Many a times, evidence is hidden by fraud, simply by either giving incorrect information or omitting giving vital information with respect to the actual facts of the case. For example, fraud was committed as seen in the case of Ray Krone of Arizona, where he was given a death sentence. Later however, the same was limited to life imprisonment on finding out that no fraud had been committed with respect to the evidence, and so he was released from prison. False and coerced confessions Coerced confessions arise when a convict is dealt with improperly and forced to give a false statement or twist the facts because of the overbearing conduct of the police due to whatever the reasons may be. This leads to the convict not rationalizing his thoughts with respect to the matter at hand and giving an incriminating statement without any free will. For example, a young boy, Michael Crowe was coerced into giving a statement that his accusers wanted to hear; that he had committed the crime when in fact he had not, which was later found out by the DNA evidence. Improper use of jailhouse In 2008, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) created a permanent Task Force on Wrongful Convictions which assisted in examining almost 53 cases where a defendant was wrongfully convicted of a crime but later exonerated. In a report issued last year, it concluded that wrongful convictions resulted from multiple factors that included the improper use of jailhouse informants. Forensic errors Forensic errors haven been committed in abundance leading to the deaths of innocent people thought to be the culprits behind certain crimes. Granting the death penalty is quite a big decision upon the legal system of any country and errors in forensic investigations, as talked about further during the course of this paper, have been many in the past. For example, the execution case of Cameron Todd Willingham based on certain evidence found to be his was later found out to be incorrect information, leading to the death of an innocent man. Other factors that may lead to wrongful conviction are: The adversarial system or the criminal trial court that pits the prosecution against the defendant Ineffective counsel assistance provided to those that may be charged with a death sentence, barring them from an opportunity to be pardoned; the charged person needs to file a petition to receive adequate counsel to defend him if in case he feels that the measures taken against him are not appropriate with respect to the crime committed (or not committed) by him. Frequency of Wrongful Conviction The last country in the world to abolish the death penalty was Gabon, in the year 2010. One of the main reasons that it has been criticized is that it leads to the miscarriage of justice due to wrongful execution of people. Since the year 1976, almost 1288 executions have been carried out in the United States of America and nearly 3199 people have been put on death row as of the year 2012. (Death Penalty Figures) Forensic Science in the Legal System Forensic science testimony is required in most cases in order to correctly identify the individual that might have committed the crime and the manner in which the same was done. The victim may be left dead and it is important to identify correctly who the killer is. For example, in order to understand bite marks, soil, fibers, and fingerprints, DNA testing is required however according to the Virginia Law Review, a bulk of the trial of innocent defendants, almost 60% of the cases, provided for invalid forensic testimony at the time of the trial, proving the entire process to be rendered not useful. (Gould, J.B.) In the US, by the year 1989, forensic science had reached greater heights of advancement when Gary Dotson became the first innocent person in the United States exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. A jury convicted Dotson in 1979 of rape, and he was sentenced to 25–50 years in prison. Taking the help of forensic science to understand the position of convicts, whether wrong or right plays a very vital role in the legal system. DNA evidence has helped to exonerate a large number of people that indeed were innocent; however some of those men were wrongfully convicted in the first place because of a fault in the process of identifying DNA and carrying out the tests. In this manner, the use of forensic science in the legal system may also add up to many controversies because some cases are like bad apples, where the wrongful conviction imposed on one may lead to an imposition on another; this means that evidence might be improper or incorrect, submitted making an innocent man guilty for something that he has not done (Thompson, W). There have been several cases like the case of Cameron Todd Willingham who was executed in the year 2004, was actually an innocent man. Forensic experts, after his death, found out that the information leading to his execution was not correct and thus an innocent man has been hanged by the state but justice had not been sought. All these aspects have led to controversies, involving Amnesty International suggesting that death penalties are wrong and should not be given to any man, more so because such incorrect information can lead to innocent deaths and a few vital statistics regarding abolition of death penalties, to understand the same, have been mentioned in the introduction to this paper. Capital Punishment Death penalty, is also known as capital punishment, and is a legal process that takes place under the purview of a state, for putting a criminal to die as a punishment for a crime committed by him. 58 nations around the world till date practice the grant of a death penalty whereas others have successfully abolished its use. Amnesty International considers the death penalty to be “the ultimate denial of human rights.” According to the organization, “It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.” (Abolish the Death Penalty) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that awarding a death penalty to any human being violates the right to life and Amnesty International thus holds absolutely no exceptions for awarding the death penalty, despite the heinous acts that the criminal might have committed. The question of morality steps in when talking about capital punishment because it goes against the norms of society; in order to maintain peace and balance, one must not kill another however if the state itself is killing a man for having committed a crime then what sort of an example may it be setting for others? All these aspects need to be looked into because the death of one man may not be the solution to the problem; the solution is providing