The Future Consequences of Problems in the Justice System

As previously mentioned, our country’s method of capital punishment is administered arbitrarily in many different aspects including race, geography, age, and mental capabaility. If the United States’ court system does not implement a standardized plan for applying the death penalty, the issue will continually be subject to debate. What kind of example is the United States setting by not abolishing the death penalty and by once applying it to juveniles and the mentally retarded, when many other civilized countries, those establishments which are also sophisticated socially and technologically, have done away with the procedure? These countries have replaced capital punishment with a life sentence in prison. The very idea that our country once practiced the execution of the mentally retarded is appalling. Many situations prove that a mentally retarded person’s eagerness to satisfy can cause them to falsely admit to crimes. Jason Misskelley’s situation, where officials interrogated him for hours and displayed pictures of the mutilated boys that could have scared the young man into wrongly confessing, exemplifies the problems of our court system trying those who are mentally challenged. What does the fact that the United States trials those who are incapable of understanding their constitutional rights say about the establishment as a country? This point is exemplified in the case of Robert Wayne Sawyer, who was executed in Louisianne despite his proven mental retardation. When Sawyer's lawyer asked him to explain reasonable doubt, which is a level of comprehension that one must possess before deciding one is guilty, he revealed his misunderstanding and mental handicap by responding that the “smoke was reasonable out.” What if other countries fail to network with us due to our stance on the death penalty because they feel we are too barbaric? Such establishments as the European Union require that a country practice abolishment of death penalty in order to partake in membership. The United Nations, a group which facilitates international cooperation, has opposed the death penalty in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Rights, which opposes anything that compromises one's right to life. Amnesty International is a group that strives to promote international abolition. Is the United States, as a leading institution, promoting death and indirectly, warfare by enforcing capital punishment? Even though the United States has employed discreditable practices in the past of executing many, the country is gradually implementing better policies such as abolishing capital punishment for the mentally retarded and juveniles. To totally ensure that everyone is treated fairly under such amendments in the Constitution as the Eighth and Fourteenth, there needs to be a constant plan for carrying out the death penalty. If a standardized implementation, where all facets under consideration (race, geography,etc.) are treated equally, cannot be reached, the death penalty needs to be abolished. The United States needs to catch up with other civilized countries such as those of Western Europe and develop a more humane justice system. If the United States fails to take a stand, people will continually be tried under unreasonable circumstances, and capital punishment will remain an unrelenting debate.

The Implications: The Jury: Pandora's Box?

A jury trial is a display of "apparent foolishness in asking the ignorant to use the incomprehensible to decide the unknowable."
- A. Basdekis, Yale Law Journal

Add to the mix media influence, racial inequality, and any number of other concerns, and Basekis isn't the only one who has lost faith in the jury system. We have enough examples of people that the justice system has failed (like West Memphis, Dobie Williams, Joseph O'Dell, Earl Washington, Mario Marquez), some of them losing a life or over a decade of their lives as a result, that I for one am left to scream for reform. But lest we falsely condemn juries as inadequate after a few questionable verdicts, how many of these preconceptions about juries have been backed up by research?

The debate surrounding the use of juries for conviction or sentencing of criminal cases or deciding rewards in civil cases revolves around several common assumptions about juries as laid out by Shari Diamond in December of this past year, published in the Buffalo Law Review Journal. Some of these have been backed up by research and I thought that it would be helpful to discuss those here.

Many people assume that juries will favor the plaintiff in tort cases (civil cases) – either compensating them for injuries which many not be the fault of the defendant or over-compensating to make a point. Research however has found that plaintiff's win about half of tort cases ranging anywhere from 26% of medical malpractice cases to 69% of animal attack cases. Research does show that juries tend to overcompensate - they award 20% more on average than a judge would have.

As a side note, sometimes there are discrepancies between civil cases and criminal cases because of this as in the OJ Simpson trial - though a criminal jury returned a non-guilty verdict, a civil jury later found him financially culpable for his wife’s death and awarded the Goldman family $8.5 million dollars in compensation.

Shari Diamond found that more affluent people believe that the jury is made up of those too stupid to get out of jury duty and therefore they aren't being tried by a jury of their peers. This claim is actually refuted by research. She also discovered that less educated members of society believe that the more educated dominate the justice system in every way. Because the master list of voters (which jurors are pooled from) is only updated every four years and minorities, less educated citizens, and younger voters tend to move around more than other categories of citizens, they are more likely to be under-represented in a jury. The same groups are also more likely to be given a pass on jury duty because of financial difficulties.

The belief that an attorney's right to peremptory challenge (right to excuse a limited number of jurors for any reason whatsoever) results in juries low in diversity is unfounded. After the Supreme court ruled that challenges based on race or sex are unconstitutional, studies have shown that the makeup of a jury doesn't change much from the makeup of those who are summoned for duty in the first place (this includes race, gender, occupation and background).

Once on the jury, some members are definitely more influential than others. The Chicago Jury Project in the 1950s found that men of the upper-class tend to do most of the talking during jury deliberations (James, 1959). The same study also found that three jurors dominated over half of the talking time. However, in the 1950s juries were made up predominantly of white men and since then the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 mandated that "jury pools include all eligible voters." Nowadays, people from groups who have been "historically advantaged" have more influence during deliberations because other jurors assume that they are more equipped to make such decisions. Some relatively recent studies have found that men talk more frequently than women in the jury room and higher status members tend to talk more than lower status members (Kirchmeyer, 1993). A study in the 60s determined that forepeople are twice as likely to be dubbed an influential person during deliberations by other jury members. Knowing all this, would reforms aimed toward farther increasing the diversity of the jury really help anything at all? Which leads us to our next, perhaps false, idealistic assumption as put by Erin York and Benjamin Cornwell of the University of Chicago:

"A representative jury is assumed to draw on the group's diverse perspectives, while overlooking the external status differentials that make the group diverse."

Several sociology studies have shown that all small groups of people have tendencies to distribute influence unevenly among them for various reasons. These tendencies referred to include preferring the tall to the short, men to women, the upper class to lower class, etc. in leadership positions. (In other words, any number of superficial factors would make certain members of the jury more influential than others during deliberations.)

The fact that much research regarding juries and what impacts their decisions is outdated becomes a point of dissension in the debate regarding them and how they might improve and so conducting more research on topics like how juries actually reach a decision would be extremely helpful to the debate. I mean, whose to say that three jurors out of a dozen still dominate discussions about conviction if the last study confirming that was in the 50s?

Irregardless, it seems as if it simply should be recognized by all that the idea of a jury as a diverse group of people that can somehow work together without being unduly influenced by any one member is simply impossible. There goes that ideal. And if a jury isn't able to capitalize on being an "impartial jury of peers" then there is no point whatsoever in using a jury to decide cases - except a smoke screen.

Is the termiation of life EVER humane?

As Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall stated, “The endorsement [of capital punishment] was premised on the promise that [it] would be administered with fairness and justice, [but instead], the promise has become a cruel and empty mockery.” The debate over how humane the death penalty is has gained the interest of the media and has caused the various aspects of capital punishment such as the methods employed for the execution of criminals to be questioned. As I proposed in my previous blog, I feel as if the most humane method employed in the execution of the death penalty is lethal injection. In considering this proposition, what does the future hold for the death penalty?
Since eliminating the death penalty from the US justice system is nearly impossible solution to the debate over the constitutionality of the methods employed in executions, the alternative is to administer capital punishment in as humane a method as possible. The US is already moving toward making this a reality. Today, nearly 81 percent of all executions performed make use of lethal injection as opposed to other less humane methods of execution. In fact, 375 out of the last 378 executions performed were by lethal injection. There has been a decline in the application of the alternative methods of execution that I had described in my last blog. For instance, only 14.7 percent of executions now make use of electrocution, while even fewer, 1.1 percent, use lethal gas as a means of execution. If this trend continues, lethal injection will completely replace other "cruel and unusual" methods of execution.
Even if lethal injection becomes the only method used in capital punishment, the debate over the humaneness of it will continue. Though some people believe that lethal injection is completely humane and painless, others will continue to argue their stance that even lethal injection contradicts the constitutional protection provided to US citizens by the eighth amendment. I support the fact that lethal injection may not be completely painless, but no method of taking someone’s life will be completely painless. If we accept death as a means of retribution in our justice system, we must also accept that, inherent in it, is the idea that we must cause the person some pain. In my view, taking a person’s life is never humane, but what alternative do we have?

