CMRJ499 Final Paper

Expeditious Executions Can Solve Prison Overpopulation

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

Professor XXXX

CMRJ499 Senior Seminar Capstone

March 10, 2013

Abstract
Utilizing the research of A solution (2002), Adams (2004), Alarcon and Mitchell (2012), Amile and Mitschow (2004), Brisman (2010), Brown (2008), Clark County (2012), DPIC (2008), Saad (2008), Sharp (1997), Specter (2010), Uelmen (2009) and Zezima (2008), will aid in achieving an understanding to what the death penalty is, and how it plays a vital role in our judicial and correctional system. This paper will give facts to why people convicted of crimes and sentenced to death should be executed within one year of receiving their sentence. Research shows that prison overpopulation can be reduced if the people currently awaiting their death sentence are put to death in an expeditious manor.
Keywords: death penalty, life, capital punishment, and prison, over population

Expeditious Executions Can Solve Prison Overpopulation

In today’s society, Capital punishment is a very controversial issue that has caused people on death row to prolong their stay in a penitentiary and escape their sentencing to death. By limiting the processing and appeals time to a maximum of one year, the expeditious execution of death penalty inmates would greatly reduce prison over-population and funding expenses in federal and state prisons. It is important for one to understand the concept of the death penalty, and how it can benefit our correctional system in terms of over-crowding and expenses. The death penalty came into America through the influence of Britain. Captain George Kendall, a native to Jamestown, Virginia was the first person in the United States to be executed. Kendal was charged and convicted of being a spy and paid the ultimate price in the year 1608. During this time period crimes began to increase and taken more seriously from our Judicial system. Capital punishment was a newly enacted sentence for crimes that would be considered non-felonious to you and I today. Sir Thomas Dale soon established the Divine, Moral and Marital laws, in 1612. This act was a set of laws, which stated a person, could be tried and convicted and given capital punishment for crimes such killing farm animals, theft and bartering with the Native Americans (Death penalty, 2012). In this time period, the implementation and change of laws began to vary within the different geographical locations of the United States. In 1655, The New York, Colony instituted what was known as Dukes law. The purpose of Dukes law is to place people to death who committed acts of violence such as hitting a parent or denying the god of our country (Randa, 1997).
Throughout the years, societies began changing and developing different values and ideas regarding capital punishment and punishments to various crimes. The criminal justice system established laws that had consistency across the country. In the beginning of the 1900’s a majority of the United States began abolishing the number of Capital crimes. State prisons began housing offenders for acts that used to be punished by death. From 1907-1917, the death penalty was banned in six states while three other states placed a statute for crimes such as treason and the murder of members of law enforcement (Death penalty, 2012). Following the First World War, this reform to the death penalty faded. Conflicts with capitalism began to arise resulting in 5 out of the 6 states that previously abolished the death penalty to re-instate it (Death penalty, 2012). During this time frame a death sentence did not cost the judicial system any significant financial burden. The methods of death were simplified to gunfire and hanging the offender. After a few years, the state of Nevada was a state that decided a more humane way of execution, should to be conducted. In 1924, Gee Jon was the first man introduced to the new form of death sentence. Gee Jon was the first man to receive the deadly inhalant while being executed (Bohm, 1999). During the 1950’s the death penalty began to make a statement within the United States. The people began to see this form of punishment as being to harsh and steered people away from agreeing with Capital punishment. Due to the influx of people in disagreement with the new form of Capital Punishment, people began to vote for abolishment and the reduction of its use (Bohm, 1999). During the mid 1960’s, the legality of the death penalty began to be looked at. People began questioning the validity and whether this form of punishment was justified under the Eighth amendment of our constitution. During this time period, debates began to erupt saying the death penalty was cruel in nature and the punishment was unusual which in turn violated the offenders Constitutional rights (Bohm, 1999). Due to this controversy, numerous states throughout the country began issuing life in prison instead of sentencing the offenders to death (Bohm, 1999). The inmates that were convicted of crimes and sentenced to death began appealing their sentence making claims that their rights are being violated. Many issues within the Justice system began increasing funding costs for the inmates due to their appeals. Financial burden began to set in simply due to the amount of appeals on the legality of the death penalty and the inmate’s rights. Since the implementation of Cyanide gas and appeals, other methods of execution have been established (Bohm, 1999). Every state began utilizing different means to execute their prisoners. At this point in time, four basic methods of execution were being utilized. The four methods consisted of lethal gas, a firing squad, electrocution and hanging (Clark county, 2012).
While using these four methods of execution, we still faced problems pertaining to the actual execution. Only a few states utilize and hold onto the death penalty as a formal means of resolution. Due to the influx of appeals and processing a vast majority of states are taking up to 25 years to complete their executions (Bohm, 1999). For years the death penalty has caused controversial discussions throughout our country. Discussions were based on the concept that punishments for committing crimes should be exactly what the punishment was intended for, to punish. The death penalty shouldn’t be used, as a means of deterrent in an attempt to keep offenders from committing acts though would take their own lives. Deterring crimes is not the main goal and purpose for ensuring laws are being followed or as a form of punishment. People understand that by not breaking laws, their chances of facing criminal punishment are slim. By placing strict consequences people are more likely to obey the laws especially if they are certain the consequences for their actions will be carried out (Adams, 2004). The death penalty has in a sense created a grey area due to the controversial issues with the death penalty. Our society has begun to defend the people who murder their loved ones and created an open gate of empathy for the offenders. The fact is most states are still utilizing lethal injection for the purpose of causing a quick and painless death. When an execution date has been set, state statutes dictate that the punishment by lethal injection must be a continuous administration of a lethal injection. The injection is a short acting barbiturate combined with a paralyzing agent that is administered until the offender is determined dead by a certified medical physician (Clark county, 2012).
The chemical agents in the chemical cocktail create a state of paralysis to the offender’s body and their brains to shut down. While undergoing this form of execution, it cannot be confirmed that the offender feels any pain during their death. If this is the case, how can our society and offender claim that cruel and unusual punishment is even a factor from this form of execution (Clark county, 2012)? The problem is defining what some of those problems really are. Many people make claims that suggest a person sentenced to death is facing cruel and unusual punishment. If we really think about it, what is so cruel? When defining cruelty, it would be hard to determine especially when it comes to being in agreement to a common definition for both sides of a debate. Most people would argue that cruelty would constitute causing physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering. Some people may argue that only a select few of the previously mentioned physical or mental attributes could define cruelty. It is interesting to note that if a person accepts a debate defending the cruelty theory of the death penalty simply because the offender might suffer physical or emotional stress, than such acceptance could imply that any type of punishment could be considered cruel. For example, wouldn’t it be cruel to confine a person into a small room with bars for the remainder of their life? To some people this is acceptable, but by other standards, this may seem harsh. Everybody’s views are different, especially between our society and the judicial system. The notion of what is cruel and unusual will change over the years. The deprivation of someone’s life is in and of itself can seem cruel but in reality it is the premise to the end of the arguments. This is turn is the basis for the debate towards the death penalty (Amile and Mitschow, 2004). When people refer to the unusual statement within the eighth amendment’s restriction it can be left open for discussions expressing different viewpoints. The debate within this argument is usually caused due to what is usual and unusual regarding capital punishment. This brings into question whether our country basis it’s actions on their own influences, or simply follows other countries and states footsteps (Amile and Mitschow, 2004). It is interesting to note that people who analyze this matter understand the eighth amendment, which specifically mentions cruel and unusual punishment, but they don’t have an understanding of its context (Amile and Mitschow, 2004). For those people who chose to argue against the death penalty would need to demonstrate exactly what makes the death penalty cruel in nature as well as unusual punishment (Amile and Mitschow, 2004). If we go back in time to when the Constitution was written the death penalty was not considered cruel and unusual by those who wrote it. As noted previously, death was an approved method for several different offenses, most of which today are not considered felonious in nature. If we as a country agree and believe that the death penalty does in fact constitute cruel and unusual punishment then we need to consider reinterpreting the rest of the Constitution and bill of rights (Amile and Mitschow, 2004).
Debates regarding the death penalty are increasing in popularity. Tough debates against the death penalty are said to be an unchangeable action of death by the courts to a person who may actually be innocent. People who argue for this cause believe capital punishment is a risk. Through this risk and the possibility alone should cause the country to stop utilizing Capital punishment until an improvement has been made, within the judicial system. The other sides of the debate are people who reference invalid statistics and use their personal judgment as a basis for the argument purposes. Those in opposition of the death penalty generally utilize court cases where an inmate on death row has had their sentence overturned or sent back for review (Amile and Mitschow, 2004).
The implied conclusion people believe is the cases presented in this situation are those to which the offender was actually innocent and convicted wrongly. The problem in this situation is the cases were under review due to procedural error, not the actual facts of the case. (Mitschhow, 2004).
People in support of Capital punishment quote research and court cases that pertaining to offenders that have been tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. Research shows that there has never been an offender who has been put to death and later been found to be innocent. Supporters suggest this is due to the long appeals process, which is supposed to detect and prevent innocent people from facing the death penalty from a wrongful conviction. Another aspect of the review is the investigations that are conducted prior to the offender being put to death. In such cases, through adequate and lengthy investigations there is no risk that an individual will be put to death wrongfully and arguments against this would be invalid (Amile and Mitschow, 2004).
The death penalty in the United States has dramatically reduced (DPIC, 2008). Thirty-seven executions also represent a drastic reduction from ninety-eight in 1999. It is also interesting that both federal and state courts sentenced 111, criminal offenders to death in 2008 (DPIC, 2008). These are the lowest numbers our judicial system has seen in over 30 years. It was proposed that more inmates would be sentenced to the death penalty after the conclusion of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Baze v. Rees. Kentucky's method of lethal injection ended a discretionary 8 month moratorium instead, 25 executions were stayed in the aftermath of Baze v. Rees, as courts battled with issues such mental illness and ineffective assistance of counsel. The case of Troy Davis, has received focus across the globe. Seven out of nine witnesses against the Georgia inmate have retracted their testimony (Brown, 2008a).
This is not to suggest that the country as a whole has agreed to abolish the use of the death penalty. A survey conducted in October 2008, revealed that a majority of the public still supports the death penalty, although the numbers are down sixty percent of those surveyed the survey indicated that citizens were in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder in comparison to sixty-nine percent in 2007 (Saad, 2008). In the aftermath of a Georgia jury's failure to agree on the death sentence for Brian Nichols, who killed four people in an Atlanta courthouse escape in 2005. Georgia’s legislators have begun establishing bills that would end the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict for a death sentence (Brown 2008b). In December 2008, a New Hampshire jury issued the state's first sentence to death in almost fifty years (Zezima, 2008). In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court declined expanding the death penalty to non-homicide offenses, striking down Louisiana's death penalty for the rape of a child in Kennedy v. Louisiana, yet its decision in Medellin v. Texas, the same year allowed a foreign national from Mexico to be executed in Texas, despite a ruling by the International Court of Justice entitling him to review and reconsideration of his U.S. state-court conviction (Brown 2008b).
The question remains, why is the death penalty swinging on the fence with abolishment. The facts are people continue to commit heinous crimes that cause our society turmoil and fear. People who commit these acts voluntarily end others lives, or cause them great life altering problems that will ultimately affect them for the rest of their life time.
The state of California spends more time than any other state on its implantation and administration. California’s (CA) death penalty, law can be considered dysfunctional. There are approximately six hundred seventy inmates on California’s death row and is considered to be the longest list of convicted offenders awaiting their death (Uelmen, 2009). It is estimated that a time period of twenty-five years is the time span a person on death row in CA will await their execution. This is twice the national average and is growing significantly over the years (Uelmen, 2009).
The problem with California is there are more inmates that are currently on death row wasting taxpayer’s money. In 2011, a study was conducted which examined the history of the death penalty within California. This study was meant to give voters information as to why there were huge delays within the death penalty system. From the study, the men developed answers, which formulated suggestions that could be adopted by the states’ legislature or through the initiative process that would minimize delays in executing capital punishment judgments. The study revealed that, since 1978, California’s current system has cost the state’s taxpayers four billion dollars more than a system that has life in prison without the possibility of parole as its most severe penalty (Alarcon and Mitchell, 2012). If the current system is maintained, Californians will spend an additional five billion to seven billion dollars over the cost of life without parole to fund the broken system between now and the year 2050 (Alarcon and Mitchell, 2012). In that time, roughly seven hundred forty more inmates will be added to death row, an additional fourteen executions will be carried out, and more than five hundred death-row inmates will die of old age or other causes before the state puts them to death. In November 2012, Proposition 34 gave California voters the opportunity to keep its broken capital punishment system despite its deficiencies and costs. The other aspect of this proposition was to abolish the death penalty system and create more room in the prisons for its offender and sentence life in prison without the possibility of parole (Alarcon and Mitchell, 2012).
It is interesting to note that proposition 34 did not pass. California residents want to see the men and women who commit these horrific crimes pay the ultimate punishment with their lives. Others do still believe that life without parole can solve the issue. Even though it may be cheaper to place a person in prison for life rather than execution, if we expedited the death sentence, and only allow one appeal then the cost figures would drop significantly.
There are several debates that will state show that Life in prison without parole is more cost effective than capital punishment. This is not debatable as the facts prove that housing a prisoner for 25 years then utilizing a chemical cocktail to end one’s life can cost up to four million dollars. My question is why are we subjecting our country to these costs?
Many opponents present facts that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive, which can cost approximately two million dollars per case. It has been suggested that we must choose life without parole at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. It was predicted that these pronouncements may be entirely false. It is estimated that cases will cost 1.2 million - 3.6 million dollars more than equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for life without parole cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent life without parole cases are much more expensive than death penalty cases (Dudley, 1997).
