Virginias 21-Day Rule - Assignment Example

What is the public's attitude toward Virginia's 21-day rule? Introduction Virginia’s 21-Day Rule is the death penalty reforms of Virginia’s judicial system. It was in 2001 session that the bill 21-Day Rule passed that deals with DNA and other biological evidences. The bill has set high standards for the defense. The rule does not allow reviewing of any newly evidences that were presented after 21 days once the initial sentence has been pronounced. Presenting newly evidence after 21 days may have appeared inconsequential. The bill is a court-imposed rule under Rule 1:1 of the Virginia Supreme Court. Virginia Supreme Court states that after sentencing the convicts under 21-day rule the trial courts lose jurisdiction over that cases. This bill has made the Commonwealth of Virginia a toughest place when it comes to crime. This rule shut the door of re-appealing to prove convicts’ innocence. Virginia’s 21-day rule supports the state’s judicial system that prevents the courts from considering newly evidence after the verdict. This challenge the fairness of the rule and several doubting questions arises such as for how long does the inconsistent DNA evidence, witness recantation or evidence pointing to another person being not considered? How many innocents were put to death by the Commonwealth of Virginia? These types of questions truly reflect the blind justice of Virginia’s Supreme Court and its unwillingness to give fair chance to the convicts to prove its innocence in gruesome death penalty cases. Even the noncommittal citizen of the state finds it absurd and unfair. The 21-day rule was a part of the federal doctrines of procedural default, retroactivity and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It is fact that the 21-day rule has scores of unfair trials in the past and it would continue in future as the trials were not legally corrected when it comes at the risk of awarding death penalty to an innocent person. As per American constitution minimal standards of fairness are used at all state level. The Commonwealth of Virginia has a moral duty to its citizens to provide fair justice but the 21-day rule is a clear prove of mocking fair justice. Attitudes toward 21-Day Rule Virginia’s 21-day rule has brought national criticism of the Commonwealth’s capital punishment system after the US Supreme Court points out grave errors in three of its five death sentences over a 14-month period. After the initial sentences Virginia hurriedly sent the convicts to the execution chambers without devoting little time to study the evidences and appeals properly. Later, Virginia Supreme Court agreed to allow more time in capital punishment cases. Regarding the effects of the 21-Day Rule Virginia Supreme Court invites public opinion before it changes the rule. The apex court started reviewing the Commonwealth’s existing capital cases. The rule has not only being criticized by the people of Virginia but the intellectuals as well as the press brings forth the negative points of the 21-day rule. As per the press Virginia’s citizens deserve ‘finality’, but with fair justice. The state should ensure that no innocent could be executed. The press gave the rule a realistic name: “A gross miscarriage of justice!” In another press review it is written, “…the General Assembly should revisit the 21 day-rule and examine ways to address this potential hazard to procedural justice. Sometimes civilized society demands death to a guilty man for his crimes but it condemned the execution of an innocent without giving a fair trials and that makes society civilized.” (Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch December 19, 1998) “Virginia should stop the murder of innocents in the name of justice and joint the rest of country in permitting the consideration of new evidences beyond 21-day deadline. The state should adopt new law to prevent the killings of innocent persons in the name of justice.” (Editorial, Charlottesville Daily Progress, December 21, 1997) The public attitudes towards Virginia’s 21-day rule lie mostly in favor of repealing it. But there are people who support the rule saying that repealing the rule would support the endless appeals that would backlog the courts. People who favor 21-Day Rule find death clemency as an ultimate platform to claim innocence for the convicts who received death sentences. They think that the repealing of the rule would only weaken the trials in the state and would lessen the fear of death penalty. General public as well as legislators of Virginia expressed their opinions in favor of the Capital Case Bill of Review but there are legislators who believe that review is not the answer because unnecessary claims would slow down the courts procedures. Delegate James F. Almand, D-Arlington, chief sponsor of a new bill expressed, “Fair and just judicial system is the need of the hour. And for this, we need to make some corrections.” Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington, also favor the corrections saying the 21-day rule definitely needs to be revised. “I am sure we will see some modifications in the rule and the inclusion of DNA evidence,” she opined. Even the Virginia State Crime Commission also recommended modifications in the 21-day rule. According to the commission there should be a plan to preserve biological evidences and to approve prisoners’ plea for further DNA testing to prove their innocence. Delegate Frank D. Hargrove Sr., R-Glen Allen, death penalty expert, stressed the importance of scraping the 21-day rule. He demands to abolish capital punishment. According to him the 21-day rule increases the chance of committing mistakes by executing the innocent people. He said, “Mere awarding death sentence do not curb the crime.” Since 1991 Virginians for an Alternative to the Death Penalty (VADP) has fought for capital punishment and organized a rally in support of Hargrove’s bill. Richard C. Armstrong, a lawyer and VADP member said that the human beings are imperfect and make mistakes then how the decisions of death penalty that humans make are perfect. It was Earl Washington, Junior’s case that has highlighted the problem of 21-day rule. Danny Axsom, Virginia Tech psychology professor, said that the attitudes toward the death penalty are at best, ambivalent. He added that the no one can deny the problematic nature of 21-day rule which include weak evidences that increases the possibility of executing innocent people. Axsom said, “Death penalty might look stronger in the abstract but in individual cases it is weak based on lose judgment.” According to Axsom death penalty attitudes are often thought to reflect revenge motives. Axsom’s research reveal that 21-day rule do not bother about the evidences that uncovered after 21 days of sentence and it cannot be considered in subsequent appeals no matter what value it holds. He said even the