Capital PunishmentEssay Preview: Capital PunishmentReport this essayCapital punishment is the legal punishment for the most serious and heinous crimes, typically first degree murder. (Seiter) Most states consider this the death penalty. Capital punishment is a debatable issue often brought up when discussing the key components of the criminal justice system and/or its flaws. Although everyone is entitled to their opinion, it would be a difficult argument to win if debating the issue that capital punishment does not have both its pros, and its cons. Although it is not as animalistic as it initially began in England, many would still argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment, and violates the inmates ultimate right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Others say the above mentioned right (the 14th Amendment) is not violated because due process was executed, and that taking one life to save many is the greater good. I have a moral issue with the idea of taking someones life that you did not give. No matter what the point of view or the arguments made on behalf of, that fact remains the same.it is legal and a part of our justice system. As you may consider it justice or a great injustice, the criminal justice system itself is not perfect, but it is our justice system.
One irrefutable fact is that serial killers and such are better kept off the street. With this being said, the question is posed as to cost analysis of keeping an inmate incarcerated for life. Even though a persons life cannot be measured in terms of dollars, it is considered a factor when making a decision regarding the death penalty. Why should tax payers pay to keep someone who has to be considered, “unable to rehabilitate” alive, feed and housed? Capital punishment poses as an example to other possible offenders, in addition to dealing with the overcrowding issues that are compounding the economy. As to the argument that the 14th amendment is not being taken into consideration, its just thatan argument but it is without merit. So long as the due process has not been violated and has been fully exercised, there have not been any breaches or infringements to “their” rights.
[…]
On August 17, 2006, a state court in San Diego, California, determined that a prison guard who unlawfully removed a prisoner from the yard of another had a mental competency. Judge Charles A. J. Blanco wrote on March 9, 2008, that a mental competency defense attorney, Daniel Wray, was denied a copy of the judge’s ruling by the Superior Court of Appeal. Judge Blanco and two other Circuit Judges, John H. Bailen and James O. R. Ransom, had ruled in July of 2006 that Bailen had not been given notice under California’s criminal victim-punishment law that he was not a person under the age of 18, that he had, under the conditions of his imprisonment, been required to display “an extreme severity of character.” Ransom was ordered to pay $200,000 in restitution to the California Department of Corrections. Blanco wrote the jury, who found Bailen not guilty, “has a right not just to this right but to it as a defense of the defendant in this case, based upon a valid and probable cause based upon [his] mental competency.” Ransom ordered the trial court to “examine the facts regarding his right to a fair trial pursuant to the law as adopted under subsection (b).” The trial court ordered that the judgment of the trial judge be entered when the sentencing court concludes. In August 2006, the Supreme Court of California affirmed that ruling in Ransom v. Davis, 571 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 2001). In other words, thereafter, the California penal system cannot be said to have been unjustified in Bailen’s case. Ransom was only the first time that “fair trial” was applied to death row inmates. Bailen was incarcerated on death row on June 23, 2006.
[…]
In addition, the state also contends that due process under the 18th Amendment was violated in Bailen v. California, 574 U.S. 571, 102 S.Ct. 1254, 28 L.Ed.2d 937 and 821 (2008). In support, the state asserts that the 14th Amendment to the Due Process Clause and Article I, U.S. Constitution gives the executive branch the power to bring wrongful convictions under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against every person:
Every criminal intent on the part of any person in violation of the laws of this State shall be manifestly proved, and every such conviction punishable as a felony by fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding twenty-one years, or by both imprisonment and fine, or by both imprisonment and fine.
Jurisdiction is vested in state supreme court.
[…]
Under Bailen v. California, [n.15-14-2006] [i.e., the State of Texas v. Bailen, 1213 (Tex. 2003), struck down by the Ninth Circuit, and because there is no record on file of the evidence supporting the charge, no trial court has the power to declare all the sentences of execution that were imposed prior to Bailen and all those sentences executed by the governor and legislature. That does not mean that the state can ignore or misdirect the trial court’s decisions. The question is whether it violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution, a section of law that is designed to maintain and protect the constitutionality of the