I have little sympathy for a person who would kill an officer of the law or frankly anyone else.
And yet, I have long been against the death penalty. I do not believe the state has the right to end another’s life. I also do not believe there is a way to apply it fairly across the board and as a result people who lack the means to afford good legal representation systematically receive the death penalty in far higher numbers for similar crimes.
I have barely covered this case but it weighs more heavily on me than most. Perhaps that is because at two separate points in time I was asked to intervene on behalf of the defendant.
At the time, Judge Mock was the lead Superior Court Judge in Yolo County. He had the responsibility of assigning cases to judges. He no longer is in that position, it is a position held by Judge Dave Rosenberg.
At the same time, his wife was Chief Deputy District Attorney. It was her job to assign cases to prosecutors.
The Vanguard had covered this issue prior to the December 2006 article and in fact, the relationship between Judge Mock and Ann Hurd seemed problematic in some other cases I was aware.
It would be reported:
“An out-of-county judge, specially appointed to hear the controversy, has already decided in favor of Mock. That judge ruled that though it was a “close call,” Mock can remain impartial.”
A year and a half later, Judge Mock is signing the order to send an individual to death row. Maybe he was completely fair in the trial, I was not there. The appearance of a conflict here is important though. The people prosecuting this case are the same people that are colleagues and underlings of Judge Mock’s wife.
The fact that I provided the defense attorneys with information and witnesses to Judge Mock gives me some connection to this case.
I am a strong believer in transparency in government. I think the fact that Steve Mock is judge in this county means that his wife should not be the chief deputy DA in this county. That is no slam against Ann Hurd, I have seen her in action and she is very good at what she does. But I think for the sake of both of their credibility there needs to be some distance.
Ironically, my indirect involvement in this case did not end there however. I had a second opportunity to intervene in this case a few weeks ago. Apparently Rick Gore was one of the investigators into the case and every case he was involved in is now in some sort of question. In this case, I was unable to help and some time in the future a man will die.
We have a system where the difference between life and death is based on very narrow distinctions and findings of fact. It is based on the ability of lawyers to provide good defense. It is based on the ability of the defendants to pay for these lawyers to provide good defense. It is based on a whole host of facts and matters that should not matter.
The innocence project has freed many people who were wrongly convicted in courts of law. Some of that is based on newly available technology such as DNA testing. But at its core, the reason that innocent people are convicted of crimes is that the justice system is based on the work of human beings and human beings make errors. Not only do they make errors that lead to them committing crimes but they make errors in their attempts to determine who did what and what the appropriate punishment should be for a given crime.
A person who is freed after serving 17 years cannot recoup their 17 years in prison. But at least they can be freed to start a new life, such as it is. You cannot bring back the dead. Perhaps it would be better if we did not have to try.
I have seen very little evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to future crimes committed by other individuals. I have seen very little evidence that the death penalty works better than life without parole. It would sure make these matters just a little easier.
In the meantime, I will continue to ponder how I played a very small part in a case, that I have no direct knowledge of nor do I know any of the parties.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Well-written and thought-provoking article on a difficult issue. The connections between Mock and Hurd are rightfully questioned.
Well-written and thought-provoking article on a difficult issue. The connections between Mock and Hurd are rightfully questioned.
Well-written and thought-provoking article on a difficult issue. The connections between Mock and Hurd are rightfully questioned.
Well-written and thought-provoking article on a difficult issue. The connections between Mock and Hurd are rightfully questioned.
The deference(support) that is given to their judicial colleagues does not always reflect well on our CA judicial system, most particularly, at the lower levels of review. It is clear to any impartial observer that a sitting judge and prosecutor who are sharing the same bed cannot be considered insignificant and close calls should always be given to the defendent’s side. Judges who must run for reelection,unfortunately,are “looking over their shoulder” at the possibility of challengers to their next election and cop-killing cases bring a lot of “heat” to the system, at the lower judicial level. This issue should have much more traction at the Appellate level of review.
The deference(support) that is given to their judicial colleagues does not always reflect well on our CA judicial system, most particularly, at the lower levels of review. It is clear to any impartial observer that a sitting judge and prosecutor who are sharing the same bed cannot be considered insignificant and close calls should always be given to the defendent’s side. Judges who must run for reelection,unfortunately,are “looking over their shoulder” at the possibility of challengers to their next election and cop-killing cases bring a lot of “heat” to the system, at the lower judicial level. This issue should have much more traction at the Appellate level of review.
The deference(support) that is given to their judicial colleagues does not always reflect well on our CA judicial system, most particularly, at the lower levels of review. It is clear to any impartial observer that a sitting judge and prosecutor who are sharing the same bed cannot be considered insignificant and close calls should always be given to the defendent’s side. Judges who must run for reelection,unfortunately,are “looking over their shoulder” at the possibility of challengers to their next election and cop-killing cases bring a lot of “heat” to the system, at the lower judicial level. This issue should have much more traction at the Appellate level of review.
The deference(support) that is given to their judicial colleagues does not always reflect well on our CA judicial system, most particularly, at the lower levels of review. It is clear to any impartial observer that a sitting judge and prosecutor who are sharing the same bed cannot be considered insignificant and close calls should always be given to the defendent’s side. Judges who must run for reelection,unfortunately,are “looking over their shoulder” at the possibility of challengers to their next election and cop-killing cases bring a lot of “heat” to the system, at the lower judicial level. This issue should have much more traction at the Appellate level of review.
I followed some of this, but not in a lot of detail, so I’m slightly lost by the point, here.
Was Judge Mock responsible for condemning the defendent to death? I thought that was a jury decision. If it was a jury decision, then how was Mock a problem in prescribing the death penalty?
Thanks in advance for any clarifications.
I followed some of this, but not in a lot of detail, so I’m slightly lost by the point, here.
Was Judge Mock responsible for condemning the defendent to death? I thought that was a jury decision. If it was a jury decision, then how was Mock a problem in prescribing the death penalty?
Thanks in advance for any clarifications.
I followed some of this, but not in a lot of detail, so I’m slightly lost by the point, here.
Was Judge Mock responsible for condemning the defendent to death? I thought that was a jury decision. If it was a jury decision, then how was Mock a problem in prescribing the death penalty?
Thanks in advance for any clarifications.
I followed some of this, but not in a lot of detail, so I’m slightly lost by the point, here.
Was Judge Mock responsible for condemning the defendent to death? I thought that was a jury decision. If it was a jury decision, then how was Mock a problem in prescribing the death penalty?
Thanks in advance for any clarifications.
Jeff Reisig had it right in the Enterprise the other day when he said something like if we’re not going to have the death penalty for killing a cop we shouldn’t have it at all. He then fails to take the next step and do away with it in Yolo County.
Nobody showed any mercy for the murderer just as he showed none for the CHP officer. At least the murderer’s excuse was that he was out of his mind on Meth. What is societies excuse for its lack of mercy?
Jeff Reisig had it right in the Enterprise the other day when he said something like if we’re not going to have the death penalty for killing a cop we shouldn’t have it at all. He then fails to take the next step and do away with it in Yolo County.
Nobody showed any mercy for the murderer just as he showed none for the CHP officer. At least the murderer’s excuse was that he was out of his mind on Meth. What is societies excuse for its lack of mercy?
Jeff Reisig had it right in the Enterprise the other day when he said something like if we’re not going to have the death penalty for killing a cop we shouldn’t have it at all. He then fails to take the next step and do away with it in Yolo County.
Nobody showed any mercy for the murderer just as he showed none for the CHP officer. At least the murderer’s excuse was that he was out of his mind on Meth. What is societies excuse for its lack of mercy?
Jeff Reisig had it right in the Enterprise the other day when he said something like if we’re not going to have the death penalty for killing a cop we shouldn’t have it at all. He then fails to take the next step and do away with it in Yolo County.
Nobody showed any mercy for the murderer just as he showed none for the CHP officer. At least the murderer’s excuse was that he was out of his mind on Meth. What is societies excuse for its lack of mercy?
Perhaps we can find a way to reduce the costs and time associated with death penalty cases. Something from Doonesbury a long time ago rings a bell “The court finds you guilty; the bailiff may now open fire”
Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row. The typical case where a person is later found to be “innocent” is a career criminal being convicted of a crime that matches their M.O. and they have committed so many other similar crimes its hard to avoid their being found guilty. Sorry, I am not burning any candles for them…
Perhaps we can find a way to reduce the costs and time associated with death penalty cases. Something from Doonesbury a long time ago rings a bell “The court finds you guilty; the bailiff may now open fire”
Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row. The typical case where a person is later found to be “innocent” is a career criminal being convicted of a crime that matches their M.O. and they have committed so many other similar crimes its hard to avoid their being found guilty. Sorry, I am not burning any candles for them…
Perhaps we can find a way to reduce the costs and time associated with death penalty cases. Something from Doonesbury a long time ago rings a bell “The court finds you guilty; the bailiff may now open fire”
Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row. The typical case where a person is later found to be “innocent” is a career criminal being convicted of a crime that matches their M.O. and they have committed so many other similar crimes its hard to avoid their being found guilty. Sorry, I am not burning any candles for them…
Perhaps we can find a way to reduce the costs and time associated with death penalty cases. Something from Doonesbury a long time ago rings a bell “The court finds you guilty; the bailiff may now open fire”
Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row. The typical case where a person is later found to be “innocent” is a career criminal being convicted of a crime that matches their M.O. and they have committed so many other similar crimes its hard to avoid their being found guilty. Sorry, I am not burning any candles for them…
I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, not because I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but because the justice system just doesn’t get it right all too frequently. A good book on the subject is “Actual Innocence” written by Jim Dwyer along with two others. Even though its other authors were Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the infamous OJ Simson trial, whose conduct in that case was highly questionable, nevertheless their Innocence Project makes for eyeopening observation. Out of all the people that were freed from prison because of actual innocence, 50% were due to prosecutorial misconduct. That is a frightening statistic.