Jury Composition - Then and Now

For both the prosecution and defense, the composition of the jury is paramount in achieving a desired outcome. Jurors are summoned across a wide section of the population - namely, anyone who is a U.S. citizen, is registered to vote, and has a valid drivers license in locale at which the court proceedings are being held. How is it then, that despite such loose (and therefore inclusive) requirements that there are imbalances in the racial composition of juries (this imbalance extends to gender, age, and socioeconomic status as well)?

The reason for underrepresentation of minorities on juries throughout the United States is found in juror evaluations. Jurors are sifted through in a multiple stage selection process which is intended to determine their suitability. First, jurors can be excused for a number of personal reasons such as economic hardship, mobility, and a failure to respond to a summons. Second, potential jurors are brought into the courtroom where they are questioned in order to determine any preconceived notions they may have about the case. The judge may choose to excuse any person he finds impartial. As well, prosecutors are allowed to dismiss a limited number of jurors for any particular reason in a process called the peremptory challenge. Although the ultimate goal of such a stringent selection process is to ensure justice, it can often be manipulated by prosectuors, especially with the possibilities granted by the peremptory challenge.

In the jury selection pool, minorities are frequently the ones left behind after the straining process is complete. In order to maintain a job, minorities are more likely to request exemption from jury duty. Then, prosecutors can further concentrate the number of minority jurors through peremptory challenges, which results in minority underrepresentation.

Notwithstanding this fact, minorities are better represented in juries today than ever before. Integral to this advancement is the supreme court decision in Batson v. Kentucky. Batson was a black man, convicted by an all white jury of burglary. In the juror selection process, black jurors were excused with no reasoning by the prosecution under the peremptory challenge. Batson claimed that, because the jury wasn't representative, it was an unfair trial, which violated equal protection under the 14th amendment. The court ruled in his favor, requiring that prosecutors provide a "a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors". Prior to this decision (1985) prosecutors were able to dismiss without reason which explains the inequality in cases like the Emmett Till case.

The verdict in Batson v. Kentucky is critical for the securement of a fair trial for minorities. It has paved a path to equality. However, the verdict has still left room for prosecutors to continue to remove minority jurors - they only need a plausible reason for doing so (which is rarely questioned). It is a good step, which has been reaffirmed recently in Miller-El v. Dretke. The next measure in securing minority rights is the removal of the peremptory challenge, which largely affects the racial composition of juries.

presumption of Iinnocence as it is

Because the current situation sheds light on an insufficient judicial process to insure an assumption of innocence, changes need to be made in selecting those who affect individual court cases. It is inevitable that some who are selected as jurors or even judges will not adhere to the policy of presuming innocence—just look at this juror’s blog before the court case even began when he posted that he had to “listen to the local riff-raff try and convince me of their innocence.” Though jurors are usually decided upon by both the defense and the prosecuting attorney, some jurors, such as the one just mentioned, will slip through their fingers, and the jury will not uphold its obligation in whole. People will die and serve unfair sentences because jurors will come in to duty with an a priori notion that the defendant is guilty. And so will judges, just like the judge of the Robin Hood Woods murder cases did. Though some states have already taken it upon themselves to create tests and to come up with other ideas to end biased thinking in the jury box, the prevalent unsavory, biased approach to trials will continue and leave many nondeserving victims behind in its path.

Presumption of Innocence--Is It Possible?

