Commentary on the Justice System of Texas 1

Commentary on the Justice System of Texas 1

Commentary on the Justice System of Texas

Name of Student:

Institutional Affiliations:

Date:

Cameron Todd Willingham’s case is deemed a controversial one due to the fact that a man, who many considered innocent from the insufficient evidence available, was executed regardless by lethal injection (Frontline, n.d.). The first point of contention is the fact that the Texas justice system first seems to not ascribe much importance to the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof which is require for serious crimes such as Cameron’s.

The conviction only resulted from the contentious testimonies of witnesses such as Johnny Webb and James Grigson, as well as the prosecutor’s own apparent biases against Cameron’s skull and serpent tattoo, which he considered to meet the threshold for being a sociopath. The conviction was also partially due to Cameron’s behavior which most of the people who knew him considered ‘inconsistent’, for instance going to parties and not acting like a person who had just lost his children. Secondly, Texas’ justice system is surrounded by controversy due to the death penalty, especially, the number of death penalty cases which are so controversial to the point of being subject to examination (Frontline, n.d.).

The ‘Lock ‘em up’ mentality is basically an approach which puts great emphasis on incarceration as a means for correcting wrongdoing. The mentality stresses the need to send individuals convicted of crimes to be imprisoned. Texas’ justice system has been guided by this mentality to a substantive extent for many years (Staff, 2017). Despite the fact that there are a number of advantages associated with this kind of mentality, the ‘lock ‘em up’ approach is considered by many, the US Attorney General Jeff Sessions inclusive, to be quite costly and significantly ineffective (Staff, 2017). The approach has been seen to be quite strenuous on the federal prison system such as Texas, considering how it has swelled prison populations hence the cost of maintaining them is very high. As a corrections policy, it is quite unsuitable and expensive.

Rehabilitation is mainly carried out to enable individuals who have been committed to become better persons by turning themselves around (Kennedy, 2012). Consequently, it results in progress at both the individual and societal level since as the individual gets the help they require in order to not engage in criminal and other anti-social activity, the society is also able to move forward. Despite its many negative implications, incarceration also has its benefits. These include, first and foremost that the individuals who are prone to engaging in criminal activities are isolated from the rest of society in order to ensure they do no harm to others (Spitz, 2011).

In the case of Texas, I would say controlled incarceration is the best correctional policy, rather than rehabilitation. This is primarily due to the nature of the two correctional policies. Rehabilitation is only favorable for particular kinds of criminal activity, and completely inefficient in others. For instance, it would not make sense for Texas, or any other state for that matter, to send robbers and murderers to rehabilitation centers. Incarceration would be the most ideal policy in such circumstances.

References

Frontline. (n.d.). Death By Fire. Retrieved from PBS:

Kennedy, P. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Rehbilitation Psychology. OUP USA.

Spitz, J. (2011). Does Imprisonment Really Protect or Otherwise Benfit Society? Retrieved from The Guardian:

Staff, E. E. (2017, February 28). Editorial: 'Lock 'em up' approach is costly, inefficient. Retrieved from Beaumont Enterprise: