Argument essay

Wheeler1

Emily Wheeler

English 105

Professor Timmons

October 27,2010

Hypocrisy in the Death Penalty

      Has it ever occurred to anyone the hypocrisy in the death penalty? It is strange to think that we would put a person to death for a death. It just does not make sense. Though the actions of the murderer were indeed wrong, and they should be punished but killing them will not bring back the person who was killed. There have been many problems concerning the death penalty.  Mistakes concerning innocent who have been killed for falsified or incorrect evidence has been one of the main issues. Now with today’s advancing technology, the majority of mistakes have been ultimately eliminated. Though there are still a few unlucky innocent members of society who have been put on death row for a crime they did not commit. So it is fair to say that if some one is killed and the other party demands justice in terms of death, that makes them just as guilty as the person they are trying to punish.

     In 1983 Rolando Cruz was put on death row for a crime he did not commit. Upon his release he stated, “I did 12 years, three months and three days,” he told a recent conference on capital punishment. They did kill me. I am who I am now because this is who they made.” (Cooper).  Twelve years after his sentence they found DNA evidence that pointed to another man as the real culprit of the crime. Even though Cruz insisted he was innocent it didn’t help his case any. Currently the officers who presided the case are being charged.

Wheeler 2

with obstruction of justice for concealing evidence. The family of the girl who was murdered wanted justice, and most people in that situation would one justice of some kind. However, they

called it a high profile case and it needed to be a speedy trial. In doing so they missed vital information in which it caused an innocent man to be needlessly in jail for twelve years.

     There are only nine states in the United States that do not have the death penalty. These states include, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Main, Massachusetts, and West Virginia.  Since 1976 Texas has had the most executions.  The execution toll has risen steadily since 1976. There was a spike in the deaths around the later 80’s and on into the 90’s.  The most executions in one year were in 1997, when the toll was over 70 that year (Cooper).

       Kenneth Jost, said that so many of the cases that once sentenced death have been reversed due to, “flaws in the system, including inadequate defense counsels, create an unacceptable risk of executing an innocent person” (Jost).  Since the Death penalty was reinstated in 1976 in Texas they have executed over 253 people, most of any state (Jost). In his article Jost discusses the death penalty concerning mental retardation in the offenders. Since the offenders are handicapped, the Supreme Court had to look over the eighth amendment carefully in order to not violate the offender’s rights. Though they are felons they still have rights that by law cannot be violated.  Jost stated that in the courts,  “they noted that nearly half of the states with capital punishment now specifically bar execution of mentally retarded offenders.”

     People opposed to the death penalty are in great numbers. In June of 2005, the opposing side of the death penalty gathered outside of the U.S. Supreme Court for two inmates who were facing cases concerning the death penalty (Jost).  The people standing and protesting the death penalty usually don’t care for the situation. Regardless of the case, most who are opposed will stick with their belief.  In the case that they were protesting in June, DNA evidence was the main

Wheeler 3

issue surrounding the case. To the people opposing this is one of the main points they make. The manipulation of evidence, the falsification of evidence, and the misread evidence are all reasons that fuel the opposing side.

       Of course the other side must be considered as well. Those who are for the death penalty are the ones to be considered hypocrites, but they have the right to their opinion.  They do not consider the issue of the loss or altered evidence. Nor do they consider how those people are people, just like the victims.  The act, depending on the situation, was most likely a horrible tragedy. Though this true, sentencing the murderer wont bring back the dead, as previously stated. So, by supporting the death penalty they are just as guilty as the murderer is. Not in the same way, their heart is in the right place. They merely want justice for the crime committed, but killing the felon still makes them no better than the felon. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, the Bible.

      Over past couple of years the Supreme Court has tried very hard to, “eliminate disparities and increase certainty in sentencing federal defendants” (Jost). They are attempting to stop the flaws in incriminating the innocent. It has been even mentioned that juries have been asked to make the formal sentencing rather than the judge in order to ensure a fair trial. They are even trying to get Congress to step in and have a say in the sentencing policies. They have tried to get the age limit lowered to apply to sixteen and seventeen year olds as well. However, it has been said that that is curl and unusual punishment, and that is absolutely correct. If a sixteen year old commits a crime so heinous that is being considered death penalty worthy, then that teen is in need of some serious psychological help. They should not be given death, but instead put into a mental

Wheeler 4

hospital. With so many conflicting problems and views on the death penalty, it is hard to believe it is fair or even worth the controversy.