In actuality, the presumption of innocence cannot always be achieved, even in American courtrooms. For many, innocent until proven guilty does not even make sense. The need to prove one guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to many, is unnecessary because this process will inevitably result in releasing many guilty men because of insubstantial evidence. Though the line of thinking which is a foundation to our judicial system is that no innocent should suffer, even if it means many guilty will not suffer, those who participate in the court systems often ignore or are ignorant and do not follow this line of thought. The consequence of those who aren’t knowledgeable or ignore court standards is that the courtroom is not always just.

In the case of the Robin Hood Woods murders, I do not believe that the jury even knew or respected their legal obligation to presume innocence, and, though the judge must have known his obligation, he did not act in accordance. It is acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Arkansas that the only substantial evidence in this case is from the statement of a nearly retarded boy after being subjected to an unorthodox interrogation. The judge in the case of the Robin Hood Woods murder had the responsibility of filtering out evidence which does not pertain to the case, yet emotionally moving evidence such as an ‘expert’ proclaiming that members of Satanist cults wear black shirts made the cut for related evidence. Did the judge truly think that this person’s opinion served as germane evidence (there was not even evidence that the crime was performed by any sort of cult) or does this qualify as evidence which was meant to push the jury towards making an assumption of guilt based on fear and emotion? If the judge did indeed let the so called expert in for reasons which were not related, this argument is backed in that a leader of the court system allowed evidence meant to sway the jury, without basis in fact, to presume guilt before innocence and therefore violated the laws inherent in the legal system.

A Uniform Procedure for All

One of the major problems with capital punishment is that it is not equally applied in all facets of the issues. Like in all areas of the death penalty, there are opponents and advocates of the execution of the mentally retarded. People oppose capital punishment for the mentally handicapped because of previous rulings which state that execution violates the Eighth Amendment and because the United States’ government should try to rehabilitate its citizens rather than to punish them. Advocates, however, believe if one faction of people is exempt from the penalty, then all citizens should be excused under the Eighth Amendment. People also favor the use of the death penalty for the purpose of retribution. When dealing with the mentally retarded, people do not sympathize with one's incapability to comprehend the magnitude of one's actions and still want those responsible to suffer.

The application of the death penalty under the constrictions of the Eighth Amendment has now been extended to juveniles as well due to the Roper v. Simmons Case. As a result of this case, one must be of legal age to receive capital punishment. Experts have conducted studies that prove that in cases such as Earl Washington’s, many of the accused that are mentally retarded have the mental capacity of a young child. What does this say about our justice system if one of the most advanced countries in the world was trying children and people of their intellectual aptitude at one point in time? In order to resolve this debate over the usage of capital punishment, my theory is that the system should develop a uniform system for execution throughout the nation. If the death penalty cannot be applied equally to all, it should be abolished entirely. This is because the death penalty is not only administered disproportionately in terms of mental retardation and juveniles, but also in terms of geography and race. Due to these controversial factors and moral arguments, debate arises. Additionally, shouldn’t the United States try to rehabilitate all criminals as it does with the mentally retarded? Is the death penalty showing a certain type of selective process through capital punishment?

"Justice for All"

We all toss around idealistic ideas in hopes that they can be used as inspiration for production of the real thing – but “justice for all” is in particular a far reaching one - particularly when one is being tried for a murder they haven’t committed and can look forward to being judged by a jury. The idea is novel enough - in an effort for fairness a diverse group of an accused’s peers will watch a parade of evidence be presented to them and together will deliberate until they agree on a verdict. In the meantime however, that same theory presupposes that while a diverse group represents a myriad of values and cultures, it also can put aside differences that enable some individuals to be more influential than others during deliberations. It also assumes that this jury, though they are common people, can thoroughly understand the law as it applicable in this case, that they are culpable for the decision reached, and will not be easily manipulated by sly tactics employed by attorneys on either side. If, say, a jury is composed of a few upper class members and a bunch of lower class jurors, will deliberations and therefore the judgment be reached predominately by those few? And if so, as if likely, will those few truly be representative of a jury of your peers? If a jury is confused about the application of the law in this case, say by being convinced that in order to consider mitigating factors they must all agree that a mitigating factor exists when in fact that isn’t the case, will a sentence be handed down that is fair to the specific case of the murder being considered? Add to that the likelihood that you are appointed a lawyer who has five other cases, is being paid $5 an hour, and usually shows up either sleep deprived or perhaps slightly intoxicated, and soon, if you are on trial for murder, fully aware of all of the things that can go wrong, even as an innocent you would sit and watch with beads of sweat constantly flowing. (Which will undoubtedly be mistaken by the jury as a sign of sure guilt.)

