The Right Choice.

At the start of the death penalty unit in my Issues in Modern America class, I felt as if my overall opinions were similar to those of most of my peers; I did not know much background information about the issue, and my opinions were fueled by emotions rather than any hardcore evidence or facts. But, after completing the death penalty unit in class, I do not have a definitive opinion about whether or not to use the death penalty. However, I am definitely more knowledgeable about the system and its history, and I do know that I am not in support of the current death penalty system. In our current death penalty system, there is too much room for mistake, and too many men and women have been sentenced to death row and later proven innocent. In fact, this is one of the main reasons of why Governor Ryan initiated blanket commutation right before his term ended as Illinois’s governor; thus capital punishment was abolished in the state of Illinois. I stand behind the Governor’s decision to end the death penalty in Illinois because I feel that it was not a perfect system. In fact, in his January 13, 2003 speech Governor Ryan declared the death penalty to be an inaccurate system, “How many more cases of wrongful conviction have to occur before we can all agree that the system is broken?” (Ryan).

The death penalty system is not one that can measure the significance between a mass murderer, and an innocent person on death row. Many people have been wrongfully convicted in our country, and that is a good enough reason for abandoning the death penalty in Illinois. On February 5, 1999, fifty hours before his execution, Anthony Porter was set free from death row due to the dedication of a private investigator, journalism professor, and his students. The official trials and lawyers of Porter’s case did not prove his innocence before he was sentenced to death row, but rather he was proven innocent in the heat of his execution.           

In addition, there is plenty of room for racial bias in death penalty cases. Many times, minorities are discriminated upon in death penalty cases. Furthermore, blacks are more likely to be accused of holding a weapon when holding an innocent object than whites. Plus, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "Approximately 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried" (ACLU). Many death-row inmates are a victim of poverty, and thus do not have an adequate legal representation at trial or on appeal. The death penalty system is unfair becaue it depends upon how much money the defendant has in order to afford a skilled attorney. Furthermore, the death penalty does not act as any more of a deterrent for criminals than does life imprisonment. “The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime.” (American Civil Liberties Union 2011).

Overall, I am in support of Governor Ryan’s decision of blanket commutation because the Illinois capital punishment system was one filled with bias, innacuracy, and flaws. It is far more just to abolish the death penalty system, than to risk the execution of innocent individuals.

The Death Penalty's Flaws

It is no question that the United States death penalty system brings about much controversy within the nation. David Keaton was wrongly sentenced to death in Florida until he was proven innocent, exonerated, and released free from prison. In responding to the justice system, his brother told Dateline,“Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime. You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” Personally, even though I do not know what it is like to grow up black, I do not agree with the first sentence in Keaton's brother's statement. However, for the most part, I do agree with his second sentence since, psychologically, blacks are more noticed for crimes than whites are noticed for crimes. Since blacks are the minority in America, when they commit a crime it stands out more than when whites commit crimes. Plus, it has been proven that if two people, one white and one black, are holding an object such as a wallet or cell phone in their hand, one is more likely to think that the black person is holding a weapon and/or dangerous object. To skip straight to the point, I agree with the statement since I believe that the judicial system is not blind at all. In fact, our society is not blind. I believe that the majority of us all have "racism" lying within our subconscious, but not all of us bring out that racism. Therefore, even though it is unjust, I believe that the justice system does discriminate against race and socioeconomic class.


According to my Social Studies teacher, "There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal" (Kramer). To be honest, I believe that the majority of American voters support the death penalty because they only explore the surface of the issue. I believe, that most Americans assume that the death penalty system is fair, and just, and that it only sentences truly guilty suspects to death. Of course, this is all my opinion, and I do not know for sure why the number of American voters that support capital punishment is so high. I feel that most Americans assume that if one is being punished to death, than he or she is truly guilty and must have committed a crime substantial enough for death. In addition, I feel that many Americans would think of the death penalty punishment as justice, and that it clearly exemplifies, "an eye for an eye". Overall, I feel that many American voters have not fully explored capital punishment's history, its controversies, and everything behind the law.