I know when I read about the connection with Judge Mock and Ann Hurd, I was appalled. IMHO as an attorney, my guess is that fact alone (the Mock/Hurd connection) will force the case to be overturned on appeal and require a new trial. Had Mock done the right thing and recused himself, then the issue of his connection with Anne Hurd would not be a technicality the defense could use to argue their client did not get a fair trial. Shame on Judge Mock, who should have seen the bigger picture. Even the CHP, I suspect, are not going to like this outcome, because it will cause endless delays in the execution, if there is ever one. Defense attorneys are going to have a field day with this mess. How is that helpful to the family of the policeman who was murdered? They need closure.
Something else to note here. In my experience, often the DA is more concerned about a win record than whether a person is innocent or guilty. This problem has to do with the fact that DA’s are often elected officials, who use their conviction record as a stepping stone to higher office or to get re-elected to the same office to keep their seat as head DA. Many times when DAs are confronted with their mistakes, they express no sorrow for the innocent person whose life they have ruined. I’ll give you two examples.
In one case FBI agents sent a father of four to prison, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE HE WAS INNOCENT, to protect an informant. The father spent 25 needless years in prison, while the informant went on to kill three more people. When called before Congress, one of the FBI agents expressed not one ounce of remorse. One got the distinct impression this law enforcement officer felt he did the right thing – for the greater good – bc the informant gave info that put some other bad guys behind bars. In other words, the end justified the means. As far as I know, nothing was done to punish these FBE agents who knowingly put an innocent man behind bars. If it were me deciding the fate of these FBI agents, I would have made them spend exactly 25 years in prison, and make them answer the question once a month “Do you still feel the end justified the means?”
My second example is the case of the little girl Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered by a pedophile with assistance from his three relatives who lived with him in a mobile home. Because law enforcement bungled the case badly, the local prosecutor made the decision to not even try to make a case against the three relatives who facilitated the crime. Despite public outcry, the DA would not budge on that decision. In other words, he was not willing to risk his perfect win/loss record, by taking the chance in going after the three relatives for conspiracy and possibly losing.
To WDF who asked what difference a judge can make in a trial if it is the jury that decides innocence or guilt – take a look at the OJ Simpson case. It is a perfect example of how a specific judge can contribute to the outcome of a trial. The judge is like a traffic cop in the courtroom, deciding which evidence is allowed to come in and what is not. That can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of the case. The demeanor of a judge towards a witness or prosecuter/defense attorney can shade how the jury views the defendant or a witness. The judge controls the timing of when a witness testifies, which can leave a jury an entire weekend to let what was said sink in if the testimony was given on a Friday afternoon. I can give many more examples, but you get the drift of why the judge in a case can very much effect the outcome even if it is a jury trial.
I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, not because I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but because the justice system just doesn’t get it right all too frequently. A good book on the subject is “Actual Innocence” written by Jim Dwyer along with two others. Even though its other authors were Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the infamous OJ Simson trial, whose conduct in that case was highly questionable, nevertheless their Innocence Project makes for eyeopening observation. Out of all the people that were freed from prison because of actual innocence, 50% were due to prosecutorial misconduct. That is a frightening statistic.
I know when I read about the connection with Judge Mock and Ann Hurd, I was appalled. IMHO as an attorney, my guess is that fact alone (the Mock/Hurd connection) will force the case to be overturned on appeal and require a new trial. Had Mock done the right thing and recused himself, then the issue of his connection with Anne Hurd would not be a technicality the defense could use to argue their client did not get a fair trial. Shame on Judge Mock, who should have seen the bigger picture. Even the CHP, I suspect, are not going to like this outcome, because it will cause endless delays in the execution, if there is ever one. Defense attorneys are going to have a field day with this mess. How is that helpful to the family of the policeman who was murdered? They need closure.
Something else to note here. In my experience, often the DA is more concerned about a win record than whether a person is innocent or guilty. This problem has to do with the fact that DA’s are often elected officials, who use their conviction record as a stepping stone to higher office or to get re-elected to the same office to keep their seat as head DA. Many times when DAs are confronted with their mistakes, they express no sorrow for the innocent person whose life they have ruined. I’ll give you two examples.
In one case FBI agents sent a father of four to prison, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE HE WAS INNOCENT, to protect an informant. The father spent 25 needless years in prison, while the informant went on to kill three more people. When called before Congress, one of the FBI agents expressed not one ounce of remorse. One got the distinct impression this law enforcement officer felt he did the right thing – for the greater good – bc the informant gave info that put some other bad guys behind bars. In other words, the end justified the means. As far as I know, nothing was done to punish these FBE agents who knowingly put an innocent man behind bars. If it were me deciding the fate of these FBI agents, I would have made them spend exactly 25 years in prison, and make them answer the question once a month “Do you still feel the end justified the means?”
My second example is the case of the little girl Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered by a pedophile with assistance from his three relatives who lived with him in a mobile home. Because law enforcement bungled the case badly, the local prosecutor made the decision to not even try to make a case against the three relatives who facilitated the crime. Despite public outcry, the DA would not budge on that decision. In other words, he was not willing to risk his perfect win/loss record, by taking the chance in going after the three relatives for conspiracy and possibly losing.
To WDF who asked what difference a judge can make in a trial if it is the jury that decides innocence or guilt – take a look at the OJ Simpson case. It is a perfect example of how a specific judge can contribute to the outcome of a trial. The judge is like a traffic cop in the courtroom, deciding which evidence is allowed to come in and what is not. That can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of the case. The demeanor of a judge towards a witness or prosecuter/defense attorney can shade how the jury views the defendant or a witness. The judge controls the timing of when a witness testifies, which can leave a jury an entire weekend to let what was said sink in if the testimony was given on a Friday afternoon. I can give many more examples, but you get the drift of why the judge in a case can very much effect the outcome even if it is a jury trial.
I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, not because I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but because the justice system just doesn’t get it right all too frequently. A good book on the subject is “Actual Innocence” written by Jim Dwyer along with two others. Even though its other authors were Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the infamous OJ Simson trial, whose conduct in that case was highly questionable, nevertheless their Innocence Project makes for eyeopening observation. Out of all the people that were freed from prison because of actual innocence, 50% were due to prosecutorial misconduct. That is a frightening statistic.
I know when I read about the connection with Judge Mock and Ann Hurd, I was appalled. IMHO as an attorney, my guess is that fact alone (the Mock/Hurd connection) will force the case to be overturned on appeal and require a new trial. Had Mock done the right thing and recused himself, then the issue of his connection with Anne Hurd would not be a technicality the defense could use to argue their client did not get a fair trial. Shame on Judge Mock, who should have seen the bigger picture. Even the CHP, I suspect, are not going to like this outcome, because it will cause endless delays in the execution, if there is ever one. Defense attorneys are going to have a field day with this mess. How is that helpful to the family of the policeman who was murdered? They need closure.
Something else to note here. In my experience, often the DA is more concerned about a win record than whether a person is innocent or guilty. This problem has to do with the fact that DA’s are often elected officials, who use their conviction record as a stepping stone to higher office or to get re-elected to the same office to keep their seat as head DA. Many times when DAs are confronted with their mistakes, they express no sorrow for the innocent person whose life they have ruined. I’ll give you two examples.
In one case FBI agents sent a father of four to prison, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE HE WAS INNOCENT, to protect an informant. The father spent 25 needless years in prison, while the informant went on to kill three more people. When called before Congress, one of the FBI agents expressed not one ounce of remorse. One got the distinct impression this law enforcement officer felt he did the right thing – for the greater good – bc the informant gave info that put some other bad guys behind bars. In other words, the end justified the means. As far as I know, nothing was done to punish these FBE agents who knowingly put an innocent man behind bars. If it were me deciding the fate of these FBI agents, I would have made them spend exactly 25 years in prison, and make them answer the question once a month “Do you still feel the end justified the means?”
My second example is the case of the little girl Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered by a pedophile with assistance from his three relatives who lived with him in a mobile home. Because law enforcement bungled the case badly, the local prosecutor made the decision to not even try to make a case against the three relatives who facilitated the crime. Despite public outcry, the DA would not budge on that decision. In other words, he was not willing to risk his perfect win/loss record, by taking the chance in going after the three relatives for conspiracy and possibly losing.
To WDF who asked what difference a judge can make in a trial if it is the jury that decides innocence or guilt – take a look at the OJ Simpson case. It is a perfect example of how a specific judge can contribute to the outcome of a trial. The judge is like a traffic cop in the courtroom, deciding which evidence is allowed to come in and what is not. That can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of the case. The demeanor of a judge towards a witness or prosecuter/defense attorney can shade how the jury views the defendant or a witness. The judge controls the timing of when a witness testifies, which can leave a jury an entire weekend to let what was said sink in if the testimony was given on a Friday afternoon. I can give many more examples, but you get the drift of why the judge in a case can very much effect the outcome even if it is a jury trial.
I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, not because I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but because the justice system just doesn’t get it right all too frequently. A good book on the subject is “Actual Innocence” written by Jim Dwyer along with two others. Even though its other authors were Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the infamous OJ Simson trial, whose conduct in that case was highly questionable, nevertheless their Innocence Project makes for eyeopening observation. Out of all the people that were freed from prison because of actual innocence, 50% were due to prosecutorial misconduct. That is a frightening statistic.
I know when I read about the connection with Judge Mock and Ann Hurd, I was appalled. IMHO as an attorney, my guess is that fact alone (the Mock/Hurd connection) will force the case to be overturned on appeal and require a new trial. Had Mock done the right thing and recused himself, then the issue of his connection with Anne Hurd would not be a technicality the defense could use to argue their client did not get a fair trial. Shame on Judge Mock, who should have seen the bigger picture. Even the CHP, I suspect, are not going to like this outcome, because it will cause endless delays in the execution, if there is ever one. Defense attorneys are going to have a field day with this mess. How is that helpful to the family of the policeman who was murdered? They need closure.
