The first drug, sodium thiopental, is used to render the condemned prisoner unconscious. The second drug, pancuronium bromide, is a paralytic designed to restrict involuntary muscle convulsions, thereby rendering the prisoner's death more "dignified". The third drug, potassium chloride, stops the prisoner's heart.
The argument against this 3-drug cocktail -- which, incidentally, was long ago abandoned by veterinarians for euthanizing pets in favor of a single-drug barbituate overdose -- is that the third drug causes excruciating pain in conscious individuals. If the first drug is unsuccessful at rendering the prisoner unconscious, the second drug would prevent the prisoner from expressing pain, leaving tremendous ambiguity about whether or not the lethal injection caused undue suffering to the prisoner:
If the first chemical works, there is no dispute that the process is quick and painless. If it does not, there is no dispute that the inmate will suffer intense and terrifying pain. But because the inmate is paralyzed, it may not be possible to tell whether the first drug worked.What is more, in Kentucky the trained medical professionals responsible for administering the lethal injection exit the "death chamber" once the IV has been inserted, leaving only the warden and deputy warden present -- both of whom are wholly unqualified to determine whether the first drug worked.
As usual, NPR offered the most comprehensive and straightforward summary of the case before the Supreme Court. An abbreviated print article as well as the full audio report by legal correspondent Nina Totenberg can be found here.
Two other articles offer more critical analyses of the complicated American relationship with capital punishment. The first (the New York Times article linked above), describes how individual states are reluctant to lead the way of execution reform. It seems that nobody wants to "go first" in terms of altering the methods of lethal injection, for fear of the political fallout:
The answer, experts say, seems to be that no state wants to make the first move. Having proceeded in lock step to adopt the current method, which was chosen in part because it differed from the one used on animals and masked the involuntary movements associated with death, state governments would prefer that someone else, possibly the courts, change the formula first.One final interesting point: Experts quoted in the article commented that adoption of the veterinary (single-drug) protocol for capital punishment may lead critics to argue that human beings are being treated like animals. However, opponents of the existing 3-drug method make the exact opposite argument: that condemned prisoners ought to be treated at least as humanely as our pets.
The second article from TIME magazine contextualizes the death penalty in the U.S., describing it as being "expressive of some of our society's deeply held values". This article provides a good analysis of the complicated moral and political relationship Americans have with the death penalty. Particularly instructive is the following passage:
Our death penalty's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice. This is also a nation of widely dispersed power--many states, cities and jurisdictions. Out of this diversity has emerged the staggering intricacy of death-penalty law, as thousands of judges and legislators from coast to coast struggle to breathe real-life meaning into such abstract issues as what constitutes effective counsel, what is the proper balance of authority between judge and jury, what makes a murder "especially heinous," what qualities and defects in a prisoner compel mercy, and so on.Finally, while I do not necessarily oppose the death penalty on strictly moral grounds, there is no denying that the system as it currently exists in this country is hopelessly, inherently, and, in my view, irreparably broken. With any luck, the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to truly question whether capital punishment has a continued place in contemporary American society. The system is indeed "a wreck," and uncertainty about the constitutionality of lethal injections is only a small part of the problem.
According to NPR, a decision in this case is expected sometime this summer. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will decide to sentence capital punishment -- at least via lethal injection -- to death. We can only hope.
18 comments:
We welcome comments representing all points of view...but not SPAM!!
Dr, Huginkiss:
My posts were exact and speicifc to the article, although it did run long.
It was not SPAM.
I will post it as a link it that would be acceptable.
Most of the arguement against lethal injection can be resolved by reason and fact.
Please review my comments and those of others in this discussion.
Lethal Injection: Current Controversies Resolved
Dudley Sharp
and
Veterinary Claims: Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection
Dudley Sharp,
at
http://www.plos.org/cms/node/225#comment-460
You write: "(the death penalty)system as it currently exists in this country is hopelessly, inherently, and, in my view, irreparably broken."
I am not sure what you mean, Can you be more specific?
This is my take on the death penalty system:
The Death Penalty in the US: A Review Dudley Sharp
NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics, or others, is available upon request
In this brief format, the reality of the death penalty in the United States, is presented, with the hope that the media, public policy makers and others will make an effort to present a balanced view on this sanction.
Innocence Issues
Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 124 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).
That number is a fraud.
Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers.
Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in death penalty opponents claims. If that error rate is consistent, nationally, that would indicate that 21 of the alleged 124 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent -- a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the 7800 sentenced to death since 1973.
It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900. Nonsense. Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries. However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be the most accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. Under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.
Deterrence Issues
16 recent US studies, inclusive of strong defenses of the studies, find a deterrent effect of the death penalty.
All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty have refused to say that it does not deter some. The studies finding for deterrence state such. Confusion arises when people think that a simple comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the tale of deterrence. It cannot.
Both high and low murder rates are found within death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, be it Singapore, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US states of Michigan and Delaware. Many factors are involved in such evaluations. Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none. No one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the behavior of some. Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction, having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and above any lesser punishments.
