Drunk driver for PRESIDENT!

[Ronin]

Right on, Miyagi!

The DUI case shows that although Bush talks constantly about "trust", he is just as big a liar and avoider of the truth as Clinton and Gore. Darren, in case you don't know, Bush lied point-blank in 1998 when asked about this issue. He is not the saint his followers would try to project him as. No politician is, frankly.

Given that, and Texas' abysmal record in just about every area of public policy, Gore is the obvious choice. Frankly, a no-brainer for anyone with a brain.

Sorry Nader-ites, but the man doesn't have any real-world experience that would prepare him for being president. Over half the president's job is running foreign policy, something Bush and Nader are both under-qualified for. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the man is not the Messiah, nor is Gore the anti-Christ. Heck, even G.W. isn't the anti-Christ.

I AM!!!

[Linden]

>>In the previous paragraph, you talk about ignorant statements...talk about ignorant! Conservatives are all about money and power? puhlease...I am a starving grad student, with neither money nor power. Its about a system of values. Our's may differ, but please don't pretend that I have the views I have, simply because I am a power hungry millionaire...<<

ND, to be honest I have no idea what your ambitions are in life, and don't pretend to, but I don't think that it is a far reaching statement to say that the majority of conservative people are either Chirstian fundamentalists, business men, or aspiring business men. If a conservative person has no interest in business power then they are generally religious, another system of business and power.

>>Now, as far as the death penalty issue goes. The fact that "Texas puts more people to death than any other state" MAY be true (you didn't provide the stats to prove it though), but you fail to recognize that Texas is a bigger state, population wise, than most others. Therefore, any rational and intelligent person such as yourself (uh-hubullshit...) would recognize that the absolute amount is not as important as is the number of executions per capita. Where does Texas rank in EXECUTIONS per capita per year, as compared to other states.<<

Her are your numbers ND:

http://www.dpio.org/executions/By_State_per_Capita.html

http://www.smu.edu/~deathpen/exec99.html

Texas ranks second to Deleware in per capita executions. And yes, maybe Deleware needs to question its death penalty system also, but the Governor of Deleware is not running for president. Despite that, it doesn't matter what Texas ranks per capita, the number of executions performed there, and the number performed in the past four years is an astounding and inordinant amount.

Virginia is the only other state that even comes close, and that's not very close.

>>My guess is that it would be pretty much in line with the other states that enforce the death penalty (it's a guess though).<<

A very bad one. Compared to other states who have large poulations and enact the death penalty Texas is still way ahead of them. The number of people put to death in the last four years under Bush lept from around 14 since the first year he took office, and has gradually grown to 125 over the 5 years he has been Govrnor of Texas. If anything, having more death penalty cases leavs even more room for an innocent man to be put to death. Texas has brought more death penalty cases against criminals in the last four years than any other state, and during a time whne violent crime statistics have dropped nation wide. And we are supposed to believe that they were all guilty?

>>This brings me to my next point. The death penalty is not a means of revenge, and should never be used as such. It should be a deterrent to crime. Will it deter the crazy fool that goes on a rampage and kills five? Maybe not. Will it deter the burglar from raping the little old lady, then killing her? Probably.<<

Oh horsehsit ND! A criminal commits a crime because he is a crimnal. Ask any criminologist. A person commits a crime becase they are unable to rationally weigh the consequences of their actions. The whole point of committing a crime is to get away with it. They are not exepecting to get caught, and in their mind they can't.

So, we are supposed to believe that a man or woman who commits a murder is sitting on the edge of their bed one night and thinking to themselves, "I better not do this because there is a chance I will get caught and sentenced to death," and then politley runs their bath and cuddles up with their favorite book for the rest of the evening?

<
Really? What about the one life that is unjustley sentenced to death? In fact what about those 13 men on Illinois death row who were going to be executed, but suddenly got pardoned due to DNA evidence? And DNA evidence cannot be used in ever single murder case. What if that evidence never surfaced? Those men would be dead ND.

Seeing that the Illinois Governor put a moratorium on the death penalty due to these inaccuracy makes John Bennett's statement seem all the more ludicrous and ill-contemplated.

If Illinois cannot accurately sentence people to death with a fraction of the number of cases as Texas, how can we expect Texas to do so?

Do you see the absurdiy in all of this ND?

>> With that being said, the biggest injustice that could possibly be done is to have a death penalty in a state that does not enforce it strictly, at all times. What good is it as a deterrent if it is not strictly enforced? >>

Because it is not a deterrent ND.

>>Not a very good one. Therefore, on that basis, I would say
that Texas has done a very good job in enforcing its death penalty.<<

Texas has done a good job? 125 people have been put to death in 5 years, and Texas has done a good job? That's a rather sick statement! Even if you are for the death penalty, I don't think it is meant to be seen as a pat on the back type issue.

>>You also talk about the low overturn rate in Texas. This would be a bad thing if, and only if, the people were innocent. I challenge you to provide ONE CASE of an execution in which the person could not be undeniably tied to the crime. Just one.<<

First off ND, no one has to be undeniably linked to a crime, there simply has to be reasonable doubt for them to be found innocent. And in fact to get the death penalty you have to plead guilty to a crime, so if you plead innocent then you are screwed if that particular jury doesn't see it in your favor.

There have been many cases of reasonable doubt presented in death row cases in Texas. That's why there is an oppossition to the death penalty ND.

Here are your cases:

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/ccadp/serialpresident.htm

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45795-2000Jun22.html

This one in particular sheds some light on what is going on in Texas.

http://www.mail-archive.com/big-house%40egroups.com/msg00106.html

Plus, there are so many links and information to provide you that I could fill this entire thread with articles, and investigations.

>> Don't give me this "law of averages" crap, give me hard facts. If you wanted to use your law of averages argument, you would have to qualify it.<<

And I have beyond any reasonable assertion.

Nd, where are your facts that the death penalty deters crime? If you wanted to use your statistical argument, you would have to qualify it. The problem is that you can't because it is impossible to take such psychological statistics. You would have to go out and find everyone who was going to committ a murder and then changed their mind. Taking crime statisitcs is useless in regards to death penalty deterrence. In fact during Americas lowest span of crime Texas has put to death more criminals than in past years. These are facts and you can find them in the links I have provided.

It's obvious ND that you don't believe that there are flaws in our justice system and that it has never and will never be perfect. For you to believe what you believe you would have to dismiss the fact that people and judges who serve on murder cases don't have defficiencies in opinion, and in judgement, biases, and sub-par intellects.

There was undenibale evidnce linking O.J. Simpson to a crime, yet he was set free. Why, because of jury biases, and sub-par intellects. So how are we to believe that this does not, and cannot happen in the oppossite fashion?

>>What exactly is the law? What basis is it formed on? What types of distributions are you using? How large of a sample size is used? How large of a sample size is needed? If you can't proveide these, than your (law of averages) argument is seriously flawed....<<

I have ND, and i am glad to see that at least one of us could.

As for Jimmy, hey you can have a beer on me. Just mail me the tab, and I'll get back to you.

Thanks for providing some intelligent insight aound here.

As for John Bennett:

Well John, no offense but I think its best to stick to your smug gun propoganda, and steer clear of any serious, rational debate.

And finally Ronin:

Ronin, I don't think anyone pretends that Ralph Nader is going to be elected president if we all try really hard. The issue is changing the system, and bringing important issues back to the forefront. In that case I feel my vote for Nader is the most important vote in this election.