        Between 1989 and 2003 in which cases, particularly rape cases have not had proper forensic examination. Jimmy Ray Bromgard was convicted of raping an eight-year-old girl. He spent fourteen years in prison before they had the proper DNA evidence to prove him innocent. The lawyer he had at the time of his arraignment did not hire the proper testing to be done in order to stand against the girl’s not so sure testimony. She even mentioned in court that she was not sure, yet that fact was not taken into consideration.  If the Supreme Court had decided then to lower the death rate it could have been very possible for him to be put on death row, and he was an innocent man at that.

      Court cases involving people need to be considered as such. A person is a person no matter of what crimes they have committed. They are still by definition a human being. Though they have made some decisions that have made them less than capable of living in society, that doesn’t give the community around that person the right to sentence them to death. Look what happened with the Salem Witch Trials. They killed many women just on the “supposed” basis that they were witches. Potentially they murder innocent women just based on suspicion. So, is that not what is happing with the death penalty today? Just for a quick fix courts are passing conflicts on to the death penalty, and sometimes at the cost of executing an innocent person. The only two states in the United States that have full Indigent Defense funding are Utah and Pennsylvania (Mantel). The Indigent Defense is there to insure a in depth investigation to avoid an unjust trial. Another reason innocent people can slip through the cracks and be incriminated for crimes they didn’t commit is that most of the lawyers have excessive case loads. “Poor

Wheeler 5

training and supervision and judicial interference are also blamed for many of the deficiencies”,

as stated by Barbara Mantel. According to Mantel the legal department in this country is lacking a bit. So, why would the death penalty be a good idea with our country in such a confused state.

       It has become all to common in the U.S, to day for those to go to prison due to wrongful convictions. Steve Weinberg wrote about Ronald Cotton, a man convicted of raping a college student and served eleven years before being released due to the proper DNA identification. Weinberg wrote that, “there is general acceptance that wrongful convictions indeed occur”. It is all to common for when a mistake like that is made to just throw it to the side and move on. It’s a much bigger deal than is let on. Especially in the court system, the only way the people in a community hear about the mistake made is through the media, often it is quite difficult to get the court to admit its mistake freely. Usually it will take until the story blows out of proportion in the media for the court to admit they were wrong and sent an innocent person to prison.

     The death penalty is up there with abortion in terms of controversy. There will always be controversy surrounding the death penalty. People will always be on either side of the issue. Some will be for, some against. The death penalty is dangerous, it is the taking of a life, and our courts are not always up to par. They have sentenced innocent men to death and later, right before the sentence was carried out, they found the proper evidence that proved them innocent. However, there are the few who do not get the same opportunity to get their true sentencing. Our government is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”, yet they still continue to make the same mistakes and sentence innocent people. The death penalty is wrong, by supporting it that makes them no different then the people on trial. Yes, there crime was wrong. But death to the one on trial won’t fix the problem. Vengeance solves nothing, only proactive and positive punishment is effective.

Wheeler 6

Works Cited

Cooper, Mary H. "Death Penalty Update." CQ Researcher 9.1 (1999): 1-24. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1999010800>.

Jost, Kenneth. "Rethinking the Death Penalty." CQ Researcher 11.40 (2001): 945-968. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2001111600>.

Jost, Kenneth. "Death Penalty Controversies." CQ Researcher 15.33 (2005): 785-808. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2005092300>.

Jost, Kenneth. "Sentencing Debates." CQ Researcher 14.39 (2004): 925-948. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2004110500>.

Mantel, Barbara. "Public Defenders." CQ Researcher 18.15 (2008): 337-360. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2008041800>.

Weinberg, Steve. "Wrongful Convictions." CQ Researcher 19.15 (2009): 345-372. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2009041700>.