OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 Ten Chairs: Nine are Leather; One's Electric. The Supreme Court's Struggle for Equal Justice in Capital Punishment. By Jackson Spencer Wixom America continues to struggle with the death penalty issue, with some calling it u cruel and unusual" punishment, and others asserting that it represents a sure-fire path to justice. In the context of the theme "Equal Justice Under Law," etched in stone on the U.S. Supreme Court Building, this paper considers whether the Supreme Court's increased emphasis on procedural efficiency in denying writs ofcertiorari and stays of execution denies equal justice based on the merits of a prisoner's case. While noting some benefits of procedural efficiency, the paper concludes that tightening the procedural process does come at the expense of substantive justice, thus making the goal of "equal justice" more illusive. INTRODUCTION A focal point in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court is a polished bench of Honduran mahogany with nine stuffed leather chairs seated behind it. Each chair is labeled with a gold plate that indicates its respective Justice. The quality of these seats is a symbol of the privilege and honor associated with being a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Coupled with this privilege, however, is a grim responsibility. The nine Justices who occupy these chairs must ultimately decide who of hundreds of condemned candidates will next sit in another, less-comfortable chair. The "tenth" chair is not found in the Court building. It sits instead in a small, bare room within the guarded walls of a state penitentiary, either in Florida, Georgia, or one of the nine other "death penalty" states. At the flip of a switch the hard seat of wood, metal, and leather straps hums with approximately 2,000 volts of electricity (Methods of Execution 1999). All of these features guarantee that this will be the last chair its occupant will sit in. Historically, the American people have shown a lack of agreement in determining the moral nature of the death penalty. Christians find conflicting teachings concerning the death penalty in the Holy Bible. Leviticus states, "he that kills any man shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 24:17) Spencer is a senior graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and a minor in Business. Spencer served a Hinckley Internship with the United States Supreme Court. He plans to work for Equico Capital Resources, an investment banking firm. and Exodus states, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 2:14 King James Version). In a legal sense, the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment is debated continually as well. Does the death penalty violate the common right that, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?" The ethical debate placed aside, the death penalty does revolve around one concrete fact; once human life is taken it cannot be replaced. Therefore, the Supreme Court as the ultimate decision maker in all death penalty cases, shoulders the responsibility to guarantee to the American people that every death penalty case is handled in a fair and equal manner. The motto, "Equal Justice Under Law," stretched across the front of the Supreme Court building makes this responsibility clear to all citizens of the United States, including death row inmates. To better understand the meaning of "Equal Justice," the latter word can be divided into two key categories: substantive justice and procedural justice. Throughout history, the Supreme Court has followed a system of Stare Decisis (Latin for "Let the decision stand") in order to ensure procedural justice. "This refers to the legal rule that when a court has decided a case by applying a legal principle to a set of facts, that court should stick by that principle and apply it to all later cases with clearly similar facts" (Oran's 2000). The Supreme Court recognizes that imperfections and biases push our legal system away from perfect justice as, what John Rawls defines as, "The procedure adopted to bring about the correct result." A lack of absolute truth in criminal trials inhibits the possibility of universally achieving this just result. However, Rawls definition of "pure procedural justice" is what our legal system hopes to achieve, "a correct or fair procedure such that the |