Ralph Nader, in my opinion, would have more rational insight into foreign policy than many of the former presidents we have elected. Al Gore may have in depth knowledge of foreign issues, but I don't trust his judgement in making proper and convicted decisions. He's too wishy-washy, and and has very shallow cahracter traits.

There are many issues to which you vote for some body on, and I feel that no matter what, voting for Nader is the most logical dcision if there is to be change in the presidential position.

No, he is not a God, but he is the closest thing we have to a man who cares.

Remember Ronin we are the minority on this forum so let's keep focused.

[Tony10]

BTW, I hate to tell you guys this, but Jeb Bush is the smart one. He should have been the candidate.

The thing that always entertains me about GOP vs. Dems is the GOP's flagrant hypocrisy.

Nobody goes more negative, nobody spews more vile, nobody rallies more hate and attacks than Republicans.

I'm not defending Dems, but to hear the GOP cry foul about any of this is just laughable, especially when they made Clinton bashing an 8-year, unending and out of control full-time endeavor, even billing us a nice $50 million plus for it.

Never before have I seen such an unending stream of out-of-control vile directed at our nation's president: in congress, on Fox News Channel, on the radio. It has gone way beyond differences of opinion, policy or patriotism.

I am suprised that he did not have his own Dealey Plaza.

Yet when somebody asks about Dubya lying to our nation about his military service, it is a "partisan attack." That lie is far more egregious than any DUI arrest.

Maybe if people spent more time thinking about what this nation needs to prosper and remain safe and less time taking sides in transparent partisanship that just makes damn fools out of all of us, we'd actually get somewhere.

Doubt it will happen, based on what I read here.

[Edited by Tony10 on 11-06-2000 at 09:58 AM]

[NDIrish]

wha wha wha....cry me a river Tony10. I wasn't saying what Bush did was not wrong, I was just pointing out that the timing of its "discovery" is "convenient". For sure, neither parties candidate is perfect (and don't even get me started on the tree-hugger, Nader). I just identify more with republican values...

Linden, I'll respond to your post when I get home from work...it could take a while...

[Tony10]

Um, what did I say to you where you're directing this at me?

Personally I could care less about his DUI conviction--obviously that was "discovered" at a very convenient time.

What I'm saying is that the GOP has no business decrying dirty politics when they consistently play dirtiest of all. To me it is comical watching them scream when they get spoon-fed their own medicine, that's all.

[nhb_wanabe]

republican values:

corporate profits before peoples health and safety.

corporate profits before environmental responsibility.

corporate profits before justice.

Welfare for the wealthy.

Natural selection for the poor.

Christianity for everyone like it or not.

More prisons (with 5% of the worlds pop we got 25% of the incarcerated pop, 1/2 for non-violent drug offenses)

More criminals. (less education and opportunity with more moral-based criminalization of personal behavior)

Bigger Military (bigger govt).

More ridiculous weapons (bigger govt)


anyone want to help me out here?

[Tony10]

No, you're on a roll, NHB.

Ramble on!

[NDIrish]

Tony, my apologies. I misread your post.

NHB, your ignorance preceeds you. You can have your opinion about plenty of things, but one thing is a clear fact. Republicans support smaller government in favor of giving control to local governments. The Democrats favor larger government. The democrats favor extensive social safety nets for all, constant government oversight of industries, etc, etc, etc...bigger government. We can debate whether or not this is good, but it is a fact. Read a little, and you would have known that.

Republican values to me:

Smaller govt is better....the govt closer to home can determine what is better for me.

conservative values (obviously)...pro-life (except in extreme circumstances...I know this differs from most repubs..), religious VALUES (note...not religion for all...religious values in government...the golden rule, etc).

The welfare system sucks. We need a safety net for the poor, but welfare is not the answer...encourages people to sit on their a$$ and do nothing.

SMARTER, and better equipped military. By the way, if you don't want any "ridiculous" weapons, I would be happy to exempt you from our "ridiculous" national defense. Since this is a public good (if you dont understand what that is, I will explain to you), unfortunately we cant do that. Oh how people would change their toon if we could do that.


Encouragement of free financial markets...if we live in a world with semi-strong markets, corporations will have to act in the public interest in order to profit...good for everybody, with LESS government.


Linden, I would love to take this debate further, but I have to prepare for an interview tomorrow, and I honestly don't have the time to do the research.

I will just leave you with this. Lets take a utilitarian point of view to this debate. Suppose in Texas that 5% of all executed people are actually innocent (Thats a very generous number). That would mean that 6 people are wrongfully executed every year. The question then becomes does the death penalty deter just 6 violent crimes (namely murders) per year? I would argue that it does. That is the root of my argument. It saves more innocent lives than it takes, and therefore is in the greatest interest of the greatest good for the greatest number of (innocent) people.

If this debate should happen to come up over my winter break, I would be happy to do the research, and bring numbers for my side of the argument to the table.

[nhb_wanabe]

its a fact

that the death penalty does not deter violent crime.

it has been shown in every study that has ever been done (by NGOs and Govt.).

the only way you wouldn't know that is if you were avoiding know that so you can still believe in what you want to believe in.

read ONE book on the subject.

my father was an international military lawyer for 55 years and he recognized this. he argued that the revenge factor was a fit justification for death.

he was a damn site more convincing then you are with your

"i know what I know. Can't tell you how I know but once i've done the research on why on know what i know I'll get back to you."

that's some bassakkwards bullsh!t.

You should explore the revenge argument because it actually holds some water.

If it wasn't for liberal free-thinkers checking corporations profit mongering you wouldn't have a seatbelt in your car, or an airbag. you would work 18 hours days and if you tried to organize to improve your lot you would be beaten, perhaps to death. You would have no safety gear at all on your job and you would die prematurely from overwork and job-related poisening.

It's funnny how people ascribe the quality of life we have to unchecked capitalizm and ignore that FACT that people died for you and your familys health and safety.

the "market" did not do this. People died for it and now you want to give all the credit to the "market".

Corporations hired pinkertons to beatdown union workers for asking to not be poisoned and killed on the job. The Corporations bombed miners in West VA from airplanes.

jeezus.

BTW can you please explian what this means "NHB, your ignorance preceeds you"

or are you just using some linguistic idiom that "sounds smart"?

How did it preceed me? Did you hear about it on CNN? Am I so famous?


[Edited by nhb_wanabe on 11-07-2000 at 10:15 AM]

[Tony10]

You tell 'em, NHB!

[NDIrish]

NHB, what universe are you living in? Here are your death penalty facts:

A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT

Great effort has been made in pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of an innocent being convicted, sentenced to death or executed. Since 1973, legal protections have been so extraordinary that 37% of all death row cases have been overturned for due process reasons or commuted. Indeed, inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals than by execution. (“Capital Punishment 1995", BJS, 1996). And, in fact, many of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases.

Opponents claim that 69 "innocent" death row inmates have been released since 1973. ("Innocence and the Death Penalty", Death Penalty Information Center, July, 1997). Just a casual review, using the DPIC’s own case descriptions, reveals that of 39 cases reviewed (Sec. A, B, & C, pg. 12-21), that the DPIC offers no evidence of innocence in 29, or 78%, of those cases. Incredibly, the DPIC reviews "Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions" (p 23-24), wherein they list the cases of Roger Keith Coleman, Leonel Herrera, and Jesse Jacobs - 3 cases which helped solidify the anti-death penalty movements penchant for lack of full disclosure and/or fraud. For the fourth case, therein, that of Coleman Wayne Gray, the DPIC makes no effort to claim innocence.

