Untitled Essay, Research Paper

By: Michael Wilkinson

Limit Death Row Appeals

The Constitution of the United States outlines the rights of a person accused

of a crime. The individual has a right to a trial and to be judged by a jury

of his peers. When the result of a trial is a guilty verdict and the individual

is sentenced to death, the individual has a right to appeal the verdict and

the sentence. At the present time, there are virtually no limits on the number

of appeals the individual is entitled to and the process could take years.

Therefore, the process should be altered to limit the number of appeals to

one.

The Supreme Court of the United States re-instituted the death penalty in

1976. Between that year and 1995, 314 inmates have been executed in the 37

states, districts, and providences of the United States that allow the death

penalty. There are more than 3100 inmates on death row. The majority of

executions are of white males. Most executions are by lethal injection or

electrocution. In the years since the Supreme Court re-instituted the death

penalty through 1994, there have been approximately 467,000 homicides in

the United States. Based on that number, 2.8 people will die every hour at

the hands of another person.

Death row inmates are often on death row for years, some upwards of twenty

years. This puts great financial strain on taxpayers’ money. While in prison,

inmates have many privileges, including cable television, the chance to pursue

a college degree, and free health care, all at taxpayers’ expense. There

are many law-abiding citizens who don’t get these benefits. It is appalling

to think these people have a virtual life of leisure while in prison. There

are some death penalty opponents who believe that convicts don’t get enough

privileges and lobby for better living conditions and the rights of the convicted

felons. Lost in this passionate pursuit of human rights are the rights of

the dead victim and those of that victim’s family.

The appeal process is lengthy and time-consuming. The appeal process is almost

automatic for

Michael Wilkinson 2

individuals sentenced to death. Many appeals are filed by the convicts in

hopes of overturning their

conviction or to change their sentence to life imprisonment. Although a great

majority of these cases are handled pro bono by lawyers ethically opposed

to the death penalty, no consideration is taken in respect to the cost to

taxpayers for the local, state, and federal government to respond to and

process these appeals. A little known fact about the appeals process is that

many states have laws providing funds for the legal defense and appeals for

convicted felons. At these convicts’ disposal is up to $125 per hour for

legal fees. Money that could be better spent elsewhere is wasted on people

that have been given due process and now must answer for their crimes against

society.

This proposal is both simple and efficient. Death row convictions are entitled

to one appeal. This appeal process would begin the day after the individual

is sentenced to death. The appeal should have some preferential treatment

in regard to its priority, but that is only to expedite the process to be

concluded within a year’s time. A year from the date of sentencing either

the individual is put to death or his death sentence is overturned. Either

way, the matter is dealt within a more timely and efficient manner. This

would lessen the burden on taxpayers a great deal and unclog the legal channels

by not having it mired down by the limitless appeals for each inmate.

Expediting the execution process also gives the family of the victims closure.

To have the process drawn out does not allow the healing process to begin

for the loved ones of the victim. It keeps the pain fresh and life for them

is on hold until justice is served. It is a further insult to them to put

the rights of a murderer over the rights of the victim. The convict demonstrated

a lack of regard for human life by taking the life of another. The basic

premise of human intelligence is the ability to reason and make decisions.

This person made a conscious decision to take a life. Regret and remorse

will not change the outcome of those actions. This person does not deserve

the life of idle comfort typically afforded to convicts.

On 24 April 1996, President Clinton signed the Effective Death Penalty and

Anti-Terrorist Bill. The purpose of this bill is to deny legal elongations

by both the system and the convict. It limits the

Michael Wilkinson 3

appeal time frame after the state affirmed death sentence. The convict has

one year to file an appeal and

one year to adjudicate that appeal. This bill is a step in the right direction.

At this point, the bill has been upheld as fair and constitutional, but not

without challenges.

The re-institution of the death penalty has not been the deterrent against

violent crimes that advocates had hoped for. Part of the reason is the ability

of an accused to plea bargain and avoid the death penalty all together and

another is the anticipated length of time to be served on death row. If the

government would take a hard line stand on this issue and enforce the death

penalty efficiently, perhaps it would send out a different message to the

would-be murderers on the streets.

The money that would be saved could be spent on bettering the nation and

domestic problems in our country. This money earmarked to help felons could

help get the homeless of the streets, feed the hungry, and help educate the

youth. These convicts are not productive members of society and it is time

that productive citizens demand swift justice and stop supporting these murderers

with our hard earned money. The rights of the general public who obeys the

laws should have more significance than weight that murderers. This is why

death row inmates should be limited to one appeal and executed in a timely

fashion.

318