The solution to these problems is multi-pronged. While it is tempting to declare that the jury is unfixable and must be abolished in favor of conviction and sentencing by a judge, recent research has indicated that in fact juries often come back with similar findings that a judge found in the same case. (Specifically, as found by Kalven and Zeisel during a survey of criminal trial judges, the judges disagreed with the findings of the jury in 22% of the cases.) And a jury gives the added bonus of being able to occasionally practice jury nullification in cases where public sentiment is perhaps rapid changing. (This is congruous with the fact that mankind tends to become more ethical as time goes on because he can afford to.) In other words, a jury is certainly more malleable than a judge who must behave as a function of the law as it is and this can be a plus. Instead, there are ways to redesign the jury in such a way that it is more reliable – such as improving pattern jury instruction, and requiring that a jury provide reasons for a decision in a case that reflect the law.

Lethal Injection as the Solution

Capital punishment has been practiced in the United States for years. It serves as punishment for the most serious crimes committed; so, it follows that the methods employed in order to punish these sometimes-dangerous criminals must fit the crime committed; however, who has the responsibility of deciding whether or not the methods used in order to punish these criminals are humane? We do. Should committing a crime deprive a person from his or her basic rights and liberties? Of course not. Does torturing a person in a gas chamber truly teach them a lesson about the crime they have committed? Not necessarily. Are these criminals excluded from the constitutional protection against “cruel and unusual punishment?” Definetly not!
Keeping these questions in mind, the debate over whether or not the methods of execution involve the failure to adhere to the constitutional protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” will continue as long as the death penalty is used as punishment for crime. In Furman v. Georgia, the court ruled that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment; however, in the ruling of Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court overturned its previous decision and declared that the death penalty does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment." Clearly, even the US Supreme Court has wavered on the issue of whether or not the death penalty itself is humane; therefore, it logically follows that the methods used for executions have also been constantly questioned. So, what measures must be taken in order to terminate this debate? The termination of the death penalty as punishment seems to provide one possible solution; however, his would require a drastic transformation in the US judicial system. This would then create the problem of how the most serious legal offenses should be punished.
I personally feel that though this problem has no straightforward solution, measures should be taken in order to make the death penalty as humane as possible. Compared to methods such as gas chambers and electric chairs, lethal injection provides a slightly more humane method of killing. Each state, at this point, sets its own standards as far as who receives the death penalty, and it is left upon each state to determine which method they will use. I feel like as far as the ethical aspects of capital punishment are concerned, lethal injection provides the best solution to this debate. Though this would be the ideal solution, I do not see this solution actually being put into practice. Debating the issue of the humaneness of the methods of execution used in the United States is an issue that requires us to first deal with other issues closely correlated with it such as the inherent bias present in the conviction of criminals to the death penalty in the first place.

In Theory: The Jury as a Microcosm

Friday October 26 –

Just like a parent must determine how to allow a child independence without enabling them to engage in self-destructive activities, a democratic government is charged with simultaneously governing and being governed by its constituents. As a crucial part of this body, the justice system was framed with conflicting goals – to protect the people from themselves, (by creating laws that could be strictly enforced enough to achieve that goal) while also considering the rights of the accused and assuring that the innocent are not unjustly treated. To do this, the governing institution must be distant enough from the people that they can be governed by it and it can be a constant assurance to them but also close enough so that it doesn’t overpower them. In general, the justice system must be conducted with rules that are constant enough to treat similar crimes and similar criminals in a similar manner but also must be fluid enough to still reflect the values of the people which it governs. One of the institutions utilized in order to achieve those goals with fluidity fits it quite perfectly in theory – the jury.

