executivesummaryauthcheckdam.docx

1、executivesummaryauthcheckdamExecutive Summary IntroductionFairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As ourcapital punishment system now stands,however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles. Our system cannot claim to provide due proce

2、ss or protect the innocent unless it provides a fairand accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our countrys death penalty system and that ca

3、pital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that deat

4、h penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation

5、 Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for m

6、oratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive

7、examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine sixteen U.S. jurisdictions death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. The Project is conducting state assessments in Alabama, Arizona

8、, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to high

9、light individual state systems successes and inadequacies. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examin

10、ing the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limi

11、tations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with death

12、penalty administration, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each states assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based Assessment Team, w

13、hich is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to su

14、pport or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams research, the Proje

15、ct created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enfor

16、cement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instru

17、ctions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from

18、 which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA has no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not

19、consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the Georgia death penalty. The Project would appreciate notificat

20、ion of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in th

21、e assessment report, the team is unanimous in many of the conclusions. Even though not all team members support the call for a moratorium, they are unanimous in their belief that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly enhance the accuracy and fairness of Georgias

22、 capital punishment system. II. Highlights of the Report A. Overview To assess fairness and accuracy in Georgias death penalty system, the Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team researched twelve issues: (1) collection, preservation, and testing of DNA and other types of evidence; (2) law enforcement

23、 identifications and interrogations; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiner offices; (4) prosecutorial professionalism; (5) defense services; (6) the direct appeal process; (7) state post-conviction proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) the treatment

24、 of racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Report summarizes the research on each issue and analyzes the level of compliance with the relevant ABA Recommendations. B. Problem AreasThe assessment findings indicate a need to r

25、eform a number of areas within Georgias death penalty system to ensure that it provides a fairand accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. The Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team finds the following problem areas most in need of reform: Inadequate Defense Counsel at Trial - Al

26、though the State of Georgia has recently instituted a statewide capital defender system, which provides experienced attorneys for indigent defendants in capital proceedings at trial and on direct appeal, it is unclear whether funding will be available to enable it to function as planned. Moreover, i

27、t must be noted that the trials and direct appeals of defendants presently on death row preceded the creation of the statewide capital defender system; those defendants may or may not have had adequate counsel. Lack of Defense Counsel for State Habeas Corpus Proceedings - The State of Georgia is vir

28、tually alone in not providing indigent defendants sentenced to death with counsel for state habeas proceedings. The lack of counsel on state habeas, particularly when combined with the case law that allows habeas judges to adopt the states findings of fact verbatim, creates a situation where this cr

29、itical constitutional safeguard is so undermined as to be ineffective. Inadequate Proportionality Review - In conducting its proportionality review, since 1994 the Georgia Supreme Court has looked only to cases where the death penalty was imposed under similar circumstances, rather than also conside

30、ring cases in which the death penalty was sought but not imposed and cases in which the death penalty could have been sought but was not. Proportionality review that considers only cases where the death sentence was imposed is inherently limited and incapable of uncovering potentially serious dispar

31、itieswhether those disparities are geographical, racial or ethnic, or attributable to any other inappropriate factor. Inadequate Pattern Jury Instructions on Mitigation - Research establishes that not all Georgia capital jurors understand what law governs their decision to impose or not impose a dea

32、th sentence. Forty percent (specifically 40.5%) of interviewed Georgia capital jurors did not understand that they could consider any evidence in mitigation and 62.2% believed that the defense had to prove mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. This confusion possibly can be attributed to the

33、 fact that the suggested pattern jury instructions provide little to no guidance on mitigating circumstances. The instructions do not list any factors that might be considered in mitigation, explain the burden of proof, or explain that jurors need not be unanimous in finding mitigating circumstances. Death sentences resulting f