Criminal Courts System - Term Paper Example

Criminal Courts System Introduction A debate has risen as to whether the accomplices should be executed or not even if they do notdirectly participate in the murder. So many questions have been running across the states and each and every state tries to its best to support and justify its stand on the issue. Amendments of the constitutions has in different states has taken place in their endeavor to fix this problem and justice to reign on both the parties involved in the cases. For example the US constitution was amended in 1982 by its supreme court. The amendment stated that an execution should be done to someone who “does not kill, attempt to kill or intend that a killing takes place”. This is the same with Texas where the same rule apply. Texas is not the kind of state where clemency applies to the accomplice. On the other hand, there are cases where the execution of the accomplice is not supported. For example US Supreme Court decided that execution to the accomplice will only be done if he or she was the major participant in the murder and with “reckless indifference to human life”. Therefore the indisputable law governing the accomplices related to murder has differed in the different states. Allowing accomplices to be executed if the crime they accompanied resulted in a murder The American Federal Supreme Court in its attempt to slow the death eligible crime rates has gone through various cases and passed judgments, which have tried to shape the death penalty. This should be considered away from personal beliefs, whether abolitionist or retentionist. If a citizen is to be executed in the name of the law then it should be indisputable. In most of the cases the defendant who is an accomplice appears to have taken part and probably seen at the scene of incidence. What about the person who plans about the murder, is he or she not a killer? Suppose he or she did not come up with the plan of killing, I don’t think then anyone would suffer death for the same. Actually these kinds of deaths are termed as murder and not accidents. Wood and Bishop who was accomplice in some felonies were judged under the state laws that allowed such fellows to be prosecuted as killers. Dale Bishop held and kicked the acquaintance whereas another man struck him to death with a claw hummer. Maybe Bishop’s intention was to kill the person but never succeeded and coincidentally Jessie happened to have struck him when he was almost to die. Therefore both had contributed to the death of the victim. I think leaving be hide those who are involved with murder even though did not kill by themselves, then murder cases will never end as they will continue eliminating other innocent people at their far distance with a reason that they did actually kill. When every person receives what is due to him, the society is justly ordered. This just order is disturbed by crime as the people’s lives, liberties, peace and worldly goods are taken by the criminal. Rightful punishment by the law morally protects the society by this just order restoration. Therefore with the help of this elimination by execution will bring people together who have a common goal. There is no justice system that can give out 100% results that are certain all time. Any system relies of human testimony proof and therefore mistakes will be made every time. This system rightfully demands higher standard for death penalties. The risk of making a mistake is therefore very small. However, the inevitability of these mistakes should not hinder the death penalty. As a matter of facts, according to the opponents the death penalty is so expensive. This provides bases for a standard punishment for the respectful crimes by the accomplice. Argument for NOT allowing accomplices to be executed if the crime they accompanied resulted in a murder The US constitution takes care of the human rights and therefore describes logic and justification of death penalties in a more systematic process. As the 2nd section, article 7 states that “a person should not be punished or subjected to a security for an offence that does not lie within the offence according to the law”. In this case the offence is murder and whoever the accomplice is does not lie within the offence. “Judgment may not be imposed to a person for an act that does not explicitly constitute an offence within the definition of the law. As such is a penalty that subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the [Clause]. [quoting C.J. Warren from Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)]”. An effort to restore the death penalty on Capitol Hill as a Federal crimes punishment has been made. The Judiciary Committee approved a bill to accomplish this in a 13-6 vote when the liberals and the victims of accomplice declaimed in vein against it. Yet for one to be able to oppose the death penalty does not need to be a certified liberal. A premier fundraiser, Richard Viguerie firmly opposes the death penalty. The occasional mistake has no remedy. Earl Charles is one of the witnesses against death penalty and he spent three years on a death row. If a mistake is discovered after execution is done to a man for murder that he did not commit, it will always leave a void in his family. Those who carry out execution are left with guilt and feel sorry to the window and children. There have happened cases in the United States where those who actually committed the murder confessing for the same cleared executed persons. In other cases where no one was available to confess a great doubt was there. There have also been cases of discrimination of racial