Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:14 pm
Time: 11:14 pm
Results for capital punishment (missouri)
1 results foundAuthor: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Missouri's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it offers a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide suspension of executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death 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 fall of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (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 moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; 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 examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project began in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In its first round of assessments, the Project examined the administration of the death penalty in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee and released reports on these states’ capital punishment systems from 2006 to 2007. A summary report was also published in 2007 in which the findings of the eight reports were compiled. Due in large part to the success of the state assessments produced in the eight jurisdictions described above, the Project began a second round of assessments in late 2009. In addition to this Report on Missouri, the Project released its report on Kentucky in December 2011. The Project also plans to release reports in Texas and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. Past state assessment reports have been used as blueprints for state-based study commissions on the death penalty, served as the basis for legislative and court rule changes, and generally informed decision-makers’ and the public’s understanding of the problems affecting the fairness and accuracy of their state’s death penalty system. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (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: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments in 2006: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment is conducted by a state-based assessment team. Team members typically include current and former judges, state legislators, current and former prosecutors, current and former defense attorneys, state bar association leaders, and law professors. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. They are also not required to support the Protocols, but they have agreed to follow them for the purposes of this assessment. The state assessment teams are responsible for analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. The findings of each assessment team illuminate how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and identify areas of strength and areas in need of reform. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a synopsis of the findings and proposals of the Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this Report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail, followed by an Appendix. Citations in the Report conform to rules set forth by the Supreme Court of Missouri, and thus deviate from The Bluebook citation rules where appropriate. The Project and the Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Missouri death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any factual errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2012. 488p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/death_penalty_moratorium/final_missouri_assessment_report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/death_penalty_moratorium/final_missouri_assessment_report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124370 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Missouri)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Missouri)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |