Colorado: End Death Penalty; Focus on "Cold Cases"?

[rockin'robin]

DENVER — Colorado and nine other states considered abolishing the death penalty this year to save money, but Colorado's proposal has a twist: It would use the savings to investigate about 1,400 unsolved slayings.

The measure has sparked a fierce debate between prosecutors and some victims' families. Prosecutors want to keep capital punishment as an option for heinous crimes, and they say the bill has raised unrealistic hopes about solving cold cases.

Supporters of the bill say it's more important to find and prosecute killers still on the loose than to execute the ones already tried and convicted.

"The death penalty is not relevant without a murderer brought to trial," said Laurie Wiedeman, the older sister of 17-year-old Gay Lynn Dixon, whose 1982 slaying remains unsolved. "I would like to see the person who killed my sister put to death. But to have that person free to run around and committing other crimes?"

Abolishing the death penalty would save an estimated $1 million a year in Colorado now spent on prosecutors' time, public defenders' fees and appeals, according to a legislative analysis. Supporters of the Colorado measure want that money diverted to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's cold case unit, which has just one staffer. The extra money could add eight people to the unit, the legislative analysis said.

The Colorado House narrowly passed the measure in late April, and the Senate is expected to vote before the session ends Wednesday.

Gov. Bill Ritter hasn't publicly said whether he would sign it, if it passes. Ritter was Denver's district attorney before becoming governor, and in that job he unsuccessfully sought capital punishment seven times. Before becoming district attorney in 1993, Ritter had expressed personal doubts about capital punishment.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and all but one of the state's district attorneys oppose the bill. Even if the savings were applied to a cold case unit, which Suthers and other said isn't guaranteed by the bill, many cases may remain unsolved.

"I think it's a sad situation," Suthers said. "You have hundreds of ... parents of murdered children, sitting there being led to believe that if they abolish the death penalty in Colorado their child's death will be solved.

"A million dollars doesn't buy you a lot of cold case investigation," he said.

Proponents of the bill, led by Evergreen-based Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, say Colorado's death penalty is so rarely used that it's not a deterrent. The group says hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted trying to put people to death when hundreds of murderers are free.

Suthers and other prosecutors say additional DNA testing, including a proposal pending in the Legislature to take samples at the time of a felony arrest, could do more than expanding the state's cold case unit to solve old cases.

Colorado has executed only one person in the past 42 years, Gary Lee Davis, put to death in 1997 for his conviction in a 1986 slaying.

Two men remain on Colorado's death row. Sir Mario Owens was convicted last year of killing Javad Marshall-Fields, a potential witness in a murder trial, and Vivian Wolfe, Marshall-Fields' fiancee. Nathan Dunlap was convicted in 1996 of murder, attempted murder and other charges for killing four people and wounding a fifth at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in Aurora in December 1993.

Both cases are in the appeals process.

The mothers of Marshall-Fields and Wolfe support the death penalty.

New Mexico this year became the second state to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007.

Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Texas considered abolishing the death penalty, but bills in those states have stalled, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

"It (budgetary concerns) was a prominent issue and an impetus for these bills getting hearings this year," Dieter said.

Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons documented 1,434 unsolved slayings in Colorado since 1970, and a CBI database for law enforcement closely matches those numbers

"We have 1,400 murderers walking around. We don't feel threatened by it, but we should," said Frank Birgfeld, whose 34-year-old daughter Paige Birgfeld disappeared from Grand Junction in July 2007 and is presumed dead.

But cold cases become harder to solve as time passes. In February, 65-year-old Tina Louise Lester was arrested in Ohio on a 1968 warrant in a Denver shooting death, but District Attorney Mitch Morrissey decided against filing charges because of the lack of witnesses who could counter Lester's self-defense claim.

"Two men in that bar, who are pivotal witnesses would have been in their late 80s," Morrissey said.

Morrissey said Denver's 11-person cold case unit sometimes identifies a suspect who is already serving a lengthy prison sentence or is dead. That brings some answers to victims' families but not the definitive conclusion of a conviction.

"Just because we're grieving doesn't mean we're stupid," said Howard Morton, executive director of Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, whose 19-year-old son Guy Oliver was the victim of a still-unsolved 1975 slaying in Arizona.

"We want these cases to be effectively addressed by the state. We know they won't all be solved," he said. "We think that some of them will be, and more importantly it sends a signal that for those who have gotten away with murder, we're coming after you."