Racial issues
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.
It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.
Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.
Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.
Class issues
No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups?
Arbitrary and capricious
About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 60,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 7800 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible. I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available. Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the world.
Cost Issues
All studies finding the death penalty to be more expensive than life without parole exclude important factors, such as (1) geriatric care costs, recently found to be $69,0000/yr/inmate, (2) the death penalty cost benefit of providing for plea bargains to a maximum life sentence, a huge cost savings to the state, (3) the death penalty cost benefit of both enhanced deterrence and enhanced incapacitation, at $5 million per innocent life spared, and, furthermore, (4) many of the alleged cost comparison studies are highly deceptive.
Polling data
76% of Americans find that we should impose the death penalty more or that we impose it about right (Gallup, May 2006 - 51% that we should impose it more, 25% that we impose it about right)
71% find capital punishment morally acceptable - that was the highest percentage answer for all questions (Gallup, April 2006, moral values poll).
81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh, with only 16% opposed. "(T)his view appears to be the consensus of all major groups in society, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, "liberals" and "conservatives." (Gallup 5/2/01).
85% of Connecticut citizens supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross (Jan 2005).
While 81% gave specific case support for Timothy McVeigh's execution, Gallup also showed a 65% support AT THE SAME TIME when asked a general "do you support capital punishment for murderers?" question. (Gallup, 6/10/01).
22% of those supporting McVeigh's execution are, generally, against the death penalty (Gallup 5/02/01). That means that about half of those who say they oppose the death penalty, with the general question, actually support the death penalty under specific circumstances, just as it is imposed, judicially.
Further supporting the higher rates for specific cases, is this, from the French daily Le Monde December 2006 (1): Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:USA: 82%; Great Britain: 69%; France: 58%; Germany: 53%; Spain: 51%; Italy: 46%
Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe, with 50% of those who say they, generally, oppose the death penalty actually supporting it under specific circumstances, resulting in 80% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006.
Christianity and the death penalty
Although religion is not a necessary component for death penalty acceptance or rejection, it is an interesting part of the public discussion.
The two most authoritative New Testament scholars, Saints Augustine and Aquinas, provide substantial biblical and theological support for the death penalty. Even the most well known anti death penalty personality in the US, Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, states that "It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical 'proof text' in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus' admonition 'Let him without sin cast the first stone,' when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) -- the Mosaic Law prescribed death -- should be read in its proper context. This passage is an 'entrapment' story, which sought to show Jesus' wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment." A thorough review of Pope John Paul II's current position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
Conclusion
Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
Mr. Sharp,
Thank you for your response, and for providing a link to your online information. The length of your comments, coupled by the fact that they appeared to have been cut and pasted from another source, led me to believe that they were automatically-generated SPAM.
I also appreciate you sharing the death penalty information you have compiled with us. I am happy to elaborate on the statement I made in my original post.
First, let me be upfront: I am not an expert on the death penalty, nor is capital punishment my primary area of research. However, like most criminologists I am familiar with the research in this area, and believe it is fair to say that a substantial amount of evidence -- generated by criminologists, sociologists, legal scholars, and other social scientists -- raises serious doubts about the death penalty. Research questioning the legality, fairness, and efficacy of capital punishment has been conducted at least since the early 1970s (e.g., Wolfgang & Riedel, 1973; Zeisel, 1976). Quite recently, James Acker (2007) wrote an article outlining the major problems that I (and many others) have with the death penalty in this country. These include, among others: (a) lack of a clear, demonstrable deterrent effect, (b) questions about whether execution of offenders is wanted/condoned by victims' families, and whether this brings much-heralded "closure" to them, (c) evidence of erroneous executions, (d) trenchant racial disparities in the application of capital punishment, particularly with respect to victims' race, and (e) lack of adequate counsel for indigent defendants.
Similarly, the American Bar Association recently released a report detailing its analysis of the capital punishment systems in eight states, which found "serious problems" along many similar dimensions: DNA testing, jury instructions, clemency, treatment of racial/ethnic minorities, and offenders with mental retardation, as well as others:
http://www.abanet.org/moratorium/
Evidence undermining certainty about the death penalty is so great that in 1989 the American Society of Criminology adopted a policy statement expressing its opposition to the death penalty:
"Be it resolved that because social science research has demonstrated the death penalty to be racist in application and social science research has found no consistent evidence of crime deterrence through execution, The American Society of Criminology publicly condemns this form of punishment, and urges its members to use their professional skills in legislatures and courts to seek a speedy abolition of this form of punishment."
http://www.asc41.com/policyPositions.html
Until last year, this was the ONLY such policy statement made by the ASC in its history, underscoring the unity of opinion among criminologists that the flaws in the system far outweigh the potential benefits.
