Death Penalty in the State of Kansas

The ending Penalty issue has been a grave fray especially in our coeval society, non only in U.S. save also in Europe. Unfortunately, resolving the issue is very difficult callable to the complexity of the judicial system in the U.S. arouse judicial systems essential deal with the constitutionality of the recount laws as well as their proper applic. In addition, popular opinion is also a powerful force that whitethorn bring ab bulge out changes on either whether wipeout punishment exists at all or what weight oddment penalisation should book versus liveness imprisonment without parole.These opinions may be found on religious beliefs, on human rights, on the magnitude of violence of the crimes committed, and the popular need to tactile property safe from idle assaults, non-homicidal and homicidal rapists, as well as violent homicidal offenders. Other questions remain what is the value of deterrence of the final stage penalisation type of doom? What is the hail of inmates on death row? Inmates chit on death row for a part, mainly because most of the times, they argon appealing their sentence or waiting for a pardon from the state governor or stock-still the President. Since Kansas has reestablished the death penalty, these concerns have been of immemorial raise to the Kansas judicial system and the state residents.Twenty-nine years after the lead execution, the state of Kansas reestablished the death penalty sentence in 1994, under SB (Senate Bill) 473 and HB (House Bill) 2578. SB 473 states that the death penalty is restored in Kansas for first peak removes whereas HB 2578 simply authorizes the death penalty to be reenacted. Interestingly, in an annual contemplate of college students across the U.S., students were asked whether they were in favor of death penalty. In 1969, this survey account 54% of the students in favor of the abolition of the death sentence, in 1985, it was down to 27%, in 1989 21%, and in 1995 20%. (Bedau, 85)The role in 1995 was the lowest and seemed to reflect a trend in tender hatfuls general acceptance of death penalty telephone that Kansas reenacted the sentence in 1994 Is it a coincidence? Evidently, popular demands and trends are taken into account in state legislatures that is the principle of democracy. The Gallup News service reported on June 1st 2006 that back in 1994, 65% of the entire creation of the U.S. favored action without parole whereas in 2006, 80% favored career without parole.Further, they also reported that in 2006, 47% were for the death penalty while 48% were for life without parole. (Newport, Gallup) Consequently, based on these data, the attitude the the Statesn people has gradually changed to favoring life without parole with a 50/50 section over the choice between life without parole and death penalty. The test here is that the legitimateity of death penalty is always measured against contemporary standards of morality. Therefore, the trend tha t has been observed in the past few years shows that more(prenominal) and more people do non comport the death penalty, illustrating a change of views. (Bedau, 90)Kansas law allows for death penalty but also for life without parole. According to the 2005 Kansas Death Penalty Guide, the exact description of the crimes punishable by death in Kansas is given in the KSA 21-3439 reenactment as pileus hit with 8 maddening circumstances. Death is given by lethal injection. For a life sentence in Kansas, persons who are vile of capital murder get out be jailed for 25-50 years. The sentence must be served entirely before the individual can be eligible for parole. There is no good behavior character reference. (Kansas, 1)Carlson and Garrett (Carlson, Garrett, 5) give the 3 major sanctions available in the U.S. judicial system, economic penal binds, probation, and enslavement, as well as the 4 primary goals of incarceration, deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation . The following remarks summarize briefly the position of supporters or opponents of death penalty, respectively. The death penalty sentence is viewed as a way to deter early(a) execrables from committing crimes, incapacitating the criminal on death row who will break a retribution for his crimes by his or her death.If someone is on death row, there is a feeling that he or she will not be able to be rehabilitated. As for life without parole, the long-term incarceration will serve as deterrent for the criminal and others outside it will incapacitate the criminal while the long sentence without any credit is considered a retribution for the crime. In this case, there is a feeling that the criminal will be able to be rehabilitated if he or she lives long-dated than the sentence. (Bedau, 127) This is the basic controversy of death versus life imprisonment.For any death penalty case, that includes Kansas, there is a diversity of factors to be considered to decide whether or not capit al cases are pursued. There are factors that differ for all case, for every state, for every crime committed, and for every inmate whose past may not have been exemplary. (Cassell, Bedau, 118) In addition, jurors and prosecutors must be sure that death penalty can be applied in the case they are working(a) on.However, the decision process for any juror is still subjective because his or her decision is still dependent upon the strength of the pursuits arguments as well as evidence, the degree of certainty that the person is not innocent, the legal defenses arguments and evidence if any, and the crime committed against the victim and the family. The attempt must follow the case tightly and apply the law in a correct fashion. However, the interpretation of the law can also be subjective. Each capital case trial is very hard to go through because it entails numerous problems that can take time to sort out with respect to state laws versus the U.S. Constitution. (Bedau, 183)Interpre tation of the law in Kansas has been a