Michael Wilkinson
03
February 1997
English
121
The Constitution of the United States outlines
the rights of a person accused of a crime.
The individual has a right to a trial and to be judged by a jury of his
peers. When the result of a trial is a
guilty verdict and the individual is sentenced to death, the individual has a
right to appeal the verdict and the sentence.
At the present time, there are virtually no limits on the number of
appeals the individual is entitled to and the process could take years. Therefore, the process should be altered to
limit the number of appeals to one.
The Supreme Court of the United States
re-instituted the death penalty in 1976.
Between that year and 1995, 314 inmates have been executed in the 37
states, districts, and providences of the United States that allow the death
penalty. There are more than 3100
inmates on death row. The majority of
executions are of white males. Most
executions are by lethal injection or electrocution. In the years since the Supreme Court
re-instituted the death penalty through 1994, there have been approximately
467,000 homicides in the United States.
Based on that number, 2.8 people will die every hour at the hands of
another person.
Death row inmates are often on death row for
years, some upwards of twenty years.
This puts great financial strain on taxpayers' money. While in prison, inmates have many privileges,
including cable television, the chance to pursue a college degree, and free
health care, all at taxpayers' expense.
There are many law-abiding citizens who don't get these benefits. It is appalling to think these people have a
virtual life of leisure while in prison.
There are some death penalty opponents who believe that convicts don't
get enough privileges and lobby for better living conditions and the rights of
the convicted felons. Lost in this
passionate pursuit of human rights are the rights of the dead victim and those
of that victim's family.
The appeal process is lengthy and
time-consuming. The appeal process is
almost automatic for
Michael Wilkinson 2
individuals
sentenced to death. Many appeals are
filed by the convicts in hopes of overturning their
conviction or to
change their sentence to life imprisonment.
Although a great majority of these cases are handled pro bono by lawyers
ethically opposed to the death penalty, no consideration is taken in respect to
the cost to taxpayers for the local, state, and federal government to respond
to and process these appeals. A little
known fact about the appeals process is that many states have laws providing
funds for the legal defense and appeals for convicted felons. At these convicts' disposal is up to $125 per
hour for legal fees. Money that could be
better spent elsewhere is wasted on people that have been given due process and
now must answer for their crimes against society.
This proposal is both simple and
efficient. Death row convictions are
entitled to one appeal. This appeal
process would begin the day after the individual is sentenced to death. The appeal should have some preferential
treatment in regard to its priority, but that is only to expedite the process
to be concluded within a year's time. A
year from the date of sentencing either the individual is put to death or his
death sentence is overturned. Either
way, the matter is dealt within a more timely and efficient manner. This would lessen the burden on taxpayers a
great deal and unclog the legal channels by not having it mired down by the
limitless appeals for each inmate.
Expediting the execution process also gives the
family of the victims closure. To have
the process drawn out does not allow the healing process to begin for the loved
ones of the victim. It keeps the pain
fresh and life for them is on hold until justice is served. It is a further insult to them to put the
rights of a murderer over the rights of the victim. The convict demonstrated a lack of regard for
human life by taking the life of another.
The basic premise of human intelligence is the ability to reason and
make decisions. This person made a
conscious decision to take a life.
Regret and remorse will not change the outcome of those actions. This person does not deserve the life of idle
comfort typically afforded to convicts.
On 24 April 1996, President Clinton signed the
Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorist Bill. The purpose of this bill is to deny legal
elongations by both the system and the convict.
It limits the
Michael
Wilkinson 3
appeal time frame
after the state affirmed death sentence.
The convict has one year to file an appeal and
one year to
adjudicate that appeal. This bill is a
step in the right direction. At this
point, the bill has been upheld as fair and constitutional, but not without
challenges.
The re-institution of the death penalty has not
been the deterrent against violent crimes that advocates had hoped for. Part of the reason is the ability of an
accused to plea bargain and avoid the death penalty all together and another is
the anticipated length of time to be served on death row. If the government would take a hard line
stand on this issue and enforce the death penalty efficiently, perhaps it would
send out a different message to the would-be murderers on the streets.
The money that would be saved could be spent on
bettering the nation and domestic problems in our country. This money earmarked to help felons could
help get the homeless of the streets, feed the hungry, and help educate the
youth. These convicts are not productive
members of society and it is time that productive citizens demand swift justice
and stop supporting these murderers with our hard earned money. The rights of the general public who obeys
the laws should have more significance than weight that murderers. This is why
death row inmates should be limited to one appeal and executed in a timely
fashion.
No comments:
Post a Comment