Furthermore, the DPIC and most opponents fail to review that the role of clemency and appeals in such cases is to judge the merits of death row inmates claims regarding innocence and/or additional trial error. Indeed, the release of those 69 inmates proves that such procedures worked precisely, and often generously, as intended. Also contrary to opponents claims, clemency is used generously to grant mercy to death row murderers and to spare inmates whose guilt has come into question. In fact, 135 death row inmates have been spared by clemency or commutation from 1973-95 (ibid.). This represents 43% of the total of those executed during that time - a remarkable record of consideration and mercy.

In reviewing the DPIC’s original 1993 study, finding 48 (of the 69) "innocent" defendants on death row, the DPIC states its debt for the " . . . ground breaking work done by . . . Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo Bedau"(p 1) in their "Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases". See below.

The most significant study conducted to evaluate the evidence of the "innocent executed" is the Bedau-Radelet Study ("Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases," 40, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/87). The study concluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the study's methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt. Bedau & Radelet, both opponents, "consistently presented incomplete and misleading accounts of the evidence." (Markman, Stephen J. & Cassell, Paul G., "Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau-Radelet Study" 41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88). The remaining 11 cases represent 0.14% of the 7,800 executions which have taken place since 1900. And, there is, in fact, no proof that those 11 executed were innocent. In addition, the "innocents executed" group was extracted from a Bedau & Radelet imagined pool of 350 persons who were, supposedly, wrongly convicted of capital or "potentially" capital crimes. Not only were they at least 50% in error with their 23 "innocents executed" claim, but 211 of those 350 cases, or 60%, were not sentenced to death. Bedau and Radelet already knew that plea bargains, the juries, the evidence, the prosecutors, judicial review and/or the legal statutes had put these crimes in the "no capital punishment" category. Indeed, their claims of innocence, regarding the remaining 139 of those 350 cases, should be suspect, given this study’s poor level of accuracy. Calling their work misleading hardly does this "academic" study justice. Had a high school student presented such a report, where 50-60% of the material was either false or misleading, a grade of F would be a likely result.

Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that " . . . the Bedau-Radelet study is remarkable not (as retired Supreme Court Judge Harry Blackmun seems to believe) for demonstrating that mistakes involving the death penalty are common, but rather for demonstrating how uncommon they are . . . This study - the most thorough and painstaking analysis ever on the subject - fails to prove that a single such mistake has occurred in the United States during the twentieth century." Presumably, Bedau and Radelet would have selected the most compelling 23 cases of the innocent executed to prove their proposition. "Yet, in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are eyewitnesses, confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of the defendant’s guilt. Bedau has written elsewhere that it is ‘false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record fails to disclose that such cases exist.’ . . . (T)he Bedau and Radelet study . . . speaks eloquently about the extraordinary rarity of error in capital punishment." ("Innocents on Death Row?", National Review, September 12, 1994).

Another significant oversight by that study was not differentiating between the risk of executing innocent persons before and after Furman v Georgia (1972). There is, in fact, no proof that an innocent has been executed since 1900. And the probability of such a tragedy occurring has been lowered significantly more since Furman. In the context that hundreds of thousands of innocents have been murdered or seriously injured, since 1900, by criminals improperly released by the U.S. criminal justice system (or not incarcerated at all!), the relevant question is: Is the risk of executing the innocent, however slight, worth the justifications for the death penalty - those being retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, required punishment, deterrence, escalating punishments, religious mandates, cost savings, the moral imperative, just punishment and the saving of innocent lives?

Predictably, opponents still continue to fraudulently claim, even today*, that this study has proven that 23 "innocent" people have been executed, even though Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988).

One of opponents most blatant frauds is their claim that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Herrera v. Collins (113 S. Ct. 853, 870{1993}), found that the Herrera "decision would allow the states to execute a defendant for a crime that he did not commit. Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion makes clear that Herrera does not stand for that proposition. Justice O’Connor stated, ‘I cannot disagree with the fundamental legal principal that executing the innocent is inconsistent with the Constitution’ and ‘the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event.’ As Justice O’Connor stated, the Court assumed for the sake of argument ‘that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim.’ Id., at 874. That is the holding in Herrera, and any claim to the contrary is simply not correct."

"Moreover, Herrera’s claim of innocence was weak at best, seeking to blame his dead brother for the crimes Herrera was found guilty of committing. When the evidence against Herrera is considered against the proffered evidence of innocence, it is not surprising that none of the federal judges to hear this claim, including the dissenters in the Supreme Court, have ever expressed any doubt as to Herrera’s guilt." Kenneth S. Nunnelley in Congressional testimony, July 23, 1993

*Example: Stephen Bright, Director, Southern Center For Human Rights (Atlanta, Ga.). claims that Aubrey Adams of Florida represents a case of the “innocent” executed. (Cochran & Grace, Court TV, 3/ 25/97). Since neither JFA nor the Death Penalty Information Center could locate an Aubrey Adams for which such claims had been made, JFA assumes that Mr. Bright meant the well known case of James Adams of Florida.

The James Adams case is particularly worthy of review. Not only is the Adams case one of those alleged 23 "innocent" executed, but his is the only post-Furman case cited by Bedau and Radelet. Bedau and Radelet’s claims and "evidence" are too lengthy to review here. A short review is all that is required to discredit such claims. They "proved" Adams’ innocence by a review, not of the case facts, but of Adams’ own claims from his clemency hearing! This dishonest review was presented as an objective evaluation of the case when, in fact, it was completely biased, with only one goal - to present the case facts in the light most favorable to Adams and to neglect or suppress the voluminous evidence of Adams’ guilt. Cassell and Markman exposed this academic fraud and presented the case facts from the full record, as Bedau and Radelet should have. The case for Adams’ guilt is solid. Mr. Bright is a leading spokesperson in the anti-death penalty movement

Both Bedau and Radelet refused to claim that Adams was innocent. Yet, this does not prevent opponents from making false claims to the contrary. If Mr. Bright was discussing the James Adams case, this is a classic, standard example of the type of anti-death penalty fraud found every day.

Irresponsible editors, publishers and authors are common within this debate. Two examples: Punishment and the Death Penalty, Baird, Robert & Rosenbaum, Stuart, Prometheus, 1996 and Capital Punishment: the death penalty debate, Gottfried, Ted, Enslow, 1997. Both still claim that 23 "innocents" have been executed!

B. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS

SUMMARY - The incapacitation effect saves lives - that is, that by executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent life (B.1-4, 7, 9, 10 & 15). The evidence of this is conclusive and incontrovertible. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect also proves that executions save innocent life (B.7-9 & 11-18). This effect represents those potential murderers who did not murder under specific circumstances because of their fear of execution. There are many, perhaps thousands, of such documented cases, representing many innocent lives saved by the fear of execution. Circumstances dictate that the majority of these cases will never be documented and that the number of innocent lives saved by individual deterrence will be, and has been, much greater than we will ever be able to calculate. Finally, there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies which reveal a general, or systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders (B. 7-9 & 11-18). However, such studies are inconclusive because there are also studies that find no such effect - not surprising, as the U.S. has executed only 0.08% of their murderers since 1973. Because such studies are inconclusive, we must choose the option that may save innocent lives. For, if there is a general deterrent effect, and we do execute, then we are saving innocent lives. But, if there is a general deterrent effect and we don’t execute murderers, we are sacrificing innocent lives. If our judgement is in error regarding general deterrence, then such error must be made on the side of saving innocent lives and not on the side of sacrificing innocent lives. This is a moral imperative. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect could not exist without the general deterrent effect bring present. The individual deterrent effect is proven. Therefore, even though it may be statistically elusive, the general deterrent effect is proven by individual deterrence. Individually and collectively, these three effects present a strong morale argument for executions. Executions save lives. Period. Our choice is to spare the lives of the murderers and to, thereby, sacrifice the lives of the innocent or to execute those murderers and to, thereby, spare the lives of the innocent. What do you choose?