cum of contentions among supporters for sentencing to death, opponents, and the judicial system. The main debate is centered on the constitutionality of death penalty and the interpretation of the Constitution. To concretely illustrate the dispute and its complexity, the case of Kansas vs. fen ask to be considered. The case is the following. In 1996, Michael Marsh broke into the home of a family with a 19 month-old baby.His goal was to get money to take a trip to Alaska by kidnapping the mother and the child in dress to ask for a ransom from the husband and father. Unfortunately, events turned awful when Marsh panicked, killing the mother by shooting her 3 times in the head, stabbing her twice, and doused her with lighter fluid. He then set the body on fire, ran away, leaving the baby inside to burn to death. The mother survived for 6 years in the hospital and died of multiple organ failures. Marsh was charged with capital murder, first-de gree premeditated murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary.A Kansas jury found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to death for the capital murder of the child. Marsh appealed his sentence to the Kansas Supreme administration. The Court found that the Kansas death penalty enactment was in fact unconstitutional because in Kansas, there is no fundamental honor rule. What this means is that if a criminal is sentenced to death while the change factors of the prosecution equal the mitigating factors of the defense, then by fundamental fairness, the death sentence is nullified. However, in Kansas, the fundamental fairness rule does not exist.In Marshs case, the aggravating factors equaled the mitigating factors as determined by the jury and caused the verdict to stand, based on the jury instructions from the Kansas statute,. So, the basic question is is the Kansas death penalty statute upheld when aggravating factors equal mitigating factors and if it is upheld, is it a violation of the Constitution? The State of Kansas took the case to the U.S Supreme Court in December 1995. The Supreme Court determined that the statute permits death sentences in the event of a tie between aggravating and mitigating factors. (Mandery, 124) However, the key lies with who has the final burden of proof for outweighing the factors.As a comparison, when there is tie, the death penalty statute in genus Arizona allows the defendant to reply that the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating ones and prove it against the prosecution aggravating proof. In Kansas, the burden is still on the prosecution without any additional actions from the defendant. Since the prosecution did not prove the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors, the death sentence was overturned. arbiter Souter commented on what he called the morally absurd Kansas death penalty statute that permits a death sentence even if the prosecution has failed to prove that the aggravating facto rs outweigh the mitigating factors, accusing Kansas law to increase the incidence of death penalty sentences. justice Scalia wrote a document on his opinion of the case. Dealing with Justice Souters comments, he shamed Souters view as regarding the death penalty as an undesirable situation. Additionally, he also pointed out that, even if some of his colleagues disagree with the idea of a death penalty, 38 states do impose the penalty while scrutinizing the verdicts for wrongful executions, implying that death penalty sentences are properly assigned. Souters point was that death penalty is serious abounding that it should be reviewed. (Campbell, Star-Telegram)As one can see in the higher up case, many steps had to be completed to get to the final decision. So, a very safe assumption is that this trial and associated inmate expenses must have been very high. One of the chief complaints that Kansas opponents of death penalty have, besides moral or religious reasons, is the cost of th e procedures. They claim that death row cases cost a lot more than life without parole cases. The money that would be saved should be spent on crime prevention. (Bedau, 91) Gottfried reports that on fairish $20,000 is spent on life without parole inmates/year, a third little than for capital cases. (Gottfried, 2002)Kansas is not the only state that reestablished death penalty. However, it was done in 1994, at a time when many Americans supported capital punishment. It seems truthful that support or opposition to the death penalty is a denunciation of the contemporary morality views of the public. It does not look like people support it now. The U.S. Supreme court seems to agree that this type of punishment should be reviewed, rewrite or completely eliminated based on moral and legal grounds. Yet, abolishing death penalty in Kansas because it costs too much is not a very serious and moral reason to do it. The problem unfeignedly resides in the application of the laws. Death pen alty may be a way to punish violent criminals but nobody knows how to properly reassert using it.Works CitedBedau HA. The Death Penalty in America contemporary Controversies. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1998.Newport F. (editor) Gallup News Service. Death Penalty. The Gallup Polls Briefing June 1 2006.2005 Kansas Death Penalty Guide Amnesty International USA Kansas State University, Chapter 254 January 10, 2004 1. November 18, 2006Carlson PM, Garrett JS. prison house and Jail Administration Practice and Theories. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1999.Chassell PG, Bedau HA. Debating the Death Penalty Should America Have Capital Punishment?. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2004.Mandery EJ. Capital Punishment A fit Examination . Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005.Campbell L. (editor) Sounds Like A Sore Winner from Here. Star-Telegram June 29 2006.Gottfried T. The Death Penalty Justice or Legalized Murder? Twenty offshoot Century Books, 2002.