“How do people judge other people’s actions when they do not live in their head? The overwhelming task of having to sit and listen to a set of facts as they are told by people who did not witness the event, about people whom they have never met before, and about circumstances that most people have never experienced, is given to ordinary citizens; our system requires it. Without any expertise, experience, general knowledge of, or predilection towards the events or people that they are being asked to judge, jurors are charged with the responsibility of rendering a “reasonable” verdict. It is not so much the fact that this task is nearly impossible to accomplish (putting aside personal views and experiences to judge the very same in others), but rather the fact that most people put faith and confidence in this process is what offers a subject for scrutiny.”
Capital punishment in the U.S. is undoubtedly flawed and in researching I’ve found the crux of the problem. The issue with the system lies in its arbitrariness and that is fueled by its trial process. A group of average citizens are given the responsibility of determining the fate of someone’s life with a set of facts (as presented by attorneys) and a capricious criterion. They are expected to set aside personal biases, ignore negative media coverage, and avoid succumbing to the pressures of unanimity. Quite a heavy load for fallible beings.
Since 1973, 138 people in 26 states have been released from death row because of evidence of their innocence. It wouldn’t be fair to blame the juries on their decision-making because the logistics of the trial play such an integral role, but who should be held accountable? The manner in which our system functions now certainly gives the impression that the odds are against the defendant even before the trial begins.
A jury is intended to be representative of the general population. The jury in capital cases, however, must be “death-qualified,” which means that each person who opposes or has strong feelings against the death penalty must be removed. If there is an overwhelming number of people in the general population that oppose the penalty, how are these juries representative of the community at large? According to the Capital Jury Project, a research endeavor on how people who serve as jurors on capital cases make the life or death sentencing decision, women and minorities are barred from serving at a much higher rate than white males because they are more likely to oppose the penalty. Perhaps this is an explanation for why capital juries are approximately 43 percent more likely to sentence a killer to die if his victim is white.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who was a proponent of the penalty for decades, says that the “court’s decision in 1976 that capital punishment is constitutional was based on a belief that it would be applied in a way that would not be discriminatory, arbitrary, excessive or racially discriminatory.” He agrees now that clearly those conditions are not being met.
Juries are mandated to come to a unanimous decision in most states when imposing a death verdict. When a jury cannot come to a decision, it becomes a hung jury and this forces the prosecution to retry the case or abandon it altogether. Thus, judges and juries seek to avoid hung juries at all costs. So, what if you’re one of few, or worse, the lone hold-out against the majority?
“Yeah, the one thing I think that really bothered me the most was when it got right down to the nitty-gritty of the whole thing. When the judge was going to sequester everybody…all of a sudden all of those who were holding out changed their minds because they didn’t want to be sequestered. And that has bugged me since the time it…happened…I told my husband about it…I said, ‘My God…can you just imagine if it was you or I on trial like that, and because they were going to hold the jury over, they decided to change their mind and you’re guilty?’ That’s scary. That’s what scared the pants off of me right there.”
Sources:
Bohm, Robert. Ultimate Sanction: Understanding the death penalty through its many voice and many sides
“Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection Continues”
“Does Death-qualification Systematically Bias our Juries?”
“Stevens’ Powerful Anti-Death-Penalty Views” (TIME)
http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/deathqualification
Bowers, William J. (1996). “The Capital Jury: Is it Tilted Toward Death?” 79 Judicature 220.