::::::::
A recent American Bar Association (ABA) study recommended that a nationwide moratorium be upon the death penalties. The report is a compilation of separate reviews done over the past three years of how the death penalty operates in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee
After carefully studying the way states across the spectrum handle executions, it has become crystal clear that the process is deeply flawed," said Stephen F. Hanlon, chairman of the ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. "The death penalty system is rife with irregularity."
The study posed problems with “spotty collection and preservation of DNA and evidences”. It also maintained a racial disparity that makes a death penalty more likely when the victim is white. Other problems included “false confessions” which were induced by police and submitted to the state Courts. Even more problems were cited with false identification and testimony by witnesses, prosecutorial professionalism and effective defense services.
Prosecutors and death penalty supporters have said the eight state studies were flawed because the ABA teams were made up mainly of death penalty opponents. But they may be arguing against the obvious-- the procedural processes in the state’s District Courts and effective appeal process are being reviewed by the Supreme Court early next year arising from a case in Kentucky. State and Federal judges have reportedly stopped most execution pending a decision from the high court.
Regarding law enforcement identification and interrogation of suspects, the report found that states are not required to adopt procedures that comport with national identification and interrogation best practices. The report also pointed out that most states are not required to videotape or audiotape in entirety the custodial interrogatory in murder cases.
The report also was critical of the reliability of forensic evidences brought through various crime labs, noting that despite a growing reliance of the testimony and finding of empirical evidences, there hasn’t been a crime lab that has not had at least one serious incident of mistake or fraud. Many states do not require the standards and practices which are used to be made public. Further, even for processes such as review and appeal, the availability of reconstructed testing is obscure. Additionally, crime labs ( despite the appearance of the TV program “CSI”) are usually under funded and not utilizing the newest and/or most sophisticated DNA testing procedures.
The character, quality and efficiency of the criminal justice system is shaped in great measure by the critical role of the prosecutors office in the whole of the system. The report cited that States often do not require prosecutors offices to establish policies, on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, or evaluating cases that rely on eyewitness identification, confessions, or the testimony of jailhouse informants or witnesses who would otherwise benefit. Cases of prosecutorial misconduct or overzealous prosecution are rarely brought before a State’s disciplinary board or by a prosecutors office.
The adversarial counterpart of legal defense was cited with several shortcomings, including the methods of provision of effective legal assistance, under funded offices, and a patchwork system of appointment of counsel.
State post conviction processes also were cited with problems. The importance of state post conviction proceedings to capital cases cannot be overstated. Because many capital defense defendants receive inadequate counsel at trial, state post conviction proceedings often provide the first real opportunity to establish meritorious constitutional claims. However, despite its importance, many states provide an unreasonably short time to file a petition for relief and many state allow the post conviction judge to adopt “findings of fact and law” as proposed by one party rather than exercise independent judicial judgment. Further, some states make it difficult to raise claims of error, including wrongful conviction.
As a society we must do all that we can to assure fair and impartial trials and court proceedings. The object is not a conviction per se, but the assurance of justice. That is especially true with death penalty cases, which is the most irretrievable measure that society can make.
