What is Corrupt in the Justice System?

            Corruption within the system is high; it goes from all ends of the spectrum. Corruption can start within bad policing techniques, which then throws off the whole judicial process because corruption has already occurred. Bad policing techniques can mean a few things from planting evidence, to coercing confessions, or even knowingly going after an innocent person. Police are one of the first people to interact with someone after a crime has occurred, putting more emphasis on them not to be corrupt. Not all police officers’ are bad by any means; however, those that are mess up the legitimacy of the system and shine an unflattering light on the rest.

                The next level is, lawyer competency and what that actually means can be difficult. Some defense attorneys are not deemed competent from the way they proceed with death row inmates. There have been cases where the lawyer doesn’t even talk with the inmate before representing him/her. Plea agreements have been rejected without the inmate’s knowledge and some crappy defense work includes the lawyer taking a nap during a capital trial. I think this is personally the most unacceptable form of corruption. The inmate has a right to competent counsel and having someone who is not competent loses them a case that they could have won. Producing innocent people in prison or even on death row, which could benefit from another form of sentencing.

                The last is a corrupt court, not necessarily the judge, but jury could play a larger role; after all they have an inmate’s life in their hands. Jury is selected through the voir dire process. Questions are asked to all of those pulled for jury duty and slowly dwindled down through questions to see if they have any conflicts of interest. Jurors will be asked not to serve if they have harsh opinions one way or another with the death penalty, the crime, or the defendant. Sometimes this does not necessarily protect the defendant all the way. Jury could be selected in opposition to the defendant by the prosecution. Jurors are also not supposed to know anything about the case at hand (often does not completely happen). Some things must be excluded from the trial and the jury should not be aware of those facts. This happened in the West Memphis Three trial in Jason and Damien’s trial. Jessie MissKelley’s confession could not be used in the other’s trials, although it ended up being written on a juror’s notepad. It goes to show that our system does a great deal to try and discourage corruption but in all honesty it still occurs quite regularly within courts, corrections, and policing. 

Innocence on Ohio's Death Row

                Ohio’s death penalty is an interesting topic. Ohio execution have been around for many years but ceased in 1976 as did the rest of America as it was ruled cruel and unusual punishment. It was re-examined and deemed not cruel and unusual years later around 1999. The first person to be executed in 1999 was a volunteer by the name of Wilford Berry. From 1999 until now there have been 52 executions and many more sentenced to death (deathpenaltyinfo.org). The numbers tell it all in Ohio, as we are the only state to have executions scheduled so far into the future (not even Texas does that!). Ohio is ranked among the top executions for death penalty states; the highest however are Virginia and Texas.

                Ohio has had 6 exonerations (proved innocent and released, all charges dropped) from death row. I think this number is astounding because these are the ones that we actually know, there may have been plenty more that have gone undetected by the system. The latest exoneration was Joe D’ Ambrosio who was convicted of a murder he did not commit in Cleveland. With the help of Father Neil Kookoothe he was able to get his voice heard and his innocence upheld. There will soon be exoneration in the case of Michael Kennan, who was a supposed accomplice in Joe’s case. Kennan has been freed and charges have been dropped all that a waits is an appeal that may be filed by the state.

                There is another possible case of wrongful conviction in the case of Tyrone Noling who was incarcerated for the murder of two people in their home. There has been no physical evidence that links him or any of his accomplices to the crime scene. The house was ransacked when the bodies were discovered by police, yet no fingerprints match Tyrone or his accomplices. There was also a cigarette butt found at the scene of the crime which is a pivotal piece of evidence in this case. Tyrone has recently been granted DNA testing on the cigarette butt in hopes it will reveal that he is not guilty. DNA testing is underway while Tyrone a waits the results; as he has already served fifteen years in prison. If the test come back that his DNA does not match it would be a positive win in his case and perhaps make him a free man.

