Unequal Justice

Home : Death Penalty : Unequal Justice

The ACLU opposes capital punishment as a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. One reason the death penalty presents such a clear Eighth Amendment violation is that it is routinely imposed based on wholly improper factors, such as race, class, venue, the quality of counsel, whether the defendant is a resident of or a visitor to the jurisdiction in which the case is tried. Unequal justice is no justice at all.

ACLU Challenges Unfair Administration of the Death Penalty in Washington State
On November 4, 2008, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Darold J. Stenson, urging the Washington Supreme Court to stay his impending execution. The brief contended that his execution would be unfair and unconstitutionally arbitrary given new evidence documenting racial, geographic, and economic disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Washington. The brief relied on a statistical analysis conducted by David Baldus, a leading expert, which documented these disparities. On November 19, 2008, the Washington Supreme Court denied the stay and appellate petition on procedural grounds without addressing any of the evidence of discrimination and arbitrariness.
> Read the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief to the Washington State Supreme Court >>
> Read the affadavit submitted by David J. Baldus >>

Study Finds Elected Judges Biased in Favor of Death
A recent study has found that the practice of electing appellate judges makes them substantially less likely to reverse death penalty cases. Written by two political science professors from Texas, the study is entitled, "State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges," and has been published in the American Journal of Political Science (Vol. 52, No. 2, April 2008, pp. 360-373). Judges in the vast majority of the "death belt states" are elected. Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi and Tennessee - which together have accounted for just under 50 percent of all executions in the past 35 years - are among only ten states that hold partisan judicial elections.

Executions Linked to Low Education Levels
According to a July 3, 2008, article in Scientific American entitled, "Who Will Die? Computer Predicts Which Death Row Inmates Will Be Executed," the death row inmates "most likely to be executed are those with the lowest levels of education." The article reports that researchers have developed a computer system that can predict with 92 percent accuracy which death row inmates are most likely to be executed, and that low education level is the best forecaster of an inmate's fate. Read the article >>

Report Finds Minority Death Row Inmates Convicted of Killing Whites More Likely to Face Execution
A recent study published in the American Sociological Review found that African-American and Hispanic inmates on death row who are convicted of killing white victims are significantly more likely to be executed than other offenders. The report also finds that the political and social climate of the state in which inmates are imprisoned influences whether they will be executed or not. Learn More >>

South Carolina Prosecutors' Decisions on Seeking Death Discriminate on Race, Gender and Geography
Prosecutors in South Carolina are more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim was white, when the victim was female, and when the crime occurred in a rural area, according to a study published in South Carolina Law Review in November 2006. Conclusions of the study by Professor Isaac Unah of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and attorney Michael Songer include:

> South Carolina prosecutors "are 3 times more likely to seek the death penalty in white victim cases than in black victim cases."
> "Prosecutors are 3.5 times more likely to seek the death penalty when a black defendant kills a white victim than in all other defendant/victim combinations combined.
> "Cases involving female victims are 2.5 times as likely to result in capital prosecutions as cases with male victims."
> "[P]rosecutors in rural districts are 5 times more likely to seek the death penalty than their urban counterparts."

See Songer, Michael J. and Unah, Isaac, "The Effect of Race, Gender, and Location on Prosecutorial Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in South Carolina." South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 58, November 2006. An abstract of the article is available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=922533

Newspaper in State Capital Decries Quality of Representation in Death Penalty Cases
According to a current Austin American-Statesman series, incomplete, incomprehensible or improperly argued habeas corpus petitions and direct appeals in the Texas court system are routinely bungled as 273 people have been executed under this shoddy taxpayer paid system. The American-Statesman's review points to a failed court system that exercises little oversight into the quality of writs and attorneys who fall below professional standards.

Boilerplate copies text from previous appeals and a lack of investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence are presented by incompetent lawyers who have little regulation or oversight by the Texas legal system. Don Vernay, a New Mexico appeals lawyer is quoted to say "People aren't being executed; they're being murdered by their lawyers" in Chuck Lindell's series.
Read the Article >> (Off-site Link)
Read the Series >> (Off-site Link)

Death Penalty : Unequal Justice : Press Releases

view all

Don't Kill in Our Names (06/09/2003)
Murder victims who oppose the death penalty often have a tough time being heard. But a new book that profiles 10 such people may change that.

ACLU Praises Supreme Court Refusal of 'Sleeping Lawyer' Case As 'Acknowledgment and Reminder' of Death Penalty Problems (06/03/2002)
NEW YORK - This morning the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Texas authorities who claimed that a man received adequate representation from a lawyer who slept through portions of his trial, which was tainted with anti-gay bias.

Discarded Abu-Jamal Death Sentence More Proof of Death Penalty System Plagued By Ineffective Counsel, ACLU Says (12/18/2001)
WASHINGTON--Today's decision by U.S. District Judge William Yohn to throw out Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence due to improper courtroom procedure underscores the point that our nation's death penalty system is riddled with flaws.

ACLU Urges Congress to Ensure Competent Counsel in Death Penalty Cases; Says Tragic Examples Demonstrate Flaws in Current System (06/27/2001)
WASHINGTON -- Citing numerous examples of incompetent counsel in recent death penalty cases and inequities in the imposition of capital punishment in America, the American Civil Liberties Union called upon Congress today to ensure effective legal representation for all defendants facing possible execution.

ACLU Calls Upon Congress to Enact a Federal Moratorium on Executions (06/19/2001)
WASHINGTON -- In the aftermath of the second federal execution in as many weeks, the American Civil Liberties Union today urged Congress to immediately pass a moratorium on further federal executions.

Death Penalty : Unequal Justice : Publications

view all

The Death Penalty in Maryland (09/22/2004)
University of Maryland Study

Deadly Speculation: Misleading Texas Capital Juries with false predictions of Future Dangerousness (04/02/2004)

Scattered justice: geographic disparities of the death penalty (03/05/2004)

New ACLU Report Finds Virginia Death Penalty System Riddled with Flaws, Recommends Sweeping Changes (11/12/2003)
RICHMOND, VA - Virginia's death penalty system is so flawed that it cannot ensure a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, according to an American Civil Liberties Union study released today.

Inadequate Representation (10/08/2003)

Death Penalty : Unequal Justice : Legal Documents

In Re: Darold Stenson - ACLU and ACLU of Washington Amicus Brief (11/04/2008)

In Re: Darold Stenson - Affidavit of David J. Baldus (10/31/2008)

ACLU Amicus Brief in Lawrence v. Florida (06/27/2006)

Death Penalty : Unequal Justice : Legislative Documents

ACLU Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Urging Opposition to the Capital Sentencing Provisions in S. 1735, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 (04/28/2004)

ACLU Testimony of Timothy H. Edgar, Legislative Counsel, on H.R. 2934, the "Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003" before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Committee on the Judiciary (04/21/2004)

LCCR Letter to the Senate Urging Cosponsorship of the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2001 (03/14/2001)

Death Penalty : Unequal Justice : Resources

Who Survives on Death Row? An Individual and Contextual Analysis (08/02/2007)
An article of the American Sociological Review by David Jacobs and Zhenchao Qian of Ohio State University, Jason T. Carmichael of McGill University and Stephanie L. Kent of Cleveland State University.

Off-Site Resources for News and Information on Capital Punishment (01/25/2007)

Death Penalty States

Death Penalty in States

Find state death penalty laws and information. You can also review a list of executions by state.

Click on the map below to find out more about the death penalty in your state.

Click on the map below to find out more about the death penalty in your state.

mental illness

Mental Illness Terminology

A brief description of the mental illnesses that are most frequently mentioned in the Mental Illness Report can be found below. This information is provided by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a grassroots advocacy organization in the USA. This and further information can be accessed at www.nami.org. Information can also be accessed on the website of the National Institute of Mental Health.

Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder, or manic depressive illness, is a serious brain disorder that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy, and functioning. It affects 2.3 million adults in the USA, and is characterized by episodes of mania and depression that can last from days to months. It can run in families. Bipolar disorder is a chronic and generally lifelong condition with recurring episodes that often begin in adolescence or early adulthood, and occasionally even in children. It generally requires lifelong treatment, and recovery between episodes is often poor.

Brain damage

Also of relevance to this report is the issue of serious brain damage that may be equivalent to mental retardation, but which would not be defined as such because it occurred not as a lifelong developmental disability, but as the result of an accident or other traumatic event. The case of Nicholas Hardy in Florida is instructive. In February 1993, 18-year-old Hardy shot himself in the head after he had shot and killed James Hunt, a police officer who had stopped Hardy and three other youths. The suicide attempt left Nicholas Hardy in a coma for several weeks, after which he slowly regained the ability to speak and walk. A competency hearing was held in August 1993 to determine if he could stand trial. He was found to be incompetent due to his self-inflicted brain damage, and he was sent to the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program at Florida State Hospital. There he received training in an effort to restore him to competency. In February 1995, he was found competent to stand trial, and on 14 February 1996, he was sentenced to death. In June 1998, the Florida Supreme Court re-evaluated the aggravating factors in the crime and found that they were outweighed by the mitigating circumstances. The Court noted that the neurological experts who had examined Hardy concluded that his brain damage meant that he "was no longer the same person who killed Sergeant Hunt." It commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without parole.

Competence

Like insanity, competence is a legal, rather than medical, term. In the USA and many countries, an accused or convicted person must have a capacity to understand the legal process they face and the possible consequences of that process in order to be liable to trial or punishment. Competence must be demonstrated to proceed with a trial, with sentencing the prisoner or with carrying out an execution.

Dissociative disorders

These are so called because they are marked by a dissociation from or interruption of a person's fundamental aspects of consciousness (such as one's identity and history). There are many forms, the best known of which is dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) where an individual has one or more distinct identity or personality that surfaces on a recurring basis. All of the dissociative disorders are thought to stem from trauma experienced by the sufferer.

Insanity

The definition of insanity is a legal rather than medical concept. The first concept of insanity was drawn from English common law (the M'Naghten Rule) and stated that accused persons were absolved of criminal responsibility if they were incapable of understanding their action or its wrongfulness. A finding of insanity could lead to acquittal on these grounds. More recently the concept of "volition" – the capacity of the person to ensure that their behaviour conforms to the law – was introduced in US jurisprudence. A person unable to conform to legal requirements may be ruled to have a diminished level of responsibility.

Major depression

Major depression is a serious medical illness affecting nearly 10 million people in the USA in any given year. It can significantly interfere with an individual's thoughts, behaviour, mood, activity, and physical health. Left untreated, depression can lead to suicide.

Mental disorder

This term encompasses all types of problem with mental function including mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind (known as mental retardation), psychopathic disorder and any other disorder or disability of the mind.

Mental illness

This term refers to disorders of thought, mood or behaviour. They are unrelated to intelligence and many can be treated effectively. Examples include depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

Mental retardation

This refers to arrested or incomplete development of intellectual capacity. It starts in childhood and is irreversible. It is not curable, though education and training can improve the life skills of many of those with this disability.

Organic brain syndrome

Organic brain syndrome (also known as organic mental disorder, chronic organic brain syndrome). Organic brain syndrome is a general term referring to physical disorders of the brain arising from disease or trauma that cause decreased mental function such as problems with attention, concentration and memory, confusion, anxiety and depression.

