The colonial sentencing structure was very black and white, if you are found guilty by a jury of townsmen you are put to death and if you are innocent you are set free. This simplicity of sentencing was required, because of the lack of ability to detain and rehabilitate convicts back into society. The verdicts were decided by a group of townsmen that were nominated by the people due to their respect among the people in the town. The people nominated to act as the jury to the town served as the judge, jury and prosecution of each case, this meant it was up to them to investigate the crime, decide if they are guilty or not and then decide how to punish the offender (Gertner). After declaring their independence from the United Kingdom, America could set up a new justice system. America changed their standards to the jury deciding on the verdict while the judge would create the sentence for the crime committed (Adcock). This puts the discretion of sentencing in the hands of an experienced professional rather than a group of townsmen, but with the discretion of sentencing up to each individual judge there…show more content… Fieser poses the question of is the public execution truly solving the problem of violence, or is it fueling the fire and creating an alternate display of violence. How can society be any better than the people condemned to the death penalty, if they are committing the same crime. In the cases where the defendant pleads guilty to the death penalty, the execution of those inmate is not too far off from assisted suicide, another major criminal offense. The physician participating as the administers of the lethal injection that kills the inmates resembles the executioners in medieval time who would behead their victims (Black). Ethically the taking of any life no matter the person is a very serious and controversial issue not to be taken
