Convicted Ohio murderer Mark Wiles recently dropped his last
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and has been scheduled to die by lethal
injection. David Alan Gore, a Florida convicted rapist and murderer, spent 28
years on death row before his final appeal was overturned and he was executed
last week. In January, Texas convicted murderer Rodrigo Hernandez was also
executed after his final Supreme Court appeal was rejected.
Headline news reminds us of the reality of capital
punishment in the United States and subsequent and ongoing debate forces us to
consider its implications, however abhorrent they may be.
Ohio is one of 38 states that impose the death sentence on
capital crimes. Texas, which has a high crime rate and an ongoing problem with overcrowded
prisons, has had the highest percentage of executions since the Supreme Court
lifted its ban in 1976. Of the 1264 executions in the United States, 447
occurred in Texas.
Most of these inmates were convicted based on irrefutable
evidence that was substantiated by DNA testing, and their crimes were so cruel
that few argue against the justification of their sentencing. However, there
are others who are sitting on death row in front of a gnawing backdrop of
innocence that beg the question regarding capital punishment.
Many of those questions are moral in nature, and involve the
right a state has to kill an individual. Opposing views pertain to the freedom
individuals have in making moral choices (to commit a crime) which control
their destiny, whether they be good or bad. In this regard, capital punishment
treats human beings as intelligent beings who have sense enough to receive
their “just reward”.
Additional questions pertaining to the constitutionality of
a death sentence, its cost versus the cost of life in prison, and the question
of retribution versus revenge, all heat the ongoing debate. The purpose of this
blog is not to add to that debate per se.
Rather, the fact that the judicial process surrounding such
a sentencing requires nearly perfect administration is what concerns me. Several
cases reveal such serious flaws that they have clearly failed to produce
justice.
The case of Delma Banks, a black Huntsville inmate, demonstrates
these concerns when he received a stay of execution within 10 minutes of
receiving a lethal injection in 2003. His sentence was commuted in 2012 based
on rife prosecutional misconduct, which is to say there was not sufficient
proof available to verify he committed the murder, and indeed there was ample
evidence proving his innocence. As a result he is still alive, but how many are
not because such misconduct?
Additionally, in 2007 Texas Court of Appeals presiding Judge
Sharon Keller inadvertently refused a last minute appeal of a death row inmate by
closing the Court at 5 pm sharp. He was executed later that night. I hope her
reasoning was sound because in my mind if the potential for innocence exists,
it should be considered, regardless of trivial matters such as the Court’s
hours. This is obvious and, once again, reasonable.
The case of Troy Davis, also an African-American, is also a
case-in-point. He was executed in 2011 despite the fact that 7 of his 9
commuters recanted and 10 witnesses have since come forward to accuse a
different man at the crime scene. Furthermore, there was no DNA evidence
proving he was the convicted killer.
Clearly, his guilt was not proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt. Is this due to apathy in the courts or administrative incompetence? That
would be hard to believe given the intensity of the media coverage and the fact
that we are talking about the Supreme Court. In addition, if it were an issue
of racism (both examples are African American) then the associated numbers
would reveal a higher number of blacks on death row in proportion to lesser
crimes committed. In reality, it is the the higher number of violent crimes committed
by African Americans, and there are proportionately just as high of a number of
white inmates who have been executed. Though I don’t dispute that racial issues
influence judicial processes, my point is that it doesn’t answer the dilemma we
have in addressing potential innocence on death row.
I am not sure what the problem is, but if I could cast the
deciding vote I would say that until the system is capable of maintaining already established standards of justice, it shouldn't be given such authority. If and when its competency is proven then the debate makes sense.Capital punishment would not be administered on
my watch unless the system itself was consistent in assuming one’s innocence unless
substantiated proof was provided. In this day and age, it should go without
saying that DNA verification would be required.
Elizabeth Sexton's editorial on capital punishment questions the justice system's complete authority regarding human lives. Sexton eloquently conveys her doubts on the controversial issue of capital punishment. She gives examples of actual cases of an inmate going to, or already have been, put to death; Mark Wiles, David Alan Gore, and Rodrigo Hernandez. All three men committing heinous crimes such as rape and murder. Sexton states, "Most of these inmates were convicted based on irrefutable evidence that was substantiated by DNA testing, and their crimes were so cruel that few argue against the justification of their sentencing." She goes on to support her statement with other arguments generally given for capital punishment; inmates treated as martyrs, "cost versus cost of life in prison", and "retribution versus revenge". Though Sexton quickly infers to the reader that the blog is not what it seems. "The purpose of this blog is not to add to that debate per se." By Sexton bringing up most of the arguments given pertaining to "pro-death", then insinuating these are not her beliefs, allows the reader to become intrigued and open minded. Sexton reasons capital punishment with sufficient evidence. Sexton gives three cases where justice was flawed and inmates being put to death without sufficient evidence. Thus allowing the argument of authority having too much power over someone's "destiny". Sexton believes that if capital punishment was to be administrated, it should not be until substantial proof is provided, DNA being a required piece of evidence. Sexton's blog of capital punishment demonstrates what a blog should accomplish, getting Sexton's opinion across, and allowing another argument to ensue. Sexton's blog could be a catalyst of another individual's argument of the consistency of the justice system's basic mission of "Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty."
ReplyDeleteI think Elizabeth Sexton's editorial on capital punishment does a great job engaging the reader and highlights serious issues with the current system. I think that the debate over capital punishment often focuses on the morality of taking a persons life but she brings up an interest point of whether it is constitutionally acceptable to kill someone. I suppose one could compare it to the country's ability to wage war, essentially killing people to stop inhumane acts. If capital punishment could be considered war against heinous crimes, then I could concede that government could require a persons life. The key to the issue currently, as Sexton points out, is that the justice system is in no way fool proof. I agree that there needs to be an iron-clad guilty verdict for someone to be considered for the death penalty. I would certainly hate to imagine myself at the mercy of "peers" with my life at stake. With a crime that is so terrible it warrants the death penalty, I think that emotion could cause the judgment of those involved to be suspect.
ReplyDeleteAll that being said, I still think that the death penalty may not be the "right" option. It is very hard to decide that we should be killing people. Ideally, I would say that those people, and all criminals, should be made to work for the benefit of the citizens. I have a hard time understanding how you can have all these prisoners and not have them doing something that would make up for their costs of living, besides making license plates... I think that capital punishment should definitely not be a cost consideration. Is it okay to pay these costs for a rapist, but not a rapist and murderer?
So, if there isn't the cost incentive and the system is just, should we still use capital punishment? My answer is I don't know. I think that the government could, for the good of the people, although this is somewhat accounted for by simply imprisoning the criminal. I think it comes down to revenge vs retribution, as Sexton writes. If I was affected by a crime like these, I would want more than death for the criminal, but with a policy standpoint I don't like giving this power to others.
In conclusion, I think Elizabeth Sexton does a great job presenting the issues on a very controversial topic. She provides many examples showing where capital punishment might have work as well as those situations where it seems to have been lacking, and ultimately may have cost an innocent person his or her life. I think she makes a very good argument for improving the system by which people are given these sentences and I enjoyed reading and commenting on her work.