This information is adapted from that provided by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, and MedicineNet.com

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can occur after someone experiences a traumatic event that caused intense fear, helplessness, or horror. The traumatic events can include war, childhood abuse, rape, natural disasters, accidents and captivity. Symptoms include re-experiencing (e.g. nightmares, flashbacks, hallucinations); avoidance (e.g. lack of recall of the traumatic event, limited range of emotion, feelings of detachment from others, feelings of hopelessness about the future); and increased arousal (e.g. inability to sleep, irritability, outbursts of anger, inability to concentrate, watchfulness, jumpiness).

Schizoaffective disorder

This illness is characterized by a combination of symptoms of schizophrenia and an affective (mood) disorder. Today, most clinicians and researchers agree that it is primarily a form of schizophrenia. For a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, a person must have primary symptoms of schizophrenia (such as delusions, hallucinations or disorganized speech or behaviour) as well as prolonged symptoms of major depression or a manic episode.

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a devastating brain disorder that affects approximately 2.2 million adults in the USA. Schizophrenia interferes with a person's ability to think clearly, to distinguish reality from fantasy, to manage emotions, make decisions and relate to others. The first signs of schizophrenia typically emerge in the teenage years or early 20s. Most people with schizophrenia suffer chronically or episodically throughout their lives, and are often stigmatized by a lack of public understanding about the disease. A person with schizophrenia does not have a "split personality", and almost all people with schizophrenia are not dangerous or violent towards others when they are receiving treatment. The World Health Organization has identified schizophrenia as one of the 10 most debilitating diseases affecting humans. Symptoms of schizophrenia include hallucinations – hearing or seeing voices or things that are not there – and delusions such as believing that people are reading their mind, controlling their thoughts or plotting against them.

Letter from Kelsey Patterson to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (© Private)

The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders

More than 1,000 individuals had been put to death in the United States of America since executions resumed in 1977. Dozens of these people had histories of serious mental impairment, either from before the crimes for which they were convicted, or at the time of their execution. As a minimum first step towards ending the human rights violations inherent in capital punishment, the USA should be persuaded to rid itself of the execution of people with serious mental illness. With the launch of the report, USA: The execution of mentally ill offenders, Amnesty International joined the campaign for such an exemption for the mentally ill.

The content of this report is not meant to excuse or minimize the consequences of violent crime perpetrated by the mentally impaired, or to suggest that the mentally ill are overly violent. In fact, most people suffering from mental illness will never commit a violent crime. However, research has found that a mentally ill defendant may be at a heightened and unfair risk of receiving a death sentence or being wrongfully convicted, compared to defendants with low or no impairment.

In June 2002 the Supreme Court determined in the case of Atkins v. Virginia that executing a person with mental retardation amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment". The court reasoned that a mentally handicapped defendant had diminished personal culpability in the crime. Medical and legal scholars argue that the same reasoning should apply to mentally ill defendants. The National Alliance on Mental Illness believes that "persons who have committed offenses due to states of mind or behavior caused by a brain disorder require treatment, not punishment." Justice Rucker of the Indiana Supreme Court, in a dissent against the death sentence of Robert Bryan wrote, "the underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency."

As the sister of Thomas Provenzano said on the day of his execution, "I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being?" The answer is that there is none. Amnesty International joins members of the medical and legal community in denouncing executions of the mentally ill.

» Read the full report
» Read the press release
» Fact sheet on mental illness and the death penalty
» Mental Illness – 100 Executions
» Mental health terminology used in the report
» Key recommendations from the report
» Read the article from Amnesty Magazine

Death Penalty Facts

Find information about all aspects of the death penalty including death penalty costs, death penalty statistics and arguments against the death penalty. You can also find information about executions by year, state, or method, or view the current schedule of executions in the U.S.

Learn About...

• Death Penalty Trends
• Death Penalty and Innocence
• Death Penalty Cost
• Death Penalty and Race
• Death Penalty and Arbitrariness
• Death Penalty and Deterrence
• Lethal Injection
• Death Penalty and Mental Illness
• "Voluntary" Death Penalty
• Death Penalty and the Rights of Foreign Nationals
• Death Penalty and International Standards
• Federal Death Penalty

Download our printable Death Penalty Facts (PDF) for tabling or posting in your community.

More information

• Since 1977, over 1,100 people have been executed in the U.S.; there are currently around 3,300 men and women on death row across the country.
• Scheduled executions in the U.S.
• Death Penalty Curriculum Guide
• How much do you know about the death penalty? Take the quiz

Death Website

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/page.do?id=1011005

Activists urge end of death penalty following report

Activists urge end of death penalty following report
By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Mar 26, 2009, Page 2

An Amnesty International report released on Tuesday listed Taiwan as one of the 59 countries that still have the death penalty and anti-capital punishment activists yesterday urged the government to follow the global trend and abolish the practice.

The report said that more than 2,300 people were executed in 25 countries worldwide, while almost 9,000 others were sentenced to death last year.

“Overall, 138 countries around the world have abolished the death penalty — 92 that have completed abandoned it, 10 that abolished capital punishment during peacetime and 36 that have had no executions during the past 10 years,” Amnesty International Taiwan director Wang Hsing-chung (王興中) said. “Even among the 59 countries that still use the death penalty, only 25 of them had executions in 2008.”

“The figures show that ending the death penalty is a global trend,” Wang said.

Lin Hsin-yi (林欣怡), director of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, urged the government to follow suit.

“The government says it’s not the right time to abolish the death penalty, because most people still support it,” Lin said. “But if we look at examples in other countries, opinion is against abolishing the death penalty, but other governments still abolished it.”

Lin said it often takes a decisive political leader, better crime prevention policies and good substitutes to the death penalty to win popular support for the policy. She said popular support for abolishing the death penalty would increase in the long run.

Lin said that Taiwan has not had an execution since December 2005 and that there has been growing debate on abolishing capital punishment.

“It’s really a good sign that we’re getting close to [abolishing the death penalty] and I hope we can soon complete the last mile,” she said.

She also urged the public to pay more attention to the physical and psychological condition of the 32 people currently on death row.
This story has been viewed 1417 times.

Governor Vetoes Bills To Expand Death Penalty

Va. governor vetoes bills to expand death penalty

By DENA POTTER – 2 days ago

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Gov. Timothy M. Kaine vetoed legislation Friday that would have extended the death penalty to murder accomplices, a measure that would have increased the population eligible for execution in the nation's second-busiest death chamber.

It was the third consecutive year that Kaine, a Democrat, has vetoed bills to expand Virginia's "triggerman rule," which reserves the death penalty only for those who commit a murder.

"While the nature of the offenses targeted by this legislation is very serious, I do not believe that further expansion of the death penalty is necessary to protect human life," Kaine said in a statement announcing the vetoes.

Virginia has executed more inmates than any other state except Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. During his tenure as governor, Kaine has allowed nine executions and commuted one sentence. Currently, the state has 15 inmates awaiting execution on death row.

Virginia is one of only a handful of the nation's 35 death penalty states that do not allow capital punishment for those who are involved in a murder, but don't actually kill the victim.

"We tried to make the case that Virginia should not be in that vast minority since we believe in and utilize the death penalty as strongly as anywhere else in the country for its punitive and deterrent effects," said Republican Del. Todd Gilbert, who sponsored one of the triggerman bills.

Kaine, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also vetoed bills Friday that would have made capital punishment possible for those who kill on-duty fire marshals or auxiliary police officers.

Those bills passed the General Assembly with veto-proof majorities, so it is possible lawmakers could override him when they reconvene April 8. The legislation extending the death penalty to accomplices was a few votes shy of becoming veto-proof in the Senate.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Convicted Killer

Convicted killer resigned himself to death penalty

By JACQUES BILLEAUD – 2 days ago

PHOENIX (AP) — Even before a jury handed him a half dozen death sentences Friday, a former janitor who was convicted of killing six people in metro Phoenix's Serial Shooter attacks had already resigned himself to the worst of fates.

