Consistency in the law;The Death Penalty
2165
Politics > Current Events
Mar 1, 2007
Phil Amoa
Consistency in the law;The Death Penalty
The United States constitution was designed to provide equal protection under the law. However, from some of the recent stories which have been publicized, it is apparent that the law lacks consistency. Consistency in the law would ultimately mean that for every particular crime of which one is convicted; they should receive the same punishment.
Our society has witnessed this inconsistency with capital punishment. Questions arise as to why certain people receive the death penalty and others just walk away with life in prison. So why the discrepancy in this course of action; it is because before anyone is sent to death the governor of each respective state would have to sign that he agrees to have the death penalty carried on. It must not be surprising that some governors do not believe in this type of punishment, inmates will, however, end up sitting on death row till they die. This can be a very long and daunting experience for the inmates whose fate is rarely unknown.
I challenge the Justice system by asking,? is this social justice under the law?? Does it mean that depending on where one commits a crime you get a better chance of not being sent to death? If so, will it elucidate why certain states have reported higher rates of crime? It is imperative for the courts to come to a consensus as to what will bring consistency within the judicial system. As the adage goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; therefore what a convicted felon gets in Texas for murder should be the same in New York. The sovereignty of state courts in declaring certain statutes unconstitutional has been a major factor why each state can not have similar laws.
It may be time for the United States Supreme Court to take a firm stance as to whether the country should follow other industrial nations in abolishing the death penalty or not. Even though their action may not bring contentment to each citizen, it will give to the law what it is lacking; consistency. There are a million reasons advocates of the death penalty will argue as to why it should not be abolished and in countering there are an equal number of reasons why it should be abolished. This text, however, is not debating about the controversy surrounding capital punishment. The law was designed to provide equal protection; therefore that is what the judicial system should try to uphold.
Our society has witnessed this inconsistency with capital punishment. Questions arise as to why certain people receive the death penalty and others just walk away with life in prison. So why the discrepancy in this course of action; it is because before anyone is sent to death the governor of each respective state would have to sign that he agrees to have the death penalty carried on. It must not be surprising that some governors do not believe in this type of punishment, inmates will, however, end up sitting on death row till they die. This can be a very long and daunting experience for the inmates whose fate is rarely unknown.
I challenge the Justice system by asking,? is this social justice under the law?? Does it mean that depending on where one commits a crime you get a better chance of not being sent to death? If so, will it elucidate why certain states have reported higher rates of crime? It is imperative for the courts to come to a consensus as to what will bring consistency within the judicial system. As the adage goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander; therefore what a convicted felon gets in Texas for murder should be the same in New York. The sovereignty of state courts in declaring certain statutes unconstitutional has been a major factor why each state can not have similar laws.
It may be time for the United States Supreme Court to take a firm stance as to whether the country should follow other industrial nations in abolishing the death penalty or not. Even though their action may not bring contentment to each citizen, it will give to the law what it is lacking; consistency. There are a million reasons advocates of the death penalty will argue as to why it should not be abolished and in countering there are an equal number of reasons why it should be abolished. This text, however, is not debating about the controversy surrounding capital punishment. The law was designed to provide equal protection; therefore that is what the judicial system should try to uphold.
Write a Review
Add to My Favorite
Refer it to Friend
Report Article
Other links owned by this user
The United States constitution was designed to provide equal protection under the law. However, from some of the recent stories which have been publicized, it is apparent that the law lacks consistency. Consistency in the law would ultimately mean that
Category:
Other links at Politics > Current Events
This article discusses the increasing likelyhood that the US will enter a recession in the wake of the Fed's ineffective interest rate cut on January 22nd.
Category:
The storm lasted only a few minutes, but the devastation left from the tornado took my breath away. Thankfully my children and I were alright, but in the midst of the storm my wife had become separated from us.
Category:
Then one day she heard some of the workers talking among themselves. They said that management had underestimated the cost of the materials on Sallys job.
Category:
America is considering following Europe's lead in banning incandescent lightbulbs - but there are hidden and serious economic and environmental costs that are not widely understood!
Category:
In Hollywood's infancy, filmmakers used real money in their productions, only to run into legal and administrative problems such as workers stealing the money. At the time, very strict laws prohibited the filmmakers from copying, photographing or imitatin
Category:
Site Sponsor
Directory Statistics
Articles: 68228
Categories: 501
Yahoo Entertainment
