The Death Penalty: Is Beyond Reasonable Doubt Reasonable?

Shockingly, criminal brutalities prevail worldwide from past history to the present age that are so heinous they instill fear in the masses; like the infamous case of the Zodiac killer (A&E. 1969). Rulers also destroy lives by intentional or accidental misuse of capital punishment; like the case of (274) men and women burned on the stake for heresy by Bloody Mary. These terrifying acts happened in the 16th century and sadly, in most cases the perpetrator's only crime was being Protestant. Even in a country such as the United States of America, which prides itself on the right to due process, trial by jury, and innocence until proven guilty, capital punishment is decided by 'reasonable doubt.' Clearly, convicting criminals by 'reasonable doubt' is sensible because we never know every detail about a crime, criminal or the people involved. Jurors also deliberate by referencing their personal life experiences. Case in point, just as the word, "doubt" implies, this process is not exact, consequently we do and have sentenced innocent citizens to death; like the case of James Richardson (Innocent cases 1984-1993).

Obviously, the issues that taunt our system of justice concerning the death penalty are multi-faceted. Some of the questions we face in the twenty-first century are difficult to answer. For instance, is the death penalty justifiable in certain circumstances, or is this form of punishment never just? Is there a way to make foolproof guidelines for sentencing someone to death? Is it ethical for our society to endorse the death penalty, while knowing 'reasonable doubt' is the criteria used for each conviction? According to the article called the Death Penalty, featured in News Batch, deciphering the crime and the boundaries to which the death penalty can and should apply has been in question worldwide, since the 18th century (Coony, 2008 ¶3). Today, those that appose the death penalty argue that there is no sure way to use such a punishment justly, and direct their audience's attention to the unknown number of innocent lives taken by its finite punishment. Their point it based on truth. Our legal system is fallible, and no matter how thorough an investigation, no matter how strong the evidence, there will always be mistakes and if it seems not, a tiny window of doubt will haunt the verdict indefinitely. For instance, during the unsolved case of the Zodiac, investigators had strong circumstantial evidence pointing to several suspects. Among the suspects, investigators and media focused on a man by the name of Arthur Leigh Alan (Allen 1974-1992). The allegations and publicity haunted his daily life until his death in 1992. In 2003, forensic analysis and DNA testing absolved Arthur Leigh Alan of the Zodiac murders. Looking back, what if they proved Author Leigh Alan guilty beyond a 'reasonable doubt,' and sentenced him to death only to realize years later, through DNA testing, that they had convicted the wrong man.

Another man targeted, but in his case, wrongfully convicted is listed on the U.S. Embassy of Belgium cite (1989).

James Richardson of Florida was wrongfully convicted in 1968; and was not acquitted until, 1989. Richardson was convicted and sentenced to death for the poisoning of one of his children. The prosecution argued that Richardson committed the crime to obtain insurance money, despite the fact that no such policy existed. The primary witnesses against Richardson were two jailhouse snitches whom Richardson was said to have confessed to. Post-conviction investigation found that the neighbor who was caring for Richardson's children had a prior homicide conviction, and the defense provided affidavits from people to whom he had confessed. Richardson's conviction was overturned after further investigation by then-Dade County State Attorney General Janet Reno, which resulted in a new hearing (Innocent cases 1984-1993).

On the other side of the death penalty is a life sentence. An example of a successful outcome in a case that resulted in incarceration for life with no possibility of parole, is the case of the serial killer nicknamed the "Son of Sam" (David Berkowitz). When the authorities finally caught and incarcerated Berkowitz, they sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole. People did not believe the David had truly found God until Berkowitz's behavior changed so radically that he didn't even look like the same man. After dealing with the new Berkowitz, the prison guards did a 360º and went from fearing the killer, to professing David Berkowitz a trusted inmate. Not only did the change affect the guards, but also inmates and even the families of his victims felt Berkowitz was indeed, changed into a new man. Miraculously, David's life became a blessing to all that he had contact.

Make no mistake, Berkowitz was a serial murderer that performed some of the most gruesome killings, yet the court did not sentence Berkowitz to death because of a moratorium on the death penalty (in the state in which the crimes were committed). Throughout his life imprisonment, this feared killer eventually became a leader within the prison world, teaching Godly ethics and moral integrity to fellow inmates. Interestingly, his nickname changed from "Son of Sam" (Sam refers to Satan) to "Son of hope." To this day, David Berkowitz's life is more productive in prison than it ever was when he was free.

