ria, citizenswere executed for a variety of things ranging from perjury to murder. Roman and Mosaic law of antiquity also endorsed the retaliating rule ofan eye for and eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burn for burn, andlife for life. Often the trials through which these convicted criminalswere put over consisted of a group of witness, a mediator, and theplaintiff. After a commonly unfair trial, the defendant was put to death(Wekesser 16-17).This comes to the main focus of this issue; court inequality. Those that oppose the death penalty make accusations that those ofracial minorities are more likely to be found guilty of capital crimes thanthose that are white. Furthermore, evidence of this happening is instaunch agreement.In a 1986 study, conducted by Dr. Barry Nakell and Dr. KennethHardy of Temple University, they discovered remarkable conclusions intheir study on racial inequality in capital cases. In their studies Nakellsaid: When the case was submitted to the jury, if the defendant wasblack instead of white, he would, at best, face the same prospect that thejury would deliberate his case at first degree murder. At worst, the blackdefendant would be fifty-six times as likely to face a first degree murderdeliberation than a white defendant (Nakell and Hardy 139).However, later in Nakell and Hardys study on the sentencingprocess, their findings were quite the opposite. He stated: Atsentencing, the key factor was again the race of the defendant. Nevertheless, if the defendant was white instead of black, the defendantwas six times as apt to receive the death sentence (Nakell and Hardy152).Though Nakell and Hardys findings do support the anti-deathpenalty view of inequality in the conviction stage, their sentencingevidence does agree with pro-death arguments. Still, the question mustbe posed: are these conclusions to the study an exception? The facts doscream an astounding yes.In 1986, in the state of Pennsylvania (when ...
