8D: 8th Amendment- Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Yes it should be allowed
Side Score: 47
|
No, it should not
Side Score: 56
|
|
|
|
2
points
In Baze v. Rees (decided Apr. 16, 2008), the US Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, held that: "Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm" Side: Yes it should be allowed
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/ William J. Brennan, JD, Justice of the US Supreme Court, in the July 2, 1976 dissenting opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, stated: "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity.' As such it is a penalty that 'subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the [Clause].' I therefore would hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause... I would set aside the death sentences imposed... as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." or in other words, the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary. You could put somebody in jail for the rest of their lives, but killing them is wrong. It is as if because the accused did something wrong, they are no longer people, and don't have human rights. Side: No, it should not
2
points
“"Unusual" has generally been understood to mean a punishment that is not usually associated with a particular crime but which is nonetheless applied arbitrarily in some cases. If nine of every ten jaywalkers were cited and fined $5 while the remaining one out of ten were fined $5,000, such a penalty would be "unusual."” Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
Here's the link you wanted and it's not just Houda's opinion, it's a very, very common opinion. Wouldn't you want retribution if someone killed your family? Side: Yes it should be allowed
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Victim's Brother says Execution Left Him with "horror and emptiness" Ronald Carlson wanted vengeance when his sister was murdered in 1983 in Texas. But when he witnessed the execution in 1998 of the person who committed the murder he changed his mind. In a recent op-ed in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Carlson said he had no opinion on capital punishment before his sister’s death and remembers feeling hatred and “would have killed those responsible with my own hands if given the opportunity.” But he later discovered that, “Watching the execution left me with horror and emptiness, confirming what I had already come to realize: Capital punishment only continues the violence that has a powerful, corrosive effect on society.” Carlson said he sympathizes with other victims’ families, understanding how they would want to see those who killed their love ones suffer the same fate. But, he said, “[O]ur justice system should not be dictated by vengeance.” He asked, “As a society, shouldn’t we be more civilized than the murderers we condemn?” Carlson has spent over half of his life examining this issue and has come to believe, “We as a society should not be involved in the practice of killing people.” (R. Carlson, “Time to end the death penalty’s cycle of violence,” Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, August 3, 2008). Side: No, it should not
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Views of the murdered victim’s family “The death penalty focuses an incredible amount of attention on the killers, which makes victims’ families relive the painful details of a murder over and over again. At one time I believed that the death penalty would benefit people like my mother and me, but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. What would help us is not to continue to pour money into the death penalty, but dedicating those funds to law enforcement, rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders, and juvenile programs, to prevent other families from having to suffer a loss like ours.” "The death penalty keeps families stuck in the legal process, delaying when they can put difficult legal proceedings behind them and begin to heal...Kansas has hung on to its costly and broken death penalty for too long. It’s time that we as a state eliminate this harmful policy." First Clifford O’ Sullivan wanted the man who murdered his mother at age 6 to suffer the death penalty and now 20 years later he says "It certainly doesn't do the two things it's supposed to do. Offer retribution and deterrence." and after talking to the man who killed his mother for 5 hours he said "If they put him up for a date I would stop it, just like I started it," O'Sullivan says. "It wouldn't happen. Over my dead body." Side: No, it should not
http://deathpenalty.org/ The millions of dollars spent on executing the accused could be put to better use, like helping the families of the victims, helping them with counseling and getting over the trauma. Side: No, it should not
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ The families of the victims agree that this money could be used for counselling etc. “The death penalty focuses an incredible amount of attention on the killers, which makes victims’ families relive the painful details of a murder over and over again. At one time I believed that the death penalty would benefit people like my mother and me, but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. What would help us is not to continue to pour money into the death penalty, but dedicating those funds to law enforcement, rehabilitation programs for non-violent offenders, and juvenile programs, to prevent other families from having to suffer a loss like ours.” Side: No, it should not
According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty, in Baze v. Rees (2008), Baze said that lethal injection was not a cruel or unusual punishment. The following information is from http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/ Executions by lethal injection are done with a three-drug formula. The first drug is a sedative, which places the prisoner in a deep, coma-like state so the pain of the following two drugs is not felt. The second drug is a paralytic which prevents all movement and stops respiration by paralyzing the diaphragm. The third and final drug induces cardiac arrest. Side: Yes it should be allowed
The drug shortage in the U.S. is forcing them to use a lot of back up drugs that have not been used before. Most executions in the U.S. used a simple 3 combination drug formula. In 2009, 50 out of the 52 people executed used the 3 drug combination. Most of America’s drugs came from European companies but now the companies are refusing to sell their products to be used for executions. Hospira was the main manufacturing company that supplied drugs to the U.S. When they backed out U.S. went to Lundbeck a Danish company which protested the use of their drug in executions.This is forcing the U.S. states to start experimenting using more/less drugs or less effective ones. It is also forcing states to turn to other choices like electric chair(Virginia), firing squad(Wyoming), and the gas chamber(Missouri). “In 2014, we have a far riskier, more haphazard lethal injection procedure than we ever have had throughout the country,” said Deborah W. Denno, a death penalty expert and a professor at Fordham Law School. “Despite all the litigation that has occurred…lethal injection has never been riskier or more problematic than it has been within the last four or five years, because of the drug shortages,” Denno said. Experimenting different drugs on people isn’t right and can cause lots of unneeded pain. Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Side: No, it should not
0
points
Kyle Janek, MD, anesthesiologist and former Texas State Senator, in his Feb. 1, 2004 article "Attack on Texas' Lethal Injections is Bogus," published in the Houston Chronicle, wrote: “The current argument against executions seems to hinge on the supposition that the second and 3rd drugs in this regimen would be cruel to someone who could feel them... Yet for that argument to be valid in any way, you must ignore the 1st drug in the process - sodium pentothal - that (1) renders the inmate to be completely unconscious, (2) has been used for decades to induce anesthesia in surgical patients and (3) is given in doses far exceeding what is needed to keep the inmate from being aware or feeling anything." Side: Yes it should be allowed
Your source http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/ 04/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-lethal-injection-drugs/; doesnt work! Side: No, it should not
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ according to this site, many lethal injections go wrong. They have negative effects on people's bodies, and cause excruciating pain. Also, the execution isn't done by medical staff, so the people doing the executions can make mistakes and prolong the death. Side: No, it should not
According to http://theproscons.com/ Due to overpopulation the district court panel was asked to release 33,000 prisoners back into society, these criminals should not be put back into society due to overpopulation the death penalty could help with these people committing more crimes. Side: Yes it should be allowed
How would you know who of these people could be innocent? Are you willing to throw away someone else's life away when you may not have all the facts for the sake of overpopulation. Also each death penalty costs approx. $1 million in Washington according to Seattle University according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Side: No, it should not
1
point
“The punishment of the crime must be proportionate to the crime.” Side: Yes it should be allowed
according to http://theproscons.com/ Anybody that is considered for death penalty the judicial system makes sure that they are sane and have had enough time to plan, their background, and their character. The jury must all agree without doubt for that person the get the death penalty. Side: Yes it should be allowed
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/
that doesn't seem to work very well, because when cases were retried, over 80% of the people on death row were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely freed of charges Side: No, it should not
The death penalty is needed in order to keep serious crime in order such as murder. According to http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
According to http://akorra.com/2010/03/04/ In the Bible it says “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:23-25) which is saying whatever is done to you should be done to them to. Side: Yes it should be allowed
SOurce: From the families of the murdered victims: First Clifford O’ Sullivan wanted the man who murdered his mother at age 6 to suffer the death penalty and now 20 years later he says "It certainly doesn't do the two things it's supposed to do. Offer retribution and deterrence." and after talking to the man who killed his mother for 5 hours he said "If they put him up for a date I would stop it, just like I started it," O'Sullivan says. "It wouldn't happen. Over my dead body." Side: No, it should not
2
points
According to http://prodpquotes.info/prodp/default/ The death penalty is also limited to certain people. In Coker v. Georgia (1977) the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty cannot be given to someone for raping and adult women. In 2005 it was decided that minors could not be sentenced to death as well as mentally ill people. According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
The ability to determine a criminal's life has been acceptable for thousands of years, it should not stop now. The death penalty law first started in 18th century BC in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon. Again, the death penalty was in the fourteenth Century B.C.'s in Hittite Code and the death penalty continued into Seventh Century B.C. in Draconian Code of Athens. Facts from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
In Furman v. Georgia (1972) the death penalty was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Only 4 years later in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) the death penalty was allowed again as the Supreme Court realized they made an incorrect decision. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
There is the link http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ Many families do not find closure after a family member has died, the Criminal Justice System does not have enough power to provide to help these families find closure. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
The courts refrain from inflicting the death penalty on mentally ill people, mentally retarded people, and minors. This should allow the death penalty to be handed to appropriately. “However, in Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825, (2009), the Court held that states may conduct hearings to reconsider the mental capacity of death row inmates who were labeled mentally retarded before the Court decided Atkins, because before Atkins, states had little incentive to aggressively investigate retardation claims.” “In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, (2005), the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty for all juvenile offenders. The majority opinion pointed to teenagers' lack of maturity and responsibility, greater vulnerability to negative influences, and incomplete character development. The Court concluded that juvenile offenders assume diminished culpability for their crimes.” Side: Yes it should be allowed
Conclusion As you can see after this debate, people are only sentenced to death if they truly deserve it. The death penalty is constitutional as the punishment should be equal to the crime, the death penalty is not “cruel” nor “unusual” and lastly the Supreme Court has determined it constitutional. Our first main point was that the lethal injection was humane and painless as it has a three step process. Our second main point was that the accused criminal was checked/investigated extremely carefully before sentenced to death. Our third point stated that it is not “cruel and unusual”. Lastly the death penalty helps reduce future crime. The death penalty has been used since the beginning of history, it should not be thought of as inhumane after all these years. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Is the death penalty constitutional? This has been a controversial topic over the past century. Many think that one doesn’t have the right to take away a person's life while others believe that a criminal should receive what he/she deserves. The death penalty is not allowed to be inflicted on minors and mentally ill criminals. This really shows that the death penalty is used when it is extremely necessary. We believe that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment as the punishment should be equal to the crime, the death penalty is not “cruel” nor “unusual”, and the Supreme Court has already determined it constitutional. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Where are your 3 points that you are going to argue? You say that the death penalty is not "cruel or unusual," but you have no proof. More states are starting to question the death penalty. Currently 18 states have officially abolished it since 2007. The most recent in 2013. Side: No, it should not
0
points
Kyle Janek, MD, anesthesiologist and former Texas State Senator, in his Feb. 1, 2004 article "Attack on Texas' Lethal Injections is Bogus," published in the Houston Chronicle, wrote: “The current argument against executions seems to hinge on the supposition that the second and 3rd drugs in this regimen would be cruel to someone who could feel them... Yet for that argument to be valid in any way, you must ignore the 1st drug in the process - sodium pentothal - that (1) renders the inmate to be completely unconscious, (2) has been used for decades to induce anesthesia in surgical patients and (3) is given in doses far exceeding what is needed to keep the inmate from being aware or feeling anything." Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
According to http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ The judicial system has built laws to protect the criminal by having a lawyer to help protect his constitutional rights, he can also pled a case for sympathy through media and propaganda whereas the victim has none of those rights and they are at the mercy of the court. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Often the accused cannot afford their own attorney so they are appointed one and these attorneys are often underpaid and overworked or lacking experience especially for one case as serious as the death penalty. Some of these attorneys show up drunk or sleep though some of the trial Just because you are appointed an attorney doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be a good one, this is a person LIFE at stake and people are showing up drunk to these trials. An accused man named White, before trial, prosecutor offered life without parole sentence. White’s lawyer misunderstood that he could not be convicted of capital murder. The jury recommended a life sentence but the judge got the last say and so he was executed After 2 lawyers, White got Benoit who practiced transactional tax and corporate law and had never been in a courtroom for a day in his life. He no longer practices law. Then when the next lawyer came around, White had no idea that the execution date was approaching as he assumed he was still in the appeals process and his former lawyer had never told him of the missed appeal. Side: No, it should not
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ In 2009, in another case, the Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty for Porter, a prisoner, as his right to effective counsel had been broken as his lawyer failed to present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase. Side: No, it should not
0
points
“A legislature may prescribe the manner of execution, but the manner may not inflict unnecessary or wanton pain upon the criminal. Courts apply an "objectively intolerable" test when determining if the method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.” As said above, the courts can eliminate a form of death penalty if they determine it unconstitutional. If all death penalties were unconstitutional, then they’d be all gone. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Who said this?? Already other nations are strictly against the death penalty. The European Union is strongly against the death penalty. Its abolition is the main key for the Unions human rights policy. The EU is the biggest donor to the fight against the death penalty. The EU says: “The death penalty is cruel and inhuman, and has not been shown in any way to act as a deterrent to crime. The European Union regards abolition as essential for the protection of human dignity, as well as for the progressive development of human rights.” So if the European Union(Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK) can govern the people without the death penalty so can U.S. Source:http://eeas.europa.eu/humanrights/adp/indexen.htm http://eeas.europa.eu/humanrights/guidelines/deathpenalty/docs/guidelinesdeathpenaltyst08416en.pdf So if so many countries already are against the death penalty why is America not?? Side: No, it should not
