Deadline#2,HW #3

Abstract By Mary H. Cooper

Is capital punishment administered fairly?
Aseries of shocking murders in the past few years has focused public attention once again on the death penalty. The deaths caused by the Oklahoma City bombers, the “Unabomber” and others have lent support to advocates of capital punishment. They continue to argue that capital punishment not only deters crime but also helps the families of murder victims find ”closure.” But opponents call for reform, if not abolition, of the death penalty. They point to disturbing evidence that non-white offenders are more likely to be executed for their crimes than white offenders and that poor inmates often don't receive adequate legal counsel. As proof they cite the cases of 75 people released from death row after courts reversed their convictions.
Convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker was executed in Texas on Feb. 3, 1998, despite widespread pleas to spare her life because she had been rehabilitated in prison. (Photo Credit: Reuters)Abstract By Margaret Edwardshttp://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=inline&view=att&th=114f23c19627e285

Abstract By Kenneth Jost

Should states impose moratoriums on executions?
Critics and opponents of the death penalty are warning that capital trials and sentencing hearings are so riddled with flaws that they risk resulting in the execution of innocent persons. Supporters of capital punishment discount the warnings, emphasizing that opponents cannot cite a single person in modern times who was executed and later proven to have been innocent. The debate over erroneous convictions has increased in recent years because DNA testing now allows inmates to prove their innocence years after their convictions. The Supreme Court opens its term on Oct. 3 with two closely watched cases pending on rules allowing state inmates to use newly discovered evidence to challenge their convictions in federal courts, based on “actual innocence” as well as constitutional violations. Meanwhile, death penalty critics want states to follow Illinois' example and impose moratoriums on executions.
Opponents of the death penalty hold their annual vigil outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2005. The court in its upcoming term will hear two cases affecting death-row inmates' ability to challenge their convictions. (Getty Images/Brendan Smialowski)http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=inline&view=att&th=114f23e112a8e002

Abstract By Patrick Marshall

Are they too harsh?
California's controversial three-strikes law sends repeat offenders to prison for 25-years-to-life for non-violent crimes like shoplifting. Although the California law is the nation's harshest, 24 other states have adopted similar laws in the past decade. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the law forces judges to mete out "cruel and unusual punishment," prohibited by the Constitution. The two cases the high court will review have become a lightning rod for debate over mandatory-sentencing policies adopted by the federal government and the states in drug-war crackdowns over the past 30 years. Advocates say such policies have cut crime, but critics say other reasons caused the decline. Meanwhile, several states have begun modifying their mandatory-sentencing laws to give judges more discretion in cases involving non-violent offenders.
Ten-year-old Joanna Verduzco of Riverside, Calif., joins a protest organized by Families Against California Three Strikes in March at the Federal Building in Los Angeles. Because her father had two previous felony convictions, he was sentenced to 29-years-to-life in prison for his third felony, possession of less than a gram of methamphetamine. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=inline&view=att&th=114f243ce623bd97