More recently, two cases of capital murder have been brought to the Supreme Court. The first is the case of two brothers, Johnathan and Reginald Carr, who murdered, raped, and abused five victims in Wichita, Kansas (where the death penalty is legal) in December 2000. The victims were taken a snowy field and shot execution style, along with other gory details. Although the crime was committed many years ago, the conviction process has taken a while. Initially, the state ruled for death penalty to both brothers; however, they appealed on the grounds that the jury had not been informed that mitigated factors (i.e. home environment when young) do not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that this swayed their decision. Additionally, the brothers' lawyer argues that the brothers should have been tried separately instead of under the same trial. After their appeal the sentence changed from death penalty to life in prison. Justice Breyer argued that the issue of having separate trials was a slippery slope, especially when considering the conviction of gang members. Breyer believes that the brothers should be tried as one, and his fellow Justice agreed. The younger brother, Johnathan, argued that his older brother had pressured him into the crime and that this was a mitigating factor that called for a separate trial. Justice Kagan said "Given the kind of evidence that was presented in this case the idea that somebody was a lousy big brother seems pretty small in the scale of things."
Currently, the Kansas Supreme Court is working to reinstate the sentence of death penalty on these murderers, and Justice Scalia agrees. Although there are many cases that contribute to the decision of whether or not the death penalty is constitutional, many say that this case of capital murder was so atrocious that the death penalty only seems fitting. In fact, Justice Alito was quoted saying that these murders, "involve some of the most horrendous murders that I have seen in my ten years here."
This case, along with Glossip v. Gross presented in the spring concerning lethal injections, give rise to questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Does the possible failure of lethal injections make the death penalty violate the law of no cruel or unusual punishment?
In cases as gruesome as this is life in prison enough, or do the culprits deserve a more severe sentence for their felonies?
Did the brothers deserve separate trial due to different mitigating factors or are they equally responsible for the crime committed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/politics/justices-hear-cases-on-death-penalty-without-the-bitterness-of-june.html?ref=politics
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/07/supreme-court-death-penalty-murder-kansas/73521982/
5 comments:
When you hear about what certain people are capable of, how they could just toss aside someone's life without even a forethought, you immediately will believe that they deserve just as bad or worse. But would you really act on that? The death penalty is meant to strip people who have committed the worst of crimes of their right to live. I actually do think that is fair, but I don't believe the death penalty is constitutional. If torturing someone to the brink of death is cruel punishment, why isn't death? The person may no longer be alive to feel the pain, but that doesn't mean it is cruel. Therefore I believe that life is prison is the worst punishment people should have. They will probably suffer more that way, which is sad, but for committing such terrible acts, why should they be shown mercy? As for the brothers, I believe they should be tried together, as outside factors can contribute to something like this happening, but in the end, it is up to them to make the final decision. And with the younger brother claiming he was pressured holds up just about as much as me claiming my brother told me to break something in our house. It was still up to me to make the final choice. They should be tried together and held equally responsible for the murders they perpetrated.
The death penalty, and legal injections specifically, have been an issue of great controversy for quite some time. Many people believe that the death penalty is morally incorrect and others disagree with the death penalty because they believe it violates our rights under the constitution. I personally am not against the death penalty, but I agree with Matt in saying that the idea of the death penalty may not always be constitutional. I think that lethal injections are cruel and unusual punishments do to the fact that they are sometimes ineffective, and they therefore violate Article 8 of the constitution. Although the subjected criminal may not be in physical pain yet the act of lethal injection is still incredibly cruel and therefore is arguably unconstitutional. There are some cases which i believe do not require the death penalty, where prison sentences are suitable. These cases are conditional however, and there are times when punishment can be too extreme. In the case of the two brothers from kansas, i believe each are entitled to their own trials and it was not just for them to be sentenced under one investigation. Even if the charges ended up being the same, every citizen has the right to present their case and defend themselves.
To avoid sounding misinformed on the subject, I took to a law database to read further about the constitutionality of the death penalty. My findings were interesting. Along the lines of "letting the punishment fit the crime," the Supreme Court determined that "a penalty must be proportional to the crime; otherwise, the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments" (Cornell). My interpretation of this is that SCOTUS believes that if someone is a murderer (save for accidental manslaughter incidents, etc.) they should receive the death penalty.
It costs more to keep prisoners incarcerated than it does to kill them; food, board, payment for guards, etc. all add up and make a life in prison awfully costly. However, this does not go to say that giving people the death penalty is a cheap alternative to keeping someone in jail. Finding humane ways to kill someone, as contradictory as that sounds, is a long and challenging process which requires careful experimentation.
How can we amend America's corrupt political system so that it does not interfere so dramatically with matters of incarceration and corporal punishment?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty
I think that the death penalty should remain but that improvements to the system need to be made. The use of the death penalty is very dependent on the case. In some situations the victim believes life in prison as worse than death due to his/her religious beliefs and/ore a hope to become a martyr. However, when the death penalty is appropriate it is the right of the criminal to receive appropriate punishment. Meaning if they are going to get an injection, the injection should work. These failures of the injection are unacceptable and can be considered cruel and unusual punishment - a violation to the 8th amendment. If courts decide to continue with the use of the death penalty death must be guaranteed, otherwise it is torture and inappropriate punishment. Furthermore, from an economic viewpoint, the death penalty, though the injections are expensive, cost far less than to sentence someone to life in prison. If courts were to get rid of the death penalty more money would have to be put aside to build and staff more prisons as well as for food, clothing, and other expenses necessary for running a prison. As for the brothers, I believe that they should be tried individually because although the crime is the same all people should be tried on a case-by-case bases because it is their constitutional right to be fair and equal representation and being tried in the masses would be neither fair nor equal. It is better to spend more time and try people individually than it is to convict an innocent person of a crime.
I think we should keep the death penalty because I believe in certain situations it is necessary however it can be made better I believe changes should and will be made to fix those problems. I think that an argument can be made in the cases where lethal injection failed, that it is considered cruel and unusual punishment by the 8th amendment of the constitution. I am for capital punishment because I believe that in extreme cases the people who committed certain crimes should not be kept on this earth and just them being alive is detrimental to society. An example would be mass murderers, these people took the innocent lives of others through an act of pure hate and inhumanity. When a person loses their humanity and their ability to change then I believe their is only oner way to punish them. Putting home in jail would do nothing to these people because they are empty people who have no feelings or any sense of reality. In this specific case these two brothers both committed acts that I feel are deserving of the death penalty because they didn't only kill their victims but raped them and abused them prior to executing them in cold blood. They shouldn't have been allowed to be tried separately and I believe that why although they will rot in prison they will probably get bail at some point in time but the people who commit crimes like these are never going to change who they are and they will probably go and do it again. I don't think that eveytime sometimes commits murder they should get the death penalty, not alive for a life. In fact it should be based on how the crime was committed was it a planned rape and murder or was it hitting someone with your car by accident. The intent and the brutality of it should be the deciding factor.
Post a Comment