On the other side of the spectrum, it is suggested that death by execution is overly expensive. Most people who support the death penalty believe it is more cost effective than life in prison. Years ago when executions were a quick process, this may have been true. Most people who are knowledgeable about the subject will agree that the delay that is now built into the system takes more trial preparation, longer processing times, longer jury selections and a much more complicated appeals process. This in turn has increased the cost of the death penalty sometimes resulting in an offender spending the remainder of his days in prison until he or she dies of natural causes (Alarcon, 2012).
Seeing both sides of the spectrum allows us to see that there are positive and negative aspects to capital punishment. The fact remains that money is still being spent allowing these convicted criminals to await their death. The people will either die in prison or by means deemed appropriate by the state.
California (CA) is one state whose prison-overcrowding problem is creating a huge impact on its residence. Severe overcrowding not only creates unsafe prison conditions, but also makes the fear of escaping even greater. The amount of overcrowding in CA is unparalleled. It is estimated that CA typically sends approximately 155,000 men and women in thirty-three prisons across the state. These prisons were designed to house half of what is actually being confined. In some of these CA prisons the capacity limit is reaching up to 300 percent (Specter, 2010).
The fact remains, that not only CA residents are seeing an increase in taxes to aid our correctional system but also a simple question remains. Where is this money going? The men and women that have been convicted of several different crimes are currently receiving many benefits while in prison. Even though the different states are generating ideas to aid in the overcrowding problems, we are not seeing any real solutions. The amount of crimes being committed is increasing just as fast as prisons are being emptied.
Criminal justice in the United States have again transformed the corrections system and introduced new challenges for policymakers. Notably, get tough initiatives such as three strike laws, truth in sentencing initiatives, and alternative punishment programs are unprecedented in American justice. While solving some short-term problems, many theorists argue that modern sentencing inventions actually recreate the problems faced by corrections over the past decades (A solution to, 2002).
The Three-strikes program was established by the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 mandates life imprisonment without release for an offender convicted of a federal offense, if the offender previously had two prior state or federal court convictions for qualifying offenses. In a similar vein, California’s 1994 three-strikes referendum punishes repeat offenders by drastically increasing penalties for second and third offenses. While such penalty structures were instituted to reduce recidivism, it is also possible that increased penalties for a second or third offense may escalate the severity of a recidivist’s crimes (A solution to, 2002).
People today are concerned with punishments being too lenient on offenders. The perception is that the offenders are not receiving the appropriate punishments for their crimes. People are committing offenses and essentially walking out the prison doors. The problem here is the prison system is housing more inmates than it can hold. Citizens complain that criminals sentenced to any amount of jail time will only serve a portion of that time. This implies that the offender is getting off lightly and that our country doesn’t care about following through with their punishments.
A rule was passed in Michigan after a convicted cop killer was released from prison after serving less than half his sentence. This rule was called the 85 percent rule because the convicted murderer was released early after serving less than half of her sentence, not withstanding numerous prison rule violations and an escape attempt. Truth in sentencing is the opposite of the good time rules with regard to prison terms. Rather than allowing time to be subtracted from prison terms for good behavior, time is added to the sentence for poor behavior. The idea is that offenders are imprisoned for a particular crime, and they can be rewarded for good behavior by being released on their scheduled release date, not later (A solution to, 2002).
Sentencing improvements have been made that allows offenders to be sent to prison in a more expeditious manor, allowing the prisoner to spend more well deserved time behind bars. The American criminal justice is returning to the prison overcrowding crises that began to improve over the last 10 years. Many states are currently experimenting with boot camps or other alternative punishments that decrease prison populations and are thought to be more productive methods of reforming offenders. In fact, the 1994 Federal Crime Control Act includes a provision funding state alternative punishment programs. The success of these types of programs is still undetermined. (A solution to, 2002). Through effective research we can presume that it is reasonable to believe that our current means of execution within Capital punishment does not cause cruel and unusual punishment. The debates supporting this theory cannot be supported with facts therefore; the debates should be stopped simply due to misguided information. Our current prison system is over capacity for several different reasons. The people who are confined into the facilities have committed acts our society has deemed unacceptable. Our country needs to take back its money and put it into a more profound means Capital punishment. Today’s society is filled with a variety of people who are very capable of committing acts of violence that will ultimately lead to incarceration. The problem we established is the overcrowding within the prison system and massive amounts of funding that goes into it. The people who commit crimes that are punishable by death should be pronounced dead within one year of their conviction. In turn, this would eliminate the amount of money the state and taxpayers are spending housing the inmates. If death penalty inmates are put to death within one year, the facilities that hold these inmates can open space within the facility for other offenders of violent crimes.