The test for deterrence is not whether executions produce lower murder rates, but that executions produce fewer murders than if the death penalty did not exist. For example, the fact that the state of Delaware executes more people per capita (1/87,500) than any other state and has a murder rate 16 times lower than Washington, D.C. (5/100,000 vs 78.5/100,000) is not proof, per se, that the death penalty deters murder in Delaware or that the lack of the death penalty escalates murders and violent crime in Washington, D.C., which has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the U.S. Be careful how you explain and understand deterrence.

1) The argument that murderers are the least likely of all criminals to repeat their crimes is not only irrelevant, but also increasingly false. 6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release. ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS). Murderers have so violated the human rights of their victims and of society that it should be a moral imperative that they never again have that opportunity.

2) Obviously, those executed can’t murder again. "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153) Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA). See B.5.

3) Death penalty opponents spend millions of dollars and countless man hours fighting the legal execution of, at most, 56 of our worst human rights violators per year, when they do nothing to fight for the end of those inhumane parole and probation release policies which result in the needless injury and slaughter of the innocent. "The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision". Where is the compassion in honoring the previous victim’s suffering and in protecting the human rights of future victims? Opponents’ actions show virtually no compassion for the victims of violent crime or concern for future victims, yet, they exhibit overwhelming support for those who violate our human rights and murder our loved ones.

4) 9-15% of those on death row committed, at least, one additional murder, prior to that murder (or those murders) which has currently put them on death row; 67% had a prior felony conviction; 42% had an active criminal justice status when they committed their capital offense; 14% of those sentenced to death from 1988-94, had received two or more death sentences ("Capital Punishment 1994", BJS 1995 & JFA). Should we err on the side of caution and protect the innocent and honor the memories of those murdered or should we give murderers the opportunity to harm again? Should we put prison personnel and other prisoners at any additional risk from known murderers? Prisoners on death row are 250% more likely to murder, in prison, than are prisoners in the general population. Lester, D., "Suicide and Homicide on Death Row", American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 559, 1986.

5) The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in the U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997). Expected punishment is calculated by measuring the probability of being caught, incarcerated, and time served. Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims? See B. 2.

6) For a criminal justice system to have credibility and deterrent value, two factors are required: (1) a high rate of arrest and (2) punishment which reflects the severity of the crime, the criminal’s record and the demand for justice. The U.S. system has neither. Of the 10.3 million violent crimes in 1993, only 100,000 of those victimizations, or 1%, resulted in an actual jail sentence. Only 6.2% of all violent crimes result in arrest. (Prof. John J. DiIulio, Jr., Princeton Univ. 1995, The State of Violent Crime in America, 1/96 and Criminal Victimization 1993 , BJS, 1995.) The human rights of victims and future victims are consistently ignored.

7) With no death penalty and only life without parole (LWOP), there is no deterrent for LWOP inmates killing others while in prison or after escape. Indeed, there is actually a positive incentive to murder if a criminal has committed a LWOP offense and had not yet been captured. Currently, there are a
number of inmates who have killed numerous people in prison or after escape. Their punishment could not be increased because there is no death penalty in those states. Therefore, they will never be punished for those crimes. Never. Totally unacceptable, by any standard. Not surprisingly, death penalty opponents believe that LWOP is more severe than the death penalty. Hamilton, V., & Rakin, L.: "Interpreting the 8th Amendment", Bedau, H., & Pierce, C., ed., Capital Punishment in the United States, New York, AMS, 1976. This absurd belief, which has now become the newest mantra of opponents, is contradicted by all other surveyed groups, including prisoners (B.11 & 16).

8) Death Penalty opponents claim that there is a "brutalization effect" with executions, meaning, that executions show a low regard for human life and do, thereby, cause an increase in the murder rate. If the brutalization effect is real, it would be the only known legal sanction to cause an increase in wrongful behavior. Why would criminals become more likely to engage in illegal activities because the punishments for those activities become more severe? How absurd. Have dramatic increases in the rates of incarceration resulted in dramatic increases in kidnappings? Just the opposite. Further denouncing the brutalization effect is the fact that many respected studies show that executions do produce an individual and a general deterrent effect. And, there is, of course, common sense.

9) There are four rational conclusions one can make regarding general, or systemic, deterrence. (1) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing our worst human rights violators. (2) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing those criminals and saving innocent lives. (3) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are not sacrificing innocent lives. (4) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are sacrificing innocent lives. Regarding deterrence, it is necessary to err on the side of saving innocent life and not to err on the side of sacrificing innocent life. These are moral imperatives.

10) There are two mistakes we can make with those convicted of violent crimes. First, we can misjudge their character and keep them incarcerated too long, when they could have become constructive free persons, repaying even more their debt to society and to their victim(s). Secondly, we can misjudge their character and release them too soon, so that they further destroy the lives of our children, our brothers and sisters, our spouses and our parents, creating additional economic, physical, emotional and spiritual loss. For far too long, the U.S. has chosen to err on the side of those who have violated our human rights and has, thereby, expanded the river of blood and tears for victims and their survivors (See B.3). No more. Not in our name. We demand that the memories and suffering of crime victims be honored by justice - that is by a just punishment which reflects the severity of the crime. And, we must always err on the side of caution and compassion for those not yet harmed.

11) The most conclusive evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole is provided by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys. 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. When the death penalty becomes real, murderers fear it the most. While it is obvious that the fear of execution did not deter those murderers from committing a capital crime, it is also clear that such fear is reduced because executions are neither swift nor sure in the U.S. However, as the probability of that punishment rises for those murderers, even they show a great fear of the death penalty. Although you will never deter all murderers, the effect of deterrence will rise as the probability of executions rise. Because, as the probability of executions rises, the fear of that punishment will also rise. And, that which we fear the most deters the most. Indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty as the most feared punishment, much more so than life without parole. Sehba, L. & Nathan, G., "Further Explorations in the Scale of Penalties", British Journal of Criminology, 24:221-249, 1984.

12) Opponents proclaim that the death penalty is a barbaric act so dreadful in its implications that we can hardly bear to contemplate the horrors of its terrible character. On the other hand, they also assert that potential murderers, when confronted with the horrors of execution, will not be deterred by its infliction upon them. That proposition is, of course, absurd on the face of it (Revised from M. Stanton Evans, Clear and Present Danger).

13) Assume all murderers would instantly die upon murdering. Murderers would then kill only if they wished to die themselves. Murder/suicide is an extremely small component of all murders. Therefore, if a swift and sure death penalty was universally applied to our worst criminals, it is logically conclusive that the death penalty would be a significant deterrent and that many innocent lives would be saved. In fact, swift and sure executions do result in deterrence: (A) The greater the publicity surrounding executions, the greater the deterrent effect. Phillips, D. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment". American Journal of Sociology, 86;139-158, 1980: Philipps, D. & Hensley, J., "When Violence is Rewarded or Punished". J. Commun., 34(3); 101-116, 1984; and the various studies by Prof. Steven Stack, Wayne St. U.(1988-1995) and (B) The higher the rate of execution, the greater the deterrent effect. Lester, D. "Executions As A Deterrent To Homicide", 44:562,1979a and "Deterring Effect of Executions on Murder as a Function of Number and Proportion of Executions", 45:598, 1979b, both from Psychol. Rep. and Wasserman, L.: "Non-deterrent Effect of Executions on Homicide Rates", Psychol. Rep., 58:137-138, 1981. The State of Delaware has the highest execution rate per capita and low homicide rates.