Besides the cases concerning death row inmates released on DNA and other forensic evidence, another valid rational used against the death penalty is the Eight Amendment's prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. In other words, how can we be sure that such an absolute method of punishment is just in comparison to the crime committed? The Boston News featured an article that stated,

"In June 2008, the Supreme Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to use the death penalty against individuals convicted of raping a minor. In April 2008, the Supreme Court has held that lethal-injection procedures in Kentucky do not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The action opens the way for an end to a de facto national moratorium on lethal injection executions that has been in place since the Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue. Many medical experts believe the method to be inhumane. In California, an execution was halted when physicians refused to participate because of such considerations" (Telegram & Gazette 1999).

If you think the professionals are experiencing mixed feelings about the death penalty, the rational for convicting a person to death is mixed and unclear for the American public also. It seems that two questions are foremost in most American's minds when asked what they think. "When is the death penalty the only justifiable course of action, and if there is a circumstance in which it should be used, what method of execution is most humane?" Going forward with these thought processes, it is obvious that when we introduce specific details like, "what if the murderer is mentally disabled; what if the murderer is legally insane; and how can we determine sanity," the subject becomes controversial and emotions flare.

Even with all the confusion around these controversial issues, it is clear that many professionals believe the death penalty is appropriate in extreme cases and argue that serial, psychopathic, and mass murderers are incorrigible, enjoy tormenting and killing the innocent, therefore our society must never allow these individuals to endanger innocent lives or drain society of its resources again. They further urge us to consider the victim's loved ones and the sense of closure that they receive once the perpetrator is brought to justice. (Telegram & Gazette 1999,¶8). Many professionals point out that it is impossible to know 'beyond any doubt' that the accused did, in fact commit the crime. They stress that we have to recognize that the system of law will never be perfect because the humans making the laws are not perfect; as a result, the mistakes, although unfortunate, will occur.

Recently, there are professionals that believe there may be criteria for sentencing or executing a person that might reach beyond 'reasonable doubt' to 'no doubt' convictions. This quote from the telegram & Review recorded in (1999) demonstrates this viewpoint.

Rep. Francis L. Marini, R-Hanson, a death penalty supporter, said he might offer a proposal during debate on the death penalty that it be applied only in cases where the crime has been proven "beyond any doubt." Rep. Marini has developed a criterion that is promising, although skepticism still exists. The representative explains in the article, "It seems to me there's a group of people we can identify, we know for a fact, for a certainty, they're not innocent," he said. The "beyond any doubt" standard could mean the execution of people who were, for example, caught in the act on videotape or in photographs; people who had confessed; or people implicated by DNA evidence; or people, in some cases, seen by eyewitnesses, said Marini" (1999 Telegram and Review).

In Response Marini's opponents stress the fallibility of humans, an imperfect system, and the valid point that DNA and forensics is fallible from the standpoint that humans are involved in the process.

It is true, after all, that the creators of these systems are fallible human beings; hence, how can we expect perfection. How can we be sure "beyond any doubt" that the person in question committed the crime and if so, how do we know "beyond any doubt" that the defendant was in his/her right mind, and motivated in a manner worthy of death (McNiff p.2)? An example of an execution that provokes such questions is the Oklahoma City bombing. Accused of the mass murderer, Timothy McVeigh, targets a government building on the anniversary of the Waco massacre. McVeigh's act of vengeance on innocent, unsuspecting people stirs public outrage. The mass murder of these precious lives drew such publicity the proceedings moved to another State to ensure him a fair trial (2001 Discovery). Even so, how sure are we that Timothy McVeigh did it, and if he did, how do we know if he was legally sane and completely responsible for this horrific massacre? What was the criteria set to rule in favor of, or against the death penalty in McVeigh's case? Why was a decorated army hero, loved and respected by all who knew him throughout his entire life, killed without public outrage, when protestors against the death penalty publically exonerate known serial killers with a candlelight service on the eve of their execution? According to the inspectors who conducted interviews and recorded their findings in McVeigh's case files, he impressed them as a soldier fighting for the honor of the innocent murdered by government officials in the Waco massacre. Although his actions (if he in-fact did murder these people) are inexcusable, were his motives worthy of execution, or incarceration without possibility of parole? Is it possible that public outcry over-ran the juror's decision-making process? Could McVeigh be innocent?

