For the third time, the United States Supreme Court is considering a case about the death penalty for a Californian prisoner. Fernando Belmontes was sentenced to death in 1982, but has since gone through a rollercoaster of appeals and affirmations of his case. Over twenty seven years ago, Belmontes brutally murdered a 19-year old girl by beating her repeatedly with an iron dumbbell in order to steal her radio. His case is not going to the Supreme Court to discuss whether or not he is innocent. Rather, it is to discuss whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the inmate.
There are several reasons why his case has gone through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals three times. It is important to consider the perpetrator as a human being with extenuating circumstances rather than a static, cold blooded murderer. He grew up in an impoverished family, with an abusive, alcoholic father who beat both him and his mother. While these circumstances are in no way an excuse for his inexcusable behavior, they ought to be considered in the sentencing of a murderer. However, in Belmontes’ case, this evidence of his past was not brought to light during the sentencing period. Rather, his past violence and trouble with the law were discussed.
Another circumstance that should be analyzed when considering his case is the fact that the judge ordered jurors not to consider evidence suggesting that Belmontes had undergone a sort-of rehabilitation while in prison. His conversion to Christianity and his willingness to help others in his same situation were not considered during the sentencing period. One of the two California Authority chaplains described the man as “salvageable” and that he could be an asset to the prison as he could potentially be used as a counseling resource for other inmates.
In order to look at this appeals situation holistically, one must understand the state of the death penalty in California, a state where death sentences are rarely carried out. With 695 prisoners currently on death row, we have the largest row in the nation. However, only 13 of these inmates have been executed since the death penalty was reestablished in ’77. This is in direct contrast to Texas, who has executed 441 prisoners in that same time period. The difference lies in the fact that in Texas, the conservative judges often uphold the death rulings and disallow for the years of litigation that we have in California. But which system is fairer?
I believe that we should get rid of the death penalty. Just consider the amount of resources the Belmontes case is taking advantage of. If we outlawed the death penalty in California, the years and years of resources that litigation consumes would again become available. The story of Fernando Belmontes is violent and tragic. We, as potential jurors, must remember that each and every individual convicted murderer has a story that should be taken into account when considering whether or not to end their life. Or in a Californian prisoner’s case, to be put on some list that means little besides a maximum security cell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting topic. Also important is the topic of forgiveness and redemption. Yes, Belmontes may have had a rocky background and I agree that these structural conditions play a part in shaping a person's behavior. But it's not the only factor. Additionally, the emotional harm caused to the family of the girl cannot simply be wiped away. A sense of justice is at stake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that imprisoning someone isn't the most productive (and perhaps one of the most expensive) ways. We also need processes for apology, forgiveness, redemption. Though it is hard at first, the damage to the psyche must be repaired through apology,forgiveness, and redemption. We can fashion out a more human and relationship-based approach.
This is really a no win situation. To imprison someone is an expensive proposition, and almost no one supports increasing taxes to fund jails. On the other hand, we cannot simply execute prisoners. A death sentence in California essentially means the prisoner will cost more for the state to hold, not that they will be put out of the system in a timely manner. The death sentence needs to either be fixed (I'll leave that to a smarter person) or eliminated. Either way, the status quo is not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThe Cart gets it exactly right-- it's such a sticky situation because there really is no clear cut solution that doesn't come along with major moral or economic strings attached. Something does need to be done however because the US does a little of both, and in so doing, we get it wrong on both accounts.
ReplyDelete