Reflection Of The Death Penalty

The article by Sievert is about a prosecutor’s firsthand experiences and observations of capital cases with the sentence of the death penalty. When he was asked his opinion about the death penalty, the prosecutor explains that he does not have a solid position concerning death penalty. Nevertheless, he was hired by as a prosecutor. To reflect his experiences, Sievert discusses the anger he felt towards the criminals during the prosecution of their crimes, the selection of the defendants, the impact of race, and the trial. Sievert explains that after reading a particular case about the especially brutal murder of a victim, he felt extreme anger towards the perpetrator. Ultimately, this questioned his personal standing concerning the death penalty. …show more content…
Furthermore, he stresses that the punishment must be just. I was surprised that Sievert did not have a solid position concerning the death penalty when he was applying to be a prosecutor. I say this because if he had any doubts about death penalty, I would think that it would be harder for him to prosecute criminals and ask for the death penalty. When Sievert spoke about the reforms in the final paragraph, I immediately thought of the functions of Illinois’ law. I particularly thought of the function that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed. Like Sievert, I believe his is an important function that should apply to all the …show more content…
In the article by Wayne, Victim Impact Evidence (VIE) is discussed, relating to Sievert’s article. It is concluded in Wayne’s article that VIE is being used more in order to relate emotionally with the jurors. Even though the trial courts have attempted to stop the government’s efforts to use VIE in the trials, no federal appellate court has determined that VIE is a reversible error. In relation to Sievert’s article, it appears to me that he was privy to VIE, especially when he was discussing the “dog” case he had to prosecute. Unfortunately, I do not know what to think about VIE. I understand that it is important for the jurors to know in order to make an informed and just decision-but I do feel terrible for the friends and families who have to hear the evidence about their loved one during the trial. I do agree with Sievert’s decision to use it in order to decide whether the death penalty is necessary. Without the use of VIE, I feel like the case would be “sugar-coated” and all those involved would not receive the proper information to the make an educated and just decision, especially the