P.S. Do I need another sentence where the * is?
To have one’s name on that list is a nightmare in itself. This list- a never-ending file- paralyzes a man once the pounding gavel inscribes his name onto the page.
When Fate examines this list, it approaches each name like a ghost; those etchings on the page cower before the ominous shadow that lingers above their heads. These souls pray and beg for Fate to pass over their name.
But deaf to their desperate pleas, Fate crosses off each item one by one, preying upon the remaining victims as they wince in rhythm to the scaring of the parchment.
The death penalty has existed in every form of government ever since a people developed into a civilization. For hundreds of years, society, regardless of culture, has used the death penalty as the “ultimate punishment.” Any individual on the death row dreads the idea of experiencing this sentence; it is a nightmare that pries open their soul.
Over the years, society has adopted this horrendous form of punishment as a part of their judicial systems. In most judicial settings, the death penalty brings forth a closure to any debatable case. It is a sentence that, regardless of the scenario, fulfills the satisfying punishment: death. In a criminal investigation, the death penalty provides a sense of peace for the victim and his family; this sentence would forever silence the convicted criminal, and life would be at harmony once more.
But what if a court thrust such a conviction towards the wrong man?
When a judicial system investigates a criminal case, it seeks to locate every ounce of truth that could uncover the facts within a mystery. In modern-day courts, these truths are unearthed through the use of technology. Criminal investigations utilize technology as a key to unlocking pieces of evidence. Evidence- whether large or small- is used as a force to influence the sentence that precedes the pounding gavel. Because technology has become a part of the judicial process, courts rely upon the evidence produced by current mechanisms to construct their decisions. The technology that produces evidence has the power to sentence a man even to the harshest punishments; it is with these pieces of evidence that deliver a man- whether innocent or guilty- to the death row.
However, how reliable are these technologies that society considers modern?
In 1983, Kenneth “Kenny” Waters “was convicted [of a] 1980 murder…in his hometown of Ayer, Massachusetts.” (Perez) His conviction was based on witness testimonies “and on the blood type found at the crime scene.” (Perez) The Massachusetts State found Waters guilty, and they sentenced him to life in prison.
However, Betty Anne Waters, Waters’ younger sister, fought for her brother’s innocence. As her brother’s attorney, Betty Anne searched for and located blood sample evidence from her brother’s trial. In the late 1980s, DNA testing was introduced as a breakthrough in criminal investigation. Since this new innovation proved effective, Betty Anne persuaded the court to DNA test the samples of blood evidence against samples from her brother.
The result: the samples did not match.
Because of this small piece of evidence, Kenny Waters was exonerated and later released in 2001. (Perez)
If Massachusetts had held the death penalty, the court would have executed Kenny Waters long before it acquired the technology to correctly examine the case. He would have died in vain if technology had not produced a breakthrough innovation. But in many other criminal investigation cases, there is no “if.” Hundreds of courts throughout the United States executed convicted suspects. But when science developed new technology, courts realized that, after reinvestigating these cases, they had sentenced the wrong man to death.
Although contemporary society has developed the most advanced technologies, courts have made these similar blunders even in modern times. (Turow) The judicial system may even continue to make these horrid mistakes in the future. When a court investigates a criminal case, they cannot entirely rely upon even the most trust-worthy technologies to produce the “definite” evidence of the case. Modern technology is highly advanced, but it is an art that continues to develop day by day; science may always uncover a breakthrough that could alter the methods of criminal investigation. * In situations involving the death penalty, there is always a single piece of evidence that could save a life. However, the technology used to uncover this confirmation may be miles away.
No comments:
Post a Comment