Self Analysis

I chose my issue because I felt it was an intriguing issue that is often neglected, because emphasis is usually given to the judicial process but not on why the process is there in the first place. When I first started out thinking about this issue, I wasn’t sure which direction I was going to go. What I had in mind initially was a more philosophical approach that was influenced by my readings of Nietzsche. But keeping in mind that this was a social sciences project, I began to delve into the anthropological aspects of punishment, and I began to think about the changes in punishment that have happened throughout human history. At first I saw the change as a more simple one: we had simply moved on from seeking revenge to seeking true justice, and we have become less barbaric in our methods of punishment. However, I then began to think about the implications of this, and I realized how psychological punishment is not any milder than any physical torture that was used before. It is the torture of the mind, and it is still every bit as inhumane. Also, the reasons we punish criminals nowadays cannot be purely for consequential reasons because there still exists in humans a desire to seek revenge. I think nothing is ever that simple, especially the matter of the origin of punishment, which has a history so steep we can no longer fully discover the real origin.

Realizations

Due to the nature of my topic and my passionate feelings concerning equality and women's issues, getting a grasp on my subject was very difficult for me. I began my posts inconclusively, as I wasn't really sure how I felt how the subject and didn't fully understand all of its dimensions. As I researched the general trends of women on death row I began to consider the different ways in which women would be treated in comparison with men. At this point I was pulled in two directions, fighting with the thought of encouraging more executions for women or encouraging unequal standards. Being a feminist, it was very difficult but necessary for me to side with the thought that women should be treated in the same manner and held to the same standards as men, even though that may mean that more women will be sentenced to die. This is a simplification of the issue, as ideas about gender and sexuality are more complex than any other subject that I have studied. I still feel that though I support women being treated in the same manner as men, I do feel that there are some circumstances that undoubtedly make women a little different, such as the issue of executing pregnant women or women who killed in reaction to sexual violence. Though I definitely feel like I will never quite be able to wrap my head around all of the intricate interactions that gender and sexuality have in every arena of society, I have concluded that we need to keep gender stereotypes out of the courtroom but consider each case on an individual level. Women who conform to ideas about femininity should not get a lighter sentence just because they are viewed as weak and the same goes for women who reject these stereotypes and behave more masculine. These are the types of things that need to stay out of the courtroom in order for trials to be just, fair, and equal.

Critical Self Analysis

These last few blog posting have been hectic for me personally. At first I felt as I didn't have enough sources on how race influences both jury decisions and how jury selection methods should equally represent minorities for the sake of eliminating racism in the jury. I decided upon the topic because I do feel that sometimes minorities are not represented fairly in small communities and are given much harsher punishments than they deserve. I felt this was due to racism, purely basing my decision on the Jenna 6 case and both the O.J. Simpson trial as well as the Rodney King trial. I hardly knew that this has been going on for quite sometime and there were evidence from experiments that indicated race did play a role in most cases. Now, that I look back on the issue I feel that racism can act not solely against a minority defendant but for him as well. I think the main reason some lawyers do challenge or question whether a minority juror should be in the jury box is because they stereotype the behaviors that come with minorities. Sadly enough sometimes they do exclude them because it will be against their favor in the case (which may or may not be racism). But I realized how difficult it is for minorities to be jurors not only for the qualities they look for in jurors but also the randomness of a cross-section. When we compare the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King trials we see that each case had a different racial mix up of the juries. O.J. was acquitted of murder with a jury mostly composed of minorities and Rodney King’s attackers were let free in front of an mostly white jury. I believe that people tend to judge people with respect to themselves, and sometimes they feel sympathy for the defendant because of it. Now I realize that some of the jury racial bias comes from an individual level since some progress has been made in eliminating racial discrimination when jury selection (The Batson v. Kentucky). In some of these cases it wasn’t so, there was clear racism but I ask my self how is our system ever going to be administering justice –an objective idea, with a system that has such subjective interpretation? I do believe that some of this individual behavior is never going to change and is going to keep our system flawed, but sometimes juries go out of hand when punishment is on the line. Racism may always taint people and their individual decisions but if someone is going to be convicted to the death penalty purely based on stereotypes, they are being denied their 8^th amendment rights and endure cruel and unusual punishment. So I may want to say that the federal government should set up some conditions that a person has to meet to become a juror. This should be set in motion to make sure explicitly that people do not exclude minorities from the jury to ensure minorities’ 14^th amendment rights (equal protection clause) and in effect instate a minority defendant with their 6^th amendment right to an impartial jury.

Self Analysis

As an American I viewed our justice system with the idea that everyman is equal in front of the courts eye. Yet as I have studied more about the affect of economic status in capital punihsment cases, and other type of court cases I was amazed about the injustices in the system. Through studying the topic I have learned a great deal about my own ideas on the topic, and what is trying to be done to stop the injustice Innocence Protection Act. As I have studied this topic I have been amazed aout the injustices in the system. The prejudices that we as a society and the justice system show towards poor people around the US is incredible. I do realize that part of these views are based on race but some of them are definately not. I find that we as a society judge people based on how much money they have basing the value of a person on their wealth which is terrible. Through studying I found that it was mainly the poor people who were at a disadvantage because they could not afford a lawyer. Even though the state is supposed to provide lawyers for defendants that cannot afford them, but the state pays such low wages that no lawyer would ever take the case. All of these injustices made me question the trust I had in the judicial system and look to see what was being done in the courtroom to solve these problems and maintain the idea of justice for all. As I researched the topic more; I have now learned that some legislation has been done to help provide quality lawyers for poor people. I have also found lawyers who have setup probono cases to help in poor states like alabama and others. There is also legislation being done to provide better investigative techniques available to poor people like DNA testing. DNA testing being available for poor people would help in cases like that presented in Sister Helen Prejean book The Death of Innocence and in the West Memphis Three case. Yet this problem has not been completely resolved and the question maybe raised how does econmic status affect the court's opinion in other cases such as rape? Or other crimes like drug dealers and car theft?