Reference:

A solution to prison overcrowding and recidivism global positioning system location of parolee’s probationers. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.gemstone.umd.edu/teams/documents/innovative.pdf

Adams, J. (2004). Does the death penalty prevent crime. Retrieved from http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/05/07/adams.htm

Alarcon, A., & Mitchell, P. (2012). Cost of capital punishment in california: Will voters choose reform this november. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-

Amlie, T. T., & Mitschow, M. C. (2004). Arthur andersen and the capital punishment debate. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(8), 1160-1172. Retrieved from

Brisman, A. (2010). The waiver and withdrawal of death penalty appeals as "extreme communicative acts". Western Criminology Review, 11(2), 27-41. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/749837668?accountid=8289

Brown, Robbie. (2008a). "Execution of Georgia Man in Killing of Officer Is Stayed a Third Time." The New York Times. Oct. 25.

Brown, Robbie. (2008b). "In Georgia, Push to End Unanimity for Execution." The New York Times. Dec. 17:A18. http://search.proquest.com/docview/274710153?accountid=8289 Clark County. (2012). The death penalty, Methods of execution, Retrieved from http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/methods.htm.

Death Penalty Information Center. (2008). "The Death Penalty in 2008: Year End Report”. Available: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2008YearEnd.pdf.
DPIC. (2012). History of the Death Penalty, Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-ii-history-death-penalty.
Saad, Lydia. (2008). Americans Hold Firm to Support for Death Penalty. Nov. 17. [Online]. Avaiable: http://www.gallup.com/poll/111931/Americans-Hold-Firm-Support-Death-Penalty.aspx.
Sharp, D. (1997). Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole?. Retrieved from http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?=001000.
Specter, D. (2010). Everything revolves around overcrowding: The state of california's prisons. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(3), 194-199. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2010.22.3.194.
Uelmen, G. F. (2009). Death penalty appeals and habeas proceedings:
The California law review. Marquette Law Review, 93(2), 495-514.
Zezima, Katie. (2008). Jury Issues First Death Sentence in New Hampshire Since the 1950s.The New York Times. Dec. 19:A29.