Something else to note here. In my experience, often the DA is more concerned about a win record than whether a person is innocent or guilty. This problem has to do with the fact that DA’s are often elected officials, who use their conviction record as a stepping stone to higher office or to get re-elected to the same office to keep their seat as head DA. Many times when DAs are confronted with their mistakes, they express no sorrow for the innocent person whose life they have ruined. I’ll give you two examples.
In one case FBI agents sent a father of four to prison, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE HE WAS INNOCENT, to protect an informant. The father spent 25 needless years in prison, while the informant went on to kill three more people. When called before Congress, one of the FBI agents expressed not one ounce of remorse. One got the distinct impression this law enforcement officer felt he did the right thing – for the greater good – bc the informant gave info that put some other bad guys behind bars. In other words, the end justified the means. As far as I know, nothing was done to punish these FBE agents who knowingly put an innocent man behind bars. If it were me deciding the fate of these FBI agents, I would have made them spend exactly 25 years in prison, and make them answer the question once a month “Do you still feel the end justified the means?”
My second example is the case of the little girl Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered by a pedophile with assistance from his three relatives who lived with him in a mobile home. Because law enforcement bungled the case badly, the local prosecutor made the decision to not even try to make a case against the three relatives who facilitated the crime. Despite public outcry, the DA would not budge on that decision. In other words, he was not willing to risk his perfect win/loss record, by taking the chance in going after the three relatives for conspiracy and possibly losing.
To WDF who asked what difference a judge can make in a trial if it is the jury that decides innocence or guilt – take a look at the OJ Simpson case. It is a perfect example of how a specific judge can contribute to the outcome of a trial. The judge is like a traffic cop in the courtroom, deciding which evidence is allowed to come in and what is not. That can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of the case. The demeanor of a judge towards a witness or prosecuter/defense attorney can shade how the jury views the defendant or a witness. The judge controls the timing of when a witness testifies, which can leave a jury an entire weekend to let what was said sink in if the testimony was given on a Friday afternoon. I can give many more examples, but you get the drift of why the judge in a case can very much effect the outcome even if it is a jury trial.
“Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row.”
Innocent people go to prison more than you think. Many prosecutors are so convinced of guilt, even when proof of innocence is absolute, they refuse to admit they were wrong in the face of hold card reality after the fact. Good DAs abhor this sort of attitude, because it gives ethical DAs a bad name. Read “Actual Innocence”, then tell me if you truly think all those in prison are guilty.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable; DNA testing is not necessarily available to the poor; law enforcement have been known to “create” evidence; honest mistakes are made; when law enforcement is the victim often objectivity goes out the window; confessions can be easily coerced through simple means, such as denial of bathroom privileges, sleep deprivation, deception, etc.
This is not an attempt to bash District Attorneys or law enforcement, but the system is quite fallable, and there are bad guys in the DA’s Office and law enforcement as in any other profession. It is just the stakes are higher in the justice game – a person may be put to death or serve a long prison sentence if a bad cop/DA does the wrong thing.
“Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row.”
Innocent people go to prison more than you think. Many prosecutors are so convinced of guilt, even when proof of innocence is absolute, they refuse to admit they were wrong in the face of hold card reality after the fact. Good DAs abhor this sort of attitude, because it gives ethical DAs a bad name. Read “Actual Innocence”, then tell me if you truly think all those in prison are guilty.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable; DNA testing is not necessarily available to the poor; law enforcement have been known to “create” evidence; honest mistakes are made; when law enforcement is the victim often objectivity goes out the window; confessions can be easily coerced through simple means, such as denial of bathroom privileges, sleep deprivation, deception, etc.
This is not an attempt to bash District Attorneys or law enforcement, but the system is quite fallable, and there are bad guys in the DA’s Office and law enforcement as in any other profession. It is just the stakes are higher in the justice game – a person may be put to death or serve a long prison sentence if a bad cop/DA does the wrong thing.
“Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row.”
Innocent people go to prison more than you think. Many prosecutors are so convinced of guilt, even when proof of innocence is absolute, they refuse to admit they were wrong in the face of hold card reality after the fact. Good DAs abhor this sort of attitude, because it gives ethical DAs a bad name. Read “Actual Innocence”, then tell me if you truly think all those in prison are guilty.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable; DNA testing is not necessarily available to the poor; law enforcement have been known to “create” evidence; honest mistakes are made; when law enforcement is the victim often objectivity goes out the window; confessions can be easily coerced through simple means, such as denial of bathroom privileges, sleep deprivation, deception, etc.
This is not an attempt to bash District Attorneys or law enforcement, but the system is quite fallable, and there are bad guys in the DA’s Office and law enforcement as in any other profession. It is just the stakes are higher in the justice game – a person may be put to death or serve a long prison sentence if a bad cop/DA does the wrong thing.
“Most people who have to deal regularly with criminals would laugh at the idea of “innocent” people in prison or being put on death row.”
Innocent people go to prison more than you think. Many prosecutors are so convinced of guilt, even when proof of innocence is absolute, they refuse to admit they were wrong in the face of hold card reality after the fact. Good DAs abhor this sort of attitude, because it gives ethical DAs a bad name. Read “Actual Innocence”, then tell me if you truly think all those in prison are guilty.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable; DNA testing is not necessarily available to the poor; law enforcement have been known to “create” evidence; honest mistakes are made; when law enforcement is the victim often objectivity goes out the window; confessions can be easily coerced through simple means, such as denial of bathroom privileges, sleep deprivation, deception, etc.
This is not an attempt to bash District Attorneys or law enforcement, but the system is quite fallable, and there are bad guys in the DA’s Office and law enforcement as in any other profession. It is just the stakes are higher in the justice game – a person may be put to death or serve a long prison sentence if a bad cop/DA does the wrong thing.
I agree, death row should be abandoned. KILL’EM ALL.
I agree, death row should be abandoned. KILL’EM ALL.
I agree, death row should be abandoned. KILL’EM ALL.
I agree, death row should be abandoned. KILL’EM ALL.
I think you need to re visit the realities of the death penalty. Most often, only anti death penalty claims are carried by the media, making it easy to arrive at false opinions.
Here is the other side.
The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
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 128 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. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.
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 for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%.
Therefore, 20-25 of the alleged 127 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent — a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the over 8000 sentenced to death since 1973. The actual innocents were all freed,
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 one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions 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 their defenses, 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? Not to my knowledge.
Arbitrary and capricious
About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 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 US.
Christianity and the death penalty
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 position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
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). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)
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).
81% 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.
——————————–
Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
copyright 1998-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
I think you need to re visit the realities of the death penalty. Most often, only anti death penalty claims are carried by the media, making it easy to arrive at false opinions.
Here is the other side.
The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
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 128 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. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.
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 for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%.
Therefore, 20-25 of the alleged 127 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent — a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the over 8000 sentenced to death since 1973. The actual innocents were all freed,
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 one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions 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 their defenses, 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? Not to my knowledge.
Arbitrary and capricious
About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 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 US.
Christianity and the death penalty
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 position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
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). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)
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).
81% 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.
——————————–
Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
copyright 1998-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
I think you need to re visit the realities of the death penalty. Most often, only anti death penalty claims are carried by the media, making it easy to arrive at false opinions.
Here is the other side.
The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
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 128 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. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.
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 for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%.
Therefore, 20-25 of the alleged 127 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent — a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the over 8000 sentenced to death since 1973. The actual innocents were all freed,
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 one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions 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 their defenses, 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? Not to my knowledge.
Arbitrary and capricious
About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 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 US.
Christianity and the death penalty
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 position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
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). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)
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).
81% 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.
——————————–
Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
copyright 1998-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
I think you need to re visit the realities of the death penalty. Most often, only anti death penalty claims are carried by the media, making it easy to arrive at false opinions.
Here is the other side.
The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
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 128 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. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.
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 for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%.
Therefore, 20-25 of the alleged 127 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent — a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the over 8000 sentenced to death since 1973. The actual innocents were all freed,
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 one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions 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 their defenses, 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? Not to my knowledge.
Arbitrary and capricious
About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 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 US.
Christianity and the death penalty
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 position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
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). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)
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).
81% 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.
——————————–
Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
copyright 1998-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dear Mr. Sharp,
While I appreciate the thoroughness of your research, etc., I know of a Maryland case myself in which a convicted person, who was truly innocent, was wrongly convicted of rape and found themselves in prison for 30 years.
The real killer was eventually caught. Had he not been, an innocent person would have spent the best part of his life in jail. (The accused did spend about two years in jail, and his wife remarried, and his job and career was gone.) There was, in so far as I am aware, no prosecutorial misconduct. It was a simple case of mistaken identity.
The innocent man put in prison was a young married African-American father of two, who was a white collar engineer by profession, who had 30 fellow employees testify under oath that he was at work that day. Yet he was convicted on the victim’s eyewitness testimony.
As it turned out, the perpetrator (rapist) was not only a dead ringer for the accused, but had sported the same Van Dyke beard and length and color of hair. Eyewitness testimony is known to be very unreliable.
I also referred to the infamous FBI case, in which an innocent father of four was knowingly placed in prison, to protect an informant who later killed three people. The Congressional hearings investigating the case were televised nationwide. None was more shocked than I at the perfidity of the FBI.
There was an infamous Philadelphia case, involving corrupt law enforcement officers, who put people in prison if they did not pay an extortion fee. One innocent man spent an entire 25 years of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. It took 25 years to uncover what was actually going on, and it put hundreds of cases in question.
I do not dispute that some of the prisoners who had their sentences overturned may have been guilty of the crime charged, but were released on technicalties. However, the Innocence Project often involves DNA testing, that doesn’t jive with the crime charged. If the DNA testing comes back as exculpatory (not a match), in other words the DNA is that of someone not the accused, there is no other explanation than law enforcement got the wrong guy, for whatever reason.
The Innocence Project so far has found 74 such DNA exonerations. In the state of Illinois alone, there were 14, and is the reason they put a moratorium on the death penalty. Furthermore, some states do not allow for such DNA testing unless it is done within 6 months of conviction. So in those states we will never know if there are innocent accuseds or not, because DNA testing is not allowed for them. Their fate is sealed.
I would much rather err on the side of caution, recognize that our justice system is not infallible, and do away with the death penalty and change the sentence to life without parole. I would also make sure prisoners worked for privileges, rather than allow them to languish in prison watching television 24/7. Prison is not supposed to be a nice place to go.
Dear Mr. Sharp,
While I appreciate the thoroughness of your research, etc., I know of a Maryland case myself in which a convicted person, who was truly innocent, was wrongly convicted of rape and found themselves in prison for 30 years.
The real killer was eventually caught. Had he not been, an innocent person would have spent the best part of his life in jail. (The accused did spend about two years in jail, and his wife remarried, and his job and career was gone.) There was, in so far as I am aware, no prosecutorial misconduct. It was a simple case of mistaken identity.
The innocent man put in prison was a young married African-American father of two, who was a white collar engineer by profession, who had 30 fellow employees testify under oath that he was at work that day. Yet he was convicted on the victim’s eyewitness testimony.
As it turned out, the perpetrator (rapist) was not only a dead ringer for the accused, but had sported the same Van Dyke beard and length and color of hair. Eyewitness testimony is known to be very unreliable.
I also referred to the infamous FBI case, in which an innocent father of four was knowingly placed in prison, to protect an informant who later killed three people. The Congressional hearings investigating the case were televised nationwide. None was more shocked than I at the perfidity of the FBI.
There was an infamous Philadelphia case, involving corrupt law enforcement officers, who put people in prison if they did not pay an extortion fee. One innocent man spent an entire 25 years of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. It took 25 years to uncover what was actually going on, and it put hundreds of cases in question.
I do not dispute that some of the prisoners who had their sentences overturned may have been guilty of the crime charged, but were released on technicalties. However, the Innocence Project often involves DNA testing, that doesn’t jive with the crime charged. If the DNA testing comes back as exculpatory (not a match), in other words the DNA is that of someone not the accused, there is no other explanation than law enforcement got the wrong guy, for whatever reason.
The Innocence Project so far has found 74 such DNA exonerations. In the state of Illinois alone, there were 14, and is the reason they put a moratorium on the death penalty. Furthermore, some states do not allow for such DNA testing unless it is done within 6 months of conviction. So in those states we will never know if there are innocent accuseds or not, because DNA testing is not allowed for them. Their fate is sealed.
I would much rather err on the side of caution, recognize that our justice system is not infallible, and do away with the death penalty and change the sentence to life without parole. I would also make sure prisoners worked for privileges, rather than allow them to languish in prison watching television 24/7. Prison is not supposed to be a nice place to go.
Dear Mr. Sharp,
While I appreciate the thoroughness of your research, etc., I know of a Maryland case myself in which a convicted person, who was truly innocent, was wrongly convicted of rape and found themselves in prison for 30 years.
The real killer was eventually caught. Had he not been, an innocent person would have spent the best part of his life in jail. (The accused did spend about two years in jail, and his wife remarried, and his job and career was gone.) There was, in so far as I am aware, no prosecutorial misconduct. It was a simple case of mistaken identity.
The innocent man put in prison was a young married African-American father of two, who was a white collar engineer by profession, who had 30 fellow employees testify under oath that he was at work that day. Yet he was convicted on the victim’s eyewitness testimony.
As it turned out, the perpetrator (rapist) was not only a dead ringer for the accused, but had sported the same Van Dyke beard and length and color of hair. Eyewitness testimony is known to be very unreliable.
I also referred to the infamous FBI case, in which an innocent father of four was knowingly placed in prison, to protect an informant who later killed three people. The Congressional hearings investigating the case were televised nationwide. None was more shocked than I at the perfidity of the FBI.
There was an infamous Philadelphia case, involving corrupt law enforcement officers, who put people in prison if they did not pay an extortion fee. One innocent man spent an entire 25 years of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. It took 25 years to uncover what was actually going on, and it put hundreds of cases in question.
I do not dispute that some of the prisoners who had their sentences overturned may have been guilty of the crime charged, but were released on technicalties. However, the Innocence Project often involves DNA testing, that doesn’t jive with the crime charged. If the DNA testing comes back as exculpatory (not a match), in other words the DNA is that of someone not the accused, there is no other explanation than law enforcement got the wrong guy, for whatever reason.
The Innocence Project so far has found 74 such DNA exonerations. In the state of Illinois alone, there were 14, and is the reason they put a moratorium on the death penalty. Furthermore, some states do not allow for such DNA testing unless it is done within 6 months of conviction. So in those states we will never know if there are innocent accuseds or not, because DNA testing is not allowed for them. Their fate is sealed.
I would much rather err on the side of caution, recognize that our justice system is not infallible, and do away with the death penalty and change the sentence to life without parole. I would also make sure prisoners worked for privileges, rather than allow them to languish in prison watching television 24/7. Prison is not supposed to be a nice place to go.
Dear Mr. Sharp,
While I appreciate the thoroughness of your research, etc., I know of a Maryland case myself in which a convicted person, who was truly innocent, was wrongly convicted of rape and found themselves in prison for 30 years.
The real killer was eventually caught. Had he not been, an innocent person would have spent the best part of his life in jail. (The accused did spend about two years in jail, and his wife remarried, and his job and career was gone.) There was, in so far as I am aware, no prosecutorial misconduct. It was a simple case of mistaken identity.
The innocent man put in prison was a young married African-American father of two, who was a white collar engineer by profession, who had 30 fellow employees testify under oath that he was at work that day. Yet he was convicted on the victim’s eyewitness testimony.
As it turned out, the perpetrator (rapist) was not only a dead ringer for the accused, but had sported the same Van Dyke beard and length and color of hair. Eyewitness testimony is known to be very unreliable.
I also referred to the infamous FBI case, in which an innocent father of four was knowingly placed in prison, to protect an informant who later killed three people. The Congressional hearings investigating the case were televised nationwide. None was more shocked than I at the perfidity of the FBI.
There was an infamous Philadelphia case, involving corrupt law enforcement officers, who put people in prison if they did not pay an extortion fee. One innocent man spent an entire 25 years of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. It took 25 years to uncover what was actually going on, and it put hundreds of cases in question.
I do not dispute that some of the prisoners who had their sentences overturned may have been guilty of the crime charged, but were released on technicalties. However, the Innocence Project often involves DNA testing, that doesn’t jive with the crime charged. If the DNA testing comes back as exculpatory (not a match), in other words the DNA is that of someone not the accused, there is no other explanation than law enforcement got the wrong guy, for whatever reason.
The Innocence Project so far has found 74 such DNA exonerations. In the state of Illinois alone, there were 14, and is the reason they put a moratorium on the death penalty. Furthermore, some states do not allow for such DNA testing unless it is done within 6 months of conviction. So in those states we will never know if there are innocent accuseds or not, because DNA testing is not allowed for them. Their fate is sealed.
I would much rather err on the side of caution, recognize that our justice system is not infallible, and do away with the death penalty and change the sentence to life without parole. I would also make sure prisoners worked for privileges, rather than allow them to languish in prison watching television 24/7. Prison is not supposed to be a nice place to go.
Sorry, the word “killer” in the second paragraph should read “rapist”. The victim did not die, thank goodness. By the way, the accused and the victim met, after his exoneration, and he assured her he had no animous, and understood her confusion in fingering him instead of the real rapist.
Sorry, the word “killer” in the second paragraph should read “rapist”. The victim did not die, thank goodness. By the way, the accused and the victim met, after his exoneration, and he assured her he had no animous, and understood her confusion in fingering him instead of the real rapist.
Sorry, the word “killer” in the second paragraph should read “rapist”. The victim did not die, thank goodness. By the way, the accused and the victim met, after his exoneration, and he assured her he had no animous, and understood her confusion in fingering him instead of the real rapist.
Sorry, the word “killer” in the second paragraph should read “rapist”. The victim did not die, thank goodness. By the way, the accused and the victim met, after his exoneration, and he assured her he had no animous, and understood her confusion in fingering him instead of the real rapist.
Suggestion:
Let the family of the murder victim decide the penalty and it’s time frame?
Suggestion:
Let the family of the murder victim decide the penalty and it’s time frame?
Suggestion:
Let the family of the murder victim decide the penalty and it’s time frame?
Suggestion:
Let the family of the murder victim decide the penalty and it’s time frame?
We have a system of justice, removed as much as possible from passion and the notion of revenge. Your suggest strikes at the very heart of that system.
We have a system of justice, removed as much as possible from passion and the notion of revenge. Your suggest strikes at the very heart of that system.
We have a system of justice, removed as much as possible from passion and the notion of revenge. Your suggest strikes at the very heart of that system.
We have a system of justice, removed as much as possible from passion and the notion of revenge. Your suggest strikes at the very heart of that system.
One thing important to state about the murder of the CHP officer in Woodland: there is no doubt about the guilt of the convicted man. He killed the cop in cold blood.