justice to the greatest number including the family of the victim as well as that of the criminal and the criminal himself. This means that granting a death penalty to the criminal may be less impacting than helping him reform himself and giving back a better man to the society. Capital punishment has a very crude impact on the people and in the future, if it the number of executions continues to rise, will have a deterrent effect because one would simply want to commit the crime and know that the punishment is death, and thus gladly commit it and be done with it. The answer is to fight the criminal tendencies within a man with the help of education and awareness instead of fighting the same after the crime has been committed and it is too late to provide happiness to all. Proposed Systematic Changes to Prevent Wrongful Conviction Death penalties are serious punitive measures and they lead to a death row or a wait line in the execution of the convict. A death row however has been the cause of suicide among tens of thousands of prisoners kept in prison, waiting to be executed. Clemencies or pardons are handed out very rarely among those that have been given a death sentence. In such cases, there have also been many prisoners that just appeal and ask for their execution to be carried out so that they die and do not have to feel the pain of either awaiting or committing suicide. Death rows also become burden on the government and state prisons because prisoners need to be kept with food, clothing and shelter for prolonged periods of time. As of November 2008, there is only one individual, Demarcus Sears, who has been put on a death row but has not been convicted of murder. He committed the crime of kidnapping and causing bodily injury in Georgia, to Gloria Ann Wilbur. He kidnapped, beat and raped her after which, he murdered her, and however he was convicted for all charges other than murder. It is important to thus propose certain changes in order to remove the disparities among people that commit crimes, whether they are grave or not. The establishing of the Innocence Protection Act in 2001 by the federal government was the first reform measure for death penalties to be enacted in order to ensure that fair administration presides over a death penalty in order to minimize the number of deaths, especially of those that may be innocent, to the least number possible. In the year 2002, almost 100 people were released from the death row because of this act as the government looked better into the matters of the cases and drew forensic and other errors, granting them freedom from being convicted. Furthermore, advancement in technologies relating to forensic science and DNA testing has also become a method in order to weed out the innocent people from those that are guilty. Moreover, post-conviction testing is also used in cases where the forensic testing may not be very refined or give accurate results. The Innocence Protection Act 2001 gives individuals access to DNA testing if they are sure of helping experts produce other pieces of evidence which might lead to their not being guilty of the crime. Restoring the Wrongfully Convicted Under the Current System Innocent people if convicted under the purview of an execution by death penalty must be compensated for the wrongful act committed against them. If a man is found to be innocent but has already served prison time as well as been punished for something he has not done, it is only just on part of the government to provide him and his family with the damages. The Innocence Project under the branch of the Innocence Protection Act 2001 ensures the same. Almost 1/3 of the people that are incarcerated are exonerated after carrying out more tests and processes and thus they need to be given some compensation for the injustice that they have suffered. Even though 27 states in the US including Washington D.C provide some form of compensation for those that have been convicted wrongly, the people are not able to recover from the injustice they have suffered because the laws go against moral obligations for such people. The Innocence Project, bent on helping these people has stated the following for their upkeep and proper rehabilitation: Compensate exonerated people immediately after release with a fixed sum or a range of recovery for each year of wrongful incarceration. Congress and President Bush have recommended that this amount be set at $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration. Provide immediate re-entry funds and access to job training, educational, health and legal services after an innocent person’s release. In addition to the above, a federal Justice For All Act was also signed in the year 2004 by President Bush in order to grant certain rights to federal inmates, including the right to petition for DNA testing to prove innocence. It also helped to ensure lesser negligence on account of the experts conducting such tests and restoring justice to all those that are wrongfully convicted and given a death penalty. Arguments For a long time, capital punishment has been given to those that have committed terrifying crimes that have shaken the conscience of society on the whole; for example, murder, espionage, and in the past, sometimes for treason. The death penalty has definitely been regarded as one of the cruelest forms of punishment; in countries around the world methods like injecting lethal poisonous substances, putting the convict on an electric chair, suffocation in a gas chamber, as well as hanging till the spinal cord gets cut and the person is asphyxiated have been used. It was the case of Furman v. Georgia in the years 1976 that made the Supreme Court pause handing death penalties. (Jean, C.) Jurists and eminent advocates have since brainstormed regarding how a death penalty can be rendered unconstitutional; to begin with, it violates the eighth amendment to the American Constitution because it is considered to be cruel and an unusual form of punishment. Putting condemned people in a death row or a kind of waiting line for their execution is also quite unethical according to Amnesty International as well as other nations around the world. This is because, the death row is as good as a convict being put in prison and thus, why would that individual have to serve both time in prison as well as be hanged as per a death sentence? The media is responsible for blowing the death penalty out of proportion by deciding itself whom it should be given to, instead of leaving these opinions to the courts; since there are some schools of thought that feel that it should be abolished as it goes against human dignity, capital punishment should