and economic applying to the death penalties. In 1982, 42 percent of the prisoners on the death row were black and according to the statistics, the whole population of the United States is comprised of 12 percent being black. Those receiving death penalties are found to be poorly educated, poor and are represented by the defender from the public or lawyers appointed by court. This discriminatory application raises argument and suggestions that some lives of the victims are much worth those others. This raises automatic questions whether the accomplices judged with execution have faced justice. False witnesses may have been used especially when the case is said to involve an accomplice. Justice needs to follow but just sentencing somebody to death because the law says so. ` Execution of accomplices has an effect of corruption to the public. Thomas Macaulay said that “they hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators” when one is wrong on the first point, he or she might be right on the second. Death penalty to the accomplice expresses absolute powers of the state. Is the state so pure to have the right to take life? The records of the government itself are often operating with deception. It has in one way or another behind the death of so many citizens and there have no right to execute other accomplices when they are also victims. The Eighth Amendment of the States Constitution restricts it from imposing unusual and cruel punishment. Death is a severe and unusual punishment in its finality and pain. The infirmity of the US constitution treats human race members as nonhumans and objects to be toyed and discharged. The ground holds that is today an unusual and a cruel punishment prohibited by the clause, [quoting C.J. Warren from Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)]. Long-term imprisonment provides credible evidences that deter crime more effectively than death penalties. A deterrent effect is not there in death penalties. Therefore, death penalty has no benefit at all to the victim or even to the affected family as well as the state at large. Should the United States Supreme Court consider examining the case of Jeffery Lee Wood on appeal? On 2nd January 1996, Wood was waiting outside for his roommate; Daniel while he went inside to the store killed and robbed Keeran. They both removed the security video tape and left from the scene. Wood was convicted to the capital murder as accomplice though he never participated in the actual murder personally. The laws are legal principles, which take a broader part in the United States which are referred to as felony “murder rule”. The law allows charge of first-degree murder to the victims who unintentionally kill someone. All the states except Hawaii, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio differ in some version of the rule of felony murder. Out of 46 states with this rule of felony murder, 24 allow the prosecutor to seek penalty using it for those indirectly involved with murder cases. At the same time, there is an organization, which is, nonprofit making opposes this capital punishment. It has become very rare for the states to execute those who indirectly involve themselves with murder. Following the tally, Bishop who was similarly involved with such murder case as an accomplice was the eighth person to be executed in the past 30 years. In Texas, wood would be the ninth to be executed with similar charges. However, trial lawyers, civil libertarians and others have greatly attacked this rule of felony murder as an example of conspicuous unequal justice. Especially when it involves accomplice’s ultimate punishment. The US Supreme Court in various cases upheld the death penalty in 1980s for accomplices who intended to result to death in their crimes “reckless indifference to human life”. But according to the critics of the rule, it is not possible to know the intentions of criminals because tough sentences can eventually result. Therefore, murder accomplices like Wood should not face tougher penalties than those who actually carried out the murder. States should be authorized to be sanctioned to execute accomplices who participated knowingly crimes that are dangerous like rape, robbery and burglary. Comparing Woods case with other cases like that of Kenneth Foster who is another murder accomplice was in the schedule of execution but it was unusual for Perry to take a step of commuting the sentence of Foster to life without parole. He expressed concerns that a co-defendant who actually carried out the murder was tried at the same time with Foster. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the US should consider examining the case of Jeffry Lee Wood on appeal because no evidence that shows he attempted or he intended to commit murder. The case of Jeffery Lee Wood falls under the Eighth Amendment of the US constitution f 1982. Lee Wood did not come into contact to the victim who was killed at the scene did he neither attempt nor intended to kill. The two landmarks of 1980s are contradicting, as the decision does not distinguish the cases clearly. Being a major participant does not necessarily mean someone must personally kill but also, the person who comes up with the idea of undertaking the crime may be the great participant of murder. The person who undertakes killing may do this out of ignorance or might be controlled by somebody else. Acting reckless indifference to human life is no different with killing or attempting to kill. Both the victims act against the violation of human rights. Therefore, with the two contradicting landmarks, justice may fail to take its course