While I personally favor the death penalty in cases such as this one, I don’t think our system in California, where the condemned will live on death row for the next 30 years, makes any sense. If his appeals could be heard in the next 3-4 years and then he were executed, that would serve justice, in that the punishment would be connected to the crime. But as our system actually works, this murderer will be executed around 2040, so far removed from the crime that no one will remember why he deserves to lose his life.
I don’t think cost should be the deciding factor in executing or not executing. However, it is far more expensive to carry out the death penalty, due to the far more expensive and exhaustive appeals process. And when you consider how long it takes to actually execute a murderer, it’s hard to see how spending so much money makes sense.
If we need any reform in California, it would be to greatly speed up the process. It is not the case that for the next 30-35 years this appeal will be studied. In fact, nothing will be happening for 98% of that time. But if we are not going to speed up the system, then I suggest we just get rid of the death penalty — the benefits as it stands are not worth the costs.
One thing important to state about the murder of the CHP officer in Woodland: there is no doubt about the guilt of the convicted man. He killed the cop in cold blood.
While I personally favor the death penalty in cases such as this one, I don’t think our system in California, where the condemned will live on death row for the next 30 years, makes any sense. If his appeals could be heard in the next 3-4 years and then he were executed, that would serve justice, in that the punishment would be connected to the crime. But as our system actually works, this murderer will be executed around 2040, so far removed from the crime that no one will remember why he deserves to lose his life.
I don’t think cost should be the deciding factor in executing or not executing. However, it is far more expensive to carry out the death penalty, due to the far more expensive and exhaustive appeals process. And when you consider how long it takes to actually execute a murderer, it’s hard to see how spending so much money makes sense.
If we need any reform in California, it would be to greatly speed up the process. It is not the case that for the next 30-35 years this appeal will be studied. In fact, nothing will be happening for 98% of that time. But if we are not going to speed up the system, then I suggest we just get rid of the death penalty — the benefits as it stands are not worth the costs.
One thing important to state about the murder of the CHP officer in Woodland: there is no doubt about the guilt of the convicted man. He killed the cop in cold blood.
While I personally favor the death penalty in cases such as this one, I don’t think our system in California, where the condemned will live on death row for the next 30 years, makes any sense. If his appeals could be heard in the next 3-4 years and then he were executed, that would serve justice, in that the punishment would be connected to the crime. But as our system actually works, this murderer will be executed around 2040, so far removed from the crime that no one will remember why he deserves to lose his life.
I don’t think cost should be the deciding factor in executing or not executing. However, it is far more expensive to carry out the death penalty, due to the far more expensive and exhaustive appeals process. And when you consider how long it takes to actually execute a murderer, it’s hard to see how spending so much money makes sense.
If we need any reform in California, it would be to greatly speed up the process. It is not the case that for the next 30-35 years this appeal will be studied. In fact, nothing will be happening for 98% of that time. But if we are not going to speed up the system, then I suggest we just get rid of the death penalty — the benefits as it stands are not worth the costs.
One thing important to state about the murder of the CHP officer in Woodland: there is no doubt about the guilt of the convicted man. He killed the cop in cold blood.
While I personally favor the death penalty in cases such as this one, I don’t think our system in California, where the condemned will live on death row for the next 30 years, makes any sense. If his appeals could be heard in the next 3-4 years and then he were executed, that would serve justice, in that the punishment would be connected to the crime. But as our system actually works, this murderer will be executed around 2040, so far removed from the crime that no one will remember why he deserves to lose his life.
I don’t think cost should be the deciding factor in executing or not executing. However, it is far more expensive to carry out the death penalty, due to the far more expensive and exhaustive appeals process. And when you consider how long it takes to actually execute a murderer, it’s hard to see how spending so much money makes sense.
If we need any reform in California, it would be to greatly speed up the process. It is not the case that for the next 30-35 years this appeal will be studied. In fact, nothing will be happening for 98% of that time. But if we are not going to speed up the system, then I suggest we just get rid of the death penalty — the benefits as it stands are not worth the costs.
One other thing: I abhor the idea of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LIPWOTPOP). That, it seems to me, really is cruel and unusual punishment.
If someone — for example some of the women involved in the Manson murders — really turned himself around, really became safe for the rest of society, then after 25, 30, 35 years, what sense does it make to keep that person in prison?
On the other hand, if you believe a murderer can never be forgiven, then why not just execute him, assuming he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his case was thoroughly appealed?
I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means. Insofar as they base their opposition to the death penalty on their religious beliefs, I would think they would be reticent to keep a reformed man in a cage until he dies. But apparently, they don’t.
One other thing: I abhor the idea of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LIPWOTPOP). That, it seems to me, really is cruel and unusual punishment.
If someone — for example some of the women involved in the Manson murders — really turned himself around, really became safe for the rest of society, then after 25, 30, 35 years, what sense does it make to keep that person in prison?
On the other hand, if you believe a murderer can never be forgiven, then why not just execute him, assuming he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his case was thoroughly appealed?
I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means. Insofar as they base their opposition to the death penalty on their religious beliefs, I would think they would be reticent to keep a reformed man in a cage until he dies. But apparently, they don’t.
One other thing: I abhor the idea of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LIPWOTPOP). That, it seems to me, really is cruel and unusual punishment.
If someone — for example some of the women involved in the Manson murders — really turned himself around, really became safe for the rest of society, then after 25, 30, 35 years, what sense does it make to keep that person in prison?
On the other hand, if you believe a murderer can never be forgiven, then why not just execute him, assuming he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his case was thoroughly appealed?
I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means. Insofar as they base their opposition to the death penalty on their religious beliefs, I would think they would be reticent to keep a reformed man in a cage until he dies. But apparently, they don’t.
One other thing: I abhor the idea of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LIPWOTPOP). That, it seems to me, really is cruel and unusual punishment.
If someone — for example some of the women involved in the Manson murders — really turned himself around, really became safe for the rest of society, then after 25, 30, 35 years, what sense does it make to keep that person in prison?
On the other hand, if you believe a murderer can never be forgiven, then why not just execute him, assuming he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and his case was thoroughly appealed?
I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means. Insofar as they base their opposition to the death penalty on their religious beliefs, I would think they would be reticent to keep a reformed man in a cage until he dies. But apparently, they don’t.
What is wrong with the death penalty?
Vengence
Too often the motivation for going for the death penalty is vengence rather than what is best for society.
Violence
We claim we kill people to stop violence. Are we not just confirming we are all violent and it is ok to kill people for the “right” reasons?
Too many people disagree with its use.
People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases. That excludes many people and that probably distorts the outcome of many of these cases. How can a person be fairly judged by his/her peers if a bunch of people are automatically excluded from the process?
Makes us look stupid.
Most countries in the civilized world have already figured this out and have abolished capital punishment.
Ann Hurd is the Mike Nifong of Yolo County – the Justice System would be better off without people like her.
In the case being discussed I think it is quite likely the secondary defendant was railroaded. In the haste for revenge I doubt the DA cared if he was guilty or not.
What is wrong with the death penalty?
Vengence
Too often the motivation for going for the death penalty is vengence rather than what is best for society.
Violence
We claim we kill people to stop violence. Are we not just confirming we are all violent and it is ok to kill people for the “right” reasons?
Too many people disagree with its use.
People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases. That excludes many people and that probably distorts the outcome of many of these cases. How can a person be fairly judged by his/her peers if a bunch of people are automatically excluded from the process?
Makes us look stupid.
Most countries in the civilized world have already figured this out and have abolished capital punishment.
Ann Hurd is the Mike Nifong of Yolo County – the Justice System would be better off without people like her.
In the case being discussed I think it is quite likely the secondary defendant was railroaded. In the haste for revenge I doubt the DA cared if he was guilty or not.
What is wrong with the death penalty?
Vengence
Too often the motivation for going for the death penalty is vengence rather than what is best for society.
Violence
We claim we kill people to stop violence. Are we not just confirming we are all violent and it is ok to kill people for the “right” reasons?
Too many people disagree with its use.
People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases. That excludes many people and that probably distorts the outcome of many of these cases. How can a person be fairly judged by his/her peers if a bunch of people are automatically excluded from the process?
Makes us look stupid.
Most countries in the civilized world have already figured this out and have abolished capital punishment.
Ann Hurd is the Mike Nifong of Yolo County – the Justice System would be better off without people like her.
In the case being discussed I think it is quite likely the secondary defendant was railroaded. In the haste for revenge I doubt the DA cared if he was guilty or not.
What is wrong with the death penalty?
Vengence
Too often the motivation for going for the death penalty is vengence rather than what is best for society.
Violence
We claim we kill people to stop violence. Are we not just confirming we are all violent and it is ok to kill people for the “right” reasons?
Too many people disagree with its use.
People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases. That excludes many people and that probably distorts the outcome of many of these cases. How can a person be fairly judged by his/her peers if a bunch of people are automatically excluded from the process?
Makes us look stupid.
Most countries in the civilized world have already figured this out and have abolished capital punishment.
Ann Hurd is the Mike Nifong of Yolo County – the Justice System would be better off without people like her.
In the case being discussed I think it is quite likely the secondary defendant was railroaded. In the haste for revenge I doubt the DA cared if he was guilty or not.
sorry about he duplicate entry, something must be wrong with my trigger finger
sorry about he duplicate entry, something must be wrong with my trigger finger
sorry about he duplicate entry, something must be wrong with my trigger finger
sorry about he duplicate entry, something must be wrong with my trigger finger
Rich Rifkin,
I agree with you. Life in prison without parole for a reformed killer is ridicoulous. I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.
Rich Rifkin,
I agree with you. Life in prison without parole for a reformed killer is ridicoulous. I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.
Rich Rifkin,
I agree with you. Life in prison without parole for a reformed killer is ridicoulous. I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.
Rich Rifkin,
I agree with you. Life in prison without parole for a reformed killer is ridicoulous. I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.
“I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means.”
A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.
“I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means.”