Of course, it is crucial to examine the totality of evidence surrounding any criminal justice policy. After all, blind allegiance to a policy or law -- particularly when it is politically motivated -- often is at the root of some of our most flawed and ineffective policies (DARE, mandatory minimums, and boot camps spring immediately to mind). As you suggest, there are valid arguments in favor of capital punishment -- for example, you can't argue with it's incapacitative effects. However, the lack of specific studies/analyses in your commentary leaves me to wonder about the source of some of your assertions.
For example, you claim that "under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk than will ever be put at risk of execution". Without evidence to back up this claim, it is little more than hyperbole. Also, I question those who would be comfortable with even one wrongful execution in the name of protecting the safety of "innocents". At minimum, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to ensure justice and fairness, particularly in matters of life and death. As such, accepting wrongful executions in the name of "public safety" is a stance I believe few in the justice community (and elsewhere) would endorse.
While you certainly are not alone in your support for the death penalty, and while there are legitimate arguments in favor of it, the totality of the evidence gathered in the last 30 years makes clear that there are sufficient problems with the system to warrant immediate cessation of executions until such issues are adequately resolved.
Acker, James R. (2007). Impose an immediate moratorium on executions. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 641-650.
Wolfgang, Marvin E. & Marc Riedel. (1973). Race, judicial discretion, and the death penalty. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 407, 119-133.
Zeisel, Hans. (1976). The deterrent effect of the death penalty: Fact s. faith. In Phillip B. Kurland (Ed.), THe Supreme Court Review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
See also:
Keil, Thomas J. & Gennaro F. Vito. (1989). Race, homicide severity, and application of the death penalty. Criminology, 27(3), 511-535.
Dr, Huguinkiss:
You write: "For example, you claim that "under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk than will ever be put at risk of execution". Without evidence to back up this claim, it is little more than hyperbole."
That is why, at the biginning of my short review, that I wrote:
"NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics, or others, is available upon request"
I am vert careful in what I write and how I research.
I have found that all anti death penalty claims are either false, or that when weighing the evidence, on any particular subtopic, that the pro death penalty position is stronger.
With regard to the criminologists, I find that, as a group, they are, overwhlemingly anti death penalty. and their case against the death penalty is quite week.
A brief review to follow.
No Death Penalty = More Innocents Harmed
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
Those who say the death penalty puts innocents at risk of execution forget to look at both sides of the equation.
What is the risk to innocents within a life sentence and absent the death penalty? The evidence is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
Living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
This is a truism.
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
That is. logically, conclusive.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
Is this a surprise? No.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
Reality paints a very different picture.
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Furthermore, history tells us that "lifers" have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc..
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
--------
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
Unlikely.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Report, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
Copyright 2007
Closure:
you write, via Aker: {there are) questions about whether execution of offenders is wanted/condoned by victims' families, and whether this brings much-heralded "closure" to them,"
I am familiar with Aker, like him, personally, but I find that most if not all of his anti death penalty work to be, well . .
I deal with many murder victim survivors. The whole concept of closure is insulting. Usyusally, it is made up or distorted by the anti death penalty side, meaning death penalty opponents seem to speak of closure more than anyone else, so that they can refute it.
For example:
How could someone have closure because the guilty party who murdered their innocent loved one was executed? They don't.
The only closure it represents is that of the criminal justice proceedings. Period.
Just sanction cannot bring closure and I doubt, in any violent crime case, it even equals justice.
I know a woman who had acid thrown in her face. She is disfigured for life. What is justice in that case?
I know a mother whose face was blown off by a shotgun. She's had thirty reconstrutive surgeries, so far. There was an invasion robbery of her home. All the family members were lying on the floor, at gunpoint. Her infant son made some movement, so she reached over to calm him. The robbers didn't like that.
BOOM.
No face. What justice?
Closure, for capital murder? What would that be?
About 80% of Americans, now, support the death penalty for some crimes. I suspect murder vicitm survivors might support it at an even higher rate.
dudley
Criminologists state that there is "trenchant racial disparities in the application of capital punishment, particularly with respect to victims' race"
Hardly.
RACE: A Death Penalty Primer - No Bias in Death Penalty Sentencing
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
contact info below
7 studies are reviewed, herein
For emphasis, population count is totally irrelevant, regarding any consideration of class or race/ethnicity bias in the application of the death penalty. The only relevant factors in such a review are class, race/ethnic distribution of murderers and their victims in capital murders, as well as criminal history, the specific circumstances of the crime(s) and a review of individual prosecutorial jurisdictions.
Study 1: Drs. Stephen Klein and John Rolph
"After accounting for some of the many factors that may influence penalty decisions, neither race of the defendant nor race of the victim appreciably improved prediction of who was sentenced to death . . . ".
"Relationship of Offender and Victim Race to Death Penalty Sentences in California"(Jurimetrics Journal, 32, Fall 1991, aka The Rand Corporation Study)
Study 2: Smith College Professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers found that legal variables, such as prior criminal history and the aggravated nature of the murder, are the proven basis for imposition of the death penalty. The black/white variation in sentencing has generally been reduced to zero when such legal variables are introduced as controls.
"Execution by Quota?", The Public Interest, Summer 1994
Study 3: NO BIAS IN DEATH SENTENCING: U of Maryland's Death Penalty Study (1)
The following are direct quotes from the Executive Summary of the U of Maryland study.
Race of the victim
"The race of the victim effect does not hold up, however, at the decision of the state's attorney to advance a case to penalty trial and at the decision of the judge or jury to impose a death sentence given that a penalty trial has occurred." p 27
In other words, the victim's race has no impact on seeking or
giving death sentences.
"The race of the victim does not appear to matter when the decision is to advance a case to the penalty phase or to sentence a defendant to death after a penalty phase
hearing." page 29
In other words, the victim's race has no impact on seeking or
giving death sentences
"Among the subset of cases where the case actually does reach a penalty trial, the victim's race does not have a significant impact on the imposition of a death sentence." page 35
In fact, the study fails to demonstrate that there is any race of the victim effect in death sentencing in Maryland.
"When the prosecuting jurisdiction is added to the model the effect for the victims race diminishes substantially, and is no longer statistically significant." page 32
In other words, when you look at the capital murder cases, from each, separate jurisdiction, individually, any alleged race of the victim effect cannot be found.
" . . . any attempt to deal with any racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty in Maryland cannot ignore the substantial variability that exists in different state's attorney's offices in the processing of death cases." p 34
In other words, it is important to look at how each jurisdiction handles their capital cases, because each jurisdiction is different. And when that is done, no bias in death sentencing is found.
Race of victim and defendant
"There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death
given a penalty hearing." page 30
In other words, neither the race of the defendant nor the race of the victim have an impact on seeking or giving death sentences.
Race of the defendant
" . . . there is no evidence that the race of the defendant matters at any stage once case characteristics are controlled for." page 26
" . . . we found no evidence that the race of the defendant matters in processing of capital cases in the state." p 26
In other words, Maryland is not looking at race, but is concentrating on the nature of the murders.
(1) Executive Summary:
An Empirical Analysis of Maryland's Death Sentencing System with Respect to the Influence of Race and Legal Jurisdiction, www(DOT)urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/pdf/exec.pdf
Study 4: No Racial Bias in the New Jersey Death Penalty System
New Jersey
For release: February 11, 2003
For further information contact
Winnie Comfort, AOC
(609) 292-9580
Report on Proportionality Released
Trenton, N.J.
The 2002 report essentially mirrors the findings contained in the 2001 report, and may be summarized as follows:
--There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that the race of the defendant affects which cases advance to penalty trial. Although bivariate analysis reveals that a greater proportion of death-eligible white defendants than African-American defendants advance to the penalty phase, that finding is not supported by regression studies and application of case-sorting techniques. There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that the race of the defendant affects which cases result in imposition of the death penalty. Again, although bivariate analysis reveals that a greater proportion of death-eligible white defendants are sentenced to death than African-American defendants, that finding is not supported by regression studies and application of case-sorting techniques.
--There is statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than African-American victim cases to advance to penalty trial, but that finding is eradicated when county variability is taken into account. A disproportionate number of minority victim cases are tried in counties with the lowest overall rates of progression to penalty trial, while less urban counties with a high concentration of white victim cases have higher rates of capital prosecutions. Although Judge Baime notes that county variability may itself be a problem, he offers no opinion on the subject because that issue is well beyond the contours of his report.
--There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than minority victim cases to result in imposition of the death penalty
The New Jersey Supreme Court has accepted the 2002 annual report prepared by Judge David S. Baime, a retired Appellate Division judge, on the monitoring of proportionality review in capital punishment cases in New Jersey. The Supreme Court adopted a monitoring system in 2000 to determine whether racial discrimination played a role in the administration of New Jersey's capital cases.
In his capacity as a "special master," a role that requires extrajudicial expertise and work with court-appointed experts, Judge Baime prepared the "Report to the New Jersey Supreme Court: Systemic Proportionality Review Project 2001-2002 Term." .
Judge Baime was assisted by statistical analysts David Weisburd, a professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The University of Maryland, College Park, and Joseph Naus, a professor at Rutgers University. In an effort to provide the most accurate analysis possible, the monitoring system approved by the Court consists of three different statistical strategies: bivariate analyses, regression studies and case-sorting techniques. In order to establish systemic disproportionality, a defendant must relentlessly document the risk of racial disparity. This requires that the outcomes produced by the three modes of analysis substantially converge, or lead to the conclusion that racial discrimination plays a part in capital sentencing.
The three modes of analysis were applied to three separate decision points: death outcomes at penalty trials, death outcomes among all death-eligible cases, as determined by Judge Baime and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and advancement of death-eligible cases to penalty trials. Three identifiable groups--African-Americans, whites and Hispanics--were examined, and possible disparities in terms of the race or ethnicity of the defendant and the race or ethnicity of the victim were considered.
