How "DNA" testing works Анализ "ДНК" как проверяющие работы) — страница 2

  • Просмотров 7666
  • Скачиваний 543
  • Размер файла 18
    Кб

there's the charge of institutional racism: 98 percent of prosecutors are white, and, according to the NAAGP, Legal Defense Fund they are much more likely to ask for the death penalty for a black-on-white crime than when blacks are the victims. Blacks convicted of major violent offenses are more likely than white con­victs to end up on death row. But once they get there, blacks are less likely than white death-row inmates to he executed because authori­ties are on the defensive about seeming to target African-Americans. The re­sult is both discrimination and reverse discrimination - with deadly consequences. The risk of errors: The more people on death row, the greater chance of mis­takes. There are common ele­ments to cases where terrible errors have been made: when police

and prosecutors are pressured by the community to "solve" a notorious mur­der; when there's no DNA evidence or reliable eyewitnesses; wnen the crime is es­pecially heinous and draws large amounts of pretrial publicity; when defense at­torneys have limited re­sources, if authorities were particularly vigilant when these issues were at play, they might identify problematic cases earlier. Deterrence: Often the first argument of death-penalty supporters. But studies of the subject are all over the lot, with no evidence ever estab­lished of a deterrent effect. When parole was more common, die argument earned more logic. But nowadays first-degree mur­derers can look forward to life without pa­role if caught, which should in theory deter diem as much as die deadi

penalty. It's hard to imagine a criminals thinking: "Well, since Г might get the death penalty for this crime, 1 won't do it. But if it was only life in prison, I'd go ahead." inadequate counsel: Beyond the incompe­tent lawyers who populate any court-ap­pointed system, Congress and the Clinton administration have put the nation's 3,600 death-row inmates in an agonizing Catch-22. According to the American Bar Associa­tion Death Penalty Representation Project, in a state like California, about one third of death-row inmates must wait for years to be assigned lawyers to handle their state direct appeals. And at the postconviction level in some suites, inmates don't have access to lawyers at all. The catch isdiatdie 1996 And -Terrorism and Effective Deatii Penalty Act

has a statute of limitations requiring diat in­mates file federal habeas corpus petitions (requests for federal court review) within one year after die end of their direct state appeal. In other words, because they have no lawyer after their direct appeals, inmates often help­lessly watch die clock run out on their chance for federal review. This cuts down on frivo­lous appeals—but also on ones that could re­veal gross injustice. Fact-finding: Most states aren't as lucky as Illinois. They don't have reporters and in­vestigators digging into die details of old cases. As die deadi penalty becomes routine and less newsworthy, the odds against real investiga­tion grow even worse. Аж1 even when fresh evidence does surface, most states place high barriers against its use

after a trial. This has been standard in the legal system for generations, but it makes little sense when an inmate's life is at stake. Standards of guilt: In most jurisdictions, die judge in­structs the jury to look for "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." But is that the right standard for capital cases? Maybe a second staridard like "residual doubt" would help, whereby if any juror harbors any doubt whatsoever, the conviction would stand but the death penalty would be ruled out. The same double threshold . might apply to cases involving single eyewitnesses and key testimony by jailhouse snitches with in----- Cost: IJnless executions are dramatically speeded up (unlikely after so many mis­takes), the death penalty will remain far more expensive than life

widiout parole. The difference is in the upfront prosecution costs, which are at least four times greater dian in cases where death is not sought. California spends an extra $90 million on its capital cases beyond die nor­mal costs of the system. Even subtracting pro bono defense, the system is no bargain for taxpayers. Whether you're for or against die deadi penalty, it's hard to argue diat it doesn't need a fresh look. From America's earliest days, when Benjamin Franklin helped de­velop the notion of degrees of culpability for murder, diis country has been willing to re­assess its assumptions about justice. If we're going to keep die deadi penalty, die public seems to be saying, let's be damn sure we're doing it right. DNA testing will help. So will odier fixes. But if, over