|
Hello, I’m Yaashna, and this is Kendra and Dalia. Today we will talk to you about the death penalty and if it should be allowed under the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments from being inflicted upon the accused. We think that capital punishment (the death penalty) should not be allowed as it is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment. These are the points that we will argue today: Firstly, sometimes the judge doesn’t have all the facts and evidence needed to make the judgment, or the accused doesn’t have a good enough lawyer to defend them. The jury can make a rash judgment and their decision is final. Once a life is gone, it can’t be recovered. Not even after some hidden evidence has been found to prove that the accused is innocent. Secondly, the death penalty can go wrong. Often, the argument is that it is painless and quick, but when it goes wrong it can cause excruciating pain for hours. For example, the lethal injection often reacts badly with people, and does not kill them straight away.This has happened in many cases, where people have had to suffer for a long time. Often these executions can be quite expensive. The millions currently spent on the executions can be used to help the murder victim’s family, to help pay for counselling and other ways to get their lives back on track. We will be presenting these points with a variety of sources, information/facts, and evidence to prove our point that there are other measures that can be taken to avoid the death penalty. Side: No, it should not
How does the death penalty go against the 8th Amendment? When they created the Amendment the death penalty was not considered "cruel" or "unusual". The ability to determine a criminal's life has been acceptable for thousands of years, it should not stop now. The death penalty law first started in 18th century BC in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon. Again, the death penalty was in the fourteenth Century B.C.'s in Hittite Code and the death penalty continued into Seventh Century B.C. in Draconian Code of Athens. Facts from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/ The death penalty isn’t something you can take back. If you realize you made a mistake, you can’t just bring them back to life. “Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A recent study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted. Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. “ Side: No, it should not
According to http://theproscons.com/ Anybody that is considered for death penalty, the judicial system makes sure that they are sane and have had enough time to plan, their background, and their character. The jury must all agree without doubt for that person the get the death penalty. This shows that the accused criminal is thoroughly investigated. The court would not make an incorrect decision about someone's life. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Lots of things can go wrong in the execution of a person. For example Dennis McGuire’s case in Ohio or Clayton Lockett’s case in. His execution took nearly 25 minutes which was 10 minutes of struggling and gasping. McGuire was executed with a mix of drugs that had never been used before in a lethal injection execution. This violated the 8th Amendment “no cruel or unusual punishment.” Since he suffered for 25 minutes. His daughter Amber McGuire said:“I can’t think of any other way to describe it than torture.” Thirty two states permit the use of lethal injections during executions but the nationwide drug shortage is making it hard for them to find new ways to execute people. Ohio used different drugs on McGuire because the manufacturers of other drugs used in executions don’t export them to be used for capital punishment anymore. The drug used on McGuire was called midazolam which was also used in 5 other executions that year. One of them being Clayton Lockett’s execution. Lockett’s execution took 43 minutes until he was declared dead. One of his veins blew after injecting one of the three drugs, which prevented the drug from effectively going into his body. Under the 8th amendment it is stated that “no cruel or unusual punishment” is allowed to be used. What happened to McGuire and Lockett is cruel. Even though they have done a crime they shouldn’t have to suffer in their execution. Now that sounds like a really "cruel" punishment. This is from the article: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cruel-and-unusual-punishment Side: No, it should not
1
point
“In 1947, the Court considered the case of Francis v. Resweber, who Louisiana had attempted to electrocute, but succeeded only in severely shocking and traumatizing, and who was then facing a second attempt by Louisiana to put him to death. Francis argued that the anxiety brought on by his first experience in the chair made a second seating "cruel and unusual punishment," but the Court, voting 5 to 4, found that "cruelty must be inherent in the method of punishment," and could not come from anticipation of the punishment.” Side: Yes it should be allowed
Yes, I found this link too. This is cruel and unusual punishment because this would basically be inflicting PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder is a mental health condition that's triggered by a terrifying event — either experiencing it or witnessing it. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event.) upon the accused. Times have changed, it isn't 1947 anymore, if it were to happen in modern day then I have no doubt in my mind that it would not be allowed Side: No, it should not
This website's graph and data shows in a survey conducted in 2009 by criminologists shows that 88% believe the death penalty was not a detterent to murder. Also states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than states against the death penalty. Side: No, it should not