not be given to people so easily. However, the media influences people in thinking otherwise in many cases; the media has a very strong hold over the thoughts and ideas that the people think – especially at the grass root level. Since television and radio presenters are able to reach out to a much larger group of people within the country, they tend to be biased in their thoughts against a single person who might have committed a crime in the moral eyes of society. Even if that convicted person is innocent, then media can turn people against him by making them believe that just because he might have committed a wrongful act, he should be punished with the death penalty - not taking into consideration whether or not the man is a mere scapegoat in the entire process of punishment. People need to understand that not every man is a criminal because if the country starts handing out death penalties to each and every criminal, then the seriousness of the situation will fall to a great extent. Every criminal will begin taking it lightly and state that his actions were done for a reason and he is not afraid to die because of the same. The death sentence will further become a matter of ridicule rather than a matter of great gravity. Every convicted man needs a lawyer to defend him in order for him not to be acquitted without any reason. Thus, it is not the media that influences people and lead them into thinking that the man ‘should’ be put to death but a bench and a court that needs to decide what should happen to that man. After all, someone’s life is a matter of graveness and importance in the hands of the state even if it not the same in the hands of the man who has committed the crime. The state and the judiciary need to uphold their principles even though the citizens are not able to. What makes a criminal is the trial; standing behind the bars and waiting to be acquitted changes a man’s life within a matter of moments. It is in the hands of the lawyer defending the accused in order to help the judge and the general public ascertains whether or not the accused need do the time for the committed crime. In situations where a man is given the opportunity to face ground reality by explaining his story with arms wide open on the other side the jury can ultimately determine whether or not the accusations against him were indeed true in the first place. Otherwise, he may as well be crying out loud to deaf ears with no heed being paid to him whatsoever. It should thus be left on the hands of the court to decide whether or not the man should receive the death penalty, hinging or depending not on the views of the media, but on the views of the courts and their jurisdiction only. Conclusion Despite all the arguments presented above with respect to death sentences, they need to be handled with care. No man should be convicted incorrectly, and thus jurists and advocates need to be careful in determining these aspects. Capital punishment should be used only in the rarest of rare cases; the legal process in the US allows four steps before a man may be killed (Amnesty International). Even after awarding the death sentence, he undergoes a direct review, a state collateral review, and has the opportunity to file for a federal habeas corpus. Human dignity is a right of every individual and despite the wrongful doings of people; they still deserve a right to life. Furthermore, it is the media that fuels the minds of people and makes them believe that living in a society where everyone is granted a death penalty for their wrong doings will help in creating a better world even though in countries like Saudi Arabia, giving someone a death penalty does not necessarily mean improving the quality of life because people still believe in taking an eye for an eye. If the above mentioned were true then killing people would lead to a Utopian destination, however, capital punishment is still wrong and should only be granted to the worst kind of criminals and that too after a good amount of deliberation. References Definition - Death Penalty. (n.d.). Audio English. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/death_penalty.htm Abolish the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Amnesty International. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty Facts About Death Penalty. (n.d.). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf Stutzman, R. (2010, November 22). Eyewitness error behind many wrongful convictions. The Wichita Eagle (Kansas), Retrieved from http://www.kansas.com/2010/11/22/1599223/eyewitness-error-behind-many-wrongful.html Death Penalty Figures. (n.d.). Hands Off Cain. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.handsoffcain.info/archivio_news/index.php?iddocumento=15302086&mover=0 Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries | Amnesty International. (n.d.). Amnesty International. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries Jean, C. (2003). Life after death row: Preventing wrongful capital convictions and restoring innocence after exoneration. Vanderbilt Law Review, 56(4), 1179-1226. Sunstein, C., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Is capital punishment morally required? acts, V omissions, and life-life tradeoffs. Stanford Law Review, 58(3), 703-750. Thompson, W. (2009). BEYOND BAD APPLES: ANALYZING THE ROLE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS. Thompson Article Final Macro Moyes, A. (2002). Assessing the risk of executing the innocent: A case for allowing access to physical evidence for posthumous DNA testing. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55(3), 953-999. Neubauer, D. (2011). America's courts and the criminal justice system. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gould, J. B. (2007). The Innocence Commission: Preventing wrongful convictions and restoring the criminal justice system. New York: New York University Press. Huff, C. & Killias, M. (2010). Wrongful conviction: International perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press. Huff, C. (2004). Wrongful Convictions: The American Experience. Canadian Journal Of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 46(2), 107-120. Leo, R. (2010). From false confession to wrongful conviction: Seven psychological processes. Journal Of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1/2), 9-56. Gould, J. (2010). One Hundred Years Later: Wrongful Convictions After A Century Of Research. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 825-868. Risinger, D. (2007). Innocents Convicted: An Empirically Justified Factual Wrongful Conviction Rate. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(3), 761-806. Read More