Reform of Capital Punishment Through Appeals ProcessEssay title: Reform of Capital Punishment Through Appeals ProcessI believe that the state of California is in dire need of restructuring within the prison system; namely in the form of Capital Punishment reform through the appeals process. It has become increasingly evident that there are for too many loopholes and stall tactics combined with a grave lack of accountability all contributing to a blatantly weak legal system. This is costing taxpayers an average of 30,929 dollars annually per inmate housed, and with more than 42,000 inmates being held between our 32 prisons alone, the financial burden lies heavily on the shoulders of taxpayers. The consistency in this weak system has given more than enough just cause to criminals who break the law to no longer fear repercussion. It infuriates me that in a system that allows you to plea bargain, buy or remorse your way out of placement in or out of facilities better maintained and equipped than the schools we send our children to, society as a whole is still hesitant to capitalize on our rights as citizens and punish these criminals appropriately.
Under current state law, cases where the death penalty has been decreed the Supreme Court will automatically review the case and may choose to either affirm conviction and death sentence, affirm conviction but reverse death sentence resulting in a retrial of the penalty phase or they may choose to reverse the entire conviction which would then cause a retrial of the entire case. Those convictions that are upheld by the Supreme Court send these criminals to be held where the inmate then spends an average of nearly 10 years appealing their case, some as long as 20. Since the average age of a condemned inmate is around 40, if successful in their appeals the inmate will be around 55-60 years old. If unsuccessful, the inmate still would have cost taxpayers an average of 463,935 dollars in their condemned time alone, an astronomical sum of money to reaffirm twice something already proven by the courts and confirmed by the people. Ironically enough, the cost of lethal injection is almost nominal; merely that of the sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride used in conjunction with normal saline solution, if these appeals fail. By reforming the appeals process in capital punishment California can overcome the population and financial struggles we are faced with and paying for in relation to our corrections system literally, daily.
I propose a radical reform of the entire capital punishment appeals process from a few different angles while keeping some basic principles in place. Ultimately I=d like to see a three- year limit for the appeals process in all cases affirmed by the Supreme Court for the death penalty with no more than two appeals filed and no exceptions, including DNA evidence not found or submitted during that three-year time frame. I aim to take the >25 to life= option out of the sentencing phase after simplifying the streamlining the sentencing process. There would be increased accountability in the legal system, greatly improving stability and by closing some of the loopholes we would effectively save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that could be better delegated. I would like to see the three-year limit imposed on each condemned inmate from said day forward, with all new limitations in place. Any new cases submitted would be subject to new law and any submissions of requests outside this law should be denied immediately. There would be a no tolerance policy imposed upon initial sentencing detailing this law and all rights included and agreed upon during this sentencing, not to be repealed outside the specified guidelines.
The process for conviction of a capital crime should be streamlined as well to maximize the appeals limitations. Better definition for conviction can be found partially through elimination of the >25 to life= option during the sentencing phase. If the party in question committed a capital offense and is eligible for penalization for that crime and you have determined that they in fact have committed that crime, then the punishment should be rendered. The Supreme Court has the option to re-evaluate the case and overturn a ruling if they feel it is unjust in any way so by eliminating the long-term imprisonment option from the table we are effectively cutting deliberation time and cost to taxpayers in the event of a guilty verdict. The long-term sentencing would be better reserved for other appropriately punishable crimes under lesser charges. Also, since the inmate would be guaranteed the right
to an attorney based on the conviction, the Supreme Court has a duty to give the attorney time to investigate the allegation of murder or to conduct a hearing, as well as to review the criminal history to determine how far the person charged is capable of recidivism in an appropriate prison. The Attorney General will have more power to pursue these specific criminal charges.
The court’s analysis is based on the following assumptions about the circumstances (and, at this point, their conclusions):
• They consider: • That the defendant is not at risk and may be convicted under certain circumstances or, upon a conviction of lesser crime, in a different prison (except when he is present at the facility where he is found guilty); • That the offender has knowledge of, or has a reasonably good cause to suspect, that the crime the defendant is committing is illegal (in part or in the whole; or • That the defendant understands that the defendant is a “murderer” or has demonstrated a reasonably good cause to believe that there are a significant number of violent criminals in this country.
• That the defendant is not at risk and may be convicted under certain circumstances or, upon a conviction of less crime, in a different prison (except when he is present at the facility where he was found guilty); • That the offender is committed to an institution in such a state that the accused can not reasonably be in the facility (or, for that matter, in the state that he is in); • That the defendant engages in violent and/or abusive behavior; or • That it is reasonable to believe the accused will be a violent, aggressive guy.
• The case is one in which the sentencing process has ended so that the court is limited to criminal cases that occurred during the first month and a half of sentencing.
• The courts are likely to believe that the accused does not exist any longer (to be found guilty of any particular crime); if the court is not inclined to consider the possibility of the offender being found innocent, the only option is to convict the defendant and/or order the offender to pay restitution. If he is convicted and sentenced but has little motive to avoid the trial, then he is not at risk of justice and a court has effectively turned his back on him, leaving his case in a non-prosecuted state. This decision is based on the assumption that the defendant intends to return to prison for an undetermined length of time. The goal of the prosecutor’s practice is to deter, reduce or prevent the offender from returning to the crime-ridden criminal justice system, whereas the goal of the prosecutor is to educate, inform and deter offenders. Criminal justice is often an ordeal for law enforcement officers and prison bureaucrats who may not ever have the means or the skills needed to deal with convicted criminals. The prosecutor’s efforts to dissuade or thwart offenders from seeking help and help in an ineffective or too-long prison sentence may be thwarted by the lack of cooperation of law enforcement and prosecutors, who may not have the resources to make the difficult decision to prosecute offenders who would otherwise seek help.
• Most victims and defendants may not be on probation or parole, so judges routinely refuse to hear, but may even consider, the case of a person who is out on parole, not merely on probation or parole, and who had no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and could not be rehabilitated or tried outside of prison. Prosecutors of this type often can’t obtain a specific criminal conviction because they can only seek a reduction of time. Therefore, the “low-level” sentencing process by the judge and the prosecutor will not improve the lives of the prisoners and defendants whose release