14) The individual deterrent effect is proven by many, perhaps thousands, of individual, fully documented cases where criminals have admitted that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them and/or others from committing murder. Indeed, one study showed that criminals, by a 5:1 ratio, believed that capital punishment was a significant enough deterrent to prevent them and/or others from murdering their victims (People vs Love, 56 Cal 2d 720 (1961), McComb, J. dissenting. see also: (A) "Controversy Over Capital Punishment", Congressional Digest, Jan.,’73, p. 13; (B) L.A.P.D. study within Aikens vs Ca., No. 68-5027, Oct. Term, 1971, U.S. Supreme Court; ( C ) Carol Vance, "The Death Penalty After Furman", The Prosecutor, vol. 9, no. 4 (1973), p. 703; (D) Carrington, F., Neither Cruel Nor Unusual, Pgs. 92-100(1978); (E) Don Hooloschultz, "Gunman Slain, Hostages O.K.", Washington Star News, 8/23/73, p.A-1; (F) Jim Landers, "4 Guilty in Holdup Sentence", Washington Post, 12/8/73,p.B-1; (G) Larry Derryberry, "It Is The Fear That Death May Be The Punishment That Deters", Police Digest, Spring/Summer 1973, p.27, col.2. ; (H) "Langley says Texas death penalty affected his actions during escape", by Stephen Martin, The Daily Democrat (Ft. Madison, Iowa), 1/8/97, pg 1. Indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty as a much more severe penalty than they do life without parole (B.12).While it is difficult to prove a negative, i.e. "How many murders does the death penalty cause not to occur?", there is absolute evidence that the individual deterrent effect of executions saves innocent lives. Extensive worldwide research on individual deterrence would, undoubtedly, reveal significant general deterrent effect..

15) Regarding the deterrent affect of the death penalty, poet Hyam Barshay made the following observation, "The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down." Prof. Ernest van den Haag, "On Deterrence and The Death Penalty", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, vol. 60, no.2 (1969).

16) 30 years of studies suggest that the death penalty is a general, or systemic, deterrent. (See works by Profs. D. Cloninger, S. Cameron, I. Ehrlich, W. Bailey, D. Lester, S. Layson, K. I. Wolpin, L. Phillips, S. C. Ray, S. Stack, etc.) Examples: a) A 1967-68 study revealed 27 states showed a deterrent effect (Bailey, W.,1974); b) The 1960's showed a rapid rise in all crimes, including murder, while both prison terms and executions declined (Passell, P. & Taylor, T., 1977; Bowers, W. & Pierce, G., 1975); c) Murder increased 100% during the U.S.’s moratorium on executions (Carrington, F., Neither Cruel Nor Unusual); d) 14 nations that abolished the death penalty showed that murder rates increased 7% from the 5 year pre-abolition period to the 5 year post abolition period (Archer, et al, 1977); e) A 37 state study showed that 24 states showed a deterrent effect, 8 states showed a brutalization effect and 5 states showed no effect (Bailey, W., 1979-80); and f) econometric studies indicate that each execution may deter 8 or more murders ( Cameron, S., 1994). Although these studies have been produced by respected social scientists, there are also studies which show no general deterrent effect. Indeed, with the complexity of these studies and with the number of variables required to accurately measure the general deterrent effect of executions on murder rates, it is arguable if there ever will be a statistical consensus with general deterrence studies. With so few executions and so many murders, the general deterrent effect may remain statistically elusive. However, it is that very inconclusive nature of general deterrence which provides the two reasons which require executions. First, we must choose to use executions because they may save innocent life. Whereas, if we choose not to use executions and there is a general deterrent effect, we would be sacrificing innocent lives. Therefore, a moral imperative exists to choose executions (see B. 9). Secondly, the individual deterrent effect would not exist but for the presence of general deterrence. And because the individual deterrent effect is proven and cannot be contradicted, we know that the general deterrent effect must exist, even though its existence may remain inconclusive by statistical analysis.

17) Opponents state that if the death penalty was a deterrent then states that have the death penalty would have a reduced homicide rate. Delaware, which executes more murderers per capita than any other state in the U.S.A., also has low homicide rates. Furthermore, general or systemic deterrence is not necessarily measured by low or reduced homicide rates, but by rates that are lower than they otherwise would be if the death penalty was not present. Additionally, some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have swift and sure executions and very low violent crime rates. It is not surprising that the U.S., which has executed only 0.06% of its murderers since 1967, does not overtly show a general deterrent effect. While most in the U.S. would not advocate criminal justice systems like that of Saudi Arabia, it is also very clear that the American criminal justice system fosters the additional slaughter of its own innocent citizens.

18) The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg. 31A).


C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY

1) The most vile strategy of death penalty opponents is their use of propaganda to nurture hatreds and mistrust between race and class. Bryan Stevenson, a well known opposition spokesman and attorney with Equal Justice Initiative (Montgomery, Al.), claims that the death penalty reflects the middle class’ desire to strike out at the poor and racial minorities ("A Matter of Life and Death", Christianity Today, 8/14/95). Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) joins this hideous chorus, proclaiming that "(m)iddle-class and upper middle-class white people...are so much for the death penalty (to) ‘Keep those dangerous people (the poor and minorities) in their place.’ " ("Opposing the Death Penalty", AMERICA, 11/9/96. pg.12.) Clearly, these statements reveal only their prejudice. Prejean continues "It didn’t take long to see that for poor people, especially poor black people, there was a greased track to prison and death row." (The Progressive, 1/96, p. 32(4) 60,1). Is Sister Prejean saying that poor minorities are incapable of stopping themselves from committing capital murder!? Not only are Sister Prejean’s statements false, they are also grossly insulting to the poor and to minorities. Over 99% of all persons, including poor minorities, restrain themselves from committing capital murder. And there is, of course, no excuse for anyone that commits capital murder. Stevenson and Prejean do hereby reflect either their unbelievable ignorance or their willful and foul deception. Based on their active involvement in the death penalty debate, both Stevenson and Prejean should (must?) be aware that (1) In the most extensive study of the economics of death row inmates, it was shown that, while 74% of Georgia murderers were poor, only 38% of those on Georgia’s death row were poor (C.13).; (2) there is no consensus in statistical analysis which proves that wealthy capital murders are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk. In fact, statistics indicate that wealthy capital murderers may be more likely to be executed. (C.13); (3) the majority of those on death row are white (NAACP LDF, 1996); (4) the majority of those executed are white (C.2); (5) since 1929, white murderers have been more likely to have been executed than black murderers (C.10); (6) "...white murderers, no matter who they kill, are more likely to get the death penalty than black murderers (11.1% to 7.3%). Furthermore, whites who kill whites are slightly more likely to be on death row than blacks who kill whites. Finally, whites who kill blacks are slightly more likely to be on death row than blacks who kill whites." (Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 40-41,Carroll & Graf Pub.,1992; (7) whites are executed 15 months quicker than blacks ("Capital Punishment, 1995", BJS 1996); (8) Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in murder. Blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in murder. (C.2); and finally, (9) Murderers are put to death, not based on the race or economic status of the victim or the murderer, but based upon death penalty statutes, the aggravated nature of and all specific circumstances of the crime, the criminal background of the murderer, and the other specific factors mandated by Supreme Court decisions. Since 1973, there is absolutely no credible evidence to support any other conclusion. Despicably, opponents cry "RACISM!" to further their agenda, knowing, full well, that such claims are false.

