Online Casebook
Acker, James R., and Rose Bellandi. "Firmament or Folly? Protecting the Innocent, Promoting Capital Punishment, And the Paradoxes of Reconciliation." JQ: Justice Quarterly 29.2 (2012): 287-307. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 13 July 2014.
Although there is so much argument as to whether death penalty should be abolished, Acker James on article of Criminal Justice Abstracts “Protecting the Innocent” reaffirmed whether there is an irresolute conflict between recent reforms to preclude the execution of the innocent and the traditional goals of capital punishment. The authors studied recent changes to Maryland’s death penalty statute that were designed to reduce the risk of wrongful executions while trying to maintain the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Maryland's law requires biological evidence of guilt, a videotaped confession, or a video conclusively linking the defendant to a murder as a prerequisite to seeking a death sentence. The authors concluded that such a statute will not impose the death penalty on the worst offenders, but only on those whose cases contain certain evidence of guilt. As Acker puts it “No one supports executing the innocent. Yet, many support executing those who are guilty of heinous crimes.
This article was published in 2012 as a part of reconciliation on the morals of capital punishment. The audience is researchers and those people who think death penalty should be abolished. The purpose of this article was to enlighten readers of dissipation of executing the innocence and the reason behind the execution. The author James Acker is a Distinguished Teaching Professor in the criminal justice program at the University at Albany and Rose Bellandi is also a professor in the criminal justice department at the University of Albany. They both specializes in criminal justice so they can be considered highly knowledgeable in this topic. This article is published by the Death Penalty Information Center and University of Albany, and contains reports and articles on abolition of death penalty.
The information in this article will be used to support my statement that life without parole is a sensible alternative to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be especially helpful since the author shares my viewpoint.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Suzanna L. De Boef, and Amber E. Boydstum. “The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence.” Cambridge University Press. Vol. 14. Cambridge: 2008. Print.
As Baumgartner, De Boeuf, and Boydstun point out, ‘Although Americans remain supportive of capital punishment in theory, they are increasingly concerned that the system might not work as intended in practice’. Similarly, while moral questions regarding the use of state violence continue to stimulate heated disagreement between those for and those against the death penalty, this debate has less and less to do with the actual use of executions as an instrument of criminal justice policy in the United States. The facts underlying what the authors cast as a stunning ‘policy reversal’ are plain enough. A corresponding decline, more moderate but still noteworthy, is also seen in the nation’s death row population and executions. Seeking to make sense of what has occurred, Baumgartner, De Boeuf, and Boydstun focus on the innocence argument and its gathering strength over recent decades. In brief, their thesis is that all public policy issues, including the death penalty, are inherently multifaceted, yet not all such dimensions can be perceived simultaneously with the same emphasis. The authors explained that the process known as ‘framing,’ has highlighted the problem of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases, elevating it to such prominence within legal circles, in the mass media, and among citizens and elected officials, that it is now discrediting capital punishment as an operational reality.
This article was published in 2011 in an adept article of capital punishment and also available in print and on University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill website review. The audience is researchers and those people who think death penalty should be abolished. The purpose of this article was to inform readers of indulgence of executing the innocence and the reason behind the execution. The authors of this article Frank R. Baumgartner is Professor, Richard J. Richardson the Distinguished Professor of Political Science at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Suzanna Linn (formerly De Boef) is a professor of political science at Penn State University and Amber E. Boydstun is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California. They are highly knowledgeable in this topic and the article contains information of death penalty and the innocence.
The information in this article will be used to support my topic that life without parole is a sensible alternative to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be especially helpful since the author shares my viewpoint.
Lambert, Eric G., Scott D. Camp, Alan Clarke, and Shanhe Jiang. "The Impact of Information on Death Penalty Support, Revisited." Crime & Delinquency 57.4 (2011): 572-99. Academic Research Premier, ERIC. Web. 13 July 2014.
Although there are many reasons, the two primary reasons for supporting the death penalty are deterrence and retribution. Deterrence is a common reason provided by death penalty proponents of why they support capital punishment. Many supporters of the death penalty argue that executing murderers deters others from committing murder. Although many people support the death penalty because they feel that it deters others, the research to date strongly indicates that capital punishment has little, if any, deterrent effect on violent crime, including murder.
This article was published in 2011 by crime and delinquencies. The audience is researchers and those who think death penalty should not be abolished. The purpose of this article is to inform the public about the reason why death penalty should not be abolish. The author Eric Lambert is a professor of Wayne State University Department of Criminal Justice. Others like Alan Clarke, JD, LLM Professor of Integrated Studies at Utah Valley University.
