On May 23, 1981 in the state of Jacksonville, Florida, Leo Jones was convicted of the murder of a police officer, Thomas Szafranski. The officer was struck in the head by a sniper bullet while sitting in his police car in downtown Jacksonville. Leo Jones was later arrested that same day in a nearby apartment where two Winchester rifles were found and was sentenced to death by electrocution. Only one of the rifles found contained Jones’ fingerprints. Jones did confess to the killing saying he killed the officer because of police beatings, but however he later said that the confession was a lie and that the police forced him to confess and a gun was held to his head. After the arrest Jones was taken to a medical hospital and was treated for minor injuries such as cuts and bruises on his face. A retired police officer of the name Cleveland Smith, came forward and announced that the officer Lynwood Mundy, the same officer who supposedly beat Jones had bragged to Smith that he beat Jones after the arrest. Smith had also said that he had witnessed Mundy receive an confession from a suspect by squeezing his genitals in a firm grip. This evidence can almost prove that Mundy in fact did beat Jones but it was never proved. Jones was not the only one to say that another man had killed the officer, about a dozen other people had also indicated that it was a different man and other witnesses have said they heard the criminal brag that he has shot the officer. The case had sent Jones to death row for sixteen years. Suspicion began to rise as the main witnesses against Jones had recanted, two of the key police officers had left the police department randomly, a...
... middle of paper ...
...tes were “less than reliable and no other evidence supported them. He also ruled that it was only hearsay and that Schofield did not say them immediately after the murder”(Juan Ignacio Bianco). Time ran out for Jones, every piece of clear evidence that came to the table to prove that Jones was innocent was denied and said that it does not clearly prove innocence. “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger,” were the last words that Jones was constantly repeating to his religious advisor El Hajj Rabbanu Muhammad during the preparations for the execution. On March 24, 1998 Jones was executed and the race for Jones’ innocence was officially over.
Works Cited
Bianco, Juan. "Leo Alexander Jones | Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers." Leo Alexander Jones | Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Is it justifiable to inflict the death penalty on individuals who have committed murder? As majority would have it, yes. There are many arguments in favor of capital punishment. Some of these include taking a murderer out of this world once and for all, and saving money that would be spent on them if they were given a life sentence, as well as the majority rule of citizens of the United States wishing it to stay. In Truman Capote’s nonfiction novel, In Cold Blood, Dick and Perry were assigned the death penalty for the cruel murders of four members of the Clutter family in a small town in Kansas. Not only did this pair of men deserve what they got, but it is also better for the state that they were executed.
A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. Capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes. The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment 's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
After more than 28 years, amidst the controversy surrounding Mumia's guilty conviction and later receipt of the death penalty, there are those who are not convinced. Many Mumia supporter and some advocating for abolition of the death penalty believe corruption in the Philadelphia Police Department, coupled with a flawed judicial system, backed by racist judges, have lead to a conspiracy to commit murder on the part of the State. Abu-Jamal Mumia, a well known journalist and community activist from Philadelphia has been on death row since 1983 for the shooting death of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981. Because of his political views and his former involvement with the Black Panther Party, Mumia has been viewed as a hero by some and a "menace to society" by others. At this point, guilty or not guilty is merely a rhetorical question that may never be answered. Many believe that Mumia is being set up as the “fall guy” for a "hit" ordered on Officer Faulkner by the "Mafia". On the other hand, there are those who believe that him is an insensitive, cold blooded "cop kil...
The truth can sometimes depend on the circumstance and the person who states it. When confronted with conflicting accounts or questionable details, a judge within the court of law must decide the sentence of an individual with these obstacles in place. In this case, the defendant Dannie McGrew has been charged with the murder of Barney Quill, but claims that it was self-defense. The following contains a thorough explanation as to how the judge decided upon the verdict of acquittal.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
Main Point 1: Imagine someone that has been accused of murder and sentenced to death row has to spend almost 17-20 years in jail and then one day get kill. Then later on the person that they killed was not the right person.
Offenders given mandatory life in prison on charges of murder, on average only serve 16 years before being released back into society. One in three of these killers carries out a second murder even under the supervision of the probation officer.1 If we allow murderers to spend life in prison we run the chance of them getting out and killing again. Capital punishment can also deter future perpetrators from committing such a heinous crime, and it will end the prisoner’s suffering by giving them a humane death and give closure to the victim’s family. Without a concrete meaning of “life in prison” we need the death penalty to put an end to the most evil of people.
The process determining whether or not an inmate shall live or die is inefficient. The appeal process contemplating the lives of death row inmates is terribly constructed due to a large amount of inmates dying for the law even though they were not guilty, leading to another problem of cruel and unusual punishment, which is definitely unconstitutional, therefore, causing people to waste their tax dollars on death row inmates, who are most likely not to be killed for years after their incarceration so they may live in a comfortable cell. Although death row inmates may live in somewhat comfortable cells, they do not deserve to be unjustly imprisoned.
The people in support of the death penalty say that if murderers are sentenced to death, future committers will think about the consequences before they actually proceed with the crime. However, most murderers don’t expect or plan to be caught and weigh their fate. Because, murders are committed when the murderer is angry or passionate, or by drug abusers and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol ("Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)”). Therefore, it will not deter future crimes and will actually increase the amount of murders because of society. As previously stated, the death penalty isn’t proven to prevent future murders and/or crimes because it actually increases the likelihood of committing murder. It doesn’t prevent future murders because it would upset the family and friends of the person who was executed. For example, if someone was executed by the death penalty and it was someones family member, then the person who lost their loved one by the execution would most likely commit murder in anger. If that person was executed the next family member would get angry and so on. The cycle would never end and would have more murders. There is no final proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent than other options. Not having the death penalty would be better because it could save many lives. For example, United States a country that uses the death penalty has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada which are countries that do not use the death penalty. To get a little specific, the states in the United States that do not use the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states that do.
While researching this case I stumbled upon many others and I became aware of how many people have suffered from the injustice of being found guilty. While reading parts of the book “Real Justice: Fourteen and Sentenced to Death the Story of Steven Truscott” I learned that the police played a large role in why 14-year-old Truscott was found guilty of murder. The book showed that they forced witnesses to change their story to further “prove” Truscott’s guilt of the crime. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one
Ted Bundy is one of the most infamous, sadistic serial killers known to man. During his tenure as a killer, Bundy confessed to the murders of 30 women, though the official number of kills is unknown to this day. Bundy’s sadistic habits began at an early age due to his rough upbringing and abusive parents. His tactical methods of killing left miniscule amounts of evidence, which remained undetectable by the “still rudimentary forensics techniques of the 1970s” (Crime Museum). Bundy also managed to uphold an impressive “clean-cut appearance” and portrayed characteristics of an “upstanding character” (Crime Museum). Ted Bundy, through the course of a troubled childhood and keen wit, managed to successfully become known as one of the most infamous
Berns, Walter. "Getting Away With Murder." Commentary 97.4 (1994): 25. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 14
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
The death penalty, many may argue that it is right, while others argue that it is wrong. Should the death penalty be abolished? Some of the main issues that arise with the death penalty are that it’s cruel and unusual, expensive, and we’re punishing criminals for killing by killing. Although these are valid arguments, the death penalty shouldn’t be abolished because criminals deserve to be properly punished.