The day before he received the death sentences, Dale Hausner decided against calling witnesses in a bid for leniency, instructed his attorneys not to plead for a life sentence and apologized to the families of every victim in the attacks, saying he should be put to death because it would help them heal.

"It's justice as much as it can be," said Rebecca Estrada, whose 20-year-old son, David Estrada, was one of the people Hausner was convicted of murdering. "The death penalty is the limit, and that's what he deserves."

Though the death penalties essentially closed a central chapter in the Serial Shooter case, Hausner is expected to face a prison sentence of several hundred years when he is punished Monday for attacking 19 other people.

Prosecutors said Hausner preyed on pedestrians, bicyclists, dogs and horses during a 14-month conspiracy that occasionally included his brother and his former roommate, Sam Dieteman.

After Dale Hausner is sentenced Monday on the six dozen other convictions against him, the case's focus will shift to Dieteman, who pleaded guilty to two of the killings and could face the death penalty. Dieteman's sentencing trial is set for May 26.

The Serial Shooter attacks and an unrelated serial killer case kept police and neighborhood watch groups on high alert in the summer of 2006. Families stayed inside as police searched for the killers. Authorities called meetings that drew hundreds of people.

Police said their big break came when one of Dieteman's drinking buddies, Ron Horton, called them to say Dieteman had bragged about shooting people. "They called it 'RV'ing.' Random Recreational Violence," Horton told The Associated Press in a 2006 interview. Horton died last year.

As the star prosecution witness at Hausner's trial, Dieteman said he and his roommate cruised around late at night looking for strangers to shoot and, in one case, found humor at the sight of one of their seriously injured victims holding his stomach and appearing angry.

Dieteman also said Hausner professed a hatred for prostitutes and homeless people as they looked for victims in areas frequented by streetwalkers. Still, Dieteman said, Hausner never explained why he wanted to shoot people.

Hausner's lawyers told jurors that Dieteman gave authorities bad information in hopes of getting out of the death penalty.

Even though Hausner has denied any involvement in the attacks since his arrest in August 2006, he took an odd turn during the penalty phase of his trial when he apologized to the families of every victim in the attacks.

"I'm not up here to point the finger at anybody else and say, 'Have mercy on my poor and withered soul,'" Hausner told the jury on Thursday. "I'm willing to accept my punishment like a man without blaming anybody."

Hausner had, in fact, suggested in the past that Dieteman may have carried out some of the attacks.

As the jury's decisions were announced, Hausner was expressionless, keeping his head down as he flipped through papers in front of him. Before being led out of the courtroom, Hausner thanked the judge who presided over his trial.

Hausner's mother was whisked out of the courtroom through a back door by one of his lawyers. One of the attorneys, Tim Agan, wouldn't comment on the six death sentences.

Hausner cast himself as a busy divorced father of a sick daughter, a ladies' man and a go-getter with side jobs in standup comedy, bartending and boxing photography. He also made an appearance in a TV commercial for a personal injury law firm.

He offered alibis that included being at his girlfriends' houses, shopping at the grocery store, driving in another part of the Phoenix area or taking care of his daughter.

Associated Press writer Terry Tang contributed to this report.

Felony Murder Rule

A rule of law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the common law. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. Burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

Felony-murder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of assault and battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder.

The future of the felony-murder rule is in doubt. Some jurisdictions have abolished the rule and others continue to limit its application. In the 1982 case of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S. Ct. 3368, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140, the Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of the death penalty upon an accomplice who neither kills, attempts to kill, or intends that a killing occur or lethal force be used in the commission of a felony-murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In those states that have retained the offense, it is usually classified as murder in the first degree, for which the penalty might be death or imprisonment.