The information in this article will be used to discuss my stance that life without parole is a sensible alternative to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be the source of my counterargument and I will use it to better understand why people think death penalty should not be abolished even in the case of innocence.
Dieter, Richard C. “Struck by Lightning: The Continuing Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty: Thirty-five Years after Its Re-instatement in 1976”. Death Penalty Information Center, Washington, D.C.: 2011. Web. 13 July 2014.
The author of this article clarified that after three and a half decades of experience under these revised laws, the uncertainty of the system continues. Many of the country's constitutional experts and prominent legal organizations have concluded that effective reform is impossible and the practice should be halted. In polls, jury verdicts and state legislative action, there is evidence of the American people's growing frustration with the death penalty. A majority of the nine Justices who served on the Supreme Court in 1976 when the death penalty was approved eventually concluded the experiment had failed. The report shows that despite the changes to sentencing schemes approved by the U.S. Supreme Court on July 2, 1976, race, geography, money and other factors continue to make the implementation of the death penalty arbitrary and unfair.
The article was published in 2011 in a professional journal as part of the debate to abolish death penalty because of other culminating factors such as innocence. The article is available in death penalty information websites and National Institute of Correction website. The audience is researchers and those people who think death penalty should be abolished. The purpose of this article was to inform readers of how unfair executing the innocence is and how the system has failed. The author Richard C. Dieter is an attorney and native of New York City and has been the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, DC since 1992. He is highly knowledgeable in this topic and the article contains information of death penalty and other relating factors.
The information in this article will be used to support my relating to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
"DNA Testing and the Death Penalty." ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 26 June 2002. Web. 13 July 2014.
For many inmates the most important obstacle to DNA testing is the fact that in many jurisdictions officials refuse to enable inmates to have evidence tested using modern DNA testing methods, arguing that this would reopen too many old cases. Perhaps, though unstated, they fear that wrongful convictions would highlight the many "mistakes" of the criminal justice system and provide more fuel for the increasing calls for a pause in executions until we can be sure it is properly and fairly applied, and without the risk of executing the innocent. Eyewitness nm is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
This website was written by American Civil Liberties Union in 2002. The ACLU is a nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The audience for this website is the general public.
I will use this information to highlight the many mistakes of the criminal justice system and to recommend the use of DNA testing to overturned wrongful convictions. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
"Innocence and the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Information Center. N.p., 2010. Web. 13 July 2014.
Since there is considerable evidence that the crisis of wrongful death penalty convictions has worsened: the annual average of people released from death row because of their innocence has increased since the first report was prepared, while the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence has recently shrunk dramatically. Although the public may have learned something about these dramatic reversals, they probably have heard little about the continuous string of mistakes in capital cases which throws doubt on the reliability of the entire death penalty process. A confession by the defendant is not a dependable indicator of guilt. Manipulation and pressure by the police, or the presence of mental retardation or mental illness on the part of the defendant can lead an innocent suspect to be overly cooperative with the authorities by supplying information the police obviously want to hear.
This article was originally published by Richard Dieter the executive director of Death Penalty information center as mentioned earlier. The Center prepared a report for the Subcommittee, basing its research on its own monitoring of this issue and on groundbreaking work done by other researchers, most notably Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo Bedau. The report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. The audience of this website are the researchers and the general public.
I will use this information to explore why such critical mistakes had been made in the legal process, and whether it was likely that such errors would continue. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
Terry, Don. "Live From Death Row." Chicago Tribune. N.p., 2 Nov. 2003. Web. 13 July 2014.
On the streets, Aaron Patterson ruled with charisma and brute force. On Death Row, he survived through anger. Now that he has been exonerated and freed, he's finding the same traits that served him so well in the past sometimes get in the way of his new goals: ending the violence, building up the neighborhood and reforming the criminal justice system. He still speaks loudly and passionately. But will anybody listen? Can Patterson make good on his promises and ambitions? Since his arrest, Patterson has claimed the police tortured him into confessing, allegations that authorities have denied for just as long. But Patterson did not sign the confession and there has never been any forensic evidence or eyewitness account linking him to the killings, all factors that led to the governor's decision that finally freed him.
This article was written by Don Terry, published on Chicago tribune website. This article explained the real life situation on death row. This is a story of Aaron Paterson who was exonerated and freed by Governor Ryan. The audience for this website is the general public.
The information in this article will be used to support my topic explaining what it means to be on death row, the consequences and life after death row. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
Acker, James R., and Rose Bellandi. "Firmament or Folly? Protecting the Innocent, Promoting Capital Punishment, And the Paradoxes of Reconciliation." JQ: Justice Quarterly 29.2 (2012): 287-307. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 13 July 2014.