Self Analysis: Looking Back

I decided on my topic for the blog while watching Paradise Lost as I saw the appalling ways in which the families and defendants acted in front of the cameras. At that moment I realized if people distort their actions outside the courtroom then it is even more distressing how their demeanors change inside the courtroom. I initially believed the media had little or no good influence on our courts and intended to examine its impact on the judicial system as a whole. However, as I researched further, the topic began to get broader and broader with numerous arguments—influence on the jury, impact of pretrial press, effect on individual court cases (O.J. Simpson, West Memphis, Duke Lacrosse). I decided to concentrate the issue that intrigued me in the first place: cameras in the courtroom. Originally I believed the issue of the media interfering with the courts was a fairly new dilemma that emerged due to the expansion of technology. I was very surprised to learn that the media has always intervened in the justice system only now it has a new medium— camera—to do so.

I admit I began this blog with my own preliminary opinions, but since then I have become more aware of the many positives of taping court proceedings. Although my attitude on the issue has not changed, I better understand both sides of the argument. My notion of the media being completely harmful has changed; I realized the media plays a critical in the judicial system because it not only informs but entices an apathetic public to oversee and understand the courts. America has a tendency to only focus on the sensationalized and therefore misconstrues how the court system really works. Bringing cameras inside courtrooms can rid the public of its ignorance; however, when I asked myself which is more important—informing the public or allowing a fair trial—I knew my position was to oppose cameras. In my opinion, there is a very fine line between news and entertainment. There is no assurance that reporters and journalists will not distort trial tapes to promote biased entertainment histrionics. For myself, I came to the compromise: media access is critical and should be allowed, but cameras should not. Also for those who advocate using these tapings as a learning tool for prospective lawyers, I have two words: open trial. If a law student wants to learn about court proceedings then sitting in a real life court will provide a better sense of the courts than any tape. The most controversial issue I came across was the conflict between allowing the media its 1^st amendment right to freedom of the press and ensuring defendants their 6^th amendment right of a fair trial. There is no denying that cameras can influence people to act differently and in a trial where every movement or expression can alter the jury's decision, I am not willing to risk another person’s life in order to generate news. I agree that public has an inalienable right to know what goes on in a courtroom, but in my opinion, a journalist with a pen and paper has the same capacity to report as much with a camera. If the public were truly enticed by the actual proceedings and wanted a firsthand look, I would welcome them to go to the courts themselves.

In most or even all my blogs up until now I have been so focused on the tug-of-war between the media and the courts that even I forgot what the cases I mentioned were truly about. In all the cases I referenced, people were beaten, raped, killed, or all the above, but by creating spectacles out of courtrooms, the public forgets that trials are meant to attain justice for the victim not as entertainment. The media’s role as a watchdog over the justice system is an invaluable means that should never be jeopardized, but by allowing cameras in courtrooms, we concede them to be but a parody of the justice system outlined in our constitution.

Jury Equality

Race plays a major role in the courts today, and we should have a reason to be concerned, simply because it could be easily fixed. Numerous accounts have occurred where racial minorities were denied a fair trial guaranteed by the constitution because of the method used in Jury selection. In addition many of the defendants convicted were subject to harsher punishments solely because of race and the fact that a racially mixed jury tends to be much more scrutinizing. As a society we know that these rights have been violated many times before therefore these problems are not far from being corrected . As a community that promotes equality under our constitution, we should make it our responsibility to keep in mind these factors of behavior and subjectivity in jury selection and attempt to reform jury selection.

