Master Manipulators In Capital Punishment Cases

Many people are hesitant on deciding whether they support the death penalty and in turn use other factors, like expenses, to determine their answer. They prefer to crunch the numbers and see what works better economically for society. Economically, it is actually cheaper to house an offender in jail for the rest of their life compared to the pricing to execute them. The reason is due to the pre-trial costs; in general, capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital cases and therefore require more money for the overall process. Several experts are needed to evaluate the forensic evidence, mental health and the social history of the defendant. Another expense is the procedure of jury selection. With the death penalty in question, the jury selection in capital cases are much more time consuming and expensive. In

In the State of Wisconsin with the trial of Jamie Covington we found him guilty of first degree murder. Jamie ment to shoot Dallas because dallas was always above him and better. Dallas forgot his keys one evening and he went through the window because he forgot his keys, he claims that he had gone through the window before and he didn't think anything would happen. This is why everyone is being questions to see if he was guilty or no, which he is guilty. During this case the lawyers questioned many people, but their stories weren't adding up. They talked to Ronnie Cecop, Casey Kramer, and Lane Smith they were on the defence side. Then Morgan Dexter, Blair Allen, and Jamie Covington where the prosecution. Most of the people on the prosecution side were very nervous, didn't know some answers, but on the other side the people on the defence side knew every question and didn't seem nervous. All of these people had their strengths and weaknesses.

Bower was one of many people, mostly men, waiting on death row for their execution. He, like 37% of the population of death row was put to death in Texas (6). Texas’ overuse of the death penalty can be traced back to a few basic causes. The three main problems that contribute to Texas’ high number of executions are its lack of a public defender system and elected judges, (PBS). Because Texas does not have a system of public defenders anyone who cannot afford to hire a lawyer will be assigned a court-appointed attorney. These appointed lawyers are almost never experienced in capital murder trials or the appeals process. Once the initial case was tried with an incompetent lawyer it is almost impossible to go back later and prove bad lawyering. Judges in Texas are elected to office unlike their appointment in most other states. In order to get reelected there is pressure to appear tough on crime and enforce strict punishments for the judge's own self-interest. The high conviction rate within Texas in comparison with the rest if the US and the state-specific failures within its legal system prove that they overuse the death penalty. Criminal or not Texas system does respect the defendant's right to fight to prove their innocence and be given the best chance possible to do

There has been a case that has been going on for nineteen moths about a person named Dylann Roof who commuted inhumane act by murdering nine African American church goers due to his racial hatred towards the black community. After a lot of investigation the jury of six whites and three black gave their decision on him last month and he was found guilty of thirty three counts. For this reason the jury decides a death penalty on him even though the victims’ family forgave him. Although, it was certain that the Jury was going to lean toward the death penalty because he didn’t have any witnesses to help him defend and most of all he decided to be a lawyer for himself, which made difficult of proving himself innocent or even reduce the penalty

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.

That is a lot more than someone like Eddie Joe Lloyd would have had at the time of his conviction. Eddie was convicted of brutally murdering a sixteen year-old girl in Detroit, Michigan. At the time, he was in the hospital being treated for mental illness, and writing to the police with suggestions for solving murder cases, including the one which he was convicted of. The police convinced him that if he confessed and got arrested, that would “smoke out” the real perpetrator. The police fed him details that he could not have known, and Eddie signed a written confession and provided a taped confession. His pre-trial court appointed attorney was only being paid one hundred and fifty dollars for the case, so there was little incentive to put in the time. Eddie’s attorney never looked into his mental state, and eight days before the trial he withdrew from the case. Even though there was little time to prepare, the trial was not postponed. The two attorneys never met to consolidate case files, so when the court date arrived, the arresting officer was not cross-examined, no defense witnesses were called, and the closing statement for the defense was about five minutes long. The jury took less than an hour to convict him guilty of first-degree murder. Innocenceproject.org recounted Eddie’s story, and says this tends to be a common occurrence. “The resources of the justice system are often stacked against poor defendants. Matters only become worse when a person is represented by an ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyer… In some of the worst cases, lawyers have slept in the courtroom during trial, failed to investigate alibis, failed to call or consult experts on forensic issues, and failed to show up for hearings.” The old saying “justice is blind” does not seem to be playing a role in modern criminal proceedings. Lady Justice

The lack of proper resources during a trial can make the difference between the innocence and guilt of a person. The death penalty does not always show the innocence or guilt of a person. It shows how much he or she is willing to spend to help the trial go his or her way. The death penalty is an unfair system to those who cannot afford the “evidence” they need to help free them.