FOXNews.com - Colorado May End Death Penalty to Focus on Cold Cases - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[dudleysharp]

Cost Savings: The Death Penalty

Cost has nothing to do with the current discussion. It is just another anti death penalty push, which involves a change in strategy every few years, when their past "new topic" strategy fails and they must find another one.

Cost Savings: The Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Reasonable and responsible protocols, currently in use, will produce a death penalty which costs no more, or will cost less, than Life Without Parole (LWOP).

Death penalty states could better implement justice, as given by jurors, and save taxpayers money, currently wasted by many irresponsible state systems.


1) Obvious solution: Improve the system: Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. The national averages are 11 years, 14% and 36%, respectively.

With the high costs of long term imprisonment, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol.


2) Current cost study problems

a) Geriatric care: Most cost studies exclude geriatric care, recently found to be $60,000-$90,000/inmate/yr., a significant omission from life sentence costs. Prisoners are often found to be geriatric at relatively young ages, 50-55, because of lifestyle.

b) Plea Bargain to life: ONLY the presence of the death penalty allows for a plea bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea cost benefit, estimated at $500,000 to $1 million/case, accrues as a cost benefit/credit to the death penalty. I am aware of no study which includes this.

c) The cost of death row: There need not be any additional cost for death row. Missouri doesn't have one.

NOTE: Depending upon jurisdiction, the inclusion of only 2a and 2b will result in a minimal cost differential between the two sanctions or an actual net cost benefit to the death penalty. Adding (1) would, very likely, mean that all death penalty jurisdictions would see a cost savings with the death penalty as compared to a true life sentence.


3) The Disinformation problem: The pure deception in some cost "studies" is overt.

a) Some studies compare the cost of a death penalty case, including pre trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, and geriatric care for a life sentence. The much cited, highly misleading Texas "study" does this.
b) It has been claimed that it costs $3.2 million/execution in Florida. That "study" decided to add the cost of the entire death penalty system in Florida ($57 million), which included all of the death penalty cases and dividing that number by only the number of executions (18). It is the same as stating that the cost of LWOP is $15 million/case, based upon all costs of 2000 LWOP cases being placed into the 40 lifers to have died (given an average cost of $300, 000/LWOP case, so far, for those 2000 cases.). The much cited and misused Duke University death penalty cost analysis for North Carolina does the same thing.
c) Many of the "studies", such as Maryland's (2008), suffer from similar or worse problems.


4) Deterrence "value": FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (1)

That is a cost benefit of $70 million per execution. 15 additional recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, support the deterrent effect.

No cost study has included such calculations.

Although we find it inappropriate to put a dollar value on life, evidently this is not uncommon for economists, insurers, etc.

We know that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. There is no doubt that executions do save innocent lives. What value do you put on the lives saved? Certainly not less than $5 million.


5) Justice: The main reason sentences are given is because jurors find that it is the most just punishment available. No state, concerned with justice, will base a decision on cost alone. If they did, all cases would be plea bargained and every crime would have a probation option.
----------------------------------

1). "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID354680_code021216500.pdf?abstractid=354680

copyright 2003-2009 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

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

essays Death Penalty Articles

Welcome to Death Penalty Information @ DPINFO.com
Death penalty information
Death Penalty Links
Josh Marquis, Clatsop County District Attorney
Death Penalty Debate
Pro-death penalty.com
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
Pro Capital Punishment Page

 

[dudleysharp]

The New Mexico example

Cost was a big issue at the beginning of the New Mexico session, but soon vanished as a topic, when it was discovered it was just a scam.

"Rebuttal to Governor Richardson - Repeal of the Death Penalty in New Mexico"

Death Penalty Articles

"Why did Gov. Richardson repeal the death penalty? His legacy"

Death Penalty Articles

Some notes on New Mexico:

Specific anti death penalty arguments may have had no effect on the final outcome.

First, those arguments are, easily, rebutted or countered.

Secondly, New Mexico lawmakers state that the Democratic election propelled the death penalty repeal.

From The (Santa Fe) New Mexican newspaper: "Friday's decisive state Senate vote to repeal the death penalty in New Mexico was a direct result of November's election of several new lawmakers." The repeal bill's sponsor, Rep. Gail Chase said she was able to get the bill through because the 2008 election added three more senators to the Democratic majority" "District Attorney Lem Martinez, who spoken against the repeal bill, said "the Senate vote was the result of (President Barack) Obama's coattails." ("Senate backs death-penalty repeal", Steve Terrell, 3/13/09)

Furthermore, the newest anti death penalty issue, cost, had nothing to do with it.

