Claude Jones Unethical

On the other side, many people argue that the rate of killing an innocent is rare, and therefore, the risk is reasonable and acceptable. As a development of technology, currently, we are able to use scientific evidence such as DNA testing. With DNA testing, the chance of executing an innocent is extremely rare. Moreover, even such false accusations have occurred, and these innocent have been imprisoned, we have conducted an unethical act as equal to execution. Additionally, the current death penalty procedure gives defendants a thorough system of appeals through not only to State but also to federal courts. Clearly, even though defendants were convicted of the crime, they would have chances in the future to fight for their justice. As a result,

For example, in Claude Jones case, a later DNA test proved that he was an innocent in a conviction of shooting a liquor-shop owner. Jones was convicted the crime in 1989 and was executed in 2000. His murder conviction was based on a piece of forensic evidence, a strand of hair, which placed at the scene. Prosecutors claimed that it was belonged to Jones. As a result, he was found guilty and had to sit on the death row since 1989. In 2000, before his execution, Jones’ attorneys filed petitions for a stay with both district court and with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, they request the strand of hair be submitted for DNA testing (in 1989, the DNA testing technology was not available for defendants and prosecutors). However, both courts, along with Governor George W. Bush denied staying his execution. He was executed a few days later. In 2007, sevens year after his execution, the Innocent Project filed a lawsuit and was allowed by Judge Paul Murphy to obtain the single piece of physical evidence, the strand of hair, for DNA testing. The result from the DNA testing indicated that the strand of hair was belonged to the

Most people are mistaken the true cost of capital punishment. With lengthy appeals process and specialized housing and extra security provided on death rows, capital cases are significantly more expensive than noncapital homicide cases. There are dozens of studies in regards to analyzing the financial costs that are corresponded to the capital punishment system. Some of them are funded by private organizations that may or may not take a public stance. However, there are few studies have been conducted and published by government agencies at the State or Federal level. For example, in June 2011, the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles published a study by Arthur L. Alarcon, a federal judge in the Ninth Circuit of the United States Courts and Paula Mitchell, a professor at the school. They concluded the result of more than $4 billion tax dollar have been spent for the capital punishment system from 1978 to 2011 in California, where the capital punishment is technically dysfunctional. For there are only 13 executions took place during that period, the expense per execution is around $308 million. In addition, California spends an approximate of $144 million annually on housing, legal costs, and medical care for inmates who are on the death row. As a result, they complained, “billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to