Thirty-eight states allow the death penalty. In thirty-two of those states the judges are subject to elections. Justice Penny White was the only woman on Tennessee's Supreme Court. In the first death penalty case before her on the Supreme Court, although affirming the conviction of a death row inmate. Justice White received heavy criticism for her vote to overturn the inmates death sentence. In the August judicial elections of 1996, she was attacked by the Tennessee Conservation Union as an opponent of the death penalty. White's opponents accused her of never voting "to uphold a death penalty conviction" and wanting to "free more and more criminals and laugh at their victims". White lost the election and no longer serves on the court. This is just one example of the corruption that politics implements on the death penalty. The death penalty can never be fair when Justices who recognize the faults and try to give fair judgment are run out of office. This act will continue as long as the American people continue to elect politicians who have one goal in mind, political gain.

Not only have judges' subject to elections been put under pressure but also appointed judges. The politics of the death penalty works to exclude judicial candidates who have not pledged "blind allegiance' to the death penalty. Early in former President Clinton's term the Senate Republicans gave notice that they would challenge any of his judicial nominees whom they considered to be insufficiently committed to the death penalty. Considerable opposition, for example, was mounted against the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court when she was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Despite the fact that Judge Rosemary Barkett had upheld the death sentence in more than 200 cases. Senator Orrin Hatch wanted to see if she was "serious enough about the death penalty". Barkett was ultimately confirmed but the politics of the death penalty continued as those who voted for her were accused of being soft on crime. Jim Sasser was attacked in his re-election bid because of his vote for Judge Barkett. Sassar lost his seat to Bill First who was a firm death penalty supporter. This is another perfect example of how politics has intruded on the justice system and ruined the fabric of which it was made to represent. The face behind the veil has revealed its ugliness but more is still to be seen.

Because judges are subject to political attacks, some judges go out of their way to show they are "not weak on crime". The elected judges on Alabama's Supreme Court took no chances that the public might misconstrue their views. They have implemented measures on their own to speed up the executions of those on death row. They threatened to set execution dates even for those who have not completed their appeals. It is irresponsible for the state courts to fail to conduct a searching review of death penalty cases. This effort to prove "I'm tough on crime" will eventually lead to innocent lives being lost on death row in the state of Alabama, if not already. While judges are protecting their seats by speeding up death penalty appeals, the inmates become victimized and caught up in this web of deceit. Until these acts become the focus of our news media and citizens, our justice system will continue as it is. There will be no justice for the victims it entangles, but career advances to those who sit in our high courts. It's said that "Lady Justice" wears a blindfold to represent that the justice system is not bias. Could it be that she is hiding her face in shame of how our justice system is run? It's something that we all should think about.

Political pressure on judges regarding death penalty decisions, is most keenly felt when the judge, rather than a jury, makes the ultimate decision on a life or death sentence. In nine death penalty states, judges determine whether a defendant is to receive a death sentence. In eight of those nine states, the judges are subject to elections to retain their positions. In Alabama alone, elected judges overturned recommendations of life sentences and imposed death sentences more than ten times as often as they rejected recommendations of death. Justice John Paul Stevens notes "Not surprisingly, given the political pressures they face, judges are far more likely than juries to impose the death penalty. This has long been the case and the recent experience of judicial overrides confirms it". With politics obviously controlling the way our legal system is run, a judge seeking to hold office will band to political pressures when pronouncing sentence in highly publicized capital cases.

In Florida, one judge known for publicizing the death penalty was Judge William Lamar Rose. When the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily overturned the death penalty in 1972, Judge Rose publicly protested the decision by slinging a noose over a tree limb on the courthouse lawn. When the death penalty came back to Florida he was handed the discretion to use that noose despite a jury's vote for life. He quickly overturned a jury's recommendation for Doug McCay, a former honor student and star athlete who suffered from alcohol-induced blackouts.

Another Florida judge, Richard Stanley is also an outspoken supporter of the death penalty. At one capital trial, the judge brought out his brass knuckles and a gun for all the court to see. When challenged in the debate around the time of trial on whether he could pull the switch on the electric chair he said: "Well, I will go along with that as long as they allow me, right after I pronounce sentence, to reach down by my left leg and come up with my pistol and shoot 'em right between the eyes". In this particular capital trial the jury unanimously voted for a sentence of life. Judge Stanley promptly ignored the jury's recommendation and imposed a sentence of death. Apparently, Judge Stanley had made up his mind about the death sentence long before the penalty phase. Judge Stanley acknowledged his pre-judgment of the case saying "When the judgment was brought out by the jury that he was guilty, 1 knew in my own mind what the penalty should be, and I sentenced him to it". Stanley has said he would make the same judgment of death if given another chance today. "Very frankly", he said when questioned about the sentence, "I don't give a damn about it". This is a prime example of a judge trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. If the judge doesn't "give a damn" he should not be a judge but somewhere receiving mental help. Again, voters allow these individuals to hold these seats which shows that maybe the voters "don't give a damn either". The Alabama judge who has most often overridden jury recommendations for life sentences is Judge Braxton Kittrell. He turned aside a jury recommendation for a life without parole sentence for Micheal Shawn Bames. Barnes was 17 years old at the time of his crime, is border-line mentally retarded, and suffers from mental illness. Even some of the victims' family members objected to a death sentence. Nevertheless, Judge Kittrell took out his full fury on Micheal Barnes in rejecting the Jury's decision for mercy. Judge Kittrell said "You are vicious, and you are a cold-blooded murderer, you are entitled to just as much mercy from this court as you showed your victims!"

