Capital murder is one of the most controversial topics in this country. It 's a very two sided argument, many people have their own opinion on the topic. It is a sensitive topic for some people because, personal feelings and emotions really come into play when discussing the death penalty. There are a vast amount of reason that serve great for being against it but, there is also just as many fantastic reasons as of why we should keep using capital murder. There are those who believe that no human being, no matter how much power or jurisdiction they have, should not have the ability and power to take away another persons life. And there are those who believe that anyone who commits crime such as murder, rape, and treason should be automatically sentenced to death without hesitation. One of the most common and most important reasons that is commonly used in the argument of the death penalty is, irrevocable mistakes. Reports say that there have been over 150 people in the last few years that have been taken from death because they were wrongfully convicted, and found innocent. Many people may not want to believe, but facts are that many innocent people have been convicted and executed. Imagine being taken from your home …show more content…
Perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of the representation he or she is provided. In many cases, the appointed attorneys are underpaid or lacking the trial experience required for death penalty cases. Almost all defendants in capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. There have even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for the sentencing phase of the trial. The right to an attorney is a vital part of the American judicial system. It is essential that the attorney be experienced and have access to the resources needed to fulfill his or her obligations to the client and the
Countless people are getting placed in the criminal justice system on meager charges. Then, the system offers them “Legal Misrepresentation,” even though Gideon v. Wainwright (Alexander, 2012, p. 85) stated that they are entitled to an attorney if they are accused of a serious crime and indigent. Yet, public defendant attorneys lack resources and are overburdened with a substantial caseload that they cannot give defendants suitable representation. Subsequently, these accused people are forced into a plea deal to offset spending the mandatory maximum sentences in prison. Bad Deal
After spending countless hours discussing the criminal court system in class and familiarizing myself with the content of Justice Hands’ quote, I have come to a conclusion that ties together a collection of opinions. The death penalty is an arbitrary and ineffective method of punishment that should only be used under one circumstance; if the defendant has been unequivocally found guilty of the murder he committed and would rather succumb to the death penalty than spend the rest of his life in prison without parole. There have been numerous cases throughout the years that have taken place where a defendant was denied his fifth and sixth amendment right to a lawyer and fair trial, and was left with no choice but to hold himself to deliver his own testimony. These circumstances can dramatically influence the outcome of a trial since it creates an unequal chance for the accused. For example, in both Gideon v. Wainwright and Argersinger v. Hamlin, both defendants were denied their right to a counsel.
Wrongful convictions are one of the major problems that the justice system faces. Much worse is that there are people whom the judicial system has sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. A wrongful conviction is a terrible injustice that is magnified when an innocent person spends years in prison or death row. The number of exonerated ex-offenders is steadily rising, however growing awareness of the injustices occur every day in American courts, it helps raise profound doubts about the accuracy and fairness of the criminal justice system. Cheryle (Hayes)
Being on death row often prolongs the pain for the inmate. They spend their time in prison fearing the inevitable which for them is death. Today, we live in a society that is very divided on this issue. There are many in support of the death penalty, suggesting that it acts as a positive deterrent against future crime. There are also many
Six years later, in Johnson v. Zerbst, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a poor federal criminal defendant who faces serious criminal charges is entitled to an attorney at the expense of the government. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to counsel is thought necessary to protect fundamental human rights of life and liberty and that an average person accused of a crime does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself/herself. Unfortunately, this right only applied to indigent defendants facing serious charges in federal court but did not apply to the states.
The Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” ( US Constitution) As you can see, the Bill of Rights 6th Amendment allows the accused to understand the charges against them: the accused is told what he/ she is being accused of, who is accusing them, and is allowed to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Moreover, it allows for the movement of rightful convictions.
Obviously, the death penalty always ends in the loss of life, but these lives are sometimes innocent and sometimes have the potential for rehabilitation. The jury system rarely convicts people wrongly, so it is said. But, it happens often that criminals claim innocence; how many are telling the truth? The number of discovered false executions does not necessarily mean those are the only ones. Supporters may argue it is worth it, but isn't the loss of innocent life what we are all against?
On Sunday, November 13, 1842 a double murder occurred at Smith Farm in Old Fields, Long Island. The victims, Alexander Smith and and Rebecca Smith, were a wealthy, well- respected married couple who ran Smith farm. George Weeks, the Smiths farmhand, was reporting for work the monday after the murder and heard the dog barking from the work-shed by the Smiths house. George Weeks then became suspicious since the dog was usually inside with Mr. Smith. George then looked in the house and saw that the east room window was broken and Mr. and Mrs. Smith were lying on the floor covered in blood.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys routinely use peremptory challenges to eliminate frim juries’ individuals who although they express no obvious bias, are thought to be capable of swaying the jury in an undesirable direction. The prosecution and the defense are also protected by the Equal Protection Clause
This system is put into place to be fair to those accused. There are many cases in which the due process was not followed and the case was considered unfair and thrown out. Ex: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Clarence Gideon was accused of burglary and while in court he asked for an attorney to be appointed to his case because he could not afford one, but he was denied. At the time attorneys were only appointed to those who were poor, but who is to say whether or not a person is not poor enough to get an attorney appointed to them.
Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion
Advantage Taken When a person is interrogated, the police do not try to make him comfortable. Their goal is to make him squirm and admit to something, thus leading to a full-blown confession. Episode four of Making a Murderer focused partially on Brendon Dassey. Brendon Dassey simply fell victim to the pressuring of the police.
The Death Penalty, loss of life due to previous crimes and actions, is believed by some to be extremely costly, inhumane, and cruel unlike some others whom believe it is just, right, and provides closure. The Death Penalty is not a quick and easy process. Most who get sentenced to deaths row wait years for their ultimate punishment of death. Some believe that it is not right to punish and kill a human for actions they have done because, they believe that the inmate should have another chance. Then others believe that it is right to punish someone for their actions especially if their actions involve killing another or multiple humans.
In the U.S.A alone since 1973 130 innocent people have been sentenced to death(1) and in the last two years evidence has come up that indicates four men previously thought to be guilty may have actually been innocent and put to death(3). The death penalty is supposed to protect innocent people from killers, instead it murders them. And these are the people who have been discovered to be innocent! What about the ones who were not so lucky? A recent example of this is Richard Glossip a man who was sentenced to death based on a corrupt statement with no other evidence to prove him guilty (5).
Capital Punishment is the death penalty for those who commit murder. The thought behind this punishment is a life for a life. There has been debate on if the death penalty is right or wrong. Some poeple want the death penalty to be illegal while others argue it is needed to deter crime. There are many valid arguments regarding the death penalty.