A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.
“I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means.”
A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.
“I think a lot of death penalty opponents toss out the idea that LIPWOTPOP is a good alternative without considering what that really means.”
A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.
“People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases.”
I believe this is incorrect. A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed. For instance, I would not be excluded from the jury because I oppose the death penalty – because my problem with it is not that I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but that I don’t trust the system to be consistently correct in convicting the correct person. If I thought someone was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not be hesitant to impose the death penalty.
“People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases.”
I believe this is incorrect. A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed. For instance, I would not be excluded from the jury because I oppose the death penalty – because my problem with it is not that I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but that I don’t trust the system to be consistently correct in convicting the correct person. If I thought someone was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not be hesitant to impose the death penalty.
“People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases.”
I believe this is incorrect. A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed. For instance, I would not be excluded from the jury because I oppose the death penalty – because my problem with it is not that I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but that I don’t trust the system to be consistently correct in convicting the correct person. If I thought someone was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not be hesitant to impose the death penalty.
“People who disagree with the death penalty can not participate in Capital cases.”
I believe this is incorrect. A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed. For instance, I would not be excluded from the jury because I oppose the death penalty – because my problem with it is not that I think it is cruel and unusual punishment, but that I don’t trust the system to be consistently correct in convicting the correct person. If I thought someone was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not be hesitant to impose the death penalty.
Quite Simple said “A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
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.
Living murderers, in prison, after release or 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.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
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.
Quite Simple said “A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
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.
Living murderers, in prison, after release or 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.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
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.
Quite Simple said “A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
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.
Living murderers, in prison, after release or 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.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
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.
Quite Simple said “A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
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.
Living murderers, in prison, after release or 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.
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
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.
“A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed.”
So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?
“A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed.”
So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?
“A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed.”
So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?
“A person who does not believe in the death penalty is excluded from the jury only if they could not bring themselves to render a guilty verdict because the defendent might be executed.”
So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?
“16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.”
Well we just had a death penalty imposed for shooting/killing of a police officer. That sentence apparently did not deter the same thing from happening again in Yolo county
“16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.”
Well we just had a death penalty imposed for shooting/killing of a police officer. That sentence apparently did not deter the same thing from happening again in Yolo county
“16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.”
Well we just had a death penalty imposed for shooting/killing of a police officer. That sentence apparently did not deter the same thing from happening again in Yolo county
“16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.”
Well we just had a death penalty imposed for shooting/killing of a police officer. That sentence apparently did not deter the same thing from happening again in Yolo county
“No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.”
A chief problem has been ineffective council. A large number of death row inmates were represented by public defenders.
This strikes at the heart of the problem. If you can afford $300 to $500 per hour council, you can get a fair trial. Without that, you are really at the mercy of people who mean well but are overworked and under-resourced.
Heck I’ve seen the problem locally with a lot of non-capital cases. People end up going to jail for things they never should either because they have a PD or because they run out of money to pay their attorneys. When you are dealing with a 17 year sentence that is bad, when you are dealing with a capital murder case, that is deadly.
“No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.”
A chief problem has been ineffective council. A large number of death row inmates were represented by public defenders.
This strikes at the heart of the problem. If you can afford $300 to $500 per hour council, you can get a fair trial. Without that, you are really at the mercy of people who mean well but are overworked and under-resourced.
Heck I’ve seen the problem locally with a lot of non-capital cases. People end up going to jail for things they never should either because they have a PD or because they run out of money to pay their attorneys. When you are dealing with a 17 year sentence that is bad, when you are dealing with a capital murder case, that is deadly.
“No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.”
A chief problem has been ineffective council. A large number of death row inmates were represented by public defenders.
This strikes at the heart of the problem. If you can afford $300 to $500 per hour council, you can get a fair trial. Without that, you are really at the mercy of people who mean well but are overworked and under-resourced.
Heck I’ve seen the problem locally with a lot of non-capital cases. People end up going to jail for things they never should either because they have a PD or because they run out of money to pay their attorneys. When you are dealing with a 17 year sentence that is bad, when you are dealing with a capital murder case, that is deadly.
“No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.”
A chief problem has been ineffective council. A large number of death row inmates were represented by public defenders.
This strikes at the heart of the problem. If you can afford $300 to $500 per hour council, you can get a fair trial. Without that, you are really at the mercy of people who mean well but are overworked and under-resourced.
Heck I’ve seen the problem locally with a lot of non-capital cases. People end up going to jail for things they never should either because they have a PD or because they run out of money to pay their attorneys. When you are dealing with a 17 year sentence that is bad, when you are dealing with a capital murder case, that is deadly.
I’d be interested to see those studies, I have not seen evidence of deterrence when examining the difference in murder rates between states that rarely execute and states that execute frequently. Other than looking at a statistical relationship, I don’t see how you could study it. Even looking at states with strong similarities in demographics, do not see it sustainable.
I’d be interested to see those studies, I have not seen evidence of deterrence when examining the difference in murder rates between states that rarely execute and states that execute frequently. Other than looking at a statistical relationship, I don’t see how you could study it. Even looking at states with strong similarities in demographics, do not see it sustainable.
I’d be interested to see those studies, I have not seen evidence of deterrence when examining the difference in murder rates between states that rarely execute and states that execute frequently. Other than looking at a statistical relationship, I don’t see how you could study it. Even looking at states with strong similarities in demographics, do not see it sustainable.
I’d be interested to see those studies, I have not seen evidence of deterrence when examining the difference in murder rates between states that rarely execute and states that execute frequently. Other than looking at a statistical relationship, I don’t see how you could study it. Even looking at states with strong similarities in demographics, do not see it sustainable.
“So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?”
Before a jury is sworn in, during the selection process, the judge asks if there is anyone who could not impose the death penalty if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty.
“So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?”
Before a jury is sworn in, during the selection process, the judge asks if there is anyone who could not impose the death penalty if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty.
“So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?”
Before a jury is sworn in, during the selection process, the judge asks if there is anyone who could not impose the death penalty if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty.
“So what do they do during the penalty phase of the trial – do they replace a juror against the death penalty?”
Before a jury is sworn in, during the selection process, the judge asks if there is anyone who could not impose the death penalty if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty.
Mr. Sharp,
With all due respect, the problem with your studies is there is no way to know how many innocent people are sitting on death row. In some states, if you don’t demand a DNA test within 6 months of conviction, your case is closed period. If a person in that state is innocent, how will any of your statistics show that?
You argue deterrence. Texas has the fastest execution rate. Do they have a significantly lower crime rate? Also, I would argue deterrence would not be on the top of my list – accuracy would be my number one priority. But people can differ in their priorities.
Mr. Sharp,
With all due respect, the problem with your studies is there is no way to know how many innocent people are sitting on death row. In some states, if you don’t demand a DNA test within 6 months of conviction, your case is closed period. If a person in that state is innocent, how will any of your statistics show that?
You argue deterrence. Texas has the fastest execution rate. Do they have a significantly lower crime rate? Also, I would argue deterrence would not be on the top of my list – accuracy would be my number one priority. But people can differ in their priorities.
Mr. Sharp,
With all due respect, the problem with your studies is there is no way to know how many innocent people are sitting on death row. In some states, if you don’t demand a DNA test within 6 months of conviction, your case is closed period. If a person in that state is innocent, how will any of your statistics show that?
You argue deterrence. Texas has the fastest execution rate. Do they have a significantly lower crime rate? Also, I would argue deterrence would not be on the top of my list – accuracy would be my number one priority. But people can differ in their priorities.
Mr. Sharp,
With all due respect, the problem with your studies is there is no way to know how many innocent people are sitting on death row. In some states, if you don’t demand a DNA test within 6 months of conviction, your case is closed period. If a person in that state is innocent, how will any of your statistics show that?
You argue deterrence. Texas has the fastest execution rate. Do they have a significantly lower crime rate? Also, I would argue deterrence would not be on the top of my list – accuracy would be my number one priority. But people can differ in their priorities.
No one disputes that actual innocents are convicted.
With the death penalty, innocents are more at risk without it.
There is no reason for appeals to take longer than 7-8 years, unless new law is relevant.
Deterrence never works 100%, it only has to be effective some of the time, to be important and effective.
There seems to be some confusion on deterrence.
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.
A partial list of some of the recent 16 studies finding for death penalty deterrence.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
No one disputes that actual innocents are convicted.
With the death penalty, innocents are more at risk without it.
There is no reason for appeals to take longer than 7-8 years, unless new law is relevant.
Deterrence never works 100%, it only has to be effective some of the time, to be important and effective.
There seems to be some confusion on deterrence.
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.
A partial list of some of the recent 16 studies finding for death penalty deterrence.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
No one disputes that actual innocents are convicted.
With the death penalty, innocents are more at risk without it.
There is no reason for appeals to take longer than 7-8 years, unless new law is relevant.
Deterrence never works 100%, it only has to be effective some of the time, to be important and effective.
There seems to be some confusion on deterrence.
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.
A partial list of some of the recent 16 studies finding for death penalty deterrence.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
No one disputes that actual innocents are convicted.
With the death penalty, innocents are more at risk without it.
There is no reason for appeals to take longer than 7-8 years, unless new law is relevant.
Deterrence never works 100%, it only has to be effective some of the time, to be important and effective.
There seems to be some confusion on deterrence.
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.
A partial list of some of the recent 16 studies finding for death penalty deterrence.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
“Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction — execution — deterred none.”
Perhaps, but there is a presumption of logic in the mind of the would-be killer when in so many situations, that logic is either missing (sociopaths), overrided (crimes of passion), or otherwise dismissed (people who assume either that they won’t be caught or will not face the death penalty).
There is also in your argument a missing understanding of psychology–the distance between action and consequence acts to negate the deterrent effect.