While a jury of one’s peers is a conglomerate representative of evolving values within modern society, they are also instructed about the guidelines for conviction regarding the crime which they will judge. The hope is that they are counseled enough to be able to apply the law fairly and justly according to its rigid standards but not faithful enough to it, as a judge or lawyer may be, that they must do so blind of evolving standards. In order words, they are there in theory to maintain the law as it is unless of course it no longer serves its purpose (jury nullification).

In practice however, the use of a jury has proven to be, put lightly, problematic. Various research studies conducted since the 1970s using post trial juries and mock juries indicate that they often miscomprehend instructions they are given, tend to be more highly influenced by the opinions of certain members of the group, like upper-class men, can be subject to jury tampering, and may hold certain biases that affect their deliberations in an inherent manner. More recent studies suggest that improving the instructions given to juries can reduce the first problem but the others are difficult to reduce unless the jury is as informed and knowledgeable about the law as any practicing it as a profession.

Though the debate around juries often involves contradictory reasons for its inadequateness (such as simultaneously declaring that juries have decided a verdict after introductory statements as well as decide based on the opinion of upper-class jury members or the foreman), the simple fact that research can indicate any number of reasons for a jury to reach a verdict that has little to do with evidence seems to be an indicator that juries simply live up to expectations. Following trials in which a jury has clearly decided a case merely on instinct about the nature of the defendants' personalities (such as the Robin Hood Hills case) or even on the racist tendencies of a witness (such as the OJ Simpson trial), one has to wonder if the justice system might be better off relying on the judgment call of an elected gavel bearer. Have we had it wrong all along?

Presumption of Innocence

It is widely known that, in the court systems of The United States, the court is to hold a presumption of innocence in regards to any defendant, hence the phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” However, it is also easily witnessed that juries and even judges sometimes abandon this practice. In the case of Coffin v. U.S. in 1895, it was ruled that the presumption of innocence should be the initial approach of those in the court and that guilt must be proven. It is much easier to prove that one is not exempt from suspicion, meaning there is a possibility of guilt, than to prove that one is the perpetrator of some crime.

In the case of the Robin Hood Woods murders, one can easily discern that evidence was insufficient to prove that any of the boys were guilty. Though this fact is almost universally agreed upon, the boys were convicted of the crime. Prejudice amongst the jury brought about the idea that these boys were the murderers and the defendants were unsuccessful in proving their own innocence, so they were sentenced to life in prison or capital punishment. The fact that nothing was proven and more lives were thrown away is absurd. The presumption of innocence in this case, like many others, gave way to a presumption of guilt, and the defendants were forced into a position where they had to prove that some physical evidence made them unable to commit the crime. In order for the court systems to operate in a legitimate manner, all defendants must be assumed innocent; otherwise, the innocent will be subject to unfair trials.

Justice vs. Racial Justice

The premise of our justice system is due process and equal protection for citizens of all races, creeds, orientations, and other unique qualities. However, the equality in the enforcement of the law has always been a source of contention. This can range from the capture of criminals on the local law enforcement level, to the prosecution of criminals in a court of law. Police brutality towards minorities has been well documented, such is the case with Rodney King. In the court system, the Emmett Till murder case was a botched affair in which an all-white jury acquitted two men who brutally murdered Till, a fourteen year old African American boy. The racial make up of the jury was crucial in the “not guilty” verdict. All 12 jurors were white males.
Race in the justice system is important for justice to be upheld. Measures have been taken to ensure that juries are comprised of a heterogeneous mix of people. In the 1930s in Alabama, blacks were systematically kept from serving on juries in order to keep them from influencing the decision. However, in Norris v. Alabama this Inegalitarian tradition was overturned, and blacks were no longer allowed to be excluded from serving. In Powell v. Alabama, the court ruled that defendants are entitled to effective counsel – another ruling in favor of racial justice.