Felony Murder Rule

This is a law that needs to be changed. A person has no control of what another does. My son was allegedly a get away driver for a botched robbery. He was not in the area where a person with him shot a man. My son is now facing life without and charged with murder and sent to a level 4 prison, he has never even been to a county jail and now he fights to save his life behind bars. He has to look over his back all the time. He is white and they say the whites are treated the worst. He is not a murderer. A person can go and actually murder someone and be out of prison in 25 years but my son who did nothing gets life without. He does not deserve this. Can you help us in changing this law.


WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE FELONY MURDER RULE

Preface/Definitions (criteria vary from state to state)

1. First-degree Murder - A willful, deliberate, premeditated (planned) killing.

2. Second-degree Murder - An unplanned killing resulting from a malicious assault or other act, including the unlawful distribution of drugs when the ingestion of such substance causes the death of the user. Second-degree murder is one in which the defendant, as a "reasonably prudent person," knows that the circumstances may cause the death of another person.

3. Voluntary Manslaughter - Killing which occurs in the heat of passion and/or without malicious intent.

4. Involuntary Manslaughter - Involuntary Manslaughter - Death that occurs accidentally or in violation of a non-felony, such as reckless driving.

5. Homicide - The killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Murder and manslaughter are included among homicides, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, accidents, such as a hunting accident, or a traffic accident where there is no violation of the law. Intent is the criterion that could elevate a charge from homicide (innocent or criminal), to murder.

6. Felony Murder Rule - States that any death, which occurs during the commission or attempt to commit certain felonies, which include arson, rape or other sexual offenses, burglary, robbery or kidnapping, is first-degree murder and all participants in the felony can be held equally culpable, including those who did no harm, possessed no weapon, and did not intend to hurt anyone. Intent does not have to be proven for anything but the underlying felony. Even if, during the commission of the underlying felony, death occurs from fright, a heart attack for instance, it is still first-degree murder.
Reasons Why the Felony Murder Rule is Wrong:

1. The felony murder rule does not take into consideration the defendant's motivation during the crime, thus relieving the prosecution of its burden of proving intent to kill, which is a necessary element in all other murder cases. Because intent can mean the difference between cold-blooded killing and accidental death, felony murder bears little resemblance to the offense of murder except in name. First-degree murder is often an arbitrary assignment.

A. Intent to commit felony does not equal intent to kill. The intention of committing a felony, by itself, should not be sufficient to establish a charge of murder.

B. The felony murder rule erodes the relationship between criminal liability and moral culpability. It equally punishes all homicides, which take place during the commission, or attempted commission, of the proscribed felonies, whether intentional, unintentional, or accidental.

2. Holding one or more people criminally liable for the tragic results of an act which differs greatly from the intended results is based on a concept of culpability which is totally at odds with the general principles of jurisprudence. It is fundamentally unfair and in violation of basic principles of individual criminal culpability to hold one person liable for the unforeseen and unagreed-to results of another person's action.

3. The basic rule of culpability is further violated when felony murder is categorized as first-degree murder.

A. All other first-degree murder charges (which carry equal punishment) require proof beyond reasonable doubt of premeditation, deliberation and willfulness. Felony murder requires only proof of intent to commit the underlying felony.

B. The purpose of creating degrees of murder is to punish with increased severity the more culpable forms of murder. However, an accidental death during the commission or attempted commission of a felony is punished more severely than a second-degree murder, which requires proof of intent to kill.

4. While the felony murder rule survives in California and other states, several states have repealed it. Other states have made numerous modifications and restrictions, and some states never incorporated the felony murder rule at all. The simple fact that state legislatures throughout the United States have repealed or amended the law reflects a wide dissatisfaction with the basic harshness and injustice of the doctrine and calls into question its continued existence.


5. Prosecutors can use the felony murder rule as a shortcut to justice.

A. The law relieves prosecutors of the burden of proving intent to kill, thereby making their cases much easier to win.

B. Because there are only two options for sentencing (life without parole and death), the law can cause grossly disproportionate sentencing, depending on the circumstances of each individual case. This wins prosecutors greater convictions when the sentences may not be at all appropriate.