On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.
Mistakes in the direction of killing innocents are far worse both from a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, than the mistake of too few executions. Mistakes undermine the integrity of the system, increase the race and social bias of the implementation of the punishment, and would likely lead to the end of the death penalty.
There is a quandary for death penalty proponents. Right now the costs are prohibitive for putting people to death. The period of time between crime and execution too long.
However, fixing those problems would probably lead to the death penalty being abolished even quicker.
As such to me, from a pragmatic standpoint, the best solution is to do away with the death penalty and to impose LWP on capital cases.
“Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction — execution — deterred none.”
Perhaps, but there is a presumption of logic in the mind of the would-be killer when in so many situations, that logic is either missing (sociopaths), overrided (crimes of passion), or otherwise dismissed (people who assume either that they won’t be caught or will not face the death penalty).
There is also in your argument a missing understanding of psychology–the distance between action and consequence acts to negate the deterrent effect.
On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.
Mistakes in the direction of killing innocents are far worse both from a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, than the mistake of too few executions. Mistakes undermine the integrity of the system, increase the race and social bias of the implementation of the punishment, and would likely lead to the end of the death penalty.
There is a quandary for death penalty proponents. Right now the costs are prohibitive for putting people to death. The period of time between crime and execution too long.
However, fixing those problems would probably lead to the death penalty being abolished even quicker.
As such to me, from a pragmatic standpoint, the best solution is to do away with the death penalty and to impose LWP on capital cases.
“Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction — execution — deterred none.”
Perhaps, but there is a presumption of logic in the mind of the would-be killer when in so many situations, that logic is either missing (sociopaths), overrided (crimes of passion), or otherwise dismissed (people who assume either that they won’t be caught or will not face the death penalty).
There is also in your argument a missing understanding of psychology–the distance between action and consequence acts to negate the deterrent effect.
On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.
Mistakes in the direction of killing innocents are far worse both from a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, than the mistake of too few executions. Mistakes undermine the integrity of the system, increase the race and social bias of the implementation of the punishment, and would likely lead to the end of the death penalty.
There is a quandary for death penalty proponents. Right now the costs are prohibitive for putting people to death. The period of time between crime and execution too long.
However, fixing those problems would probably lead to the death penalty being abolished even quicker.
As such to me, from a pragmatic standpoint, the best solution is to do away with the death penalty and to impose LWP on capital cases.
“Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction — execution — deterred none.”
Perhaps, but there is a presumption of logic in the mind of the would-be killer when in so many situations, that logic is either missing (sociopaths), overrided (crimes of passion), or otherwise dismissed (people who assume either that they won’t be caught or will not face the death penalty).
There is also in your argument a missing understanding of psychology–the distance between action and consequence acts to negate the deterrent effect.
On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.
Mistakes in the direction of killing innocents are far worse both from a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, than the mistake of too few executions. Mistakes undermine the integrity of the system, increase the race and social bias of the implementation of the punishment, and would likely lead to the end of the death penalty.
There is a quandary for death penalty proponents. Right now the costs are prohibitive for putting people to death. The period of time between crime and execution too long.
However, fixing those problems would probably lead to the death penalty being abolished even quicker.
As such to me, from a pragmatic standpoint, the best solution is to do away with the death penalty and to impose LWP on capital cases.
“I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.”
Your presumption is that a murderer can never be reformed. I don’t know the answer to this question. I am claiming no expertise. However, if a person is truly reformed and is truly safe, then sure, he can live wherever he wants to — much the same as anyone who is released from prison.
“I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.”
Your presumption is that a murderer can never be reformed. I don’t know the answer to this question. I am claiming no expertise. However, if a person is truly reformed and is truly safe, then sure, he can live wherever he wants to — much the same as anyone who is released from prison.
“I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.”
Your presumption is that a murderer can never be reformed. I don’t know the answer to this question. I am claiming no expertise. However, if a person is truly reformed and is truly safe, then sure, he can live wherever he wants to — much the same as anyone who is released from prison.
“I suggest that they be released and move into your neighborhood. Or better yet, put them in your house with you. That would prove to the world that people who kill other people are really reformed.”
Your presumption is that a murderer can never be reformed. I don’t know the answer to this question. I am claiming no expertise. However, if a person is truly reformed and is truly safe, then sure, he can live wherever he wants to — much the same as anyone who is released from prison.
“A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).
However, it must be pointed out that a way that our system now fails leads to the death of far more innocents. We fail to convict some murderers, presumably (in most cases) due to lack of evidence; and those murderers go on to kill a lot more innocents.
One possible answer to this would be to lower the standards of proof for conviction — such as they have in Japan (where conviction rates are nearly 100%). I don’t advocate this. I’m simply bringing it up to point out that by not convicting a higher percentage of actual killers, our system is (indirectly) killing far more people than the death sentence ever has or will.
“A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).
However, it must be pointed out that a way that our system now fails leads to the death of far more innocents. We fail to convict some murderers, presumably (in most cases) due to lack of evidence; and those murderers go on to kill a lot more innocents.
One possible answer to this would be to lower the standards of proof for conviction — such as they have in Japan (where conviction rates are nearly 100%). I don’t advocate this. I’m simply bringing it up to point out that by not convicting a higher percentage of actual killers, our system is (indirectly) killing far more people than the death sentence ever has or will.
“A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).
However, it must be pointed out that a way that our system now fails leads to the death of far more innocents. We fail to convict some murderers, presumably (in most cases) due to lack of evidence; and those murderers go on to kill a lot more innocents.
One possible answer to this would be to lower the standards of proof for conviction — such as they have in Japan (where conviction rates are nearly 100%). I don’t advocate this. I’m simply bringing it up to point out that by not convicting a higher percentage of actual killers, our system is (indirectly) killing far more people than the death sentence ever has or will.
“A lot of death penalty opponents know that the gov’t can’t bring back a dead person if the justice system made a mistake. It’s quite simple really.”
That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).
However, it must be pointed out that a way that our system now fails leads to the death of far more innocents. We fail to convict some murderers, presumably (in most cases) due to lack of evidence; and those murderers go on to kill a lot more innocents.
One possible answer to this would be to lower the standards of proof for conviction — such as they have in Japan (where conviction rates are nearly 100%). I don’t advocate this. I’m simply bringing it up to point out that by not convicting a higher percentage of actual killers, our system is (indirectly) killing far more people than the death sentence ever has or will.
“On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.”
This is not necessarily true*. The question is how much of the time now elapsed from conviction to execution is used to reinvestigate the crime, to consider alternative theories or interpretations of the evidence, to look for new evidence, and to determine the adequacy of the defense counsel and the trial judge? The answer is: almost none of it.
The reason it will take 30 years to execute someone like Scott Peterson is because absolutely nothing will be happening for 27 of those 30 years. Because of a lack of resources and because the Supreme Court must review the entirety of every case, we have a growing and seemingly endless queue which is pushing back justice.
So if it turns out — very unlikely — that Scott Peterson was not guilty or was convicted due to procedural error, that will not be determined for many years, not because it should take that long, but rather because our system is impacted.
As I suggested above, if we are going to have the death penalty, we ought to commit the resources up front to carry it out in a more reasonable period of time. Thirty years makes no sense to me.
* In one different respect, there is inherent truth to your argument — new technologies, not available at the time of trial, could reveal new evidence or cause the evidence as presented at trial to be interpreted more accurately. However, I believe the level of our current technology is sufficient to have faith in our evidence and hence convictions.
“On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.”
This is not necessarily true*. The question is how much of the time now elapsed from conviction to execution is used to reinvestigate the crime, to consider alternative theories or interpretations of the evidence, to look for new evidence, and to determine the adequacy of the defense counsel and the trial judge? The answer is: almost none of it.
The reason it will take 30 years to execute someone like Scott Peterson is because absolutely nothing will be happening for 27 of those 30 years. Because of a lack of resources and because the Supreme Court must review the entirety of every case, we have a growing and seemingly endless queue which is pushing back justice.
So if it turns out — very unlikely — that Scott Peterson was not guilty or was convicted due to procedural error, that will not be determined for many years, not because it should take that long, but rather because our system is impacted.
As I suggested above, if we are going to have the death penalty, we ought to commit the resources up front to carry it out in a more reasonable period of time. Thirty years makes no sense to me.
* In one different respect, there is inherent truth to your argument — new technologies, not available at the time of trial, could reveal new evidence or cause the evidence as presented at trial to be interpreted more accurately. However, I believe the level of our current technology is sufficient to have faith in our evidence and hence convictions.
“On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.”
This is not necessarily true*. The question is how much of the time now elapsed from conviction to execution is used to reinvestigate the crime, to consider alternative theories or interpretations of the evidence, to look for new evidence, and to determine the adequacy of the defense counsel and the trial judge? The answer is: almost none of it.
The reason it will take 30 years to execute someone like Scott Peterson is because absolutely nothing will be happening for 27 of those 30 years. Because of a lack of resources and because the Supreme Court must review the entirety of every case, we have a growing and seemingly endless queue which is pushing back justice.
So if it turns out — very unlikely — that Scott Peterson was not guilty or was convicted due to procedural error, that will not be determined for many years, not because it should take that long, but rather because our system is impacted.
As I suggested above, if we are going to have the death penalty, we ought to commit the resources up front to carry it out in a more reasonable period of time. Thirty years makes no sense to me.
* In one different respect, there is inherent truth to your argument — new technologies, not available at the time of trial, could reveal new evidence or cause the evidence as presented at trial to be interpreted more accurately. However, I believe the level of our current technology is sufficient to have faith in our evidence and hence convictions.
“On the other hand, if we reduced the time period down for convictions, we would greatly increase the chance for mistakes.”
