On January 16, 2008, Mr. Woodward was entering his car outside an apartment that sold alcoholic drinks illegally. Two police officers, Ricky Bryant and Eric Barker, were at the scene and approached Woodward for identification. Woodward, who had already been sent to prison multiple times, pulled out a gun and killed the two police officers. Bryant and Baker, both of whom were married fathers of four, had just recently come back from the war in the Middle East and were working
an extra shift in a part of DeKalb that is perpetually subject to high crime. Starting today, the jury will start deciding how to punish Woodward. They have been presented with multiple options. Their first option is to have him sentenced to death. Their second option is to give him life in prison without parole and the final option is life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years, by far the most benevolent option available.
There are multiple people currently trying to convince the jury to choose the option that will deliver their favored punishment to Woodward. The judge, wants the jury to sentence him to death. His argument is that Woodward is a chronic criminal who simply will never learn his lesson. The judge believes that Woodward is a drain on society and should be eliminated once and for all so that he may not bring about any more harm to others. Woodward's lawyers, however, have a drastically different standing in the matter. They believe that Woodward is still capable of changing and that he deserves more chances to redeem himself. They argue that it isn't entirely Woodward's fault for how he turned out given his past. The lawyers then proceeded to explain that Woodward was raised in an awful part of town where crime is rampant. We discover, from his lawyers, that his mother was a prostitute and that seeing "... his relatives fighting over food or drugs, stabbing or shooting each other" was commonplace for him.
Woodward's attorney stated that he was not excusing Woodward for what he has done but explaining why he would do it. He made a statement later declaring: “Mr. Woodard still has the blood of two human beings on his hands, and that’s something he will have to live with the rest of his life,” Thomas said. “Now [Geary, the judge] wants Mr. Woodard’s blood on your hands. … I’m asking you not to be savages. We are much better than that. … We’re here to ask you to let him live. He is not a monster.” The jury is still contemplating and has yet to make its decision.
The Woodward trial has made a significant impact on people and the jury's sentence will have a larger impact still. This case brings up the moral issue: How bad must a crime be to sentence someone to death for it? It matters that we clarify this now so that in future trials, the jury is more equipped to make the right decision that brings about the best justice to the accused. This case can be held as a model for multiple cases yet to come not only in Georgia but in many other states as well. It can have a significant impact and determines the difference between life and death for those who may be accused in the future. Morals play a major role in court trials and this one is no exception. As Thomas Dwight, Woodward's lawyer, stated, we are not savages. We don't want the blood of Woodward on our hands because he has the blood of two others, one on each of his hands. Morals are starting to creep into many legal activities the government does and this case could promote morals or clarify that they must not cloud our judgements while sentencing. We must simply wait and see how the fated jury makes its decision and seals the fate of multiple people in the future.
-Jalees N.
Sources:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/dekalb-jury-begins-deliberating-punishment-for-cop/nSg9K/
No comments:
Post a Comment