I can only imagine what the thoughts, emotions, and experiences that murder victims' families would encounter. I feel that if I were to be affected by the murder of a loved one, that my opinion would greatly change due to my new perspective. However, with the perspective that I have now, I think that I would want to encourage the victims' families to be the stronger individuals. Putting the murderer to death does not bring justice to their loved ones, but it only amplifies or disintegrates the pain of the victims' families. Just as their loved ones did not know when they were going to die, that should be the same for the murderer. He or she does not have the right to bring closure to his or her life with a set execution date. Furthermore, I feel that life imprisonment is the right choice for the murderer because it ensures the safety of society, and it also punishes the murderer; it forces him or her to live with his or her actions forever. In terms of the victims' families emotions playing a role in the decision, I feel that they should not have a part in the legal system. If religion is separated from the law, so should emotions. However, emotions are very hard to keep out of the law and out of legal decisions. It is emotions that feed our very morals which are the basis of this country. Overall, I feel that there is no definitive way to keep emotions out of the legal system. Plus, there is no perfect answer for the victims' family members. The death penalty, and the murder of a loved one, is simply a confusing and jumbled puzzle in our society. It is up to us Americans how we decide to unscramble the puzzle of the death penalty system.

Stairway to Heaven... literally.

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a delicate issue for most people, and one that cannot be taken lightly. For the most part, every single state follows the same steps/stages of the death penalty; some states have different procedures. The process is split up into various stages, which have sub-categories as well, starting with the Pre-Trial. In the Pre-Trial, leads are formed based upon witness testimonies and potential suspects. I believe that this step in the process is a fair process that does not intend to prove an innocent suspect guilty, unless given enough evidence. With the Preliminary Hearing, it is decided whether or not the accused suspect has enough evidence to prove him or herself guilty. If one is proven to be guilty with the evidence, then he or she goes before a grand jury, (usually about twenty three people), and it is decided based upon the evidence if a trial can be held with charges. The Pre-Trial stage cannot move forward unless there is sufficient evidence against the suspect. Therefore, the Pre-Trial stage is one that tries to protect the suspect's innocence, unless evidence points in a more guilty direction.
The second section of the process, which is the Guilt Phase Trial, is in favor of the defendant's innocence. The jurors of the trial are to be "unbiased", and to consider the aggravating and mitigating evidence in the case, not their own personal opinion(s) about the death penalty. Both the prosecutor and the defendant are able to provide evidence, and provide insight on whether or not the defendant is guilty. Plus, the defendant is presumed to be innocent, until proven otherwise. With this process, the judge also sets guidelines for the jury to ensure that they follow the law as well. This is indeed an "innocent favoring" process because the defendant is presumed innocent, unless further evidence or points prove him or her to be guilty.
I believe that the third stage of the death penalty is constructed to ensure the defendant proven guilty. The aggravating facts in the case that are considered by the jury are meant to amplify reasoning to execute the defendant. In addition, the migrating facts do nto justify or excuse the crime, but it can reduce the intensity of the penalty. Therefore, they may "lighten" the defendant's case, but in the end, do not help to abolish the reality of the crimes committed. Plus, statements are recorded into the record which inform the jury of the fiancial, physical, and psychological impacts that the crime has had on the victim and the victim's family. This completely points toward guilt for the defendant because it is almost guaranted that any victim and his or her family has suffered damage from the crime committed. Finally, in the jury sentence recommendations, the jury chooses either a death sentence, or life imprisonment without parole, or a significant numbe of years in prison. The judge then, depending on the state, will either take the recommendation into consideration, or may be required to follow through with the recommendation.
By time the defendant reaches the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the death penalty process, the presumption of innocence is removed from the defendant. In addition, a lawyer is not required for the direct appeal process, (the fourth step). I feel that these steps are generally fair, but only if the previous steps were treated fairly as well. There is a period of time after the sentence to attempt to bring in new evidence, which may help the defendant. Hopefully, if the system was played fairly and the defendant truly is guilty, by time the defendant reaches these step, he or she is proven guilty.
I feel that the seventh step, the clemency process, is a very stressful step since-for the most part- it puts the power all in one official. Even though a board can advice that official, he or she still holds the final decision all in his or her hands. Once the proven-guilty-defendant reaches the stage of the actual execution, it is very hard to prove innocence and remove the punishment of the death penalty. It is hard to stop the process that has been in motion for quite some time.
After reviewing the methods of execution involved in the death penalty- hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, & lethal injection- I feel that none of them could be labeled as "humane". To intentionally kill another human being, regardless of the reasoning, I believe is not a humane act. Of course, I consider myself an optimist and I try to see the good in people. However, I feel that there are execution methods that are far more "humane"-if at all- than others. For example, I believe that the electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad. All of them have a potential for "quick" deaths, but also a potential for errors that result in a horribly painful death. Overall, I feel that all of the methods would be considered "cruel & unusual" since they kill another human being, however, the four that I mentioned above stand out from lethal injection.