Study 5: Pro & Con: The Death Penalty in Black and White
by Dudley Sharp
Thursday, June 24, 1999
IntellectualCapital.com, 6/24/99.
stored at www.prodeathpenalty.com/racism.htm
I don't know about you, but when I get into a discussion about the death penalty, my first thoughts go to the victim and to the brutality of the murder. That is the foundation of the just nature of the death penalty.
Too often these days, however the death penalty is discussed in different terms. Inevitably, with the racial history of this country, the effect of race in the application of the death penalty has become a central part of the death-penalty discourse. This is particularly true as some politicians are making the case for a death-penalty moratorium, in part to consider whether the death penalty is inherently racist.
All too often, however, those arguments are spurious. In the death penalty debate, it should be the facts, and not the hype, that are in be black and white.
A closer look at the statistics
Often such discussion begins with the obvious: the race of the defendant. The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports that black murderers represent 35% of those executed, white murderers 56%. As the argument goes, this must be evidence of systemic racism, as blacks represent 12% of the population, whites 74%.
Fortunately, the United States does not execute people based on their population counts but on the murders they commit. As blacks represent 47% of murderers and whites 37%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are their black counterparts.
Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that whites sentenced to death are executed 17 months more quickly than blacks. With 98% of all head prosecutors in the United States being white, according to DPIC, how is such a result possible? Maybe prosecutors, judges and juries are focusing on the crimes and not the race of the defendant.
That is not the case, say anti-death penalty groups, such as Amnesty International, and now the United Nations. If you adjust for the specific aggravating factors present within capital crimes, you find clear evidence of racism.
Death-penalty opponents note, for example, that the Supreme Court, in the famous race-based challenge to the death penalty (McCleskey v. Kemp), found in 1987 that those who murderer whites were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murder blacks, under similar circumstances.
David Baldus, who did the statistical study on McCleskey's behalf, also completed a recent study in Philadelphia where it is was reported to show that black murderers were four times more likely to receive a death sentence than white murderers. With such results, how can anyone dispute the racist application of the death penalty?
Quite easily.
The Supreme Court, as well as many others, confused odds with multiples. The data reflect odds of 4-to-1, not four times more likely.
What difference does it make?
In Baldus' Philadelphia study, we find that if only 2% more white murderers had been sentenced to death and only 2.5% fewer black murderers had been sentenced to death, then each group would have been sentenced to death by juries at the same rate -- a far cry from the 400% differential stated within the incorrect interpretation of "four times"!
A punishment that fits the crimes
The next issue raised is the victim's race. While blacks and whites comprise about an equal number of murder victims, the ratio of white-to-black victims in death-penalty cases is about 7-to-1. This has given rise to the allegation that the "system" only cares about white murder victims. A horrible accusation, if true.
However, the ratio of white-to-black victims in the aggravated circumstances necessary for a capital murder conviction (rape, robbery, car-jacking, burglary, police murders, serial/multiple murders, etc.) is from 4-to-1 to 8-to-1 -- numbers consistent with the victim ratios on death row.
The final resting place for the racism charge lies within those cases where blacks have been executed for murdering whites and whites have been executed for murdering blacks. There have been 144 blacks and 10 whites executed under such circumstances, or a ratio of 14-to-1. As blacks are about 2.5 times more likely to murder whites than the other way around, there appears to be a huge disparity in such executions. Is racism the reason?
If we look at robbery, the aggravated crime found most often in capital cases, we find that when there is a robbery with injury, the ratio of black robber/white victims versus white robbers/black victims is 21-to-1.
Again, when looking at the circumstances consistent with capital crimes, we find no evidence of racial bias.
The determining factor for sentencing in death-penalty cases is what it should be -- the aggravating nature of the crimes. Both the Rand Corp. study of 1991 and the research presented by Smith College professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers in 1994 confirm that finding. In other words, it appears that any racial variations present within the data are reflective of the crimes themselves and not racial bias within the system. A review of those studies, as well as of criminal-justice statistics, within the context of the aggravating circumstances present within capital murders and the related statutes, produces the same conclusion.
Don't assume the worst motives
There will always be some variables of race, ethnicity and class within any study of criminal-justice practices, and based on historic, as well as current prejudices, we can never lower our guard. Because all studies are subject to poor protocols, bias and misinterpretation, we must make reasoned judgments based on as many respected considerations as we may have at our disposal.
And even if criminal-justice statistics did not show the obvious correlation between crimes and the application of the death penalty, we should note what the Supreme Court stated in McCleskey: "Where the discretion that is fundamental to our criminal justice process is involved, we decline to assume that what is unexplained [by measured factors] is invidious." Sound ideas should not be eliminated based on misguided statistics.
In the case of the death penalty, the facts lead to only one conclusion. No moratorium is necessary.
Study 6: Death Penalty Opponents Distortions are the Real Story
"To properly protect the people in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions like it, we must restore public confidence in and support of capital punishment, so that prosecutors can seek it in appropriate cases, and jurors will impose it. The first step toward that end is to debunk the myth that capital punishment is imposed discriminatorily. The numbers are there, in the opponents's own studies, once we cut through the spin and look at the facts."
