The client’s complaining in this scenario is a situation in which the relative experiences the death of his relative on the grounds of an allegation of a capital offense.
Overview of the Problem Situation
The problem dates back to 24th January 2004. This problem occurred because of a breach of the death penalty provisions that are provided for in the United States Constitution. The client’s relative got erroneously killed with allegations of having committed a capital offense. Today, United States uses the death penalty to solve serious crimes.
Prior Efforts to solve the problem
In the past, the United States have made attempts to increase honesty and integrity of their people. However, this has not been so easy with the increased number of unscrupulous and influential individuals working in the criminal Justice system.
Significance Of The Problem
- Evaluation of Past Policy Performance. The death punishment policy has led to so many deaths of innocent individuals in the United States. This develops the ultimate need for the society of the United States to take a keen look at the Death penalty policy from a rational point of view.
- Assessment of Severity of the Problem. In the past, there have been cases of criminals punished by the death penalty punishment, when their criminal status is not clearly established.
- The need for analysis. The performance of the death punishment policy has met passionate resistance from various parts of the world. In the United States Particularly, a dire need to conduct the analysis of this social phenomenon has arisen with the much resentment that comes up with people from various religions (Adam 1997).
- Problem Diagnoses. The diagnoses of the problem in question have taken place with arguments from deterrent theorists. To a great extent, the death penalty has been viewed not to be a deterrent in the society. Instead, it has been identified to cause societal evils and divisions. Deterrence should take types of explanations. According to deterrence theorists, punishment has to be swift, severe and certain. Death penalty is severe, and the other properties of deterrent are typically not active.
- Major Stake Holders. The major stakeholders of changing this policy are the members of the Congress and the client arguing against the effectiveness of this policy.
- Goals and Objectives. The major goals and objectives of the deterrent theorists are to change the mode of punishment in the criminal Justice system by the use of capital punishment. The main objective is to cover the interests of the person convicted of the crime. There could be better options to tame the offenders without necessarily taking their lives, perhaps life imprisonment (Melusky 2011). The problem that has ensued in the past, with this policy is the act of executing innocent people. Erroneous evidence has lead to the decision of taking the lives of innocent individuals with respect to the death penalty policy. In fact, 111 people have been executed erroneously in the United States since 1193.
Analysis Of Alternatives
- Description of Alternatives. The alternatives present to tackle the problems that come with the death penalty policy is the use of life imprisonment to punish capital offences. Defendants should also employ attorneys to argue about the cases of death penalties. This alternative is because the offenders who do not have the attorneys to defend their cases have a high likelihood of facing a death sentence (Adam 2005).
- Forecasted Consequences. The use of these alternatives makes the levels of wrongful conviction of criminals to reduce in a considerably low rate. Also, the use of Jailhouse snitch house testimony which leads to the increase in the likelihoods of the death sentence is likely to reduce in the future if these alternatives are put into practice appropriately. The misconduct of the police and the prosecution side is also deemed to reduce when the alternative of abolishment of the capital punishment is considered.
- Spillovers and Externalities. The spillover that comes along with this alternative is extreme goodness and fairness in the criminal Justice system. Cases of unfairness leading to the deaths of innocent people are likely to reduce (Zimring 2004)
- Possible Constraints and Feasibility.The constraints associated with the policy change would be how to establish the extent to which complainants can prove their innocence. The court will have to reduce so many cases of murder for example, to manslaughter since guilt and innonce are both relatives depending on the scenario.
Conclusions And Recommendations
- Conclusion criteria. From the foregoing, there is an ultimate need for the Criminal justice system in the United States to adopt better policies rather than the use of capital punishment.
- Statement of conclusions and recommendations. The President of the United States should sign a proposal by the United States Congress to change the capital punishment policy. To implement the alternative of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment, the concerned stakeholders should be dedicated and have the interests of the American society at large.
- Preferred Alternatives. The preferred alternatives in changing the capital punishment policy are probably life imprisonment and restorative Justice System which should seek to reconcile the victim and the offender without taking the life of the victims.
- Implementation Strategy. To fully implement the new policy, it would be necessary to make changes in the Criminal Justice system to ensure the new stakeholders are conversant with the new provisions under the law.
- Plan for Monitoring Evaluation. To monitor the performance of the new policy of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment, it would be necessary for the stakeholders to organize how to monitor the effectiveness of the new policy. Monitoring this policy would entail questionnaires and interviews to agents of the criminal Justice system and to people in prisons.
- Limitations and Anticipated Consequences. The limitations of this policy would be the speed at which the law court judges would adjust their discretion in the cases whose previous punishments were death sentence (Adam 1997).