The way a jury is selected varies from state to state, but most states select their jury pools using the following qualities (pg. 3): mentally sound, no conviction, physically sound, age, ability to read, write and speak English, prior jury service, key-man characteristics, resident or citizen of the state, resident or qualified elector, resident or citizen of the country, U.S. citizen, and jury solicitation. Examining these closely we find that mentally sound, physically sound and key-man characteristics are all subjective qualities. As a result the subjectivity of all these categories can later be challenged by the prosecutor or defense. In Minimizing Racism in Jury Trials Blaunder found that out of 152 jurors, 21 were black. Blaunder later states that two were excused from the court for prejudice, eight were peremptorily challenged by the prosecution, and one served on the jury. Of the 127 whites, 38 were excused for prejudice, 18 for opposition to the death penalty, 19 for miscellaneous reasons, 13 by prosecution’s challenges and 25 by the defendant’s. This statistic serves to point out the power that both prosecutors and defense have when using peremptory challenges to rule out potential jury members. The problem with this is that one could essentially manipulate the jury to behave in favor of the defense or prosecution and be inclined to act with racism. This issue was brought into the court system in Swain v. Alabama. Swain was a black man convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to death by an all white jury. The case was brought before the Supreme Court on appeal but was denied on the grounds that potential black jurors were all fairly excluded by peremptory challenges. The problem with the law set was that a lawyer could get around excluding jurors using obvious discrimination by simply stating a “race-neutral” explanation for eliminating a juror. For example, in State v. Gaitan (14th par.) a prosecutor stated that a juror's education may cause difficulty in understanding terms. The Judge can overrule a challenge, but the prosecutor or defense could easily persuade them citing more "race-neutral" reasons for removing the juror. Excluding minorities from juries could potentially impact whether the case is more sympathetic to the defense or prosecution. This also, as studies indicate, promotes racism and the removal of objective decision making from individual jurors. Racism is still used in this practice, even after the Batson v. Kentucky case, which overturned Swain v. Alabama stating that the prosecutor cannot dismiss jurors on the sole basis of race (the prosecutor had excluded 4 black jurors). These practices point out the little progress we as a society have made in the movement of racial equality. It sickens me to think that loopholes still exist that promote racism and the misrepresentation of minorities, especially in the Justice system where they are crucially needed to maintain an individual's civil rights.
Jury Selection methods and whether race affects a jury’s decision has been widely controversial. Cases like the O.J. Simpson trial -consisting of a jury of nine blacks, one hispanic, and one white- have been influenced by racial factors. A couple of years earlier the police that injured Rodney King were acquitted by a mostly white jury. The media coverage of the case seemed to set a precedent to promote more diverse jury compositions. Both cases served to point out that one sided racial composition can skew decision making and eliminate the objectiveness nessecary to carry out cases. Many argue even if race didn’t affect a jury’s decision, giving minorities the honor to serve in the U.S. Justice system will at least help ensure equal treatment under law. Rebecca Saxe summarized the study in which Sommer conducted an experiment that gave insight on the behavior of racial mock juries (some were racially mixed others were all white). The trial was of a black defendant who allegedly sexually assaulted two white women separately. 55% of the mock juries voted to acquit, just as the real jury had. It seemed as though both mixed and all white juries mentioned race as an issue when deciding. When the white juries brought up the issue of racism, in every case there was at least one juror that objected that racism was not relevant to the case; compared to 22% of objections in mixed juries. To summarize in her words both the anticipation and the experience of serving on a diverse jury seemed to sharpen the white jurors’ sensitivity not just to race but to accuracy and due process. From this study we can conclude that a racially mixed jury does influence other jurors individual behaviors. If jurors show these patterns based on others we could potentially be adminstering justice subjectively. Subjective decisions, or racial motivated decisions, lead us as a society towards placing values on indivuals based on race, its indirectly arguing against the 14th amendment. Baldus and his other colleagues conducted several studies of capital cases in different areas and found that the defendant's race influences death sentences. Black defendants, according to Baldus, were four times more likely to receive the death penalty than White defendants. They have also found that defendant and victim race are correlated with a jury's degree of conviction, such that Black defendants are given much longer sentences than White defendants when the victim is White. But the study suggests that we shouldn’t be convinced of the results because other cases have contradicted these studies. This study points out that jurors are racially sensitive to defendants depending on race. This could imply that if a jury is not racially mixed they could convict someone to death based on race, violating the 8th amendment and the 14th amendment- not granting equal protection under the law and being subject to cruel and unusual punishment. In another study Mock jurors composed from college students and prospective jurors decided over a civil case of sexual harassment. The study suggested there was “racial bias among White mock jurors against Black plaintiffs: Lower damages were recommended for Black plaintiffs than for White plaintiffs.” Individuals act out to their own liking even it’s looked down upon in society. It’s as the study says “Racism in contemporary American society involves a disinclination among Whites to engage in obvious acts of discrimination against Blacks. When Discrimination against Blacks occurs, Whites need to be able to justify it on grounds other than just race”. The research points out that there does exist behavior problems within races in the Jury box. Clearly jury members act individually without the socially unacceptable walls that would be in place in a public setting. The way juries are selected could potentially lead to these behavioral problems.

Racial bias in Jury Selection has been a problem since the creation of the 14^th and 6^th Amendments. Juries have not always fairly been selected from a cross-section of the community or upheld the Equal protection clause of the 14^th amendment by including minorities in the jury pool. The 6^th amendment states that this jury should be impartial, representative, and fair. Now how these civil rights are carried out is subject to the interpretations of our court system. But our system works to correct itself, and it has by establishing new statues of the for criminal procedures (Abigail Funk, Jury Selection and Racial Discrimination): 18 U.S.C.§243 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1861 et seq. The first statue states that a person will not be disqualified from jury service because of race. The second is much more specific and states “no Citizen shall be excluded from service as a grand or petit juror in the district courts of the United States on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status”. The statues set up a way to increase equality when selecting jurors. But these laws were still violated many times in history. Possibly the most infamous case in which a racial minority was not given the proper fair representation was the murder of Emmett Till. In 1955 Mississippi, a 14 year old black teenager was murdered by two men after whistling at the store owner’s wife. Both men were arrested and charged with murder, but later acquitted by an all white male jury. Now granted that this was in the South before the civil rights movement, but we have to analyze the way jury selection and racial bias has been used to progress both racial inequality over history and manipulate decisions. In 1957 Willie Edwards was murdered by Klansmen, no one was charged. The case was later reopened in1976 but was thrown out by a judge due to insufficient evidence. This cases markes the progress that our courtsystem is making by reopening cases that were not fairly carried out due to racial bias. Though sometimes they do examine cases again they fail to carry out any real justice because of the loose definitions and interpretations of the law. Another occurrence took place here in Greensboro North Carolina in 1979. After the dubbed “Greensboro massacre” two criminal trials were conducted with all white juries; keep in mind this occurred in a predominantly black neighborhood, yet no one was convicted. Most of these cases I’ve recanted occurred in the South which has been plagued with racism since the establishment of the Jim Crow laws. In the past decade we have seen cases in which police have misused their power and beaten civilians. Some argue that they have the right to do so. However I believe that when someone is brutality beaten and asphyxiates to death (under the Jonny Gammage Law) by 5 police officers and only two get charged with manslaughter and all are acquitted this is due to racial bias in the jury. The only black man voted against acquittal of these police officers and the case was declared a hung jury but the court decided against a retrial. When the penalty for committing a crime amounts to death or life in prison we cannot simply disregard the problem, simply because we could potentially be convicting them solely on racism. In 2000 our nation’s population was composed of 12% African Americans, 3.6% Asian, 0.9% American and Alaska native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander and 5.5 percent was other than white. Now consider the fact that in 2006 about 58% of our prison population (pg. 6) was made up of minorities, of those about 39% were Black and 16% were Hispanic. Now, what does this say about our justice system? Many argue that minorities are more likely to commit crimes because they are exposed to harsh environments. This may be the case but if our prisons contain minority criminals, they are to be tried without any violation of their 14^th amendment and 6^th amendment rights. Juries can potentially give them a conviction based on race. Take the following two cases: Darryl Hunt of North Carolina was convicted twice to life in prison by an all white jury. After 19 year he was let free because of DNA proving his innocence. As we’ve seen from the studies, juries tended to give blacks defendant a harsher punishment than a white defendant, especially if the victim is white. A fine example is in 1998 John W. King from Texas, who murdered a black many by dragging him behind a pick up truck. He was the Second man in Texas be sentenced to death since the 1850’s. Now granted, the jury consisted of one black man. If more racially mixed jurors were available, not only would jury feel more sympathy for the defendant and not easily convicted them, but they would also be conscious of the opinions of individuals with different experiences. Thomas El Miller had his death sentence overturned because they believed the jury selection was excluding black jurors by peremptory strikes from the prosecutor. We as a society should make sure that juries fairly represent a defendant to establish some form of objective justice. To do so we must recognize that numerous factors in how juries are selected can change the way a case administers justice. There will always be individuals who serve in juries that decide solely based on prejudices, but if we uniformly modify the requirements that a one needs to be a jury and make them less subjective we could establish some fair representation. Everything in our justice system is subjective, we need to strive to remove subjectivity because of all the inequalities that result from it.

Analyzing the Issue

The changes in the reasoning behind punishment have influenced how we have punished law-breakers throughout history. When punishment was used mainly as a means to seek revenge, the methods were much bloodier and violent. This is not to say that the justice systems were barbaric and disorganized. Some of the bloodiest and most violent punishments were issued under structured legal systems. For example, Vlad the Impaler, who ruled Wallachia, Romania, in the 1400s, employed the cruelest techniques imaginable. The most famous of these punishments was impalement, which is the plunging of a stake through the whole body. His infamous punishments kept the crime rates of Wallachia so low that a gold cup left in the street overnight would allegedly remain in the same spot. People were afraid of his extreme physical punishments, so the threat of physical pain was extremely effective in deterring crime. Ancient Rome is also infamous for its violent practices in punishment. The Coliseum hosted the violent deaths of criminals for the entertainment of the public. In both these examples of violent punishments, we can see how the purpose is not solely to avenge victims, but punishment also served the purpose of preventing further crime. Even though the practices of punishment were violent beyond our imagination now, we cannot consider them barbaric and uncivilized.

In our modern society, we like to view our own punishment techniques as civilized, but let us examine the truths of this assumption. In an article published by the Chicago Bar Association Record, Chris Fisher makes the bold proposition that the guillotine is a less cruel and unusual, and therefore more humane, method of execution than lethal injection. He argues that the guillotine provides a swifter form of execution that serves its purpose well. On the other hand, lethal injection is a slower dying process, and is not as humane as people might think. Not all lethal injection executions have been free of pain or trouble. On July 18, 2006, Tommie J Smith suffered 69 minutes before he was pronounced dead. There can often be complications such as trouble finding the vein. Just because the method is more scientific does not make it a better punishment.

The forms of punishment have become more psychological and less violent, so we'd like to think that we have evolved. Instead of punishing through whipping and flogging, America operates on the prison system. Some people may feel that this is actually unjust and inhumane because the psychological torture that comes from being locked in a prison cell could be seen as a form of slavery. Some people even go as far to arguing for the abolition of prisons. However, the general public in America assumes that prison is far more humane than corporal punishment. There is an embedded idea in our heads that corporal punishment is evil, but we should consider other perspectives. The body may heal from corporal punishment, but the soul may never completely heal from the psychological damage of imprisonment. The 8th amendment protects Americans from "cruel and unusual punishment", but what exactly does this mean? The definition can be cloudy, and in the right context, imprisonment can be seen as cruel and unusual.

As I mentioned earlier, aside from changes in the methods of punishment, the purposes for which we punish have also changed. For example, if we look at the cases presented in The Death of Innocents by Sister Helen Prejean, we can see how the justice system seems skewed and does not seem to seek true justice at all. The two men in the book, whose innocence Prejean argues for, were unfairly tried and not given proper means to defend themselves against a system that wanted justice only in the sense of finding a scapegoat. People did not seek justice in society to prevent further harm or to help the criminals. This is also true in the case presented in Paradise Lost, where the people of West Memphis only wanted to find a scapegoat to blame the crimes on. It does not seem to matter to people whether the convicted actually committed the crime; they only want to appease their own anger. By sentencing someone that is likely to have committed the crime, they feel comfortable in the fact that they have punished someone.

This approach seems to be purely retributive, but it comes with the disguise of improving society. Has our judicial system become hypocritical? I mentioned in my implications post that our punishment system has shifted from the physical to the psychological, and from a retributive purpose to a desire to improve society. However, it seems that we are still operating under a retributive desire for revenge, except now we have evolved to a point where we mask this purpose with a motive to better society. Is this a turn for the worse?

Cameras in the Courtroom

Whether or not to place cameras in the courtroom is not a new predicament, but a long-lasting matter that even the justice system continues to waver on. Though all states have a law permitting cameras in at least some of their courtrooms, television cameras continue to be banned in various cases.

As advancing technology fixes some of the old problems(p.12)—big, bulky cameras, long cords, bright lights—advocates of cameras in the courtroom are once again raising the issue. While the opposing side argues that cameras obstruct the defendant’s right to a fair trial, advocates are also utilizing the 6th amendment, claiming that opening the courts and allowing more media access "ensures professionalism by the attorneys and the judge. A camera in the courtroom protects a defendant’s right to a public trial.”(Congressman Poe) Though the media is highly scrutinized for its overexposure of certain cases and turning courtrooms into a circus, they are also responsible for unveiling numerous injustices that have occurred in our judicial system. If it were not for the press, instances such as Jena Six would be not be uncovered until years from now in some law journal and the outcome too late to change. Court TV chief Henry Schlieff believes "There's no reason in this day and age for people to not be eyewitnesses to the judicial branch and its proceedings.” The network also argues that electronic journalists using cameras should have the same access as print reporters and by preventing cameras in courtrooms, the judicial system obstructs the 1st amendment because it impedes on both the press’ right to inform the people and the peoples’ rights to attain such information. But even if cameras were allowed in courtrooms, questions of who would be in charge of taping, where to keep the tapes, and when would it be released to the public raise another set of dilemmas.

Challenges to placing cameras in courtrooms center mainly on their ability to distract lawyers and witnesses. Witnesses are vital to most cases and cameras encourage witnesses to alter their testimony and demeanor. They already undergo intense pressure on the stand, whether it’s just telling their side of the story or managing cross examinations, but to add cameras into the mixture takes the intensity to another level. The idea that their testimony not only determines a person’s fate but can also be viewed by possibly millions can cause witnesses to change their demeanor or miscall details. The credibility of a witness in the eyes of the jury depends a great deal on how that witness carries themself and if the witness appears scared or unsure, it can cause the jury to not believe their statement. Or on the other side of the spectrum, witness can also play to the camera. In Paradise Lost, Damien Echols’ at times appears more consumed by impressing the camera than how the jury perceives him. The other fear of bringing cameras into the courtroom is that lawyers will forget their duty to the client and focus more on their image in the press(p 63-64). If nothing else, high-profile cases have proven that it can make or break a lawyer’s career. Tim Sullivan of TV court admits “anytime you put a camera into a situation, it changes that situation…and lawyers may grandstand a little more.” The last major problem is that the media, even when it strives to do so, can never present as much information as it wants to. Many judges and justices fear media soundbites can distort the audience’s perception of proceedings. This is especially vital in appeals and Supreme Court hearings where the justices can question lawyers and the media can easily alter clips to make it appear the judge favors one side over the other.

The issue of bringing cameras into the courtroom has no easy solution of one way or another and no middle ground in sight. In the end, it will depend not only on which side cries injustice louder, but also which voice the public, or in some cases Congress, is more willing to listen to. The opinion of Justice Warren Burger 20 years ago for cameras in courtrooms was “over my dead body”Supreme Court justices are in agreement with his disfavor of cameras in federal and Supreme Court hearings. However, and since then the majority of a bipartisan group of Congressmen are pushing a bill to counter such restrictions. The future of this issue is no longer just a struggle between the press’ right to news and the courts’ right to privacy, but a dilemma of checks and balances between Congress and the Supreme Court.

Complexities of Gender Biases

In order to better understand the way in which women who are accused of murder are brought to justice and punished, I am going to look into the cases of three famous female murderers, Andrea Yates Aileen Carol Wuornos, and Karla Faye Tucker. All three of these women were influenced by the ideology that surrounds appropriate female behavior and gender stereotypes, with one benefiting while the other two were sentenced to die. These women have unique experiences in comparison to the average male murderer, considering their sexuality and femininity were in the forefront of the prosecution against them. While on trial questions regarding whether or not they were "normal" females were called into question, giving us a glimpse into the assumptions made about the way in which women are expected to behave. Due to the fact that women are often viewed as helpless, gentle, and caregivers, women who kill are an issue that the judicial system are just not prepared to deal with in an appropriate manner. Andrea Yates drowned her five children one after another in her bathtub and immediately admitted her guilt. She plead insanity and was found not guilty on those grounds. This particular case bring to light very intense emotional issues for the general public, for Yates violated all the norms associated with motherhood and the idea that every woman yearns to be a mother. While Yates didn’t seem to be adverse to motherhood itself, she went against the requirement that women should be caregivers to children by hurting the children she was expected to protect. The death penalty was an option in this case yet Yates insanity plea was quite convincing, which her gender may have had role in. Since women are already viewed in our society as being more emotionally unstable than men, it has become more prevalent for women to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The fact that Yates was conformed to the idea that women should still care greatly for their children, since explained her reasoning for killing them was because she had been a bad mother, aided in her avoiding the death penalty. While Yates benefited from gender stereotypes infiltrating our justice system, Aileen Carol Wuornos and Karla Faye Tucker are two perfect examples of women who failed desperately at measuring up to the standards of the ideal woman. Both women were sentenced to die for murdering men and both incorporated their own sexuality into the trial. This was a mistake for both women, especially in the case of Karla Faye Tucker and her statement about experiencing multiple orgasms while hacking her victims with a pick axe. Her case was sensationalized due to this bit of information, while if she were a man if would be no big surprise because of the assumption that men are the ones that have uncontrollable sex drives, not women. Aileen was in a similar situation considering she killed the men who hired her as a prostitute. On top of that, she alluded to being a lesbian, which placed her even further into the realm of the unnatural woman. Women's sexual orientation is often scrutinized, as if to provide a rational behind a killing, an explanation such as "hard core lesbian" to explain why a women acted in violence. The facts Aileen’s and Karla’s sexuality and gender identities were brought up repeatedly by the media, something that wouldn’t happen in a case where a man murdered unless sexual assault was involved. At the end of Karla’s life she declared herself reformed, a Christian, and married and continued her struggle to be granted a pardon. She also altered her appeareance and softened her voice, appealing to societal ideas about women being meek creatures in need of protection. Her reputation had already been ruined with her admittance to sexual satisfaction during her murders, and she was put to death. What does all of this mean? The main point is that there was unnecessary attention placed on the role of motherhood, sexuality, and gender norms in these three cases that wouldn’t have been included in the trial of a man. When men are on trial for murder they are not questioned about whether they were sexually promiscuous, gay, or their feelings on fatherhood. These differences spell out that there are still gender inequalities in our justice system and in particular cases that involve capital punishment. Motherhood and the ideal0gy surrounding mothers is an interesting case, especially in the instance of Paline Zile coming very close being issued a death sentence for the murder of her daughter at the hands of the child's stepfather. She was sentenced to life in prison for failing to protect her child, which tells us the types of expectations for women and the results if they do not conform to such ideals. This issue brings about questions concerning the death penalty as a whole, for how can we argue that it is right and just if it isn’t being distributed equally? The legal system is yet another arena where gender stereotypes run rampant and the oppression of women is viewed as normal.