This is not necessarily true*. The question is how much of the time now elapsed from conviction to execution is used to reinvestigate the crime, to consider alternative theories or interpretations of the evidence, to look for new evidence, and to determine the adequacy of the defense counsel and the trial judge? The answer is: almost none of it.
The reason it will take 30 years to execute someone like Scott Peterson is because absolutely nothing will be happening for 27 of those 30 years. Because of a lack of resources and because the Supreme Court must review the entirety of every case, we have a growing and seemingly endless queue which is pushing back justice.
So if it turns out — very unlikely — that Scott Peterson was not guilty or was convicted due to procedural error, that will not be determined for many years, not because it should take that long, but rather because our system is impacted.
As I suggested above, if we are going to have the death penalty, we ought to commit the resources up front to carry it out in a more reasonable period of time. Thirty years makes no sense to me.
* In one different respect, there is inherent truth to your argument — new technologies, not available at the time of trial, could reveal new evidence or cause the evidence as presented at trial to be interpreted more accurately. However, I believe the level of our current technology is sufficient to have faith in our evidence and hence convictions.
This is in answer to Anonymous who wrote on the 15th regarding the secondary defendant who he believed might have been railroaded. You are absolutely right. That is exactly what happened. Zielesch made some bad choices, but there was no conspiracy and he is no murderer. Hope you read the newspaper report on the declaration given by Shamburger that he and Zielesch were on good terms and Ms. Pena told him she concocted the story. The real plan was to rob Zielesch. This isn’t the first time Ms. Pena has done something like this. She had a supposedly friend beat up and robbed him of $17,000. You know what? She did not get in any trouble for this with the DA. This story was told to me by the man she robbed. Ms Pena was supposed to go to prison when she gave her testimony in court against Volarvich and Zielesch. She was going for three years. She is still in Yolo County Jail. Did you know that the DA gives contracts to these people in jail called “Confidential Operator” in exchange for ratting on people? For that they get their charges dropped. Is that fair? Ms. Pena was covering up for her part in this crime. The DA doesn’t care that an innocent person is going to jail. He just wants to win. So many people have been hurt by this crime, but they shouldn’t compensate by sending someone not guilty to prison for life.
This is in answer to Anonymous who wrote on the 15th regarding the secondary defendant who he believed might have been railroaded. You are absolutely right. That is exactly what happened. Zielesch made some bad choices, but there was no conspiracy and he is no murderer. Hope you read the newspaper report on the declaration given by Shamburger that he and Zielesch were on good terms and Ms. Pena told him she concocted the story. The real plan was to rob Zielesch. This isn’t the first time Ms. Pena has done something like this. She had a supposedly friend beat up and robbed him of $17,000. You know what? She did not get in any trouble for this with the DA. This story was told to me by the man she robbed. Ms Pena was supposed to go to prison when she gave her testimony in court against Volarvich and Zielesch. She was going for three years. She is still in Yolo County Jail. Did you know that the DA gives contracts to these people in jail called “Confidential Operator” in exchange for ratting on people? For that they get their charges dropped. Is that fair? Ms. Pena was covering up for her part in this crime. The DA doesn’t care that an innocent person is going to jail. He just wants to win. So many people have been hurt by this crime, but they shouldn’t compensate by sending someone not guilty to prison for life.
This is in answer to Anonymous who wrote on the 15th regarding the secondary defendant who he believed might have been railroaded. You are absolutely right. That is exactly what happened. Zielesch made some bad choices, but there was no conspiracy and he is no murderer. Hope you read the newspaper report on the declaration given by Shamburger that he and Zielesch were on good terms and Ms. Pena told him she concocted the story. The real plan was to rob Zielesch. This isn’t the first time Ms. Pena has done something like this. She had a supposedly friend beat up and robbed him of $17,000. You know what? She did not get in any trouble for this with the DA. This story was told to me by the man she robbed. Ms Pena was supposed to go to prison when she gave her testimony in court against Volarvich and Zielesch. She was going for three years. She is still in Yolo County Jail. Did you know that the DA gives contracts to these people in jail called “Confidential Operator” in exchange for ratting on people? For that they get their charges dropped. Is that fair? Ms. Pena was covering up for her part in this crime. The DA doesn’t care that an innocent person is going to jail. He just wants to win. So many people have been hurt by this crime, but they shouldn’t compensate by sending someone not guilty to prison for life.
This is in answer to Anonymous who wrote on the 15th regarding the secondary defendant who he believed might have been railroaded. You are absolutely right. That is exactly what happened. Zielesch made some bad choices, but there was no conspiracy and he is no murderer. Hope you read the newspaper report on the declaration given by Shamburger that he and Zielesch were on good terms and Ms. Pena told him she concocted the story. The real plan was to rob Zielesch. This isn’t the first time Ms. Pena has done something like this. She had a supposedly friend beat up and robbed him of $17,000. You know what? She did not get in any trouble for this with the DA. This story was told to me by the man she robbed. Ms Pena was supposed to go to prison when she gave her testimony in court against Volarvich and Zielesch. She was going for three years. She is still in Yolo County Jail. Did you know that the DA gives contracts to these people in jail called “Confidential Operator” in exchange for ratting on people? For that they get their charges dropped. Is that fair? Ms. Pena was covering up for her part in this crime. The DA doesn’t care that an innocent person is going to jail. He just wants to win. So many people have been hurt by this crime, but they shouldn’t compensate by sending someone not guilty to prison for life.
There were really two cases and it is obvious the two cases should have been tried separately. A Judge is supposed to recognize things like that and Judge Mock completely failed in that respect.
There were really two cases and it is obvious the two cases should have been tried separately. A Judge is supposed to recognize things like that and Judge Mock completely failed in that respect.
There were really two cases and it is obvious the two cases should have been tried separately. A Judge is supposed to recognize things like that and Judge Mock completely failed in that respect.
There were really two cases and it is obvious the two cases should have been tried separately. A Judge is supposed to recognize things like that and Judge Mock completely failed in that respect.
David Greenwald and Rich Rifkin;
Do either of you have children? How would you feel if someone murdered your child? It is reaching a point where society cannot afford to house human garbage anymore due to cost.
What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator. How much more do you want to pay? Payment is not in monetary terms. It covers multiple areas.
David Greenwald and Rich Rifkin;
Do either of you have children? How would you feel if someone murdered your child? It is reaching a point where society cannot afford to house human garbage anymore due to cost.
What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator. How much more do you want to pay? Payment is not in monetary terms. It covers multiple areas.
David Greenwald and Rich Rifkin;
Do either of you have children? How would you feel if someone murdered your child? It is reaching a point where society cannot afford to house human garbage anymore due to cost.
What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator. How much more do you want to pay? Payment is not in monetary terms. It covers multiple areas.
David Greenwald and Rich Rifkin;
Do either of you have children? How would you feel if someone murdered your child? It is reaching a point where society cannot afford to house human garbage anymore due to cost.
What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator. How much more do you want to pay? Payment is not in monetary terms. It covers multiple areas.
I don’t have children, but I do have tons and nieces and nephews that I love as my own. I can tell you waht I’d do, but guess what, that’s why, we have a legal system detached from passion and emotion rather than relatives of the dead to hand down revenge.
I don’t have children, but I do have tons and nieces and nephews that I love as my own. I can tell you waht I’d do, but guess what, that’s why, we have a legal system detached from passion and emotion rather than relatives of the dead to hand down revenge.
I don’t have children, but I do have tons and nieces and nephews that I love as my own. I can tell you waht I’d do, but guess what, that’s why, we have a legal system detached from passion and emotion rather than relatives of the dead to hand down revenge.
I don’t have children, but I do have tons and nieces and nephews that I love as my own. I can tell you waht I’d do, but guess what, that’s why, we have a legal system detached from passion and emotion rather than relatives of the dead to hand down revenge.
“What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator.”
It costs more to execute a person than it does to house them for life.
“That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).”
No one knows if we have executed innocents or not since the reinstatement of the death penalty.
“What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator.”
It costs more to execute a person than it does to house them for life.
“That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).”
No one knows if we have executed innocents or not since the reinstatement of the death penalty.
“What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator.”
It costs more to execute a person than it does to house them for life.
“That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).”
No one knows if we have executed innocents or not since the reinstatement of the death penalty.
“What does it cost to house one death row inmate for a year? Do I want to make a mistake and euthanize and innocent person?
Not any more than you do. However society is at a crossroad with this type of predator.”
It costs more to execute a person than it does to house them for life.
“That’s true. And it’s the best argument against capital punishment — human systems are subject to failure (though we have not executed an innocent since the reinstatement of the death penalty).”
No one knows if we have executed innocents or not since the reinstatement of the death penalty.
To: DOUG PAUL DAVIS,
Please tell all of us what you would like to do. I’m sure at least I would find it interesting.
A legal system that is detached from passion and emotion? You kid yourself.
To: DOUG PAUL DAVIS,
Please tell all of us what you would like to do. I’m sure at least I would find it interesting.
A legal system that is detached from passion and emotion? You kid yourself.
To: DOUG PAUL DAVIS,
Please tell all of us what you would like to do. I’m sure at least I would find it interesting.
A legal system that is detached from passion and emotion? You kid yourself.
To: DOUG PAUL DAVIS,
Please tell all of us what you would like to do. I’m sure at least I would find it interesting.
A legal system that is detached from passion and emotion? You kid yourself.
I don’t kid myself, it’s an ideal to aspire to, albeit as we’ve seen this week, an unobtainable one.
I don’t kid myself, it’s an ideal to aspire to, albeit as we’ve seen this week, an unobtainable one.
I don’t kid myself, it’s an ideal to aspire to, albeit as we’ve seen this week, an unobtainable one.
I don’t kid myself, it’s an ideal to aspire to, albeit as we’ve seen this week, an unobtainable one.