Many death row inmates were convicted while being defended by a court appointed lawyer who are often the worst paid and most inexperienced and least skillful lawyers. The Bar Association published guidelines for a good defense in a death penalty case”. Anti-death Penalty ( 2010)

Texas Capital Punishment is not as reasonable as one might assume. It is not reasonable since there have been many innocent individuals who have been executed. One might wonder how an innocent individual is given Capital Punishment, and through out the Trial he or she is found guilty and hurl for execution. Many facing Capital Punishment are underprivileged individuals who cannot afford a private lawyer, in which he or she relies on the State of Texas to appoint an attorney for them (Byrd & Price, 2008). Much of the time, the appointed lawyers are overloaded with cases, don’t have time to review the case before trial, and don’t have trial experience required for a capital punishment case (Byrd & Price, 2008). According to the Death penalty

Imagine you are a teen walking down the street with a friend. Now imagine being surrounded by police and getting searched for something that is not there. Since the item in question can not be placed the accuser changes their story; After multiple versions of what allegedly happened the police arrest you and your friend. Due to having a history of theft, a judge charges you with second degree robbery, even though there is no evidence to prove any wrong doing. Thinking the justice system will come through, and knowing your innocence, a trial is requested. Bail is set and cannot be paid due to economic hardship. Another consequence of not having money for bail, is there is also no money for a private attorney. A public defender, who has to many cases to keep straight, is assigned to help defend in court, yet he is trying to lessen his load and recommends several times that a plea deal is the best option that should be taken, even in the case of innocence. Picture holding out hope that if the case could just go to trial all would come to light. Four years pass by, mostly spent in solitary confinement, where the harsh circumstances begin to take a toll, mentally and physically. Imagine conditions so horrible, death seems better than enduring another day. Now picture the day for “justice” is finally here. No sooner does court get started it ends. The case gets thrown out due to the person who started all of this not being present. All the suffering that has been endured,

Serial executioners have constantly blended up an extensive variety of capable emotions, from dread to interest. There are various fiction and true to life books about serial executioners, yet none are as disputable as the ones they compose themselves. Some of these are personal histories, while others (apparently) are works of

The death penalty is unfair for several reasons, one of them being that legal assistance for inmates on death row has become increasingly difficult to find. Prisoners on death row filing for appeal have little or no chance for receiving a fair second chance. "Most of the legal work is done for free, and even lawyers dedicated to making sure these prisoners receive all their legal rights cannot be expected to spend all of their time

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

Legal professionals tend to distance themselves from their client depending on their status in society or level of education. They may identify more with fellow members of the court and will avoid answering specific legal questions by giving vague answers as they believe legal technicalities could confuse the client. This dissociation could be interpreted as the lawyer thinking he is ‘superior’ to the client, even though he should be at the service of his client. In addition to this, a lawyer may not always ‘fight’ as hard as he can for his client’s interests and this could be as a result of various factors – the fee structure of the payment and the need to protect professional working relationships are two possible reasons for this. Basten states that a “lawyer-control model”, as opposed to the “client-control” or “co-operative model”, where the lawyer assumes full control of the relationship, “may fail to preserve the autonomy, responsibility and dignity of both parties.” Alschuler’s research asserts that defence lawyers will often ‘entice’ or ‘coerce’ clients plead guilty in order to suit their own preferences. This often leads to innocent defendants pleading guilty to a crime they did not commit. Such incidents go directly against the liberal Rule of Law principle that guilty pleas are voluntary, and contradicts the adversarial idea