The death penalty is needed in order to keep serious crime in order such as murder. According to http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
Another horrifying story about the pain victims have to go through, is the story of Romell Broom. Broom was supposed to be executed in 2009 but it was stopped because officials failed to get a needle into his veins. Officials tried for more than two hours to stick a combination of 3 drugs into his veins. They pricked him 18 times before they finally called it off. "The pain made me cry," Broom said. Sticking a needle into someone 18 times for two hours is definitely a “cruel” punishment. The issues with lethal injections made states look at new ways to execute people as a back-up plan. Tennessee has made the electric chair a back up plan. Do you think this is fair and not "cruel"?? Source:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ This link shows lots of examples of executions gone wrong and a picture of Broom arms after he survived the execution: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Side: No, it should not
Source:http://www.foxnews. Was on death row for two murders in 1985 which happened during different fast food restaurant robberies Was on death row for 28 years Set free April 3 2015 when ballistic results countered the only evidence used to throw him in jail in the first place He is trying to let go of the anger as that will be a whole other kind of prison "I have too much to live for to allow a bunch of cowards to take my joy. I refuse to give them my joy," Hinton said. "I'm at peace with myself. The thing is, are they at peace? They know what they did. They know they lied 30 years ago. I feel that every man that played a part in sending me to prison, every man or woman, whether the judges, prosecutors, ballistic experts, or witness, whoever — they will answer to God. So I'm going to enjoy my life the best I can," Hinton said. At a third robbery, a survivor said they spotted Hinton there even though he was ‘clock in’ at the time working in a supermarket/grocery store Also the person who was checking the ballistics in the first place 28 years ago admitted he had issues with the microscope at the time Hinton also had a poorly funded team, unexperienced to defend him "They took half my life and it's like they didn't care. They were willing to kill an innocent man," Hinton said. "Thirty years ago, I had a judge that stood up proudly and sentenced me to death. I had a prosecutor who couldn't wait to get in front of a camera and say that they had took the worst killer off the streets of Birmingham. But come April 3, no judge was willing to say Mr. Hinton we apologize for the mistake that was done. No D.A. was there to say we apologize. Side: No, it should not
21,000 cases of which 27 were death penalty cases might have been flawed. The FBI has acknowledged that their forensic unit has given false testimonies. There microscopic hair unit has been giving flawed testimonies for decades, by matching crime scene hairs with the hair of a defendant's accused of those crimes. FBI laboratory reports have shown that positive identifications could not be made through hair association. So different hairs could be coming from the same person with near certainty. In the 268 examined so far, forensic experts exaggerated the certainty of matches between crime scene hair and the hair of the defendants. The testimonies favored prosecutors 95% of the time. The FBI admitted to providing inaccurate testimonies in 32 capital trials in which defendants were sentenced to death. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a former prosecutor, said, “These findings are appalling and chilling in their indictment of our criminal justice system, not only for potentially innocent defendants who have been wrongly imprisoned and even executed, but for prosecutors who have relied on fabricated and false evidence despite their intentions to faithfully enforce the law.” This is a major disaster as it has connected innocent people to crimes they haven’t commit. This also shows that innocent people die from false information. This is not fair on the victims. Sources:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/ http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Side: No, it should not
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/ New evidence shows a man put to death in 2004 may have been innocent He had been imprisoned for allegedly setting fire to his house with his 3 daughters inside (Amber, a 2-year-old, and twin 1-year-olds Karmon and Kameron.) “But now new evidence has revived questions about Willingham’s guilt: In taped interviews, Webb(the informer), who has previously both recanted and affirmed his testimony, gives his first detailed account of how he lied on the witness stand in return for efforts by the former prosecutor, John H. Jackson, to reduce Webb’s prison sentence for robbery and to arrange thousands of dollars in support from a wealthy Corsicana rancher. Newly uncovered letters and court files show that Jackson worked diligently to intercede for Webb after his testimony and to coordinate with the rancher, Charles S. Pearce Jr., to keep the mercurial informer in line.” The Innocence Project accused Jackson and said he would be sanctioned or even criminally prosecuted for falsifying official records, withholding evidence from the defense, suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Side: No, it should not
As we have made lots of different points against the death penalty we hope you changed your view point of it. We have stated that it can go wrong in many ways. We posted 3 cases that prove that point. We have also have shown you lots of evidence about the drug shortage in U.S.A and how that causes lots of unnecessary pain to victims. Families of the victims need conselling and help, the death penalty keeps the families of the victims in the process and doesn’t give them time to grieve. It is time for a change and many states(Nebraska at this very moment) and other nations have started. Side: No, it should not
Race has a hand in which people that are sentenced to death. According to http://www.statisticbrain.com/ Side: No, it should not
|