The felony murder rule may be unconstitutional.

A. It does not presume innocence to the first-degree murder charge. If convicted of the underlying felony, the defendant is automatically also guilty of first-degree murder. There is no defense possible against the first-degree murder charge by itself.

B. In some cases it violates the Eighth Amendment: cruel and unusual punishment, grossly disproportionate to the crime(s) actually committed.

C. It holds unequally involved parties equally accountable and punishable. Again, cruel and unusual punishment if the punishments do not fit each individuals part in the crime.

D. It denies due process on the first-degree murder charge - a violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is not possible, for instance, to plead innocent to the charge of first-degree murder while pleading guilty to the underlying felony. The underlying felony and the first-degree murder charge are bound together and cannot be separated.

Depraved Heart Murder

depraved-heart murder legal definition

n
A murder resulting from an act of reckless disregard for the safety of others. See also murder.

Appeal To Emotion

Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?" Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be "you should participate in these acts of violence." In this case, the "evidence" would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.

This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.

In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.

As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.

This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on evidence for the claims.

Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows

Appeal to Popularity

1. Most people approve of X.
2. So, I should approve of X, too.
3. Since I approve of X, X must be true.

Appeal to Emotion

1. I approve of X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most people approve of the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is accepted because the individual approves of the claim because of the emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.
Examples of Appeal to Emotion

1. The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

2. The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!

3. Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the people who are currently in office. After hearing the speech, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.

Appeal To Common Practice

Description of Appeal to Common Practice

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say "the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them." This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:

1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.
2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
3. Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.

This argument rests heavily on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can only be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be fine for me to give a better grade to A than B if A did better work than B. However, it would be wrong of me to give A a better grade than B simply because A has red hair and B has blonde hair.

There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:

1. Most people do X.
2. Therefore X is morally correct.

would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that thereare only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.
Examples of Appeal to Common Practice

1. Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says "This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn't go on in all state programs."

2. "Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."

3. "Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less then men. It's okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong."

4. "There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism."

Appeal to belief

Description of Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

See also Appeal to Popularity.
Examples of Appeal to Belief

1. At one time, most people in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (at least most of those who had beliefs about such things). However, this belief turned out to be false.

2. God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God.

3. Of course there is nothing wrong with drinking. Ask anyone, he'll tell you that he thinks drinking is just fine.

Bandwagon Appeal

Also Known as: Peer Pressure.
Description of Bandwagon

The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person P is pressured by his/her peers or threatened with rejection.
2. Therefore person P's claim X is false.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim. This is expecially clear in the following example:

Joe: "Bill, I know you think that 1+1=2. But we don't accept that sort of thing in our group. "
Bill: "I was just joking. Of course I don't believe that."

It is clear that the pressure from Bill's group has no bearing on the truth of the claim that 1+1=2.

It should be noted that loyalty to a group and the need to belong can give people very strong reasons to conform to the views and positions of those groups. Further, from a practical standpoint we must often compromise our beliefs in order to belong to groups. However, this feeling of loyalty or the need to belong simply do not constitute evidence for a claim.
Examples of Bandwagon

1. Bill says that he likes the idea that people should work for their welfare when they can. His friends laugh at him, accuse him of fascist leanings, and threaten to ostracize him from their group. He decides to recant and abandon his position to avoid rejection.

2. Bill: "I like classical music and I think it is of higher quality than most modern music."
Jill: "That stuff is for old people."
Dave: "Yeah, only real woosies listen to that crap. Besides, Anthrax rules! It Rules!"
Bill: "Well, I don't really like it that much. Anthrax is much better."

3. Bill thinks that welfare is needed in some cases. His friends in the Young Republicans taunt him every time he makes his views known. He accepts their views in order to avoid rejection.