2) One of opponents’ popular false claims is that it is the race of the victim which determines who is on death row. 82% of the murder victims in death penalty cases are white, 13% are black, a 6:1 ratio (NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), 1996). Opponents, such as Kica Matos, NAACP LDF, Steven Hawkins, Exec. Dir., National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) and Sister Prejean, longtime Chairperson of the NCADP and author, Dead Man Walking, present this fact as evidence that the "system" values white lives more than black lives. If true, then we must wonder why whites represent 56% of those executed, and blacks 38% (NAACP LDF, Summer 1996) when blacks have committed 47% of all murders, and whites 38%. Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in murder, blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in murder. From 1991-94, 34% of murderers have been white, 54% black (Special run 1980-94 BJS data, 1/13/97, for non-Hispanic whites and blacks. JFA calculations for known race/ethnicity.).

Could it be that we just hate white murderers more? Or that we only care about white capital murder victims? Or should we conclude that the "system" focuses its benevolence toward black murderers, but its racism against black victims? How absurd. Such perverse conclusions, by opponents, are expected and serve only to further undermine their quickly eroding credibility. Successful capital prosecutions have nothing to do with the race of the victim or of the defendant and everything to do with the nature of the crimes. The most thorough evaluation of this subject was presented in McCleskey v. Georgia (Zant/Kemp), wherein Federal District Judge Owen Forester accurately found that "the best models which (McCleskey expert) Baldus was able to devise...produce no statistically significant evidence that race (of the victim or of the defendant) plays a part in either (the prosecution’s or the jury’s capital decisions)." (580 Federal Supplement 338, p 368, 2/1/84).

Could it be that whites are, overwhelmingly, the victims in death row cases because whites are, overwhelmingly, the victims in capital crimes? What is the ratio of white to black victims under the relevant, but non-homicide circumstances, which, when combined with homicide, become capital crimes? (A) The most relevant economic violent crime is robbery with injury, which shows a 4:1 ratio of white victims to black victims (C.5); (B) By a 5:1 ratio, whites are more likely to be victims of rape/sexual assault than are blacks (BJS, 1977-1984); ( C ) For all property crimes (theft, burglary, auto theft), there is a 7:1 ratio of white to black victims ("Sourcebook, 1994," BJS 1995, tables 3.21,3.25); (D) A comparison of only black and white perpetrators and victims reveal that whites are five times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than are blacks, or 7.5 v 1.5 million, a 5:1 ratio ("Criminal Victimization, 1993" BJS 1995); and, for homicides, which by themselves, qualify for the death penalty: (E) In death penalty states, police victim murders are capital crimes. From 1985-1994, 87% of murdered officers were white, 12% black, or 7:1 (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, FBI:UCR, 1994); (F) Whites make up a dominant percentage of multiple/serial murderers, whose victims are overwhelmingly white, thereby disproportionately and correctly raising the number of white victims in execution cases. In such death row cases, 87% of the victims are white, 13% black, or 7:1 (NAACP LDF data, 1996); (G) Many death row cases involve stranger murders. There is a 7:1 ratio of white to black strangers (US Census, avg. 1970-80-90); and (H) Research and appellate courts (through McCleskey) have confirmed that white victim murders are the most aggravated, thus, by statute, enhancing the likelihood of a death sentence in those cases (C. 1-5 & 9-12). These factors, and others within this section, are consistent with the 6:1 ratio of white to black victims in capital cases.

But, wait, don’t blacks and whites represent about an equal number of murder victims? Yes, but, make no mistake, murder victims and capital murder victims are two very distinct groups. And only capital murders are relevant to death penalty cases. Capital crimes are very unique, combining murder with specific circumstance, such as subsets A-H. IF homicide rates are statistically consistent within subsets A-D, as McCleskey and additional studies indicate (C. 1-5 & 9-12), then it is subsets A-H, with additional required factors such as the murderer’s criminal history, capital procedures (see F), capital statutes, crime statistics, aggravating factors and other specific facts of the case (hereinafter McCleskey et al), which result in the distribution of victims in these cases.

Should we balance the scales of justice and execute equally the killers of blacks and whites? Only if you wish to increase the number of black murderers executed. 93% of all black murder victims are murdered by blacks. The overwhelming majority of black on black murders have mitigating circumstances, thereby reducing the numbers of blacks who might otherwise be executed.

3) The U.S. General Accounting Office Report "DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities" (GAO/GGD-90-57, 2/90) is cited by opponents as proof that the "race of the victim" effect has been proven. Not quite. First, some of the studies which the GAO included in their analysis included non-capital murders. This certainly impairs the integrity of the results because only capital murders should have been included. Secondly, Drs. Stephen Klein and John Rolph, "Relationship of Offender and Victim Race to Death Penalty Sentences in California"(Jurimetrics Journal, 32, Fall 1991), found that, "After accounting for some of the many factors that may influence penalty decisions, neither race of the defendant nor race of the victim appreciably improved prediction of who was sentenced to death . . . ". Thirdly, Smith College Professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers ("Execution by Quota?", The Public Interest, Summer 1994), found that legal variables, such as prior criminal history and the aggravated nature of the murder, are the proven basis for imposition of the death penalty. The black/white variation in sentencing has generally been reduced to zero when such legal variables are introduced as controls. Fourth, crime statistics show a 4:1 to a 7:1 ratio of white to black victims in circumstances relevant to death penalty cases.. Such ratios are consistent with the 6:1 ratio of white to black victims in death row cases (C.1,2,4,5). Fifth, any affirmative conclusions regarding the GAO study disregards the findings in McCleskey, that an empirical/statistical study cannot separate the causal effect of legitimate factors influencing jury decisions from the effects of possible racial biases, whereby The Court found "Where the discretion that is fundamental to our criminal justice process is involved, we decline to assume that what is unexplained [by measured factors] is invidious."(481 US at 313). See Dr. Joseph Katz’ enforcement of the McCleskey majority: "Statement to the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary Concerning the Relationship Between Race and the Death Penalty" 10/2/89.

4) Based on a study conducted by Profs. Baldus, Woodward and Pulaski, McCleskey argued that the death penalty was racist. In August, 1983 Federal District Court Judge J. Owen Forester found that the study's conclusions of racial bias were without merit. In 1985, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 9-3 vote, stated "Viewed broadly, it would seem that the statistical evidence presented here...confirms rather than condemns the ( death penalty) system." In April 1987, the Supreme Court (5-4) stated that the referenced study did not establish that capital punishment discriminates against black defendants or killers of white victims. "At most, the Baldus study indicates a statistical discrepancy that appears to correlate with race. Apparent disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system. The discrepancy indicated by the Baldus study is ‘a far cry from any major systemic defects". "McCleskey offers no evidence...that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence". "...the Baldus study is clearly insufficient to support an inference that any of the decision-makers in McCleskey’s case acted with discriminatory purpose." "Even Professor Baldus does not contend that his statistics prove that race enters into any capital sentencing decisions or that race was a factor in McCleskey’s particular case."