The importance of race in our justice system has changed dramatically throughout time. It continues to evolve even today. It is important to look back and see how it has affected cases in order to determine the best course of action to positively shape our future.

Capital Punishment and The Application of the Eight Amendment to the Mentally Retarded

Capital punishment is an issue that involves much controversy. One reason the principle is extremely debatable is because some believe that the people who receive the punishment are often undeserving, specifically, the mentally handicapped. Until the Atkins v. Virginia case in 2002 , execution of those deemed officially “mentally retarded,” or scoring below a 70 on an IQ test, was permitted. In Atkins v. VA, Daryl Atkins, who had an IQ of 59, was convicted of capital murder. This case served to overturn this application of execution on the basis that it violated one’s right to the Eight Amendment, which involves protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The Court reasoned that if one is not aware of the acts they are committing, the United States is only doing unnecessary damage in killing these people instead of rehabilitating them.

This sudden change in policy, however, differed greatly from the previous application. In 1989, the court ruled in Penry v. Lynaugh that sentencing a mentally retarded convict with capital punishment does not violate the Eighth Amendment because mental retardation should be a mitigating factor that the jury should reflect on when deciding punishment. Between the reimplementation of the death penalty in 1976, and the Atkins v. VA decision in 2002, 44 people that were considered mentally retarded had been sentenced with capital punishment. Also, in 1983 in the Earl Johnson case, mental health experts determined that if officials continually pester and interrogate one who is mentally handicapped, one is more likely to confess to committing a crime, even if this confession is false. This case is similar to that of the West Memphis Three and Jason Misskelley’s trial. It leads us to wonder if Jessie was really guilty or if, due to his IQ, he was merely trying to appease his interrogators.

The employment of the Eight Amendment into preventing the execution of the mentally retarded brings into question the entire principle of the death penalty. Is it wrong that the execution of the mentally retarded has just recently been ruled unconstitutional, or was the timing accurate in that it coincided with the evolving principles of decency of the United States Court System? Is the ruling valid which states that executing the mentally handicapped is unconstitutional, or should mental retardation be viewed as a mitigating factor, and the mentally handicapped be punished the same as everyone else? Of course, morally, one believes that the mentally retarded should not be held accountable for their actions, but if one were affected personally by a mentally retarded person’s actions, such as death to a family member, would one feel differently about application of capital punishment to those who have an IQ below 70?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

“The punishment should, [in theory], fit the crime,” but is this always the case? What constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment?” The United States constitution forbids punishment in any inhumane manner. Yet, the death penalty is administered in the majority of the states throughout the country with the use of methods that clearly straddle the fence between humane and inhumane. The administration of the death penalty is state-controlled and, therefore, the criteria upon which people receive a death sentence vary greatly; the more lenient states in administrating the death penalty include states such as Texas. Are the methods employed for the death penalty humane? Or do they border on “cruel and usual punishment?” Lethal injection, gas chambers, hanging, and electrocution constitute some of the methods used in the United States today.
Thirty-seven of the thirty-eight US states which administer the death penalty use lethal injection as a means of execution. Two needles, one containing a harmless saline solution and the other containing the anesthetic that puts the victim to sleep, are used. Medical personnel do not generally perform this procedure; on the contrary, the people responsible for its administration are often inexperienced. As a result, the administrator sometimes injects the anesthetic into a muscle instead of into a vein. This results in a long and painful death for the victim. During electrocution, the inmate is strapped to a chair and made to wear a metal helmet that has several electrical wires running through it. The blind-folded prisoner receives electrical shocks of between 500 to 2000 volts in intervals of thirty seconds until he or she is dead. Five states legally employ gas chambers as a method of execution. During this process, the prisoner is placed in a chair inside an air-tight chamber. Hydrogen cyanide gas is employed in order to put the inmate to death.
The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” So, what justifies the use of gas chambers and electrocution? These methods place the inmates in a torturous state and I, personally, fail to see how states justify their use as anything but “cruel and unusual.”