Smoke and Mirrors on Race and the Death Penalty, Kent Scheidegger, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Engage Magazine, Volume 4, Issue 2, 10/2003 www(DOT)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/EngageArticle.pdf
Study 7: Full Review Finds no Bias
"From 1976-1995, 5 white murderers have been put to death for the murder of black persons and 101 black murderers have been put to death for the murder of white persons (NAACP LDF, 1996). Opponents falsely contend that this is evidence of racism in the "system". That 101:5 ratio, or 20:1, is consistent with statistics that show aggravated crimes (those crimes committed with the murder which may make a crime eligible for the death penalty) are committed by blacks against whites in far greater numbers than by whites against blacks. For all violent crimes, there are ten times as many black offenders (2,016,939) involved in white victim violent crimes as there are white offenders (210,869) involved in black victim violent crimes, or a 10:1 ratio. (The State of Violent Crime in America, pg. 12,1/96, data derived from Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1993, BJS forthcoming, tables 42 and 48. Multiple offenders were assumed to be two offenders for calculation purposes.) In addition, blacks are nearly three times as likely to murder whites (849), as whites are to murder blacks (304), or 3:1 (Sourcebook 1994, BJS 1995, table 3.123). IF murder rates are statistically consistent within the violent crime category, as McCleskey et al indicate, then blacks are, statistically, by a 30:1 (10:1 X 3:1) ratio, more likely to murder whites, than whites are to murder blacks, in those circumstances where an additional aggravating factor is present (see C2). These are those crimes most eligible for the death penalty. That statistically projected ratio of 30:1 is hardly inconsistent with the 20:1 ratio for black offender(s)/white victim vs white offender(s)/black victim executions. The most relevant aggravated crime is robbery with injury, wherein blacks are 21 times more likely to be involved in such crimes as are whites. This 21:1 ratio represents 1.4 million black offender(s)/white victim vs. 68,000 white offender(s)/black victim for robbery with injury crimes (JFA, using BJS, 1977-84 data). IF overall murder statistics are consistent, within this crime category, as McCleskey et al suggests, then there is a 30-60:1 ratio of black on white vs white on black murders within this robbery/murder category. (From 1977-1984)."
Excerpt from "C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY", paragraph No. 5., DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION In the United States, 10/1/97, by Dudley Sharp, http://prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Race
copyright 1998-2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
email sharpjfa@aol.com, phone 713-622-5491
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
I challenge the ABA on their death penalty stance vigorously and often.
When they first came out with their death penalty moratorium nonsense in 1997, I publically contradicted all of their points, in a major op/ed in the Texas Lawyer.
They didn't contradict my comments. They couldn't. There more recent pronouncements were just more of the same.
--- "ABA's Proposed Moratorium Relies on Flimsy Facts" (The Texas Lawyer, March 16, 1997). An article showing how inaccurate and misleading the American Bar Association was in their foundation in asking for a moratorium on executions.
You write: "the American Bar Association recently released a report detailing its analysis of the capital punishment systems in eight states, which found "serious problems" along many similar dimensions: DNA testing, jury instructions, clemency, treatment of racial/ethnic minorities, and offenders with mental retardation, as well as others:"
And, it is my understanding that they have been condradicted by rebuttals from those states, likely something they don't advertise.
These ABA reviews are a lot like the ABA's national call for a moratorium, just done on a state by state basis.
For example, their racial/ethnic minority writings suffer from the same obvious flaws as their general complaints, which are rife with false or unoproveable claims.
Their clemency complaints are contrary to an understanding of executive clemency and is simply anti death penalty or anti executive powers.
Everyone would like more clarity with jury instructions, but that has had an incredible amount of legal attention over the past 34 years and is an ongoing and changing landscape, that both the ABA and state prosecutors have been working on seperately and together during that time.
With regard to mental retardation, the ABA should have blamed SCOTUS for that. Their Atkins decisions left everything up in the air, with almost no guildleines, requireing that each state come up with their own.
What that did was just give many more billable hours for attorneys and will result in more time alive for non mentally retarded death row inmates. So the ABA complaints on this issue are both understandable and insincere, at the same time.
I think it is important to note that Aker cited the New Jersey situation, in calling for states to undergo their own review of of their own death penalty systems.
First, it is undeniable that legally, philosophically, criminologically, sociologically, factually and in ever other discipline and extravagence possible, within public policy and media discussion and debate, that the death penalty is the most reviewed, analyzed and talked about and debated sanction.
All that state studies do is waste time and money and let anti and pro death penalty foces express the same positions that we knew, prior to the "studies".
I have no doubt that anti death penalty scholars, such as Aker, would love to repeat the NJ experience.
The New Jersey experience:
DEAD WRONG: NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
from http://www.hallnj.org/cm/listing.jsp?cId=3
Summary
The New Jersey Death Penalty Commission made significant errors within their findings. The evidence, contrary to the Commissions findings, was so easy to obtain that it appears either willful ignorance or deception guided their report.