Attorney General does not have the power to consider the evidence which shows innocence clearly. Republican State Senator William C. Mims questions the legitimacy of the capital punishment saying that the decision makers are not confidence enough that he is not doing any mistakes. The prosecutors of Virginia agreed with the proposition that newly evidences that uncovered after the initial sentence should be considered but they do not support the re-appealing of the entire case as it could generate problem to deliver justice. The problem of innocent people getting death sentence because of errors in the criminal justice process has increased in recent past. The danger of mistaken executions in capital cases has been on the rise since 1993. The reason behind this is the overall expansion of the death penalty and the reduction of time to prove his or her innocence. It is quite amazing that in Virginia the convicts of death penalty could hire competent lawyers as there is no enforceable means of such service. The study found that majority of convicts facing capital punishments have so poor that they hardly hire lawyers. In a ruling in Burger v United States in 1935 US Supreme Court declared that it is the duty of the prosecutors to no use any unfair means to influence the case to bring about a wrongful conviction but instead should use all legitimate means to prevail fair justice. The court said that the prosecutors should refrain from competition of winning the case even if the case is weak but should work to bring justice. There are many examples of legal killings of innocent people as a result of Virginia’s 21-day rule. In 1999 Carl Chichester was executed legally despite conflicting eyewitness accounts. As per an eyewitness Chichester’s codefendant actually commit the crime for which Chichester received capital punishment but after realizing this, the evidence was never called to testify. In 1997 Joseph O'Dell was put to death under 21-day rule despite a U.S. District judge admits that the DNA test results proved inconclusive. In 1997 Michael Satcher was executed but it was proved as innocent killings when more refined method of DNA testing results contradict the DNA test performed earlier by the Commonwealth. The later test shows that Satcher’s DNA failed to match with the evidence collected from the crime scene. Effort to repeal 21-day rule The movement to repeal the 21-Day Rule was getting stronger but it was in 1996 that Delegate James Almand (Arlington) has come forward with a bill, the Capital Case Bill of Review to repeal the rule. The bill contains an unlimited time frame to study the evidences which can prove the convicts innocent. Unfortunately the bill failed to win the vote in the legislature. Then it was in 2000 Almand reintroduces the bill which required the judges to consider potential evidences by following some strict guidelines. The judge would require hearing the case and considering the newly uncovered evidence if it met the guidelines. The standard bill of review gives much power to judges who can decide all the determinations. For quite some time, the 21-Day Rule has been under sheer criticism from lawyers and general publics After so much of hue and cry over the 21-Day Rule Virginia Supreme Court enacted new rule on its own. Virginia legislature also modifies the 21-day rule in 2001 session. The new rule gives main power to Virginia Supreme Court which could deal the cases of those defendants showing likelihood of innocence. George Rutherglen, a University of Virginia law professor, is not content with the latest development by the apex court. According to him the new rule is still strict because it deals with substantial likelihood of innocence not a substantial probability of reasonable doubt. He explained that still the onus of proving innocent would lie on the defendants’ shoulders. Conclusion The above discussion reveals that the 21-Day Rule show the illogical aspects of Virginia’s criminal judicial system. In 21-day rule no one is to take the responsibility whether the initial sentence was accurate or not. The General Assembly has raised the point of biological evidence but this does not mean that the other convincing evidences of innocence should be overlooked. Based on this Virginia Supreme Court has came up with an amendment that would empower courts to review the non-biological evidences even after the initial sentence. Recently US Supreme Court has stopped four executions in Virginia as the cases raised specific concerns about the way capital punishment is applied in the state. According to lawyers in Virginia in these cases the court always tries to avoid the responsibility of an incorrect interpretation of constitution. Virginia’s courts enforced the deadlines and procedure so strictly that it hardly leave any space to show any evidence of innocence or court errors. Virginia’s 21-day rule violates some critical safeguards implied in the Constitution. Time frame plays a vital role in 21-day rule and its limited time frame only reveals that the rule was meant to random and impulsive implementation of the capital punishment in the state of Virginia. Suspension of death penalty is hold for further study but in the meantime the legislators has passed the legislation that ensure the review of evidences more viable and thus raised the standards for death penalty counsel to a higher level. It is clear that the public attitudes toward 21-day rule demands change in the death penalty. The government and Supreme Court of Virginia have considered the public perception about the death penalty implementation. It is now clear that legislative reform of death penalty is the need of the hour. Virginia General Assembly has decided to closely watch the reform procedures so that the capital punishment could be dealt with much fairness. ___________________________________________________ References: F. Lee Bailey, quoted in Convicting the Innocent, by James McCloskey, Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1989. Frank Green, Washington Released; Former Death Row Inmate Thanks Supporters on First Day Out, Rich. Times Disp., Feb. 13, 2001, at B1. Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases, Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael L. Radelet, Stanford Law Review (1987). James S. Leibman, Life After Death: The Fate of Capital Sentences After Imposition at Trial. (1999) Death Penalty Infomratin Centre, washington, DC. David Botkins, Frank Green, Moratorium Urged on Va. Executions, Richmond Times Dispatch, April 15, (1999). Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing The Danger of Mistaken Executions, staff report of the Congressional Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee, October 21, (1993). With Justice for the Few: The Growing Crisis in Death Penalty Representation, published by the Death Penalty Information Center, October (1995). Read More