5) From 1976-1995, 5 white murderers have been put to death for the murder of black persons and 101 black murderers have been put to death for the murder of white persons (NAACP LDF, 1996). Opponents falsely contend that this is evidence of racism in the "system". That 101:5 ratio, or 20:1, is consistent with statistics that show aggravated crimes (those crimes committed with the murder which may make a crime eligible for the death penalty) are committed by blacks against whites in far greater numbers than by whites against blacks. For all violent crimes, there are ten times as many black offenders (2,016,939) involved in white victim violent crimes as there are white offenders (210,869) involved in black victim violent crimes, or a 10:1 ratio. (The State of Violent Crime in America, pg. 12,1/96, data derived from Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1993, BJS forthcoming, tables 42 and 48. JFA has assumed multiple offenders to be two offenders for calculation purposes.) In addition, blacks are nearly three times as likely to murder whites (849), as whites are to murder blacks (304), or 3:1 (Sourcebook 1994, BJS 1995, table 3.123). IF murder rates are statistically consistent within the violent crime category, as McCleskey et al indicate, then blacks are, statistically, by a 30:1 (10:1 X 3:1) ratio, more likely to murder whites, than whites are to murder blacks, in those circumstances where an additional aggravating factor is present (see C2). These are those crimes most eligible for the death penalty. That statistically projected ratio of 30:1 is hardly inconsistent with the 20:1 ratio for black offender(s)/white victim vs white offender(s)/black victim executions. The most relevant aggravated crime is robbery with injury, wherein blacks are 21 times more likely to be involved in such crimes as are whites. This 21:1 ratio represents 1.4 million black offender(s)/white victim vs. 68,000 white offender(s)/black victim for robbery with injury crimes (JFA, using BJS, 1977-84 data). IF overall murder statistics are consistent, within this crime category, as McCleskey et al suggests, then there is a 30-60:1 ratio of black on white vs white on black murders within this robbery/murder category. (From 1977-1984).

6) 75% of blacks and 35% of whites believe that blacks are treated more harshly than whites by the criminal justice system. This is a deserved reputation, particularly in the South. Blacks have suffered some 400 years of slavery and blatantly racist criminal justice practices. From the practices of punishing blacks, who rape whites, with death and whites, who rape blacks, with a slap on the wrist, to the three trials needed to convict Byron de la Beckwith for the murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers, generations of black Americans cannot and must not forget.

7) In 1994, in northeastern states, 36% of those on death row were white, 59% black. In southern states, 57% were white, 41% black ("Capital Punishment 1994",BJS, 1995).

8) In 1994, death row inmates median level of education was the 12th grade.("Cap.Pun.‘94",BJS 1995)

9) After examining 42,500 criminal files in the nations 75 largest counties, Patrick Langan (BJS) concluded that there was no evidence"...that, in the places where blacks in the U. S. have most of their contacts with the judicial system, that (the) system treats them more harshly than whites." (John DiIulio, Jr.,"White Lies About Black Crime", The Public Interest, 1995. See concurring support within "Research on Sentencing", National Research Council, 1983.)

10)No evidence of system wide discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty exists beyond the 1950's. From 1929-66, white murderers were more likely to be executed than black murderers (10.4 vs 9.7/1000). This trend continues today.(C.2) (Gary Kleck, "Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty", American Sociological Review, 12/81.)

11) A study of the death penalty, as imposed by Harris County (Houston, Texas, USA) juries, since 1982, found that the death penalty was imposed on white and black murderers in proportion to the capital offenses committed by those race classifications (The Houston Post, 10/16/94).

12) Although blacks make up 12% of the US population, they comprise 44% of the prison population. (BJS, Prisoners in 1994). Researchers find a close relationship between the racial distribution in arrest and prison statistics and the race of offenders as described by crime victims. In other words, according to the reports from victims, racial groups are represented in prison according to their involvement in criminal activity. (Patrick Langan, Racism on Trial; New Evidence to Explain the Racial Composition of Prisons in the U.S., 1985). Overwhelmingly, sentencing studies show that the offender’s prior criminal record and the aggravated nature of the crime are the key factors in making imprisonment decisions (See also Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, A Source Book of Arrest and Sentencing By Race, 1994; Al Blumstein, On The Racial Disproportionalness of U.S. Prison Populations, (1982); M. Hindelang, Crime Victimization (1976) and Race and Involvement (1978)); U.S. General Accounting Office, Racial Differences in Arrests, 1/20/94.)Nevertheless, the racial aspects of crime and punishment should be continuously scrutinized. For example, Langan also finds that in 1979 and 1982, blacks were over represented in prison by 16% and 15%, respectively.

13) THE WEALTHY AND DEATH ROW - Contrary to opponents claims, there is no systemic evidence that wealthy capital murderers are less likely to be executed that their poorer ilk. Drawing only on personal knowledge, we found that since 1973, in Texas, alone, at least seven middle class to wealthy murderers have been put on death row. Four, Markum Duff Smith, George Lott, Robert Black, Jr., and Ronald O'Bryan have been executed. Three additional await execution. Extensive, objective research would, undoubtedly, reveal many more. Don’t forget John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy. Furthermore, Dr. Joseph Katz found that, while 74% of all Georgia murder defendants were poor, only 38% of those on death row were poor (McCleskey). Informed Speculation: 5% of the U.S. population (12 million) can afford to pay the $400,000* cost for their capital trial and appeals. Because financial need can be excluded, the category of wealthy capital murderer can be assumed to murder at a rate 10 times less than their poorer ilk. Fact: 0.20% of the U.S. population commits murder. 1.3% of those are sentenced to death. Only 6% of those have been executed. Therefore, the projected number of wealthy executed from 1976-1996 is 2 , or 12 million x .1 x .0020 x .013 x .06. Using 1973-1996 data. *conservative estimate based on opponents’ high cost claims (see E)

14) SEXISM AND THE DEATH PENALTY - Some claim that the death penalty is sexist. The ratio of men to women on death row (and executed) is 68:1, or 3400:50 (NAACP LDF, Spring 1996). Men committed 476,937 rapes, robberies and burglaries, women 47,357 or a 10:1 ratio. From 1976-94, men committed 7 times as many murders as women, or 7:1. (Sourcebook ‘94, BJS ‘95, tb.4.9 and 3.22). Therefore, it may be statistically predictable that men are, by a 70:1 ratio (10:1 X 7:1), more likely to be on death row than are women. Women appear to be on death row in numbers that would be expected. However, one would expect that 5 women would have been executed since 1976, when only 1 has been executed.

D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY

Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.
------------------------------------------------------------

There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.
(1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

(2) U.S. Vital Statistics Abstract, 1994 and Capital Punishment 1995, BJS 1996.

(3) Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions, and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society.

(4) $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases, assumes that the DP is not an option. We believe this cost estimate is very low. We have over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on average, or $1.5 million. Our exaggerated estimate states that the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost, including voir dire, court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though we have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.

(5) 6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years (Capital Punishment 1994, BJS, 1995). Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual increase).

One of the USA’s largest death rows is in Texas, with 442 inmates, of which 229, or 52%, have been on death row over 6 years - 44, or 10%, have been on for over 15 years, 8 for over 20 years. 60 inmates, nationwide, have been on death row over 18 years.

It should be noted that this is intentionally generous in minimizing life costs within the analysis. The following is not included:

1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner in today's dollars , or

2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison system, or

3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum life sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the death penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty, and

4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of which either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost credit to the death penalty, and

5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty position with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average life without parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for all pre-trial, trial and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in our study.

Those omissions should not be considered a balancing, because accuracy is paramount. There is no cost study which fully evaluates all of those issues. We hope to update the data at some point with a more thorough review.



E. DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES

There are at least 28 procedures necessary in reaching a death sentence. They are:
(1) The crime must be one listed as a capital crime in the penal code;
(2) a suspect must be identified and arrested;
(3) Beginning with the Bill of Rights, the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rules, U.S. criminal defendants and those convicted have, by far, the most extensive protections ever devised and implemented;
(4) in Harris County (Houston), Texas a panel of district attorneys determines if the case merits the death penalty as prescribed by the Penal Code (See 12-19);
(5) a grand jury must indict the suspect for capital murder;
(6) the suspect is presumed innocent;
(7) the prosecution must prove to the judge that the evidence, upon which the prosecution will rely, is admissible;
(8) the defendant is assigned two attorneys. County funds are provided to defense counsel for investigation and trial;
(9) it takes 3-12 weeks to select a jury;
(10) trial is conducted;
(11) the burden of proof is on the state;
(12) all 12 jury members must find for guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases, the jury knows nothing of the defendant's previous criminal acts, at this stage. If found guilty, then, the punishment phase of the trial begins;
(13) the prosecution presents additional damning evidence against the murderer, i.e., other crimes, victims, victims’ or survivors’ testimony, police reports, etc;
(14) In order to find for death, the issues to be resolved by the jury are {a} did the defendant not only act willfully in causing the death, but act deliberately, as well, {b} does the evidence show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a likelihood that the defendant will be dangerous in the future, {c} if there was provocation on the part of the victim, were the defendant's actions unreasonable in response to the provocations and {d} is there something about the defendant that diminishes moral responsibility or in some way mitigates against the imposition of death for the defendant in this case, whereby, the defense presents all mitigating circumstance, which may lesson the probability of the jury imposing death , i.e., family problems, substance abuse, age, no prior criminal record, mental disability, parental abuse, poverty, etc. Witnesses, such as family, friends, co-workers, etc., are presented to speak and offer the positive qualities of the defendant;
(15) the jury must take into consideration those mitigating circumstances (Penry decision) and, if only 1 juror believes that the perpetrator deserves leniency because of any mitigating circumstances, then the jury cannot impose the death penalty; and
(16) when the death sentence is imposed, the perpetrator receives an automatic appeal.
(17) the death row inmate is provided an attorney, or attorneys, to handle the direct appeal, at county expense, through both the state and federal courts;
(18) the state pays attorneys for the inmate's habeas corpus appeals, at both the state and federal level;
(19) death row inmates may be granted a hearing, in both state and federal court, to present post conviction claims of innocence. The burden of proof for these claims of innocence mirrors that used by the Federal courts; and
(20) Convictions and sentences are subject to pardon or sentence reduction through the executive branch of government, at both the state level (Governor) and federal level (President).

These 20 procedures represent the broad categories of defendant and inmate protections. Within these 20 procedures, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of additional procedures and protections.

In some jurisdictions, the defense must prove mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence and the prosecution must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a huge advantage for the defendant and a major disadvantage for the prosecution.

To punish with death, each one of the 12 jurors must agree with the prosecution in each of five specific areas ( 12, 14, (a)14, (b)15, (c)16, and (d)17 (with 18 & 19). A death sentence requires that the prosecution must prevail in 60 out of those 60 considerations, or 100%. To avoid death, the defendant must prevail in only 1 out of those 60 considerations, or 1.67%. If convicted and sentenced to death, the inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 23 years, 60 appeals and over 200 individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates claims. The average time on death row for those executed from 1977-1995 was 9 years. For the 56 executed in 1995, the average time on death row was 11 years, 2 months - a new record of longevity, surpassing the old record of 10 years, 2 months, set in 1994. 60 death row inmates have been on death row for over 18 years. (Capital Punishment 1994 & 1995, BJS 1995 & 1996). Could new longevity records of from 12-18 years on death row be set for those executed from 1996-2002, respectively? Yes. Even with the new federal and state laws? Easily.

HABEAS CORPUS - Opponents claim that with the new federal guidelines for appeals in capital cases, that nothing is left to protect the rights of the death row inmate. Predictably, such hysteria is unwarranted and untrue. The new federal appeals law, which affects the writ of habeas corpus, was upheld unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. This law established, nationally, higher minimum standards for defense counsel in capital cases and requires said counsel for all indigent capital defendants. Furthermore, with these new federal standards, there are still at least 17 levels of post conviction review available to the death row inmate; 6 state and 11 federal, comprised of 5 direct appeals, one at the state level and four at the federal level; 10 habeas corpus appeals, four at the state level and six at the federal level; 2 of those habeas appeals are for compelling post conviction claims of innocence, which are subject to a formal hearing, one at the state level and one at the federal level; and the 16th and 17th levels of appeal provide that the inmate’s claims are subject to review for executive clemency or commutation, at either the state or federal level, and sometimes both. Similar appellate issues are often heard at every appellate level. There is no limit to the number of appellate issues which the inmate may raise on appeal. Generally, prosecutors and victim survivors have no right to appeal. Although this section deals specifically with Texas, the procedures are similar in all death penalty states and at the federal and military levels. The due process protections in capital cases are so overwhelming that inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals than by execution. 37% of all death row cases are overturned on appeal. The American death penalty continues to have, by far, the greatest due process protections of any criminal sanction in the world.

Many seem to be unaware of the true meaning of the habeas corpus process. They may not know that the intent of the “Great Writ”, established in pre-Magna Carta England, is to quickly facilitate the release of the innocent or those otherwise wrongfully held or convicted - a process that will finally be honored with these reforms. This is a very positive development, except for the guilty and for those who wish to abuse the habeas corpus process by delaying justice with frivolous, repetitive and prolonged appeals. It is a bitter irony that it was just such intentional delays of justice that the “Great Writ” was created to abolish. It was just such abuses that caused many of the states and the federal government to enact new habeas corpus reforms. Indeed, it was opponents of the death penalty who finally guaranteed passage of these long delayed reforms. Opponents had begun to challenge the long stays on death row as unconstitutional, claiming that such delays were, by themselves, “cruel and unusual punishment”, a violation of the eighth amendment. Although all such cynical and humorous claims were rejected by U.S. courts - there was overwhelming evidence that inmates and their attorneys were responsible for such delays - such claims did provide the final push necessary to finally pass these reforms through the U.S. Congress, thus respecting the claims of opponents, inmates and their attorneys through legislation.

For those who find themselves hysterical over these habeas corpus reform efforts, who believe that speeding up the appeals process will threaten the lives of those convicted and innocent, please contemplate the following question: What innocent or otherwise improperly convicted inmate would wish to linger a bit longer on death row as their attorney, snail-like, labored to prolong their wrongful stay on death row with a series of delayed and frivolous appeals?

The American Death Penalty is, overwhelmingly, the least arbitrary and the least capricious of all the world’s legal sanctions for violent crime.


[Edited by NDIrish on 11-07-2000 at 10:42 AM]

[nhb_wanabe]

this one.

why don't you try sourcing this blatent propaganda.

It will carry alot more weight.

[NDIrish]

you crack me up....keep avoiding the issue....

prodeathpenalty.com...im curious, where do you get your info from? oh! I forgot, you get your info from books....those very objective sources of information....what websites?

I guess there is no chance you will respond to any of it, but thats alright....i expect it....

[Tony10]

The deterrent argument has long since been debunked numerous times--it's not even an issue.

If you think the death penalty is fairly and judiciously handed down nation wide to all-guilty parties and is not biased when it comes to race.... then I can't help you.

[NDIrish]

Tony, you're right. We believe two very different things. I would concede that there could be innocent people sentenced to death. But I also think that there are lives saved by the existence of the death penalty. I personally believe that there are more innocent lives saved than taken, and so support the death penalty.

I am sure, no matter how many supporting facts I brought to the table, I could not convince you of my point of view, and vice versa.

This is why we vote...one way or the other, the people will be represented in government, and lets hope that the majoritys voice is heard, whatever that may be...