and delays in the establishment of the criminal act. This argument of whether the court would have taken the decision of whether Wood intended to kill is not within their reach. The fact remains that it is very hard for somebody to know the intentions of someone. It would take the whole life for the court trying to find out what were the intentions of Wood considering that he did not attempt the murder personally and no where he came into contact with the murdered person. Actually, Wood was not even at the scene of murder since he was outside. This makes it clear that he may not have planed it that way but his partner took his own decision of killing Keeran for his own reasons. As it has been discussed above, Wood’s case is very different from other accomplices charged with murder. Providing evidence of whether he attempted or intended to kill will be more difficult in such a situation. Do you find it coincidental that Texas is leading the numbers in both of these areas? By Texas leading in both the number of total execution as well as the number of executed murder accomplice I think it’s a coincidence. The law in carrying out the charges against the crime has guided Texas. The government of Texas may have succeeded in process justification to the offended during the crimes. The state may also not have been hindered in its judging actions by the negative attributes such as corruption, discrimination by racial or any other hindrance. The state judicially must have been in its peak position to render its duties to the citizens and at the same time restoring justice for her people. Texas has taken the reality of the rule of felony murder as a narrowing device. This is the only way into compatibility and effectiveness of the 8th Amendment. The rule being active and not forbidden in this federal court, it has led to its exploitation by a bigger portion of the capital punishment. The manner in which a law is enforced in a particular state, determines its effectiveness in a wider range. The implication of how the murder accomplices should be sentenced has not been significant as long as the 8th Amendment of the US constitution remained. It can be clearly said that Texas has been able to enforce the 8th Amendment leading to the violators of this law being sentenced accordingly. We have seen this leading the highest number of executions in Texas amongst other states so far. Therefore, it is not a coincidence but just an application of the law where necessary in order to deal with criminal injustices. According to the statistics, Texas has been leading in the rate of crime like robbery, burglary, rape that falls under this law. Anyone who has been found with an attempt to kill or with an intention of the same faces charges of execution in Texas. The law has at the same time helped to reduce the crime rates since when one victim crime is executed, he sets a good examples to the rests. Particularly if someone will be involved as an accomplice, it would be very painful for him to be executed and he or she did not carry out the actual murder. Is this unfair for a single state to carry out by far the largest number of executions in the United States One thing that should be understood is that the government of Texas is guided by the constitution in its governance and it is the duty of the state enforce the law and make sure that the law is followed. The work of the law is to bring justice and protect the people at every cost. Therefore, the law in the constitution is there to avoid conspiracies and corruption in the governance of every state. As long as every crime is judged in accordance with the law, then there is nothing to say as unfair when the number of sentences is large. The number of executed persons goes hand in hand with the number criminals facing similar charges. The district attorney, Charles A. Rosenthal has accounted for executions, which add up to 100 in number since 1976, and he said that the system of the capital justice was working properly. “The pace of executions in Texas has to do with how many people are in the pipeline when certain rulings come down,” Charles said. The murder rate at which Texas sentences people to death is not high as such. Richard said that once a sentence of death is imposed, the director of the information center for death penalty, prosecutor, federal and state courts, the governor and the pardon board unite in moving the process along. Mr. Richard also said that there seems to be aggressiveness in carrying out the executions. His organization however, opposes capital punishment. The supporters of death penalty outside Texas said that in public attitude they detect a change in executions at the expense of capita litigation. The remote chance and the wrongful conviction possibility that someone is sentenced to death row actually will be executed. Any prosecutor who is sane will be ambivalent if he is involved in capital litigation. The families of murder victims needlessly suffered anguish during what could be litigation decade and multiple retrials. The whole idea of discharge penetrated the whole culture, as people get concerned when there are fewer executions. The whole idea lies within the law as the state of Texas has been following what is in the constitution. Therefore, I think it is fair for the single state to have such a high number of executions as far as justice dominates. Why is the death penalty ever carried out? Death penalties tend to eliminate the criminals or rather murders from the society. This is done in order to be a lesson to those who carry out murder or those that get involved. Execution is a system of carrying out