don't know what i'm talking about...

here's an excerpt from the paper i just posted to the course website for my capital punishment class. it's neither well-written nor well thought out--i wrote it very quickly, and pretty much at the last minute. it was a response to other students' thoughts on the reading assignment for this week's class (effectiveness of defense counsel in capital cases). basically, my response paper is just more proof that i'm a crazy liberal who doesn't trust the system.

The standard for juries in capital cases exists to ensure “justice”. In this sense, however, justice is applied as a means to make sure that verdicts can be handed down without regard to an individual juror’s personal views on whether the death penalty is right or wrong. The death certification process binds a jury to the requirements that statutes impose on capital sentencing. In other words, through this process, a “just” verdict is one that is not in conflict with the requirements of sentencing statutes; a death-certified jury poses no threat to what a legislature—and by extension, a democratic majority—has defined as being an appropriate rendering of a death sentence.

But what becomes of justice in terms of effectiveness of counsel? Is it inconsistent with the policy behind death-certifying a jury to insist that a defendant bear the burden in showing that his or her counsel was constitutionally ineffective? Justice in the death-certification process is concerned with enabling the criminal legal system to function unencumbered by a juror who may be unwilling or unable to play by the rules. But does this insistence on the system go too far when applied to the standard outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) for proving ineffectiveness of counsel?

. . .

the point of my response paper actually didn't focus on death-certified juries (i.e., getting rid of any jurors who would not consider a death verdict), but the whole notion goes against how i understand "jury of one's peers". on some level, i understand that the death penalty is legal and juries must be unanimous and whatnot, but a lot of state sentencing statutes are very explicit as to how death sentences are to be rendered. many of them say that a sentence of death MUST be given if aggravating circumstances are found that are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. how does this leave sentencing in a jury's discretion? granted this can be very subjective, but i read it as very restrictive. perhaps it functions in a socially desirable way, allowing jurors to wash their hands of any guilt that may result from sentencing a human to die. but to me it seems to create a process that allows for the death penalty more often than may be "necessary".

i'm silly for even starting to write about this now, as i don't have the time to get into it, but i wanted to put something up here nonetheless. perhaps more on this later...

for now, back to work.