Analysis

One's economic status plays a huge role in what a person is able to accomplish in life. Yet in the courtroom all men are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and have the same equal rights no matter how much or little money a person possess. Yet the affect of economic status on court cases can still be seen today. We as a society have gone in the direction of placing a person's value in the amount of money he or she has. By doing this we as a society have become biased in favor of people who have money and looking down on people of lower economic circumstances.
This posting will focus on the impact that economic status can have on a defendant's case by affecting the quality of lawyer that the defendant can hire. An example of this is Mr. Christopher W. Adams, who was a lawyer appointed in the state of Georgia, to defend capital punishment cases for poor people. Mr. Adams defended thirty cases death penalty case, and none of his clients received the death penalty. This was the first time in recent history that this had happened in Georgia. Unfortunately Mr. Adams has resigned from his position because his office lacked proper financial funding. This type of situation perfectly illustrates how if clients have sufficient funding and a competent defense they can receive a fair trial. In fact, "95 % of the 3,350 people currently on death row could not afford their own lawyer." This statistic shows how poor people are at a disadvantage in capital punishment cases mainly because they cannot afford their own lawyer. Such a lopsided decision is a clear testimony that the system needs to be reformed since such a huge number of defendants convicted are poor. Several other cases exemplify the importance in hiring quality lawyers and why the state should provide quality legal counsel. An essay written by Stephen B. Bright discusses the importance of having quality lawyers. The essay talks about the case of a woman who was sentenced to death for killing her husband. Yet the defense lawyers forgot to mention that her husband had abused both her and her daughter and the death penlaty is not usually given in such a case. So there was a good chance that if the jury had heard this information they would have been perhaps more understanding and placed a lighter sentence. The woman unfortunately did not have the finanacial ability to hire a good lawyer meaning that the state appointed one who was terrible. This was demonstrated by the fact that the lawyer came to trial drunk one day. Appointment of such terrible lawyers cannot be considered justice since these lawyers are not even sober or competent to defend their clients. Alabama is one of the state's that pays its defense appointed lawyers the lowest amount; therefore, making it one of the states with the most people on death row. Since the state pays t lawyers such a low amount none of the quality lawyers want to take the cases of the poor defendants because they know they will not be payed well. In an article written for the NAACP by Miriam Gohara she discusses the poor defense lawyers that the defendants get from the state of Mississippi. She describes the way many lawyers only see their clients at trial, but it is impossible for a lawyer to form a proper defense unless he has met with his client. Another case of this kind can be seen in several cases in Georgia where the defendant's lawyers referred to them with racial slurs. Such horrendous behavior by defendant's laywers prove the lack of service provided by state employed lawyers when they are underpayed. Stephen B. Bright states that it requires, "Knowledge of proceedings that arcane and complex." This statement tells us why is it is so important to have lawyers that are qualified for capital punishment cases. The review further states that in Gideon V. Wainwright, "The dream of a vast, diverse country in which every person charged with a crime will be capably defended no matter what his economic circumstances". Both Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan effort have supported legislation to improve legal counsel for poor people, and both agree that it is an issue that needs to be fixed. Senators on both sides have sponsored legislation to do this in the Innocence Protection Act which calls for improved legal counsel. Senator Patrick Leahy a Democrat from Vermont was one of the leaders of the movement in Congress and helped get the Act passed. An example of justice being properly carried out in a case involving economic class is in New Mexico where the Supreme Court of New Mexico stopped a case against two men for the death penalty because the defense did not recieve sufficient funds from the state. Though the chargers will not be canceled they are merely being put on hold until the defense gets proper funding and can provide a competent defense. The Court made this decision on October 31, 2007 which helps show just how recently the decision was made. This type of case helps demostrate the efforts being made on a state level to help make sure justice is carried out fairly. President George Bush also claimed in in his state of the union address in 2005 that the government would provide more training for lawyers in capital punishment cases; this is in addition to the Justice For All Act that he had signed earlier. The Just For All Act was legislation that called for DNA testing to be used to exonerat defendants in capital punihsment cases. Being poor also affects the juries opinion in that being poor can causes them to look down on the defendant and be more judgemental on him or her. This is demonstrated in the West Memphis 3 case where all three boys charged had little money and were considerd weird. The West memphis 3 is a good example because the jury jumped to the conclusion that the boys were guilty without hearing any evidence. I believe the jury based their decision off of appearance rather than evidence. Another example of the biased shown towards poor people is The Death of Innocence a book, written by Sister Helen Prejean, which discusses the defense of two men who were found guilty and put to death. The innocence of these two men has been widely discussed in the public though, yet Sister Helen talks about how the poverty of the two men affected the verdict they recieved. The lawyers of both men were not good, and one lawyer was even disbarred after the trial. he defendants also lacked the necessary fund to pay for DNA testing which might have reversed the verdict. Sister Helen calls for an end to the death penalty because she does not think that we can provide good defense lawyers for defendants.
Some people argue though that lawyers might get overpayed and that states can't afford to pay high rates to lawyers, howver; a scary statistic shows that only 50 lawyers in the US work for non profit cases which is a low number in a country with over 1 million lawyers. However I believe that lawyers should be paid a fair and equal sum that is the common wage to private lawyers. Standards of experience for lawyers in capital punishment cases for lawyers is also being placed in certain states. North and South Carolina are among some of the states that have passed legislation of this type. Hopefully other states will follow the Carolina's example. We as a society though should continue to call for reform of this issue. I believe that differences in economic status will always be present in our society, but i do believe that we can reduce the affect of one's economic status in court rulings. Hopefully America can return to fair and equal treatment of all men no matter what their economic status is.

Have we evolved?

In my theory post, I discussed the idea that we regard punishment as more civilized now because it has veered away from the violent and physical punishments. We see ourselves as more civilized because we think that the psychological means of punishment that have replaced barbaric methods are more humane in comparison. However, the psychological implications that come with the punishment of imprisonment can be equally torturous.

An excellent example of a psychological punishment that has lasting effects is Chinese water torture. This involved the constant slow dripping of water onto the prisoner's forehead until they were driven to madness. This type of punishment does not sound as extreme as physical torture, but the results can be equally effective.

Even as you read this there are 3350 inmates waiting on death row. In 1996, the average inmate waited on death row for 11 years and 2 months for their day of reckoning. This waiting is psychological torture, because it is so drawn out, that even though there is no physical pain, the psychological torment is painful enough. We should not be so quick to judge that we have moved on from barbaric methods of punishment. If we allow ourselves to slip into this state of complacency where we are willing to accept that our system is infallible simply because our methods seem tamer and more civilized, we might overlook the many flaws of our justice system.

We think that we have become better because we no longer use barbaric forms of punishment. However, I believe that the moral aspects of punishment were later tacked on; they were excuses to make ourselves feel better by saying we were improving society or reforming the criminal. These qualities are later additions to the original purpose of punishment, and we still see justice largely as a vehicle for retribution. It is when we are presumptuous as a society that we make mistakes.

Court TV: The Future of Our Legal System

Are we ready to live in a world that utilizes courtrooms for entertainment? Apparently so because it’s already happening. Civil cases are sensationalized for TV through shows such as Judge Judy and others like it; Court TV dedicates a whole channel for such spectacles. As a society we have come to expect the scandalous and melodramatic so much that we cannot recognize how the media has made a mockery out of courtrooms. By allowing cameras into civil courtrooms, we have stripped them of their respectability. If this media charade continues, it is only time before we expose federal and Supreme court hearings to the same perversion.

The media has a fundamental right to discuss and explore cases, but a line needs to be drawn before it impedes on a defendants’ rights to a fair trial, if it has not already done so. I cannot deny the vast advantages of the media on the judicial system. Without the needed scrutiny of the press, injustices such as the West Memphis Three or Jena Six would never have been exposed. However, I beseech you to realize that too much media access inhibits the system’s ability to impart justice. There is no way to restrict what the press chooses to publish or insure they do so without bias. Allowing cameras in courtrooms goes beyond the call of the 1st Amendment 's freedom of the press and obstructs the likelihood of a fair trial.

This conflict is no longer a state dilemma, but has become a national dispute; the Judicial Review Committee recently approved bills that would allow cameras in federal courts, which Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy fervently believe would “undermine substantive legal discussions.” Nearly all states prohibit cameras in sensitive cases—those involving juveniles, sex crimes, and, trade secrets. The sensitivity of those cases are no more than that of capital crimes such as murder. All defendants and victims should have that same right to privacy. According to Klaus Pohle, a media law teacher, “the only exception to an open legal system is when justice cannot be done other, generally meaning protection of a fair trial” and in my opinion fair trials cannot occur with cameras in our courtrooms.

Equal Treatment

There are a wide variety of views on whether or not women are in fact receiving different treatment in comparison with men in terms of capital punishment. I feel that women are definitely being held to a different standard than men that places emphasis on their sexuality and gender, a phenomenon not found in the cases of accused male criminals. While such attention is placed on every case where a woman is on trial for murder, there are some cases where it is made public that the woman will be viewed as a person rather than as a female. I feel that this just further evidence that the fact that the person is a woman has a great affect on the way in which she is viewed by all involved, ranging from the jury to her own defense lawyers. The problem with the entire situation is that women cannot escape being a little different than a man, which is understandable considering that our justice system was developed with the idea of males in mind. Therefore, women fall into a strange situation when accused of any kind of violent crime because they are not the status quo. As Renee Heberle writes, “While the state sanctioned killing of women has yet to be normalized, women’s bodies as sexualized objects have been regarded as the appropriate targets of extralegal violence and as undeserving of the full protection of the state.” I find this prevents women from being treated equal in the justice system, regardless of whether such equal treatment will result in more or less executions of women, and therefore not on par with men. While the idea still persists that women are in need of the protection of men, we will have serious issues with legally executing women. Doing away with such an idea will help to further the advancement of women, considering we haven't needed the protection of men in a very long time. We have come a long in terms of equal treatment but until women can be tried in court in the same way as men then women will still be oppressed by the constant scrutiny of how they stack up to the general expectations of how a woman should look and act.

Potential Risks

If we don't change the way select our jury and fail to understand the behavioral aspects that race plays in courts, it could bring about outrage citizens to commit occurrences as the L.A. riots after the Rodney King case. Exacerbating racial tensions in the country would allow cases to vary across different states. A minority defendant in Louisiana should not be tried any differently from one in California. The way justice is administered in one region of the United States should be uniformly applied elsewhere, while reserving states rights and local representation. Now I realize it’s impossible to create this uniform system where justice isn’t subject to the jury’s personal interests, but we should set a new standard that eliminates the risk of unfair trials; this would help convicts that serve time and punishments that aren’t reasonable. Take the case of Genarlow Wilson and Marvin Anderson. Gernarlow faced a conviction of child molestation, even though there was consent, and sentenced to 11-years in prison. Georgia then passed a law that stated that “no teen prosecuted for consensual oral sex could receive more than a 12 months sentence”. The punishment was far too severe for what he committed; the Supreme Court later ruled his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. This case is exemplifies the problem with how juries tend to violate the 8^th amendment due to their actions. Now, a more extreme example is that of Marvin Anderson who was set free after DNA cleared him. He served 19 years in prison and was convicted of rape by an all white jury in Virginia back in 1982. Now suppose that Marvin was sentenced to death, how can we be so sure that a jury have not killed someone solely based on the color of their skin? Today, 53% of Death Row is made up of minorities. If we know from studies that juries do vote based on race, we should make sure that convicts are tried with fair representation and reduce the percentage of inmates in prisons for unfair reasons.

