The Supreme Court is currently in the process of making a decision regarding the potential cruelty of lethal injection, the most popular form of capital punishment in the United States. An opponent of the death penalty in all cases in the United States, I'll save the cruelty argument for another time. Instead, I wish to utilize this space to discuss the process leading up to the death penalty.
Following a Supreme Court moratorium on capital punishment in 1972, a bifurcated system was structured which consists of a two phase hearing in capital cases. The first hearing is a regular trial as the jury simply decides whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime. Assuming they find the defendant guilty, the same jury then hears the second phase to literally determine the destiny of the individual on trial. That is to say, will he/she receive life or death?
The latter phase involves what is known as aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The concept is rather self-explanatory and essentially whichever one outweighs the other determines the fate of the defendant. This is of course qualitative not quantitative.
But how does one measure the quality of the circumstances? Washington, DC juries have never once sentenced an individual to death. In Texas, they have the Law of Parties where all you need to do is be present at the scene of the crime with the accomplice. In Kansas, if the quality of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances is a tie, the jury is instructed to rule in favor of the death penalty.
Evidently, it depends on where you reside, or, more specifically, where you commit the crime. There is also another problem with the bifurcated system. Suppose an individual is wrongfully convicted of committing a brutal murder. No new evidence can be introduced to prove his/her innocence in the second stage of the trial, the law states very explicitly that only contrasting circumstances can be introduced. One mitigating circumstance may be remorse for the crime committed. An innocent individual has no remorse for a crime that he/she did not commit. In turn, this appears to be aggravating.
Such was the case with a white man named Kirk Bloodsworth. Bloodsworth wasn't your typical death penalty convict who was screwed by the racist/classist constructions of the system; he was white and rarely stepped foot in an urban community. He remained on Death Row until DNA evidence exonerated him.
There is a similar problem in appellate courts. In these courts, new information cannot be brought forward nor can questions be raised about the evidence introduced and/or dismissed in the initial trial. All that can be raised in appellate courts is the constitutional application of a very specific aspect of a case. More often than not, justices will not rule against fellow judges. Excuses will be made in every conceivable manner. The opposite is reserved only for very extreme cases such as the current one involving Allen Snyder.
It disturbs me greatly that what labels itself the justice system has perhaps the most misconstrued name of all government concepts or entities. More than the No Child Left Behind or Clean Skies Acts. Famous prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal was recently turned down by a Court of Appeals when bringing forth allegations of racism because they said he waited too long.... Justice doesn't have a clock.