Judges are not the only ones in elected office for whom the death penalty offers political opportunities. Attorney generals and prosecutors can get caught up in the political competition, with dire consequences. Attorney generals and prosecutors have been known to play with the lives of death row inmates just to prove a political point. In Ohio, Attorney General Batty Montgomery demonstrated political brinkmanship in death penalty prosecutors, in one case, a death row inmate had not yet filed his first federal habeas corpus petition. Almost all death row inmates seek such review. Stays of execution are routinely granted and attorneys are appointed for these important proceedings. Nevertheless, the state of Ohio set a date for Robert Buell and a federal judge refused to grant a stay because the actual petition had not yet been filed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did, however, grant Buell a stay just two days before his scheduled execution so that the routine filing could take place. Attorney General Montgomery waited to a few hours before execution to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the execution to go forward, thereby deliberately creating an eleventh hour crisis in which the whole state mobilized for its first execution in over 30 years. Even though this was a case that had not yet been through the normal review process, the Attorney General called an afternoon press conference condemning the delay in executions. She admitted that the scrambling defense attorneys would almost certainly get a stay of execution. Nevertheless, she was willing to push the system to the breaking point, taking a chance with a man's life, to make a political point. Such actions have no place in our justice system. Acts like these show how much a career is valued over the life of a human being.

Executions are coming at any price. In the states that have the death penalty millions of dollars are being wasted away just to put inmates to death. Although government frugality usually makes for good campaign pitches, when it comes to the death penalty that tack is abandoned. In Texas, death penalty cases cost over 2 million dollars a piece and the state has over 400 people on death row. Texas jumped on the bandwagon of states trying to speed up their executions. Cutting the appeals process was easy, but supplying the funds to provide even a minimum of representation so that the appeals could be completed proved impossible.

Alabama a state that also joined the bandwagon did succeed in cutting the appeals process. Even in cutting appeals the state has failed in supplying funds. It would be much cheaper to the taxpayers if these states would just lock up these inmates for life. The cost would not be anywhere near the over two million dollars a case that the state is spending. The state of Alabama has proved putting inmates to death is more important than funding its schools which are in need of funding.

Some prosecutors brag about their death penalty convictions as if they were notches in their guns. They campaign for office, knowing that it is almost impossible to appear "too tough" on crime. Some prosecutors stake their careers on how many they have sent to death row. Prosecutors will do whatever possible to obtain a conviction. Johnny Holmes, the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas, has made a career out of the death penalty. He has sent more people to the execution chamber since 1976 than any state, except Texas itself. In the D.A.'s office is a chart entitled the "Silver Needle Society", which lists all those from Harris County who have been executed by lethal injection. Prosecutors such as Johnny Holmes is an outrage, and his sick ego for sending people to their deaths scars the face of the justice system. It's obvious this is more important than life and fairness. Acts like this is just a slap in the face of those who truly seek justice. This only increases the chance that innocent life will be taken. Prosecutors such as this should be held accountable for their actions. If they cause the death of an innocent person then it is they who should face the death penalty. However, in a justice system that protects it's own, this is less likely to ever happen.

The final step in the death penalty process is the consideration of clemency by the governor. However, because the process has become so politicized in recent years, clemencies have become extremely rare. Instead of clemency, one of the most popular techniques which pro-death penalty governors have used in recent years is the artificial acceleration of death warrants. For an electorate which has been made hungry for faster executions, the warrant signing scheme has several advantages. First, it gives the appearance that the death penalty process is being sped up. Second it enables a governor to numerically compare himself with his or her predecessor on a toughness scale. And third, when the death warrants inevitably are not carried out at the same pace at which they are signed, the governor can blame the courts or defense attorneys as the "real problem". This manipulation of the criminal justice system has more than political ramifications. A death warrant sends the legal system into a frenzy. Stays of execution must be fought for, even before an appeal can be filed. Layers are added on to an already complex process. If the number of warrants becomes excessive, there may not be attorneys available to handle the sudden avalanche of litigation. An unrepresented defendant could easily fall through the cracks and be executed without legal representation.

In conclusion, although crime has often been a staple for political speeches, the recent emphasis on the death penalty interferes with the essential impartiality of the justice system. When judges who will decide whether a defendant is to live or die, and who even have the power to reject the unanimous vote of jurors, run for office by proclaiming how tough they will be on criminals, fairness is threatened. When prosecutors who will make key decisions on how often, and against whom, to seek the death penalty run for office on their capital punishment record, it invites abuse. Politicians fan the flames of this spiralling effort to seek more death judgments and faster executions by making allegiance to the death penalty a test for public office. This single issue is excluding highly qualified candidates from seeking or obtaining office. It is becoming increasingly difficult for rational debate on the value of capital punishment to take place, when the slightest hesitation on the death penalty brands one as weak on crime. Ultimately, the death penalty compromises the integrity of the justice system itself as individual rights are sacrificed in an effort to score political points. The message has to be sent to the politicians who were trusted to be fair and just, that the veil has been removed. No longer can their selfish ambitions go unnoticed. No one person runs this country or how the death penalty is administered. This is a democracy and they work for us as our voices, not for themselves. It's time to tell the politicians to "either shape up or ship out".

By: Nicholas Acklin

SOURCE: The Death Penalty Information Center
http:/www.deathpenaltyinfo.org./dpierkfv.html