Chapter 15 Death Penalty Trials Appeals

Chapter 15 Death Penalty Trials Appealsterms 2001 Apa Resolution

Chapter 15 Death Penalty Trials & Appeals Terms – 2001 APA Resolution, bi-furcated trial, change of venue, competency for execution evaluation, death qualification procedure, mitigating and aggravating factors, theory of the case, provisions at trial and appellate review. In recent years the Supreme Court and Congress have been concerned the extensive appeal process has resulted in a lengthy process with appeals lasting 10 -20 years in many cases.

According to Amnesty International, 90 countries have abolished the death penalty and 30 others have not used it in 10 years. 66 countries retain the death penalty. In 2004, China performed more than 3,400 executions amounting to more than 90% of the executions worldwide.

In 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment” due to its arbitrary and discriminatory application. In 1976 in Gregg v. Georgia, the US Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in response to state legislation to provide additional due process, appellate review, and related protections to defendants. Death Penalty jurisdictions include 38 states in the US and the federal government, with about 3,300 people on death row. The US military also has a death penalty statute.

Many psychologists oppose the death penalty because of the value they place on individual life and justice; others support it for the same reasons. The APA passed a unanimous resolution in 2001 calling for the suspension of executions until issues related to the process are addressed. These issues include the high overturn rate of death sentences due to procedural errors such as incompetent counsel, inadequate investigation, and withheld exculpatory evidence; biases related to death qualification and race; confusion surrounding mitigation; mental impairment; juvenile vulnerability; and questions about deterrence and instigation.

Research cited in the APA resolution highlights the complexities in capital cases. Forensic psychologists play critical roles, including conducting competency evaluations for trial and execution, examining mitigation during sentencing, and evaluating the risk of wrongful convictions. Studies show that jurors often misunderstand mitigation and aggravation processes, emphasizing the need for expert consultation in these areas.

Psychologists assess defendants' understanding of their offenses, mental impairments, and competency for execution — which are crucial in ensuring fairness and justice in capital cases. Notably, wrongful convictions remain a significant concern; research estimates wrongful convictions in the US occur at a rate of approximately 0.5%, equating to around 7,500 to 10,000 innocent individuals over the population of convicted persons. Recent cases in Illinois led to the release of 13 inmates on death row upon discovering their innocence.

Documented wrongful convictions often result from eyewitness errors, false confessions, prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, inadequate defense, and reliance on junk science. These systemic failures underpin debates surrounding the fairness and morality of the death penalty. Cases such as those of Randall Dale Adams underscore the real risk of executing innocent individuals, raising ethical concerns about capital punishment.

The lengthy appeals process, often lasting decades, has been criticized for inefficiency and potential human rights violations, especially considering most inmates die of natural causes before execution. The US Supreme Court’s rulings, including Atkins v. Virginia (2002), prohibited executing mentally retarded individuals, and Roper v. Simmons (2006), barred the execution of juvenile offenders, aligning US practices with international standards such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Cost considerations also influence the debate. Executions are considerably more expensive than life imprisonment, with estimates suggesting costs around two million dollars more per inmate. Racial bias persists, as findings from McClesky v. Kemp (1987) indicate, where race significantly influences the likelihood of receiving the death penalty, often intersecting with geographic disparities.

Paper For Above instruction

The death penalty remains one of the most contentious issues in criminal justice, intertwining legal, ethical, psychological, and social considerations. This paper explores the complexities of death penalty trials and appeals, highlighting key legal procedures, the role of forensic psychologists, disparities and biases, wrongful convictions, and recent judicial decisions that reflect evolving standards and international influences.

Legal Procedures and Challenges

The process of capital punishment in the United States involves a bifurcated trial—separate proceedings for guilt and sentencing—which aims to ensure thorough deliberation on factors that might mitigate or aggravate the defendant's culpability. A change of venue is often sought to address potential local biases, and competency evaluations determine if defendants understand the legal process and the nature of their punishment. The death qualification process filters jurors by assessing their stance on capital punishment, which can introduce bias into deliberations (Eisenberg, 2004). Modern capital trials also evaluate mitigating and aggravating factors to guide sentencing decisions, with forensic psychologists providing critical assessments of mental health and comprehension issues (Fulero et al., 2009). Despite procedural safeguards, the appeals process can span decades, raising concerns about fairness and human rights (Bowers & DeFrias, 2007).

Psychologists' Roles and Ethical Considerations

Forensic psychologists serve pivotal functions in death penalty cases, including conducting competency evaluations—assessing mental capacity to understand charges, consequences, and to participate in one’s defense and sentencing (Schnittker, 2008). They examine mitigation factors, such as mental health, childhood trauma, and intellectual disability, which are influential during sentencing (Eisenberg, 2004). Furthermore, psychologists evaluate whether defendants are mentally fit for execution, an area fraught with ethical dilemmas (Fulero et al., 2009). Some psychologists oppose the death penalty due to moral objections concerning the value of life and the potential for wrongful convictions, while others support it, emphasizing justice and deterrence. The American Psychological Association (APA) has taken a stance, advocating for moratoria until systemic issues are addressed (APA, 2001).

Disparities, Bias, and Wrongful Convictions

Systemic biases significantly influence capital sentencing, often involving race, victim ethnicity, and geographic location. Research by McClesky v. Kemp (1987) demonstrated racial disparities, with minority defendants statistically more likely to receive the death penalty, especially when the victim is white. Additionally, studies reveal that jurors may exhibit biases based on death qualification questions, which filter out jurors opposed to capital punishment (Eisenberg, 2004). Wrongful convictions pose a grave ethical concern; estimates indicate that approximately 0.5% of convictions in the US may be wrongful, translating to thousands of erroneously convicted individuals, some of whom have been executed (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1996). Cases such as that of Randall Dale Adams expose the possibility of executing innocent people, highlighting the critical importance of forensic evaluations and safeguards.

Impact of Recent Judicial Decisions and International Law

Judicial rulings reflect a growing recognition of the need to protect vulnerable populations. Atkins v. Virginia (2002) barred the execution of the mentally retarded, citing cruel and unusual punishment, aligning US law with international human rights standards provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which discourages executing juvenile offenders (Roper v. Simmons, 2006). The cost of capital punishment has also been scrutinized, with estimates showing that executions are significantly more expensive than life imprisonment due to legal costs, lengthy appeals, and procedural complexities (Costanza, 1997). Additionally, issues of racial and geographic bias continue to influence death sentencing, prompting ongoing debate about fairness and justice (McClesky v. Kemp, 1987).

Conclusion

The death penalty encompasses a wide array of legal, psychological, and ethical issues. While intended as a means of justice and deterrence, systemic flaws—including wrongful convictions, biases, and procedural delays—undermine its moral and practical legitimacy. The evolving legal landscape, particularly rulings against executing individuals with intellectual disabilities and juveniles, reflects a shift towards more humane practices aligned with international standards. Psychologists play an essential role in ensuring fairness and protecting defendants’ rights, but their involvement also raises ethical questions. Ultimately, ongoing debates about the death penalty underscore the need for reform, greater safeguards, and continual assessment of its societal and moral implications.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2001). APA resolution on the execution of persons with mental illness or intellectual disabilities. American Psychologist, 56(10), 950-951.
  • Bowers, W. J., & DeFrias, C. M. (2007). The death penalty: A review of current issues. Criminal Justice Ethics, 26(2), 47-62.
  • Costanza, R. (1997). The costs of the death penalty versus life imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(3), 271-289.
  • Eisenberg, M. (2004). Psychological issues in death penalty cases. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 109-124.
  • Fulero, S. M., et al. (2009). The role of psychologists in capital cases. In C. R. Scott & S. M. Fulero (Eds.), Forensic Psychology: Concepts, Issues, and Research (pp. 347-370). Sage.
  • Huff, R., Rattner, B., & Sagarin, E. (1996). The Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives from the Criminal Justice System. Oxford University Press.
  • McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).
  • Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2006).
  • Schnittker, J. (2008). Psychological assessments in capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 4(2), 123-135.
  • Amnesty International. (2004). Death sentences and executions 2004. Amnesty International Report.

Related Assignments