Should capital punishment be suspended because of racial disparities Term Paper

Should capital punishment be suspended because of racial disparities - Term Paper Example But the question that lies is beyond the validity of imposing capital punishment but rather the effect of color or race that comes with the number of those sentenced for capital punishment. The effects of anger and retaliation are a development of social discrimination and prejudice fueled not just by the wrong act or omission but also the bigotry that comes with such hate. Capital punishment then becomes an added tool for racial discrimination rather than a positive effect of retributive justice. Researches made In 2002, a Governor of Maryland Parris Glendening initiated a research to be done by the University of Maryland regarding capital punishment and although criminologist Ray Paternoster found that the â€Å"race of the defendant was not significant in penalty-eligible cases†, race played an important factor whether the prosecutor sought for a death penalty punishment in a case (Hodgkinson and Shabas 8). There is not just racial disparity but also prosecutor disparity. A t least 43% of total executions since 1976 and 55% of those awaiting execution is for people of color (American Civil Liberties Union, 2003). The General Accounting office in 1990 showed reports that â€Å"race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty." In numerous jurisdictions researchers and case laws have given sufficient proof of racial disparity among persons under death row. In Philadelphia, a study made in 1997 by David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth found results that between 1983 to 1993, a 38% increase in the possibility of a person being eligible for death penalty because the defendant was black. In North Carolina, a study released by the university showed that between 1993 to 1997, a three and a half increase in the possibility of incurring a death sentence when the victim is white rather than black. The area of jurisdiction varies from the number of the race’s population an d possible historical background on racial prejudice. A good example is in the state of Georgia, where University of Iowa law professor David Baldus found that prosecutors sought death penalty for 70% of the black defendants with white victims compared to the minimal 15% white defendants who had white victims. (American Civil Liberties Union, 2003). Further effects of this study will be explained in the latter part of the discussion, as the â€Å"Baldus study† was attempted to be used as a defense in a Supreme Court case (McCleskey v. Kemp (1987). Prosecution disparity is eminent in these cases, it seems that racial discrimination the begun with society is also reflected to the administration of justice. It is the prosecutors who have the discretion in deciding whether cases should seek death penalty. Even in the choice of possible jurors, the prosecution takes control such as in the state of Philadelphia, where prosecutors move to remove 52 % of potential black jurors compar ed to a mere 23 % potential jurors of other races. Jeffrey Pokorak conducted another good research proving racial disparity. He related the important effects of race and gender of all the lawyers authorized to prosecute death penalty cases that evidenced racial disparity. In the 38 states studied, 98% of the prosecuting attorneys are white and almost all are male (Hodgkinson and Shabas 15). Supreme Court Decisions With this issue being established, the

Does Police Discretion Amount to a Miscarriage of Justice Literature review

Does Police Discretion Amount to a Miscarriage of Justice - Literature review Example In truth, as stated by some criminologists, when there was a dispute, public order takes precedence over enforcement of the law or policing (Maguire, Morgan, & Reiner 2007, 227). Once it is recognised as an expected aspect of law enforcement that there are instances when the law is ‘inadequately implemented’ the issue then emerges whether every sector of the society gain evenly from this. This essay reviews related literature on police work to explore whether police use of discretion could be considered as a miscarriage of justice. Police Discretion Police have the power to take away the liberty of citizens, apprehend or detain them, and even use lethal force to restrain them. An important feature of this professional duty is the ‘discretion’ the police has in performing their duties. Discretion may include discriminating/selective law enforcement (e.g. when a law enforcer decides not to apprehend a pub that is selling liquors to minors (Ogletree & Sarat 200 9, 18). Law enforcers exercise discretion when they make a decision to apprehend one offender for unruly behaviour but to let another go free. Most police officers exercise a considerable extent of personal discretion in performing everyday duties, occasionally called in criminal justice ‘low-visibility decision making’ (Siegel & Worrall 2012, 125). Such expression implies that, not like most departments of criminal justice, law enforcers are neither controlled in their everyday practices and behaviour by governmental inspection nor under judicial investigation, except when their actions undoubtedly abuses a criminal’s legal rights. The people accept the power of police to use discretion. However, recently, scholars and policymakers have publicly shown great resentment about the discretion used by the police, and there have been numerous demands to abolish, weaken, or regulate this power (Siegel & Worrall 2012, 125-126). These people believe that police use of di scretion often leads to miscarriage of justice. One justification of such demands is the widespread belief that law enforcement is ought to be ministerial, performing its tasks in rigid compliance to legislative conditions. Another justification is the widely held belief that as the police use discretion, they are predisposed to show prejudice against some individuals and/or groups, mostly resulting in wrongful convictions (Sutherland, Cressey, & Luckenbill 1992, 355). As a matter of fact, there is abundant evidence revealing that, for a particular offence, law enforcers are more inclined to apprehend men than women, young individuals than older ones, Black people than White people, etc. Thus, police discretion attracts a lot of controversies (Sutherland et al. 1992, 355). As remarked by William McDonald (1973), â€Å"It invites arbitrariness, favouritism, corruption, and injustice. Even when it is exercised even-handedly, it can create the appearance of injustice† (Sutherlan d et al.1992, 355). All the same, police discretion will continue to exist because no legislative body, absent from the street, can accurately and unmistakably specify beforehand what actions must have as its outcome a formal arrest. As emphasised by Albert Reiss, Jr. (1971) (Sutherland et al. 1992, 355): It is incumbent upon a police officer to enter upon a variety of social stages, encounter the actors, determine