A recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (1-29-06) talked about the American Bar Association’s recent “bashing” of Georgia’s death penalty laws. My first thought was that the word bashing seemed like a very strong and violent word in an article that was so against a type of punishment that they have categorized as somewhat violent. Not only violent but a punishment, according to the American Bar, that simply cannot be ensuring fairness in a defendant’s trials or appeals. They felt that it was so unfair that Georgia should invoke a period of moratorium on any further death penalty cases. This opinion is based on a report that represents 400,000 people who are lawyers. This article is based on the opinion of one person who is not.

To seek the death penalty is a decision that should require much thought and soul searching, even more evidence that is indisputably clear, and should involve a perpetrator who quite simply deserves to die for the crime that he or she has committed. Most importantly, the pursuit of the death penalty should be evaluated and reevaluated to ensure that such a punishment is within the boundaries of the law concerning capital cases where seeking such a punishment is allowable. If any of these factors do not exist, then the death penalty should not even be an option or consideration. However…….if these factors are present, prosecutors would be remiss if they did not consider such a punishment. The death penalty is an option that can be considered only for a very select case in which the crime is so vile that death should be an option as punishment. And while these cases are few, some will still say that there has never been a crime that was deserving of the perpetr! ator being put to death for their actions. Just as it would be irresponsible for prosecutors to take this penalty option lightly, it is equally irresponsible for those in opposition to think that there is never a case worthy of the death penalty.

The debate as to whether or not the death penalty should be allowed has been around for years. It has been argued, it has been overturned, we have gone through periods where it was common, and we have gone through periods where it was completely not allowed. Undoubtedly, these arguments will continue. The danger to these discussions only comes when we allow the discussions to stand in the way of justice. And in this case, I am talking about the justice that is awaited by the victims. Death penalty litigation very rarely addresses the concerns of the victim. Granted, the guarantee of the defendants rights should be monitored closely. If any violation of the defendant’s rights should occur, no matter how slight or obscure, the pursuit of the death penalty should never be allowed to continue. Anything short of these guarantees would be a slap in the face of justice as well. But, the rights of victims must be made a part of these proceedings. Currently the vic! tim’s contribution to their cases is minimal. Their “statement” to the court usually consists of a prepared and edited statement, which has already been subjected to objections by the defense and then must be read verbatim without any emotion. Other than this, the victim’s rights are simply not often a part of the process.

The AJC article also makes an interesting point that is largely ignored by death penalty opponents. There is no evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed. However, there are volumes of evidence that hundreds of innocent victims have been executed. It will be interesting to see if their constitutional rights are ever considered as much as the ones who killed them.

Anne Emanuel, the Chairwoman of the American Bar Association study is quoted as saying “The purpose of the study is to move the system forward so that it’s more capable of providing even handed justice on a consistent manner.” Most victims would argue that placing a moratorium on death penalty cases would actually have the opposite result.