justice to the offended and to the affected by the crime. The US system of justice demands rightfully a death penalty of higher standards. The vigorous commitment of Texas to capital punishment has nothing to do with enduring consequences as far as the development of death penalty dominate. “The reputation that Texas holds as a death prone state should rest its willingness to carry out execution of the inmates that are sentenced to death. It should not rest on the high rate of sentencing convicted murderers to death of which is a false belief,” John H. Blume, Theodore Eisenberg, and Martin T. Wells, wrote. The death penalty is just an obligation that a state fulfills in accordance with the law. The capital punishment is there to represent justice and as warning to those who may think to carry out any kind of crime. Texas State in its executions of criminal sentenced to death, the rate slowed in 2005 to 2007. This is because of seriousness and commitment in carrying out its duty of execution of the convicted murder inmates to death. However, once a victim is sent to death row, different features of justice in Texas system kick in. this shows that keen observation an evaluation of the executed members are done. What are the pros and cons of the death penalty? ` Crimes of kidnapping, torture, rape, murder, treason and perjury pivot on a moral code is indisputably true escapes proof by testimony of experts or otherwise. Nevertheless, without moral action, the communities would rush into anarchy on less certain assumptions that of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Abolitionists may dispute the death penalty being inherently immoral because the government should never take the human life. That is not an article of fact, it is of faith. Therefore, through death penalty the human dignity is honored by the defendant being treated as an actor of free moral able to control his own fate for good or for evil; it does not treat him without moral sense as an animal. On the CON side of the moral question, revolving around punishment of capital in America has less to do with judgment of those convicted of crime whether to die than with government of Federal and at state whether they are required to kill those imprisoned. Racial apartheid, ethnic discrimination and racial bias have a legacy that is unavoidably evident in the capital punishment administration in America. Imposing death sentences in a criminal justice system threatens those who are rich and guilty better than those who are poor and innocent. This condition is immoral and makes rejection of the death penalty on moral grounds. Another PRO constitutionally of the death penalty is because the method of execution may result in pain. It does not objectively establish the sort of intolerable risk of harm. [In addition, quotes the opinion of the court from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 842, 846 (1994)]. The court throughout the history has always rejected the challenge of execution being unusual and cruel. Nonetheless, the society has moved steadily to more humane methods of capital punishment. On the CON side of this, death is severe and an unusual punishment in its finality, pain and its enormity. The infirmity that is constitutionally fatal in the punishment of death treats human race as nonhumans to be toyed with and discarded. [“Even the vilest criminal remains human being possessed of common human dignity, quoting from Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 257 (1972)]. Therefore, death penalty remains a cruel and unusual and is a punishment prohibited by the clause. What would be an alternative to the death penalty? As it has been seen in The CONs above, death penalty is not the solution for criminal justice. Most of them who are executed are latter found innocent after appealing of the cases. This leaves the family members with grown and agony after such an act that can be described as brutality. Execution may even be an act to hide other evidences that can reveal other criminals and justice to take its course. Therefore it requires the government to change the death penalty punishment for it does not either help the murdered person or to the family of the victim. Nevertheless, keeping the victim alive will be unforgettable warning to those who might think of planning or getting involved in the murder cases. Another alternative to the death penalty would be a sentence of the convicted capital accomplices to life in prison, which will allow a room for correction of mistakes made. The sentence unlike the death penalty keeps off the offenders on the streets for good and it’s cheaper to the tax payers. This alternative can have limited appeal process and provides time to prove their innocence to those who were not involved in the accomplice or murder. The prosecutor should also consult the family of the victim when making decision for the punishment. The family members may have had similar problems before hence they may want him away from home. Also concerning the health of the victim, the prosecutor may require enquiring from the family. In conclusion, the constitution of US should be the one governing the states and the success of justice depends on the commitment of every state to the enforcement of the law. Therefore, as long as the states are following the law, there should be evidence that justice is taking is embraced. Reference McCord, D., (2005). ‘Lightning Still Strikes: Evidence from the Popular Press That Death (Sentencing Continues to be unconstitutionally Arbitrary More than Three Decades After Furman’), 71 Brooklyn Law Review at p.802. New York. Read More