Post by CCADP on Aug 15, 2005 9:52:53 GMT -5
From Santa Cruz Sentinel
As We See It: Recent comments by a Supreme Court justice ought to make Americans question the death penalty
The death penalty issue is one of the longest-standing debates throughout the country.
Yet it now takes a back seat to abortion and other issues that have been discussed in the aftermath of the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court.
At one time we counted ourselves among the supporters of capital punishment. We reasoned that some crimes are so vicious that there is truly no alternative to the ultimate punishment.
We think of crimes like the kidnapping death of Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, or the mass killings of hundreds by Timothy McVeigh, and we consider the death penalty to be not only reasonable but appropriate.
But the reality of the death penalty is that it has not been carried out appropriately across the country. Too many convicted inmates on Death Row have been proved to be innocent. Too many first-degree murder convictions have been overturned.
No less an authority than Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens now says that capital punishment in America has "serious flaws."
He spoke to the American Bar Association in Chicago over the weekend, and although he stopped short of saying the death penalty should be banned, he observed that he no longer trusts the process of how it’s carried out.
According to The Washington Post, Stevens referred to evidence provided by DNA research, which has shown "that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously. ... It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice."
Advertisement
According to The Post, death penalty cases dominate the work of justices. All nine justices at different times have been called on to deal with final emergency appeals — and the time commitment is significant.
In order for the death penalty to be effective, it would have to be enforced uniformly and with some speed. Yet neither happens.
Stevens told the ABA that the penalty is handed out in a way that varies, particularly because the competence of defense attorneys varies widely. Also, said Stevens, the death penalty carries with it "special risks of unfairness," a reference to such wild cards as racial profiling.
Stevens also brought up a modern practice of having a victim’s family come to court to discuss their ordeal. We understand the reason that victims’ voices and concerns be heard, but we sometimes wonder whether the involvement of such strong emotion results in the best possible legal result.
After all, the law, even criminal law, is supposed to be applied based on legal arguments, and not by emotion. In fact, Stevens told the ABA that sometimes a victim’s statement "serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to decide in favor of death rather than life on the basis of their emotions rather than their reason."
Stevens, 85, has been a member of the high court since he was appointed by President Ford in 1975. His view is an informed one, obviously, and we think that it should be considered seriously in the future as we consider whether capital punishment is appropriate.
We consider the death penalty to be a reasonable argument intellectually, but we no longer support it as everyday policy in America today. It has been proved to be too flawed to be continued.
As We See It: Recent comments by a Supreme Court justice ought to make Americans question the death penalty
The death penalty issue is one of the longest-standing debates throughout the country.
Yet it now takes a back seat to abortion and other issues that have been discussed in the aftermath of the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court.
At one time we counted ourselves among the supporters of capital punishment. We reasoned that some crimes are so vicious that there is truly no alternative to the ultimate punishment.
We think of crimes like the kidnapping death of Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, or the mass killings of hundreds by Timothy McVeigh, and we consider the death penalty to be not only reasonable but appropriate.
But the reality of the death penalty is that it has not been carried out appropriately across the country. Too many convicted inmates on Death Row have been proved to be innocent. Too many first-degree murder convictions have been overturned.
No less an authority than Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens now says that capital punishment in America has "serious flaws."
He spoke to the American Bar Association in Chicago over the weekend, and although he stopped short of saying the death penalty should be banned, he observed that he no longer trusts the process of how it’s carried out.
According to The Washington Post, Stevens referred to evidence provided by DNA research, which has shown "that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously. ... It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice."
Advertisement
According to The Post, death penalty cases dominate the work of justices. All nine justices at different times have been called on to deal with final emergency appeals — and the time commitment is significant.
In order for the death penalty to be effective, it would have to be enforced uniformly and with some speed. Yet neither happens.
Stevens told the ABA that the penalty is handed out in a way that varies, particularly because the competence of defense attorneys varies widely. Also, said Stevens, the death penalty carries with it "special risks of unfairness," a reference to such wild cards as racial profiling.
Stevens also brought up a modern practice of having a victim’s family come to court to discuss their ordeal. We understand the reason that victims’ voices and concerns be heard, but we sometimes wonder whether the involvement of such strong emotion results in the best possible legal result.
After all, the law, even criminal law, is supposed to be applied based on legal arguments, and not by emotion. In fact, Stevens told the ABA that sometimes a victim’s statement "serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to decide in favor of death rather than life on the basis of their emotions rather than their reason."
Stevens, 85, has been a member of the high court since he was appointed by President Ford in 1975. His view is an informed one, obviously, and we think that it should be considered seriously in the future as we consider whether capital punishment is appropriate.
We consider the death penalty to be a reasonable argument intellectually, but we no longer support it as everyday policy in America today. It has been proved to be too flawed to be continued.