A brief review.
Below, are the 7 points made within the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January, 2007. The RUBUTTAL presents the obvious points avoided by the Commission and discussed by this author, a death penalty expert.
I was invited to be a presenter, before the NJDPSC, but my time didn't fit their schedule.
1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.
REBUTTAL:
- The reason that 81% of Americans found that Timothy McVeigh should be executed was justice - the most profound concept in criminal justice, as in many other aspects of life. It is the same reason that New Jersey citizens, 12 jurors, put all those on death row.
- Although the Commission and the NJ Supreme Court both attempt to discount deterrence, logically, they cannot.
First, all prospects for a negative outcome deter some. This is not, logically or historically rebutted. It cannot be. Secondly, those studies which don't find for deterrence, do not say that it doesn't exist, only that their study didn't find it. Those studies which find for deterrence did. 16 recent studies do.
- The Commission had ample opportunity and, more importantly, the responsibility to read and contact the authors of those many studies which have, recently, found for deterrence. There seems to be no evidence that they did so. On such an important factor as saving innocent lives, why didn't they? The testimony before the Commission, critical of those studies, would not withstand a review by the authors of those studies. That should be an important issue that the Commission should have investigated, Intentionally, they did not.
- LIFE WITHOU PAROLE: The Commission considered the risk of innocents executed and concluded that it wasn't worth the risk and that a life sentence would serve sufficiently without that risk to innocents.
Again, the Commission avoided both fact and reason. The risk to innocents is greater with a life sentence than with the death penalty.
First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after improper release, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - an obvious truism ignored by the Commission.
Secondly, no knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, there has been a recent explosion of studies finding for death penalty deterrence. The criticism of those studies has, itself, been rebutted.
- Therefore, in choosing a life without parole and calling for the end of the death penalty, the Commission has made the choice to put more innocents at risk - the opposite of their stated rationale.
2) The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole, but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision.
REBUTTAL:
- The NJ legislature's own cost review found that the cost differential was indeterminate. However, based upon their exclusions, LWOP may very well be more expensive.
- For the amount of time and resources allegedly expended by the Commission, this section of their review was unconscionable in its lack of responsibility to the Commission's directive.
- The Commission concludes that the current system in New Jersey is very expensive, without noting the obvious ways in which those issues can be addressed to lessen those costs. Why?
One example, they find that proportionality review cost $93, 000 per case. Why didn't the Commission recommend doing away with proportionality review? There is no reason, legally, to have it and it has been a disaster, cost wise, with no benefit.
Secondly, the Commission states: "Nevertheless, consistent with the Commission's findings, recent studies in states such as Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, Florida and North Carolina have all concluded that the costs associated with death penalty cases are significantly higher than those associated with life without parole cases. These studies can be accessed through the Death Penalty Information Center." (Report, page 33).
On many topics the Death Penalty Information Center has been one of the most deceptive or one sided anti death penalty groups in the country. While it is not surprising that the Commission would give them as a reference, multiple times, it doesn't speak well of the Commission.
Did the Commission read any of the studies referenced by the DPIC? It appears doubtful, or the Commission would not have referenced them.
For example, let's look at the North Carolina (Duke University) study. That cost study compared the cost of only a twenty year "life sentence" to the death penalty. Based upon that study, a true life without parole sentence would be more costly than the death penalty. Somehow the Commission missed that rather important fact.
These types of irresponsible and misleading references by the Commission do nothing to inspire any confidence in their findings, but do reinforce the opinion that their conclusions were predetermined.
Please see "Cost Comparisons: Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases", to follow.
3) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.
REBUTTAL:
The Commission uses several references to prove their point. None of them succeeded.
- The first was based upon polling in New Jersey. The data showed strong support for executions in NJ, except when asking those polled to choose between a life sentence or a death sentence, for which life gets greater support. The major problem with this long standing and misleading polling question is that it has nothing to do with the legal reality of sentencing. Secondly, that poll shows broad support for BOTH sanctions, not a call to abandon either. The Commission, somehow, overlooked that obvious point.
Jurors have the choice of both sentences in states with the death penalty and life without parole. Therefore, a proper polling question for NJ would be,
A) should we eliminate the death penalty and ONLY have life without parole? or
B) should we give jurors the OPTION of choosing life or death in capital murder cases?
Based upon other polls, I suspect B would be the resounding winner of this poll in NJ.
Secondly, the Commissions polling speaker avoided the most obvious and reliable polling question on this topic - asking about the punishment for a specific crime, just as jurors have to decide.
NOTE: 78% of NJ citizens support the death penalty for crimes such as those on NJ's death row. (Dec., 2007)
81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross.
Thirdly, poll New Jersey citizens with the following questions. Is life without parole or the death penalty the most appropriate punishment for those who rape and murder children? Or should NJ remove the death penalty as a jury option for those who rape and murder children?