Elected government officials responded to these questions about many death sentences prior to the McVeigh case, and the outcome is featured the Boston News (2008).

"In January 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty in Illinois. In reviewing death penalty cases since 1977, he determined that 13 death row inmates in the state had been cleared of murder charges, compared to 12 who had been put to death. Some of the 13 inmates were taken off death row after DNA evidence exonerated them; the cases of others collapsed after new trials were ordered by appellate courts. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied," Ryan said. Ironically, the Republican Governor had campaigned in support of the death penalty. Ultimately, in January 2003, Governor Ryan commuted all death sentences to prison terms of life or less. The execution of Timothy McVeigh in June 2001 also prompted renewed international interest in the U.S. practice of the death penalty primarily because of the high profile nature of the case" (1999,Telegram & Gazette).

In an attempt to reach an ethical decision on how and if the death penalty should be implemented, a professional panel appointed by Governor Mitt Romney reviewed the "no doubt" conviction for reinstituting the death penalty in Massachusetts. The proposal listed very strict guidelines for death row convictions, including only the most heinous of crimes. Even with care taken to ensure plausibility to the idea of 'no doubt convictions,' eyebrows rose. When questioned,

Robert Pambianco, chief policy counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative lawyers' group that supports the death penalty, remained skeptical of the idea, criticizing it from a different angle. He said it sounded like a "solution in search of a problem" because he considers the suggestion that innocent people might be put to death to be a "red herring" (1999, Telegram & Gazette).

Because we are human, there will always be mistakes, misinterpretations, and errors as long as imperfect beings employ the system of justice prescribed. Although the judicial system in the Americas is far from perfect, it is obvious that professionals within the system, as well as concerned American citizens, do not want to see an innocent man or woman put to death. Why else would American citizens feel at liberty to question America's methods of capital punishment, or hold vigils outside the prisons on the eve of executions? Only a country that's law is based on freedom calls on its people to participate in these controversial issues, and expects all involved to bend over backwards to protect the innocent. American citizens are at liberty to voice their opinions and help make final judgments by serving as a juror during trials, voting, and proposing law. The Founding Fathers created this system to ensure that each citizen take responsibility for the freedom of this great nation.

The citizens and leaders of America keep stories like "Bloody Mary" out of our country's history by taking responsibility to ensure strong ethical values remain woven into our judicial system and every American Law. After presenting this work, which investigates the controversial subject of the death penalty, it is hopeful that we are inspired to become part of the solution. Regardless of how effected we are by this subject matter, there are wise absolutes that manifest within this work. One of these is the idea that it is ethical and good that Americans do not blindly accept the death penalty. The second of these is how ethical and freeing it is to embrace the ideal that we are all innocent until proven guilty. The third, and most powerful truth of all is the fact that we are all capable of great compassion, as well as offense; therefore, when judging another human's wrongs against us, let us not forget our own human fallibilities.

References

A & E (1969). Cold Case Files Zodiac Killer, parts 1-6. Retrieved January 09, 2009, from 'You Tube' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lONsU9bCdbc

Allen A. L. (1974-1992) Mug Shot retrieved on January 22, 2009 from, http://www.olesin.50megs.com/zodiac/allen.htm

Burned at the stake picture Boston News:

Coony P. (2008, June), Death Penalty.

Dark R. (2009) Capital Punishment U.K. Burning At Stake. Retrieved on January 24, 2009 from, http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/burning.html

Discovery channel (2001). Timothy McVeigh Retrieved January 11, 2009, from 'You Tube' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4TEXhRn6yE

Embassy of the United States, Belgium. U.S. policy cites. Richardson v. State, 546 So.2d 1037 (1989) Retrieved on January 22, 2009 from,

http://uspolicy.belgium.usembassy.gov/Article.asp?ID=9FD905E9-AF6E-4BD7-A24B-7B013F600908

Greenberger S. S (2004, May 3). Panel offers death penalty plan: The Boston Globe. Retrieved on January 24, 2009 from http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/03/panel_offers_death_penalty_plan/

McNiff B.S., Telegram & Gazette Boston Bureau (1999, February 17). Death-penalty bill faces a battle :

US Embassy cite, Innocent Cases (1984-1993) retrieved on January 22, 2009 from,

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases-1984-1993