executivesummaryauthcheckdam.docx
- 文档编号:10214834
- 上传时间:2023-02-09
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:89
- 大小:60.74KB
executivesummaryauthcheckdam.docx
《executivesummaryauthcheckdam.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《executivesummaryauthcheckdam.docx(89页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
executivesummaryauthcheckdam
ExecutiveSummary
Introduction
FairnessandaccuracytogetherformthefoundationoftheAmericancriminaljusticesystem.Asour capitalpunishmentsystemnowstands, however,wefallshortinprotectingthesebedrockprinciples.Oursystemcannotclaimtoprovidedueprocessorprotecttheinnocentunlessitprovidesafair andaccuratesystemforeverypersonwhofacesthedeathpenalty.
Overthecourseofthepastthirtyyears,theAmericanBarAssociation(ABA)hasbecomeincreasinglyconcernedthatthereisacrisisinourcountry’sdeathpenaltysystemandthatcapitaljurisdictionstoooftenprovideneitherfairnessnoraccuracy.Inresponsetothisconcern,onFebruary3,1997,theABAcalledforanationwidemoratoriumonexecutionsuntilseriousflawsinthesystemareidentifiedandeliminated.TheABAurgescapitaljurisdictionsto
(1)ensurethatdeathpenaltycasesareadministeredfairlyandimpartially,inaccordancewithdueprocess,and
(2)minimizetheriskthatinnocentpersonsmaybeexecuted.
Intheautumnof2001,theABA,throughtheSectionofIndividualRightsandResponsibilities,createdtheDeathPenaltyMoratoriumImplementationProject(theProject).TheProjectcollectsandmonitorsdataondomesticandinternationaldeathpenaltydevelopments;conductsanalysesofgovernmentalandjudicialresponsestodeathpenaltyadministrationissues;publishesperiodicreports;encourageslawyersandbarassociationstopressformoratoriumsandreformsintheirjurisdictions;andencouragesstategovernmentleaderstoestablishmoratoriums,undertakedetailedexaminationsofcapitalpunishmentlawsandprocesses,andimplementreforms.
Toassistthemajorityofcapitaljurisdictionsthathavenotyetconductedcomprehensiveexaminationsoftheirdeathpenaltysystems,theProjectdecidedinFebruary2003toexaminesixteenU.S.jurisdictions’deathpenaltysystemsandpreliminarilydeterminetheextenttowhichtheyachievefairnessandprovidedueprocess.TheProjectisconductingstateassessmentsinAlabama,Arizona,Arkansas,Florida,Georgia,Indiana,Louisiana,Mississippi,Nevada,Ohio,Oklahoma,Pennsylvania,Tennessee,SouthCarolina,Texas,andVirginia.Theassessmentsarenotdesignedtoreplacethecomprehensivestate-fundedstudiesnecessaryincapitaljurisdictions,butinsteadareintendedtohighlightindividualstatesystems’successesandinadequacies.
Theseassessmentsexaminetheabove-mentionedjurisdictions’deathpenaltysystems,usingasabenchmarktheprotocolssetoutintheABASectionofIndividualRightsandResponsibilities’publication,DeathwithoutJustice:
AGuideforExaminingtheAdministrationoftheDeathPenaltyintheUnitedStates(theProtocols).WhiletheProtocolsarenotintendedtocoverexhaustivelyallaspectsofthedeathpenalty,theydocoversevenkeyaspectsofdeathpenaltyadministration,includingdefenseservices,proceduralrestrictionsandlimitationsonstatepost-convictionandfederalhabeascorpus,clemencyproceedings,juryinstructions,anindependentjudiciary,thetreatmentofracialandethnicminorities,andmentalretardationandmentalillness.Additionally,theProjectincludesforreviewfivenewareasassociatedwithdeathpenaltyadministration,includingthepreservationandtestingofDNAevidence,identificationandinterrogationprocedures,crimelaboratoriesandmedicalexaminers,prosecutors,andthedirectappealprocess.
Eachstate’sassessmenthasbeenorisbeingconductedbyastate-basedAssessmentTeam,whichiscomprisedoforhasaccesstocurrentorformerjudges,statelegislators,currentorformerprosecutors,currentorformerdefenseattorneys,activestatebarassociationleaders,lawschoolprofessors,andanyoneelsewhomtheProjectfeltwasnecessary.Teammembersarenotrequiredtosupportoropposethedeathpenaltyoramoratoriumonexecutions.
Thestateassessmentteamsareresponsibleforcollectingandanalyzingvariouslaws,rules,procedures,standards,andguidelinesrelatingtotheadministrationofthedeathpenalty.Inanefforttoguidetheteams’research,theProjectcreatedanAssessmentGuidethatdetailedthedatatobecollected.TheAssessmentGuideincludessectionsonthefollowing:
(1)deathrowdemographics,DNAtesting,andthelocation,testing,andpreservationofbiologicalevidence;
(2)evolutionofthestatedeathpenaltystatute;(3)lawenforcementtoolsandtechniques;(4)crimelaboratoriesandmedicalexaminers;(5)prosecutors;(6)defenseservicesduringtrial,appeal,andstatepost-convictionproceedings;(7)directappealandtheunitaryappealprocess;(8)statepost-convictionreliefproceedings;(9)clemency;(10)juryinstructions;(11)judicialindependence;(12)thetreatmentofracialandethnicminorities;and(13)mentalretardationandmentalillness.
Theassessmentfindingsprovideinformationabouthowstatedeathpenaltysystemsarefunctioningindesignandpracticeandareintendedtoserveasthebasesfromwhichstatescanlaunchcomprehensiveself-examinations.BecausecapitalpunishmentisthelawofthelandineachoftheassessmentstatesandbecausetheABAhasnopositiononthedeathpenaltyperse,theassessmentteamsfocusedexclusivelyoncapitalpunishmentlawsandprocessesanddidnotconsiderwhetherstates,asamatterofmorality,philosophy,orpenologicaltheory,shouldhavethedeathpenalty.Moreover,theProjectandtheAssessmentTeamhaveattemptedtonoteasaccuratelyaspossibleinformationrelevanttotheGeorgiadeathpenalty.TheProjectwouldappreciatenotificationofanyerrorsoromissionsinthisreportsothattheymaybecorrectedinanyfuturereprints.
DespitethediversityofbackgroundsandperspectivesamongthemembersoftheGeorgiaDeathPenaltyAssessmentTeam,andalthoughsomemembersdisagreewithparticularrecommendationscontainedintheassessmentreport,theteamisunanimousinmanyoftheconclusions.Eventhoughnotallteammemberssupportthecallforamoratorium,theyareunanimousintheirbeliefthatthebodyofrecommendationsasawholewould,ifimplemented,significantlyenhancetheaccuracyandfairnessofGeorgia’scapitalpunishmentsystem.
II.HighlightsoftheReport
A.Overview
ToassessfairnessandaccuracyinGeorgia’sdeathpenaltysystem,theGeorgiaDeathPenaltyAssessmentTeamresearchedtwelveissues:
(1)collection,preservation,andtestingofDNAandothertypesofevidence;
(2)lawenforcementidentificationsandinterrogations;(3)crimelaboratoriesandmedicalexamineroffices;(4)prosecutorialprofessionalism;(5)defenseservices;(6)thedirectappealprocess;(7)statepost-convictionproceedings;(8)clemency;(9)juryinstructions;(10)judicialindependence;(11)thetreatmentofracialandethnicminorities;and(12)mentalretardationandmentalillness.TheGeorgiaDeathPenaltyAssessmentReportsummarizestheresearchoneachissueandanalyzesthelevelofcompliancewiththerelevantABARecommendations.
B.ProblemAreas
TheassessmentfindingsindicateaneedtoreformanumberofareaswithinGeorgia’sdeathpenaltysystemtoensurethatitprovidesafair andaccuratesystemforeverypersonwhofacesthedeathpenalty.TheGeorgiaDeathPenaltyAssessmentTeamfindsthefollowingproblemareasmostinneedofreform:
∙InadequateDefenseCounselatTrial-AlthoughtheStateofGeorgiahasrecentlyinstitutedastatewidecapitaldefendersystem,whichprovidesexperiencedattorneysforindigentdefendantsincapitalproceedingsattrialandondirectappeal,itisunclearwhetherfundingwillbeavailabletoenableittofunctionasplanned.Moreover,itmustbenotedthatthetrialsanddirectappealsofdefendantspresentlyondeathrowprecededthecreationofthestatewidecapitaldefendersystem;thosedefendantsmayormaynothavehadadequatecounsel.
∙LackofDefenseCounselforStateHabeasCorpusProceedings-TheStateofGeorgiaisvirtuallyaloneinnotprovidingindigentdefendantssentencedtodeathwithcounselforstatehabeasproceedings.Thelackofcounselonstatehabeas,particularlywhencombinedwiththecaselawthatallowshabeasjudgestoadoptthestate’sfindingsoffactverbatim,createsasituationwherethiscriticalconstitutionalsafeguardissounderminedastobeineffective.
∙InadequateProportionalityReview-Inconductingitsproportionalityreview,since1994theGeorgiaSupremeCourthaslookedonlytocaseswherethedeathpenaltywasimposedundersimilarcircumstances,ratherthanalsoconsideringcasesinwhichthedeathpenaltywassoughtbutnotimposedandcasesinwhichthedeathpenaltycouldhavebeensoughtbutwasnot.Proportionalityreviewthatconsidersonlycaseswherethedeathsentencewasimposedisinherentlylimitedandincapableofuncoveringpotentiallyseriousdisparities—whetherthosedisparitiesaregeographical,racialorethnic,orattributabletoanyotherinappropriatefactor.
∙InadequatePatternJuryInstructionsonMitigation-ResearchestablishesthatnotallGeorgiacapitaljurorsunderstandwhatlawgovernstheirdecisiontoimposeornotimposeadeathsentence.Fortypercent(specifically40.5%)ofinterviewedGeorgiacapitaljurorsdidnotunderstandthattheycouldconsideranyevidenceinmitigationand62.2%believedthatthedefensehadtoprovemitigatingfactorsbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thisconfusionpossiblycanbeattributedtothefactthatthesuggestedpatternjuryinstructionsprovidelittletonoguidanceonmitigatingcircumstances.Theinstructionsdonotlistanyfactorsthatmightbeconsideredinmitigation,explaintheburdenofproof,orexplainthatjurorsneednotbeunanimousinfindingmitigatingcircumstances.Deathsentencesresultingf
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- executivesummaryauthcheckdam
![提示](https://static.bdocx.com/images/bang_tan.gif)