Death Penalty
In the spring of 2000, a team of lawyers and criminologists headed by Prof. James Liebman released the first phase of their study on the death penalty in the United States. The study showed that the American system of capital punishment was "riddled" with unfairness and incompetence, with serious errors erupting with alarming frequency at every stage of the process. In February of 2002, the second phase was released examining the causes for the frequent mistakes in death penalty cases, and possible solutions to remedy the situation. Researchers identified three main errors that often lead to erroneous convictions: incompetent legal counsel, police officers or prosecutors who suppressed evidence and judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions. The study also suggested that the errors that permeate throughout the system also leave killers at large, exacerbate suffering, waste tax dollars and deprive citizens of the high quality of justice, which they expect and deserve. !In conclusion, the study found that "the more often officials use the death penalty, the wider the range of crimes to which it is applied, and the more it is impo
With the aid of recent studies and scientific innovations, another prevalent issue that has lead to the decline of pro-death penalty supporters is the ever-increasing number of erroneous convictions in homicide crimes. Since 1970 there have been more than 87 people released from death row in the United States because of false convictions (Newsweek 2000). It was also found that the courts, because of serious errors, reversed 68 % of all death sentences reviewed from 1973 to 1995 (New York Times 2002). It is unconstitutional to continue using the death penalty if we cannot guarantee a fair trial to all individuals, regardless of the "heinous" crimes they may have committed. Unfortunately, the states and counties that most often use the death penalty, applying it to a wide range of crimes instead of reserving it for the "worst of the worst", are also the most prone to flawed verdicts (Herbert 2002). With such a high rate of error surrounding capital punishment in this cou! In the early 1970's, the chief argument in favor of the death penalty was its assumed deterrence of crime. In theory, publicized executions should result in a lower number of homicides, therefore serving as a deterrent to crime. Today, there are widespread agreements among both criminologists and law enforcement officials that capital punishment has little curbing effect on crime rates. In a recent survey of 70 current and former presidents of three professional associations of criminologists (the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association), 85% of the experts agreed that empirical research on deterrence has shown that the death penalty "never has been, is not, and never could be superior to long prison sentences as a deterrent to criminal violence" (Radelet and Borg 2000). Instead of trying to use the death penalty as a deterrent, the government should focus on what works in preventing crimes, educating f! With rece
Some common words found in the essay are:
United Capital, York Times, James Liebman, Radelet Borg, Prof Lieberman's, World Report, Prof Liebman's, death penalty, Society Association, capital punishment, Article Summary, heinous crimes, penalty supporters, Times February, recent studies, pro-death penalty, range crimes, pro-death penalty supporters, support death penalty, current form, discredit capital, studies technological, surrounding capital punishment, discredit capital punishment, prone flawed verdicts,
Approximate Word count = 1333
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