Retribution

             

               Retribution plays a large role in the death penalty. Support has grown as crimes have become more common through the recent decades. There is always that need for punishment and revenge when someone does something they weren't supposed to. The death penalty is no different. Crime victims have come out saying that many support the death penalty because it is a way to seek some sort of revenge for the heinous crime a person committed. Simply sitting in prison for a lifetime is not enough punishment but feeling how their loved one felt while dying is a truer revenge. This has led many families to seek the death penalty in crimes where their loved one has died a tragic death as a result of another person.

                Books have been published about how family copes and heals with the murder of a loved one. Some feel as though the death penalty if the only way they could feel any relief, knowing the murderer would not see daylight again (even though I disagree, I respect everyone’s views/feelings). Others have voiced their opinions with the concern that they do not wish to seek the death penalty; there are many reasons why this occurs.
                Oftentimes family may not wish to seek the death penalty because of many reasons, one of which they do not wish to take another life away. Some feel as though there has already been enough grief and do not wish another family the same pain that they have felt. Although, they do not wish to see the perpetrator walk around with public, they may believe that life in prison is a better option. Another reason someone may not wish to seek the death penalty is because they do not believe the taking of another life will heal, give closer, or bring their loved one back. This does occur; some victims will come out saying they do not wish to take another life for these reasons. Victims do not always wish to seek the death penalty because they may too be against it. There are numerous reasons a family member may wish to seek or not to seek the death penalty, and in many ways we must support their wishes. I do not personally know the grief that someone would endure during such a tragic time. Some families even come out later to say that if they could redo it they would not seek the death penalty for closure reasons or the length of the whole process. It honestly depends on the family and their personal views.

How the U.S. Deters Crimes

                One argument in affirmation for the death penalty is that it deters crime. This is completely false in so many ways. As evident in states that have the death penalty. Murders still occur and thrive even in the states with harsher death penalty regulations. I believe that this strictly goes against what most people believe. We naturally assume as humans, that if the punishment is bad enough no people would want to risk getting that punishment. However, it actually has no effect on crime unless it is that it increases violent crime. I had the chance to study this over the summer and found that states in which the death penalty have higher murder rates than those that do not. Same goes for countries, but I will discuss that in a later blog.

                Deterrence is actually quite the opposite of what the death penalty does. The death penalty information center offers murder rates for all states and some of the results are shocking. The information shows that the average murder rate for a death penalty state was 4.7, while the average murder rate for a state without the death penalty is 3.7 (deathpenaltyinfo.org). This shows that the death penalty does not deter crime essentially. It is not all to blame for the higher murder rates but it could be a contributing factor. It also goes against many arguments that it deters crime, because in essence it does the opposite.

                This has shown up on a different scale as well including countries that do not have the death penalty also have lower murder rates. I believe that  the death penalty does not deter crime at all, so why do we have it? That’s one of the largest arguments on support of it. If we didn't have the death penalty people would kill people… however, people still kill people even though we have the death penalty. It is somewhat upsetting to believe that we as a society are not willing to re-examine the death penalty as a whole to see if it is really that necessary at all. I think that if we looked at it in depth we would realize that it is not that great of a punishment. More people are dying because of it and it crowds the prison just like many other punishments. It will take effort and time, but my goal is to inform people about the mistakes and flaws the death penalty has brought forth. I want to put an end to the corruption and misinformed public audience.

$$$ Show Me the Money

                I have heard this by far the most out of any argument in support of the death penalty. It is that people say they do not want to financially support someone in prison for the rest of their life; oftentimes they do not want their taxes to support the life of a convicted murderer. To this I reply that it is more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. Many are appalled by this finding and wonder how this could be true… It’s simple, appeals.

                Appeals are safeguards put in place by the government to help insure that innocent people do not get incarcerated (in this case executed). Although these have been put in place, it does not often ensure that innocent people do not die (as I have mentioned previously). These are constitutionally protected and are rights that prisoners have when facing death. However, that can take many years and millions of dollar to properly exhaust all options. The costs rack up quickly in appeals; due to court fees, attorney fees, housing of prisoners, and all other parties involved must be paid.

