Part 1: Stages of Death Penalty

After a person is sentenced to the death penalty there are many stages before a person is actually sent to death. However these post-trial stages don’t always seem like they give the person a fair chance. After their sentencing, they can request for a new trial to try to bring up that there was insufficient evidence in the last trial, discuss new discovered evidence, or that there was jury misconduct. This appeal is usually rejected, which seems like they just have these stages to say that they give the person a fighting chance to appeal, but in the end never grant his request for a new trial. The only way to reverse the courts initial decision for an post-judgment trial is if a higher court will review the case and allow the person to have another trial on his or her case. The defendant can bring up new issues about his or her case that were not reflected in the record of the appeal. This is reviewed by the same judge who presided over the original trial, so it seems pretty unlikely that they would change their mind after the first trial. I think that a new person should review the case so that the defendant is given another perspective. Other stages also seem unfair like the “Proportionality review,” which many states have already abandoned, and the “Petition to U.S. Supreme Court,” which is usually denied by the Supreme Court. There are many other stages like this, where the defendant is given these stages to appeal his case, however they can all be easily denied. I think that this is system could work because there are so many stages that will allow people to relook at the case. However, I do feel like new people should be looking at the case to get a different perspective, and there are many times where the stages are just there, but never end up happening because they can easily be rejected.