What needs to be done!

If economic class continues to determine the way juries and judges view court cases; our court system will lose its credibility and fairness. New York recently cut the fees it was going to pay its lawyers causing many lawyers to be upset and not want to work on the defendants case in capital punishment. Jonothan E. Gradess, executive director of the New York State Defenders Association, commented that he thought, “I think this is going to drive away quality lawyers, and I think this is going to put defendants at risk”. This article also reveals that defense lawyers in New York are paid $125 but in Alabama only $20. The huge difference between fees reveals the division in qualtiy of representation that two different defendants could recieve in each state merely beacuse of a lack of money. The article demonstrates how impportant it is that the state and national government provide sufficient funds to pay for the lawyers. I think that state governments should start providing more money to pay for defense attorneys. New York, New Jersey, and Colorado have already set up multi million dollar funds to help pay for lawyers and investigators. I also think that states like Alabama should raise the fees they pay their lawyers so that way then proper capital defense lawyers would be more willing to take the cases. I also think that there should be requirements set for lawyer experience so that defendants get proper defense lawyers. Innocent Protection Act in 2001 implements some of this idea by calling for competent defense lawyers. Sandra Day O'Connor commented on this issue that it is, "Perhaps its time to look at minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases." This statement made by one of our supreme court justices further stresses the importance in lawyers that have proper experience. DNA technology and the best methods possible should be made available to all defendants without worry of expenses. Hopefully an improvement in the financial status of everyone in this counrty can also help lead to the reduction of crime and prejudices against poor people.

Jury Impurities and Race

Racism in our court system has existed for a long time – probably the most remembered cases were during the rise of the civil rights movement. Now granted these cases occurred at a time when our nation was amidst a social evolution, but recently cases, similar to those around the time of the movement, have occurred. Today what we encounter is lack of unbiased jury decision making, unnecessary degrees of punishment for crime, and misrepresentation in jury selection. Jury selection is a process in which minorities are excluded because of both the criterion one has to meet and the use peremptory challenges by defense and prosecution. This seems to contradict the impartial jury clause of the 6th amendment which requires a representative jury and “fair possibility of a cross-section of the community". In diverse and large communities representation seems to be improving, but there still exists the issue of Cross-Race effect. The Cross-Race effect shows that there exists a change in a jury's decision based on the inclusion of minorities. The racial mix can potentially affect other jurors’ view the defendant and in effect the degree of punishment they receive. This could imply that many people in communities, with the right ‘legal’ representation, could be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment - violating their 8th amendment right. Granted, we should consider the fact that these people committed crimes and are to face punishment. But the justice system aims to correct people; and if we are putting people in jail for a period of 20 years for a conviction that should only be about 5-10 years or no jail time at all there is a problem. We as a nation who preaches equal treatment under law allow such injustices occur in local courts.

Theory Post

The connection between the effect of economic status on the application of justice is a tough question to be answered nowadays. Statistics show that more black men are convicted of the death penalty than white men. Racism has been in existence for a long time in this country, and I believe that part of this thinking still plagues the justice system today. In comparison to whites a higher number of blacks are in the poverty category and therefore are more susceptible to crime. The difference is even further stressed in that many minorities who have lower incomes are against the death penalty further emphasizing the difference between the upper and lower classes. Lower incomes also prevent many defendants from hiring good lawyers who can help defend their cases. Jonothan E. Gradess executive director of the New York State Defenders Association when commenting on the reduction of fees for defense lawyers said "I think this is going to drive away quality lawyers." If the defendant is not able to hire a quality lawyer his chance of having a good defence is greatly reduced. The high wage demands that many lawyers make reduce the chance that the defendants will be able to afford to hire him. It is estimated that a good defense would cost $100,000 for lawyers and then 50,000 for investigators. Such high figures require that the defendant has a large amount of money which is often not the case. History also shows us that men of great wealth have more power and can therefore get themselves out of trouble. This is done by hiring a quality lawyer or even doing settlements outside of court to avoid a guilty conviction.

The Nature of Punishment

The existence of punishment dates back to Babylonian times, and has been necessary to maintain social order within any civilization. Most people would agree on its two main functions: for retribution and for bettering society. Retribution is, simply put, the Biblical principle of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Exodus 21:24). It is backwards-looking because it is not motivated by a desire to improve the future, but by a sense of revenge. On the other hand, consequentialism is forward-looking because it anticipates a better future that can be brought about in three ways: the prevention of further crime, the increase of the threat of punishment within society by deterring others from crime, and the reformation of the criminal.

Even though punishment is an age-old concept, the methods by which we punish those who break the social contract have changed drastically over the years. The shift has been from physical and violent means to a more controlled system where the punishment is more psychological.

Also, the purpose of punishment has not remained static throughout history. The issue is whether the main function of punishment now is for retribution or improving society. The purpose is never clear-cut as there are different agents acting within the judicial system. For victims, the function is purely for vengeance, while the court system seeks to better society. The method by which punishment is carried out is inherently linked to the intention of punishment. The methods have become less violent because a controlled system developed in which justice was not administered directly by those who felt wronged.

The nature of punishment has evolved from physical to psychological and from a retributive motive to a desire to improve society. These two changes both seem to reflect a shift from the barbaric to a more civilized nature. The terms "barbaric" and "civilized" both contain their own connotations, and we regard civilized as the superior state of society because it implies that we have evolved and changed for the better.