                It is much more cost effective to keep someone imprisoned for the rest of their life. Studies suggest it is much cheaper to keep a person in prison alive for the duration of their life accounting for housing and food in prison, as well as medical care that a person may need. In a study in Utah, it found that it costs an extra 1.6 million to execute rather than give life without parole (deathpenaltyinfo.org). This is an astounding finding and proves that one’s argument cannot solely rely on cost factors because what many believe may be wrong. As evident in the previously mentioned study it is substantially higher to murder a convict than to keep them alive for the rest of their life. It is a controversial debate as to whether the funds used in executions are worth it. For the time being it seems as though the public favors more tax money to support execution than a prisoner’s life. I believe that this is clear and compelling evidence that should somewhat make us reconsider what we are spending funds for. The death penalty does not HAVE to exist if people lose support and it definitely takes more money out of the system than many people believe.  Is it worth it? 

How Painless is the Death Penalty?

                Many states are facing a new issue in regards to the death penalty. The lethal injections drug(s) many use are becoming near or exceeding their expiration date. This poses the question of the next step for executions. States have met this issue because the drug(s) that many uses come from countries that do not have the death penalty. 

Ohio uses pentobarbital to conduct executions, which is from Europe. Europe discovered what many US countries are using this drug for and would no longer supply it to the states because they do not support the death penalty. Since this has occurred, states are looking for other alternatives to lethal injection or a new drug. Ohio is in this predicament as well, looking for the next step as executions creep closer.

States have now gone as far as using drugs to execute that have not been tested yet, so we do not know if they are actually painless. In my opinion this is unacceptable because we do not know the effect this has on those we execute and infringes on their right against cruel and unusual punishment. More states have gone into using this technique despite the controversy.

I believe that we should not use untested methods to execute human beings. We do not know how this reacts with people because it is has not had proper testing to insure that it is not harmful and painful. There is a need to test medicine before using it for executions or it goes against peoples fundamental rights. This should put forth an argument against the death penalty because it is losing support from other countries (as they have moved past it). It is becoming increasing difficult to kill someone in the government and know they have resorted to using untested drugs for murder. I do not agree with this at all; in fact I think it is probably one of the most terrible things we could be doing to a person. After all, they are people the government is condemning to death, they do still feel pain. Using untested or expired drugs is not how we should be conducting the death penalty because we are violating rights. The only way to complete the death penalty in a humane way is to insure that the condemned are not suffering to death. This should be a simple thing and in my opinion something we should uphold as greatly important.

How bad is too bad? Heinous Crime Debate.

                Another large debate is the heinous crime definition in capital cases. As many people know the death penalty is only supposed to be used for the “worst of the worst” crimes. One of the questions that I raise is how can we define what the worst of the worst actually is? One person may define it as any murder that is committed; where others may see if as a heinous, methodical, torture some crime. This poses the issue of where the state should draw a line of who actually should receive the death penalty.

                In the studies that I have viewed many cases that receive capital punishment are not necessarily the most heinous crimes. Yes, a murder has been committed but if we are saving it for the worst offenders, I do not think we are administering it properly. I believe that if we absolutely MUST use it, it should not be used as freely as we have given it out. Many cases will be a murder and not have many of the other attributes that make it heinous.

                There are severely heinous cases in which a person has methodically plotted a death or tortured someone to death, which are supposed to be where the death penalty is used. This often gets pushed aside and many murders get tried capitally even if that will not be the best solution. This keeps more and more inmates filing into death row when life without parole or other sentences may be best for their well-being. As mentioned before the death penalty should not be used as a cookie cutter punishment for murders, there should be thought put into every sentence for individuals.

                This could easily occur if two people were shot to death. That person would then be eligible for the death penalty in some states. Is this the “worst of the worst” crime? In my opinion I know someone has died but I do not believe that this entitles the state to take another life. They were shot not slowly tortured or their death plotted. I realize that the perpetrator would be highly dangerous but there would be a better sentencing option in some of these cases similar to these, were the person does not appear inherently evil. There will be different cases though in which a person is evil and it would be difficult to let them continue living. Even in those cases I do not agree with the death penalty, although I better understand peoples need for vengeance with inherently evil people. “A man's errors are his portals of discovery” –James Joyce.