Although there is so much argument as to whether death penalty should be abolished, Acker James on article of Criminal Justice Abstracts “Protecting the Innocent” reaffirmed whether there is an irresolute conflict between recent reforms to preclude the execution of the innocent and the traditional goals of capital punishment. The authors studied recent changes to Maryland’s death penalty statute that were designed to reduce the risk of wrongful executions while trying to maintain the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Maryland's law requires biological evidence of guilt, a videotaped confession, or a video conclusively linking the defendant to a murder as a prerequisite to seeking a death sentence. The authors concluded that such a statute will not impose the death penalty on the worst offenders, but only on those whose cases contain certain evidence of guilt. As Acker puts it “No one supports executing the innocent. Yet, many support executing those who are guilty of heinous crimes.
This article was published in 2012 as a part of reconciliation on the morals of capital punishment. The audience is researchers and those people who think death penalty should be abolished. The purpose of this article was to enlighten readers of dissipation of executing the innocence and the reason behind the execution. The author James Acker is a Distinguished Teaching Professor in the criminal justice program at the University at Albany and Rose Bellandi is also a professor in the criminal justice department at the University of Albany. They both specializes in criminal justice so they can be considered highly knowledgeable in this topic. This article is published by the Death Penalty Information Center and University of Albany, and contains reports and articles on abolition of death penalty.
The information in this article will be used to support my statement that life without parole is a sensible alternative to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be especially helpful since the author shares my viewpoint.
Baumgartner, Frank R., Suzanna L. De Boef, and Amber E. Boydstum. “The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence.” Cambridge University Press. Vol. 14. Cambridge: 2008. Print.
As Baumgartner, De Boeuf, and Boydstun point out, ‘Although Americans remain supportive of capital punishment in theory, they are increasingly concerned that the system might not work as intended in practice’. Similarly, while moral questions regarding the use of state violence continue to stimulate heated disagreement between those for and those against the death penalty, this debate has less and less to do with the actual use of executions as an instrument of criminal justice policy in the United States. The facts underlying what the authors cast as a stunning ‘policy reversal’ are plain enough. A corresponding decline, more moderate but still noteworthy, is also seen in the nation’s death row population and executions. Seeking to make sense of what has occurred, Baumgartner, De Boeuf, and Boydstun focus on the innocence argument and its gathering strength over recent decades. In brief, their thesis is that all public policy issues, including the death penalty, are inherently multifaceted, yet not all such dimensions can be perceived simultaneously with the same emphasis. The authors explained that the process known as ‘framing,’ has highlighted the problem of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases, elevating it to such prominence within legal circles, in the mass media, and among citizens and elected officials, that it is now discrediting capital punishment as an operational reality.
This article was published in 2011 in an adept article of capital punishment and also available in print and on University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill website review. The audience is researchers and those people who think death penalty should be abolished. The purpose of this article was to inform readers of indulgence of executing the innocence and the reason behind the execution. The authors of this article Frank R. Baumgartner is Professor, Richard J. Richardson the Distinguished Professor of Political Science at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Suzanna Linn (formerly De Boef) is a professor of political science at Penn State University and Amber E. Boydstun is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California. They are highly knowledgeable in this topic and the article contains information of death penalty and the innocence.
The information in this article will be used to support my topic that life without parole is a sensible alternative to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be especially helpful since the author shares my viewpoint.
Lambert, Eric G., Scott D. Camp, Alan Clarke, and Shanhe Jiang. "The Impact of Information on Death Penalty Support, Revisited." Crime & Delinquency 57.4 (2011): 572-99. Academic Research Premier, ERIC. Web. 13 July 2014.
Although there are many reasons, the two primary reasons for supporting the death penalty are deterrence and retribution. Deterrence is a common reason provided by death penalty proponents of why they support capital punishment. Many supporters of the death penalty argue that executing murderers deters others from committing murder. Although many people support the death penalty because they feel that it deters others, the research to date strongly indicates that capital punishment has little, if any, deterrent effect on violent crime, including murder.
This article was published in 2011 by crime and delinquencies. The audience is researchers and those who think death penalty should not be abolished. The purpose of this article is to inform the public about the reason why death penalty should not be abolish. The author Eric Lambert is a professor of Wayne State University Department of Criminal Justice. Others like Alan Clarke, JD, LLM Professor of Integrated Studies at Utah Valley University.
The information in this article will be used to discuss my stance that life without parole is a sensible alternative to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be the source of my counterargument and I will use it to better understand why people think death penalty should not be abolished even in the case of innocence.
