(See related pages)
|
|
|
| A prisoner awaiting execution in a Texas "death row" cell. AUSTIN, TX—To date, 15 inmates have been released from Texas prisons as a result of DNA testing. In 2005, attorneys involved in the exonerations requested that the cases of two other inmates, already put to death, be reexamined to determine whether their executions had been appropriate.1 In Louisiana, Ryan Matthews was sentenced to death in 1999 for a crime committed when he was 17 years old. The evidence against him was dubious and his legal representation poor. In April 2004 a judge ordered a new trial after DNA evidence excluded Matthews. In August 2004 prosecutors dropped all charges against him.2 In Illinois, Governor George Ryan announced on January 31, 2000, that he was imposing a moratorium on executions in his state. The move by Ryan, a longtime supporter of capital punishment, came after the freeing of 13 wrongly condemned inmates in the state since the late 1980s. Several had been exonerated as the result of DNA testing. One of these was 43-year-old Anthony Porter, released after a group of journalism students from Northwestern University found evidence that cleared him of a double-murder charge for which he had been found guilty. Porter had spent 17 years on death row and was exonerated just moments before he was to be executed. In an even more startling move, only days after pardoning four condemned men who were determined to have been tortured into confessing for crimes they did not commit, Governor Ryan commuted the death sentences of 167 inmates to life without parole. This decision, which Ryan made days before leaving office, emptied the Illinois state death row. Ryan's actions concurred with his pledge to do whatever it took to "prevent another Anthony Porter."3 In Baltimore, after serving 9 years in prison, Eastern Shore waterman Kirk Bloodsworth traded his prison cell for freedom, a limousine ride home, and much media attention. He was the first person to be sentenced to death in Maryland and later exonerated by DNA evidence.4 Nine years earlier, Bloodsworth had been sent to death row for the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl. The DNA evidence that freed him came from a small stain on the victim's underwear. A lab discovered that Bloodsworth's DNA did not match the genetic profile in the semen stain, clearing him of the crime. The Texas, Louisiana, Illinois, and Maryland cases, as well as Governor Ryan's announced moratorium and blanket commutation, raise a number of questions. First of all, how has DNA evidence improved our criminal justice system? What about the other innocent people who currently sit behind bars? What is our criminal justice system doing to avoid sending additional innocent people to prison or—more detrimentally—to death? Second, what kind of punishment philosophy fosters execution? Is execution "cruel and unusual punishment," and is it justified at any time? What does the U.S. Supreme Court have to say about the death penalty? What other sentencing alternatives are available for serious offenders?
What makes both sentencing and appeal significant is that in all the earlier phases of the justice process the purpose is to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal liability of the defendant. The adversary system of jurisprudence, grounded in due process of law, is structured on the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Upon conviction, of course, the accused has been proved guilty. At sentencing, the court's obligation shifts from impartial and equitable litigation to the imposition of sanctions. In cases of appeal, the court also deals with those who have been found guilty, but who claim that errors were made in procedure or judgment. In either case, the court's position is challenging. It must mediate among the functions of justice, the statutory authority of law, the assurances of due process, the need for correctional application, the burdens of a congested justice system, the urgency of political realities, the essentials of legal ethics, and demands for community protection. Without question, sentencing is the most controversial aspect of criminal justice processing. Appellate review, although somewhat less visible, also generates considerable controversy. Perhaps of greatest concern is the judgment of death, a criminal sanction that cuts across both sentencing and appellate decision making. |