According to a recent University of Michigan study, four percent of those sentenced to death are innocent (Gross, O’Brien, Hu & Kennedy, 2013). Though four percent may seem small in comparison to the number of legally guilty criminals who receive the punishment, as a 2014 Forbes article points out, “very few false convictions are discovered in the justice system” (Lopatto, 2014). Further, that four percent of individuals are still living human beings who deserve some sort of justice for the actual lack of justice received in the trial proceedings. Unfortunately though, even if those on death row are able to produce evidence suggesting or affirming their innocence per the Supreme Court ruling of Herrera v. Collins, it doesn’t matter (Capital
…show more content…
Georgia (Capital Punishment In Context, n.d.). During this case, The Court found that the death penalty in practice was cruel and unusual, especially in cases where discrimination against a defendant’s race, religion, wealth or social status is present. One recent example of the death penalty being cruel and unusual took place on April 23, 2014 in Arizona (Economist, 2014). Convicted double-murderer Joseph Wood suffered for two hours after a botched lethal injection. Though it may seem hard to grasp why another person should feel sympathy for a convicted murderer, no universal definition of cruel and unusual punishment exists. Thus one can make the argument that botched lethal injections fall under this protection. An additional argument supporting that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment rests within supporter’s justification of the practice. For the most part, the death penalty is seen as an “eye for an eye,” or a justified act of revenge for those in close relation to the victim. Both the criminal justice system and constitution should uphold their superiority to superficial warrants for revenge. In other words, both systems should hold the supreme respect for life, as a way to set a model standard for others. A Michigan State University report posits the above argument in a different way by saying, “We do not allow torturing the torturer or raping the rapist. Taking a life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment…” (Michigan State University,
Georgia (Capital Punishment In Context, n.d.). During this case, The Court found that the death penalty in practice was cruel and unusual, especially in cases where discrimination against a defendant’s race, religion, wealth or social status is present. One recent example of the death penalty being cruel and unusual took place on April 23, 2014 in Arizona (Economist, 2014). Convicted double-murderer Joseph Wood suffered for two hours after a botched lethal injection. Though it may seem hard to grasp why another person should feel sympathy for a convicted murderer, no universal definition of cruel and unusual punishment exists. Thus one can make the argument that botched lethal injections fall under this protection. An additional argument supporting that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment rests within supporter’s justification of the practice. For the most part, the death penalty is seen as an “eye for an eye,” or a justified act of revenge for those in close relation to the victim. Both the criminal justice system and constitution should uphold their superiority to superficial warrants for revenge. In other words, both systems should hold the supreme respect for life, as a way to set a model standard for others. A Michigan State University report posits the above argument in a different way by saying, “We do not allow torturing the torturer or raping the rapist. Taking a life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment…” (Michigan State University,