305375.com

.

For some time now opponents of the death penalty have put forward life in prison without parole as a viable alternative to execution for the worst offenders. Many states offer the choice to juries in the punishment phase of a capital trial, to sentence defendants to death, or to life without parole. The question I am raising is, do they know the difference? Do you know the difference? I ask because a lot of people don't seem to know what the difference is.

 [1] "Research indicates that jurors in capital cases do not fully understand many aspects of the instructions they receive. For example, jurors are often uncertain about their alternatives in a death penalty case: if they sentence an inmate to life in prison, will he or she ever be released? Moreover, some jurors may not realize the important legal distinctions between mitigating and aggravating factors, or even what the words themselves mean".

 In many documented cases jurors chose death over life because they did not clearly understand that life without parole meant that a prisoner would die in prison never to be released. They reached their decisions by peer pressure, by more aggressive jurors pushing for death and also due to the fear of feeling responsible if the accused was ever to be released to repeat, committing another crime.

 [2] "Death penalty cases are complex and require the jury to make decisions about life and death that are far different from the usual juror decision of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

 [3] Again in many documented cases such as one captured in "A Life And Death Decision" (A Jury Weighs The Death Penalty) by: Scott E. Sundby, jurors refrain from asking for explanations of instructions or terms used by a judge for a number of reasons ranging from "fear of authority" to "fear of appearing ignorant". Ignorant of the law is exactly what most all jurors are. In a moments notice you go from your everyday life, to being in a box deciding if someone will live or die. There are no classes and the quick instructions one does receive are not being clearly understood. This is just one of many problem areas within the killing machine we know as capital punishment.

 [4] "It can be very difficult for ordinary citizens to understand the abstruse legal framework that the courts have constructed around the death penalty. Craig Haney, a prominent psychologist in California, found that even well-educated people misunderstood the instructions to the jury. His research indicated that: "California’s entire penalty instruction is very poorly understood by upper-level college students, that these problems are not clarified in actual cases through attorney arguments, and that jurors who had served in actual capital cases were plagued by fundamental misconceptions about what the instructions meant".

 In "A Life And Death Decision" (A Jury Weighs The Death Penalty) by: Scott E. Sundby, they go into detail how in some cases when jurors asked for the judge to define the instructions judges would refuse, they would even refuse to send they jury a written copy of their instructions.

 We are talking about a life that is on the line. Capital murder cases are the most expensive of all judicial proceedings. Capital murder cases cost tax payers somewhere around 1.5 million to 2 million dollars each. To house a condemned prisoner during his appeals process that on average takes about 12 years costs an additional 2 million to 2.5 million yes it can get as high as 5 million dollars to execute one prisoner. A prisoner charged with first degree murder facing life without parole, but not death would cost the tax payers one million for the trial and for housing for up 50 years. One would think with so much money invested and a life on the line the least they could do is explain the instructions to jurors clearly and maybe even tell them about the financial burden on tax payers, but they do not.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) that when a defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue at the sentencing phase of a capital trial, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the defendant is entitled to have the jury accurately informed if the only alternative to a death sentence is life without parole. The "future dangerousness" of a defendant often factors in to whether or not the jury sentences the defendant to death. Jurors may choose a death sentence because they incorrectly believe a defendant will otherwise be paroled and released back into society.

 The Capital Jury Project found that most jurors grossly underestimated the amount of time a defendant would serve in prison if not sentenced to death, and the sooner that jurors believed a defendant would return to society if not given the death penalty, the more likely they were to vote for death.

 Some defendants have appealed to the Supreme Court to have their death sentences overturned on the grounds that the jury did not understand the instructions on the law and consequently believed they had no choice but to sentence the defendant to death.

 Written in the simplest English I can possibly conjure up it's important that everyone knows and understands this, [Life Without Parole] means a prisoner will serve the remainder of his natural life in prison without any possibilities of parole or release back into society. Proponents will lead you to believe there is the possibility that a convicted murderer may kill again while in prison or that there is always the possibility of an escape, or that of an accidental release. Proponents will proceed to site cases that have been used for the past two decades. One such case is that of [5] Richard Allen Davis who was tried and convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder and four special circumstances (robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and a lewd act on a child) of Polly Klaas. At the time of his arrest, Davis had an 11-page rap sheet, with two prison terms for attempted kidnappings. His case galvanized public support for an initiative that required a sentence of 25 years to life (The 3 Strikes Law) for any felon with a record of two serious or violent felonies. Proponents will argue that this case will be bound to repeat itself unless we execute prisoners.

 The facts are that life without parole is the alternative to the sentence of death. You need to know this and all potential jurors should know this. We pay billions of dollars in tax money to build and maintain prisons and the livelihood of those that keep these facilities safe and secure. A murder inside a maximum security prison should not be possible just as an escape or accidental release should not be possible. If we can't rely on the system to successfully maintain order within the prison system, how can we rely on them to never execute innocent people? Well we can't.

 The death penalty leaves no room for error. If the wrong man is convicted and executed there is no way to exonerate him if later evidence surfaces proving his innocence. Being a juror, could you live with yourself knowing you could have possibly helped an innocent man be murdered? Execution, is killing and killing is murder. Executed prisoners death certificates read: Cause of Death: Homicide.

 I would like to use a couple of quotes from prisoners themselves that will paint you a vivid picture of what serving life without parole is like. The first comes from Luis Felipe also known as King Blood the founder of the New York State Chapter of the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation. Felipe was sentenced to life in prison plus 45 years to be served entirely in solitary confinement. Upon sentencing Felipe spoke to sentencing Judge Martin saying [6] "you accuse me of killing people, but you’ll be killing me every day". Prisoner Jack Henry Abbott author of "In The Belly Of The Beast". In his book Abbott speaks on his plight saying [7] "you are dying. Dying a harsh death. One that lingers and toys with you". For those that are vengeful what better punishment?

 It is a fact that most prisoners rather be executed than to spend the rest of their life in prison. One would ask why then, do I fight to save them? The simple answer is that, we all have the right to life no matter the circumstances. We forgive police officers for shooting our innocent loved ones. We forgive our government when our children are sacrificed in wars. In wars that were started based on deception. We can forgive them for killing hundreds, thousands even millions yet we can't spare one man that made a horrible mistake? The responsibilities are immense and the possibilities of sending an innocent man to death are multiplying by the day. There is no deterrence affect and we need to stop this barbaric practice.

 [8] I would finally like to point out one last enormous factor that needs to be addressed. The other main factor that distinguishes the death penalty from life without parole is the cost. Many people have been lead to believe that housing a prisoner would be more costly than to just do away with them supporting the death penalty as being cost affective. The reality is that a capital murder case cost between one and two million dollars. With appeals which take ranging up to twelve years to exhaust which includes housing and all by execution the bill runs from 2.5 million to 5 million when a sentence of life without parole would only cost tax payers about $800,000. Sentencing a prisoner to life without parole in a capital murder case actually saves tax payers money. If we could do away with capital murder trials all together using the alternative exclusively we would save tax payers millions while at the same time as a country, we would finally be joining civilized society which adds no risk at all..