Dieter, Richard C. “Struck by Lightning: The Continuing Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty: Thirty-five Years after Its Re-instatement in 1976”. Death Penalty Information Center, Washington, D.C.: 2011. Web. 13 July 2014.
The author of this article clarified that after three and a half decades of experience under these revised laws, the uncertainty of the system continues. Many of the country's constitutional experts and prominent legal organizations have concluded that effective reform is impossible and the practice should be halted. In polls, jury verdicts and state legislative action, there is evidence of the American people's growing frustration with the death penalty. A majority of the nine Justices who served on the Supreme Court in 1976 when the death penalty was approved eventually concluded the experiment had failed. The report shows that despite the changes to sentencing schemes approved by the U.S. Supreme Court on July 2, 1976, race, geography, money and other factors continue to make the implementation of the death penalty arbitrary and unfair.
The article was published in 2011 in a professional journal as part of the debate to abolish death penalty because of other culminating factors such as innocence. The article is available in death penalty information websites and National Institute of Correction website. The audience is researchers and those people who think death penalty should be abolished. The purpose of this article was to inform readers of how unfair executing the innocence is and how the system has failed. The author Richard C. Dieter is an attorney and native of New York City and has been the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, DC since 1992. He is highly knowledgeable in this topic and the article contains information of death penalty and other relating factors.
The information in this article will be used to support my relating to death penalty to avoid executing the innocence. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
"DNA Testing and the Death Penalty." ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 26 June 2002. Web. 13 July 2014.
For many inmates the most important obstacle to DNA testing is the fact that in many jurisdictions officials refuse to enable inmates to have evidence tested using modern DNA testing methods, arguing that this would reopen too many old cases. Perhaps, though unstated, they fear that wrongful convictions would highlight the many "mistakes" of the criminal justice system and provide more fuel for the increasing calls for a pause in executions until we can be sure it is properly and fairly applied, and without the risk of executing the innocent. Eyewitness nm is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
This website was written by American Civil Liberties Union in 2002. The ACLU is a nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The audience for this website is the general public.
I will use this information to highlight the many mistakes of the criminal justice system and to recommend the use of DNA testing to overturned wrongful convictions. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
"Innocence and the Death Penalty." Death Penalty Information Center. N.p., 2010. Web. 13 July 2014.
Since there is considerable evidence that the crisis of wrongful death penalty convictions has worsened: the annual average of people released from death row because of their innocence has increased since the first report was prepared, while the opportunity to appeal and to raise newly discovered evidence of one's innocence has recently shrunk dramatically. Although the public may have learned something about these dramatic reversals, they probably have heard little about the continuous string of mistakes in capital cases which throws doubt on the reliability of the entire death penalty process. A confession by the defendant is not a dependable indicator of guilt. Manipulation and pressure by the police, or the presence of mental retardation or mental illness on the part of the defendant can lead an innocent suspect to be overly cooperative with the authorities by supplying information the police obviously want to hear.
This article was originally published by Richard Dieter the executive director of Death Penalty information center as mentioned earlier. The Center prepared a report for the Subcommittee, basing its research on its own monitoring of this issue and on groundbreaking work done by other researchers, most notably Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo Bedau. The report listed 48 defendants who had been released from death row in the prior 20 years because of subsequently discovered evidence of innocence. The audience of this website are the researchers and the general public.
I will use this information to explore why such critical mistakes had been made in the legal process, and whether it was likely that such errors would continue. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.
Terry, Don. "Live From Death Row." Chicago Tribune. N.p., 2 Nov. 2003. Web. 13 July 2014.
On the streets, Aaron Patterson ruled with charisma and brute force. On Death Row, he survived through anger. Now that he has been exonerated and freed, he's finding the same traits that served him so well in the past sometimes get in the way of his new goals: ending the violence, building up the neighborhood and reforming the criminal justice system. He still speaks loudly and passionately. But will anybody listen? Can Patterson make good on his promises and ambitions? Since his arrest, Patterson has claimed the police tortured him into confessing, allegations that authorities have denied for just as long. But Patterson did not sign the confession and there has never been any forensic evidence or eyewitness account linking him to the killings, all factors that led to the governor's decision that finally freed him.
This article was written by Don Terry, published on Chicago tribune website. This article explained the real life situation on death row. This is a story of Aaron Paterson who was exonerated and freed by Governor Ryan. The audience for this website is the general public.
The information in this article will be used to support my topic explaining what it means to be on death row, the consequences and life after death row. This article will be especially helpful since the author support my viewpoint.