NOTE: a poll, just prior to the death penalty being outlawed in NJ, found that 78% of its citizens supported the death penalty for such heinous crimes.
- Two religious speakers spoke against execution. Both are easily rebutted by religious scholars holding different views.
- Another alleged example of this evolving standard is based upon the fact there has been a reduction in death sentences. Such reduction is easily explained by a number of factors, other than some imagined "evolving standard of decency".
Murders have dropped some 40%, capital murders have likely dropped by even a greater number, based upon other factors. This, by itself, explains the overwhelming percentage of the drop in death sentences.
In addition, many prosecutors, such as those in NJ, know that their courts will not allow executions, leading to prosecutorial frustration as a contributing factor in any reduction - not an evolving standard of decency, but an evolving and increasing frustration.
Please review: "Why the reduction in death sentences?", to follow.
4) The available data do not support a finding of invidious racial bias in the application of the death penalty in New Jersey.
CLARIFICATION:
In fact, there is no data to support any racial bias, invidious or otherwise. The Commission must have read the series of NJ studies.
5) Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital sentencing.
REBUTTAL:
Yes, Commission, and the abolition of all criminal sentences will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in all sentences, as well. This is hardly a rational reason to get rid of any sentence. Get rid of the expensive and unnecessary proportionality review.
6) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible error.
REBUTTAL:
- The risk to innocents is greater with life without parole than with the death penalty. See (1), above LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.
7) The alternative of Life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.
REBUTTAL:
This Commission statement is quite simply, false.
- Life imprisonment puts more innocents at risk than does the death penalty.
- Justice, just punishment, retribution and/or saving innocent lives, among others, are all legitimate social and penological interests all served by the death penalty.
- 81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial, rapist/murderer Michael Ross.
The overwhelming majority of those polled did not have family members murdered.
Is the Commission trying to tell us that a poll of NJ murder victim survivors would show a majority opposed to the death penalty? Of course not, that would be as absurd as the Commissions conclusions in this section.
Conclusion:
Almost without exception, The Commission accepted the standard anti death penalty position, without presenting the easily accessible rebuttal to that position.
Enough said.
-----------------------
NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
It is alleged that the Commission had fair hearings, with both sides adequately presented.
Alleged fair hearings mean nothing, if decisions are predetermined, as this one was.
11 of the 13 committee members were either known or leaning anti death penalty. The contempt for and discounting of pro death penalty positions in both the hearings and final report confirm that.
All the prosecutors on the Commission were up for reappointment - by the staunchly anti death penalty Governor. Would any of them sacrifice their livelihood to fight for the death penalty? Of course not and they did not.
One committee member - one - was confirmable as pro death penalty.
Most, if not all, of Committee Chairman Rev. Howard's previous affiliations were anti death penalty.
Rev. Howard's fairness is best shown by the Commission's final report, which was laughable in its exclusion of pro death penalty positions, positions which would have either overwhelmed or neutralized the anti death penalty, predetermined conclusions of the panel, had those pro death penalty positions been given a fair showing in that report - which they weren't.
The Commission hearings and final report were, as all show trials, a farce.
copyright 2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Mr. Sharp,
Again, I appreciate you sharing your information with us. It is obvious that you have invested an enormous amount of time examining and writing about the death penalty.
The death penalty debate has been raging for many decades and has involved extensive amounts of research on both sides; clearly, then, the issue will not be settled here.
One thing is certain, though: both opponents and supporters of capital punishment will be watching the upcoming Supreme Court decision with extreme interest.
First, you must take a horribly good ribbing for the hug in kiss handle.
Secondly, I used to be opposed to the death penalty. I reverse engineered all the common anti death penalty claims and found them to be blatantly false or weaker than the correspong pro death penalty arguement, as in the innocence arguement, reviewed previously.
You wrotee:
"Also, I question those who would be comfortable with even one wrongful execution in the name of protecting the safety of "innocents". At minimum, the criminal justice system has a responsibility to ensure justice and fairness, particularly in matters of life and death. As such, accepting wrongful executions in the name of "public safety" is a stance I believe few in the justice community (and elsewhere) would endorse."
I get that back handed insult often, the "I question those who would be comfortable with even one wrongful execution in the name of protecting the safety of "innocents"."
I have never thought or expressed any comfort in executing innocents. Nor will I.
A mature look at criminal justice practives looks at, at least two sides, that being the effect with or without the policy. When dong that, the evidence is overwhelming, and uncontradicted, that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
Crimonlogists, etc. live with more innocents dead, every day.
How many innocents are murdered or, otherwise, severely harmed, every year by those on probation and parole? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
There are so many problems with paroles and probation, both enactment and management of, it is simply astronomical.
In fact, the alleged problems of the death penalty are a mole hill compared to the staggering problems of parole and probation.
But, the American Society of Criminology is opposed to the death penalty.
And so it goes.
Yes, yes I do. The ol' "I need Amanda Huginkiss" joke never dies!
Post a Comment