The New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) was, clearly, in error, with their cost evaluations in their bill analysis - a fact which I pointed out to the NM legislature. First, New Mexico used a North Carolina cost study, which had no relevance in New Mexico. Secondly, the LFC misinterpreted the study, which actually finds the death penalty to be less expensive than a true life sentence, the opposite of the LFC statement.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

 

[jillio]

Cost was a big issue at the beginning of the New Mexico session, but soon vanished as a topic, when it was discovered it was just a scam.

"Rebuttal to Governor Richardson - Repeal of the Death Penalty in New Mexico"

Death Penalty Articles

"Why did Gov. Richardson repeal the death penalty? His legacy"

Death Penalty Articles

Some notes on New Mexico:

Specific anti death penalty arguments may have had no effect on the final outcome.

First, those arguments are, easily, rebutted or countered.

Secondly, New Mexico lawmakers state that the Democratic election propelled the death penalty repeal.

From The (Santa Fe) New Mexican newspaper: "Friday's decisive state Senate vote to repeal the death penalty in New Mexico was a direct result of November's election of several new lawmakers." The repeal bill's sponsor, Rep. Gail Chase said she was able to get the bill through because the 2008 election added three more senators to the Democratic majority" "District Attorney Lem Martinez, who spoken against the repeal bill, said "the Senate vote was the result of (President Barack) Obama's coattails." ("Senate backs death-penalty repeal", Steve Terrell, 3/13/09)

Furthermore, the newest anti death penalty issue, cost, had nothing to do with it.

The New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) was, clearly, in error, with their cost evaluations in their bill analysis - a fact which I pointed out to the NM legislature. First, New Mexico used a North Carolina cost study, which had no relevance in New Mexico. Secondly, the LFC misinterpreted the study, which actually finds the death penalty to be less expensive than a true life sentence, the opposite of the LFC statement.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

I'm curious. You follow your name with the words "Justice Matters". Is this simply a personal perspective that you have decided to add to your name, or are you claiming membership in an actual organization known as "Justice Matters," or are you simply claiming to have read the newletter entitled "Justice Matters"? If you are claiming membership in an actual organization, please link to the webpage to offer some credibility. If you are referencing the newletter, a link is also necessary. If you are stating a personal position, then it should be identified as such. The way you have used the term following your name appears to be a deliberate attempt to convey expertise and credibility where it is lacking.

Additionally, while you have offered a plethora of websites containing articles regarding the point you are attempting to make, these are no more than opinion pieces. You claim statistics to support your numbers, yet you have failed to link to or cite said research that would contain such statistical analysis of the numbers.

Additionally, you claim that capital punishment reduces the number of murders in a given society. Please support that claim with valid research showing a positive correlation between the use of capital punsihment and the statisitcal reduction of the number of murder cases in society. The old argument you have relied on of "That guy won't kill again." is ages old and is nothing more than an emotional appeal to attempt to justify the use of capital punishment. However, given the nature of the murders that occur in the U.S., it is also extremely misleading when one looks at the big picture. That argument has not only been successfully refuted on a logical basis, it has also been disproven with legal, sociological, and psychological research and statisitics.

Law student or sociology student? Or just someone who has joined a deaf message board for the express purpose of a hit and run posting?

 

[dudleysharp]

Jillio:

It is fairly well estalished that executed murderers do not murder, again. I have found no one that has contradicted that, yet.

The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Enhanced Due Process

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.

Enhanced Incapacitation

To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.

Enhanced Deterrence

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 . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.

Even the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life.

Enhanced Fear

Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.

Reality paints a very different picture.

What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.

This is not, even remotely, in dispute.

What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

The False Promise

Part of the anti death penalty deception is that a life sentence, with no possibility of release, is a superior alternative to the death penalty. It's a lie. History tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc. There are few absolutes with sentencing. But, here are two: the legislature can lessen the sentences of current inmates, retroactively, and the executive branch can lessen any individual sentence, at any time. This has been, actively, pursued, for a number of years, in many states, because of the high cost of life sentences and/or geriatric care, found to be $60,000-$90,000 per year per inmate.

Innocents released from death row: Some reality

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking.

The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers, The New York Times, has recognized that deception.

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . "(1) This when death penalty opponents were claiming the release of 119 "innocents" from death row. Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their "exonerated" or "innocents" list. They simply invented their own definitions for exonerated and innocent and deceptively shoe horned large numbers of inmates into those definitions - something easily discovered with fact checking.

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can, reasonably, conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 8000 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This improved accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system, over and above DNA testing.

Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?

Unlikely.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

--------------------------------

Full report -All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request

(1) The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times

copyright 2007-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

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

Essays: Death Penalty Articles

www.dpinfo.comwww.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
Death Penalty Links
Josh Marquis, Clatsop County District Attorney See death penalty
Death Penalty Debate
Pro-death penalty.com
yesdeathpenalty - The Death Penalty - a Defence (Sweden)

 

[dudleysharp]

Death Penalty Deterrence 16 recent studies

For some of the recent 16 deterrence studies, go to:

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF) Homepage

US Senate testimony
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1745&wit_id=4991

The Death Penalty as a Deterrent -*16 Recent Studies
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, updated 82207

CONTACT information for all of the study authors is within the footnotes

"I oppose the death penalty. " " But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"*"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it." "The results are robust, they don't really go away" "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.".

Prof. Naci Mocan, Economics Chairman, University of Colorado at Denver
"Studies say death penalty deters crime", ROBERT TANNER, Associated Press, Jun 10, 2007, 2:01 PM ET

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect.* An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.

(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997. (2)

(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: "The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost." (3)

(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. "Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states." (4)

(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd* found that each execution results, on average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment* deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions.* (5)* NOTE In a later review of individual state data, Shepherd found that for states executing less than once*every 27 months, that there was no effect on murders or murders actually rose. Citations to follow.

(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (6)

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions." (7)
*
(2005)* In a review of Illinois state data, University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini found that 150 additional Illinois' citizens died, in*a four year period*because of Governor Ryan suspended executions and commuted all death sentences.* (Applied Economics, forthcoming* 2006). *


Criticisms rebutted and additional studies

(2006) " . . . (Donohue and Wolfers' "D&W") criticisms of Zimmerman's analysis are misrepresentative, moot or unsupportable in terms of the analyses they perform."* "It is shown that Zimmerman's published empirical results, or the conclusions drawn from them, are not in any way refuted by D&W's critique." (pg 3)* "This later estimate suggests that each execution deters 14 murders on average . . .". (pg 7) "It is shown that D&W made a number of serious misinterpretations in their review of Zimmerman's study and that none of the analyses put forward by D&W (which ostensibly refute Zimmerman's original results and conclusions) hold up under scrutiny. (pg8) " . . . D&W do not even report Zimmerman's "preferred"* results correctly, and then proceed by carrying on this error throughout the remainder of their critique."(pg8) "Of course, (D&W's) omission tends to create a strong impression that Zimmerman's analysis 'purports to find reliable relationships between executions and homicides', when his actual conclusions regarding the deterrent effect of capital punishment are far more agnostic." (pg10) " . . . D&W's method of interpreting their results is not consistent with that proscribed by the received econometric literature on randomized testing . . .".* "As such, D&W's interpretation of their randomized test in itself does not (and cannot) reasonably lead one to conclude that Zimmerman's estimates suggesting a deterrent effect of capital punishment are spurious." (pg12) " . . . D&W do not appear to have interpreted their randomization test in any meaningful fashion." (pg14) " . . . the state clustering correction employed by D&W may not be producing statistically meaningful results." (pg16) "And while D&W once lamented that recent econometric studies purporting to demonstrate a deterrent effect of capital punishment yield 'heat rather than light', as shown herein, their criticisms of Zimmerman (2004) tend to yield 'smoke rather than fire'."(pg26)
Zimmerman, Paul R., "On the Uses and 'Abuses' of Empirical Evidence in
the Death Penalty Debate" (November 2006).* ssrn(dot)com/abstract=948424
*
(2006) "This analysis shows that attempts to make the deterrence effect disappear are* ineffective." (p 16)
---* Existence of the death penalty, in law, has a statistically significant impact on*reducing murders. (p 23)
---* Execution rates show significant impact in reducing murders. (p 13 & 23)
---* Death row commutations, and other removals, increase murders. (p13 & 23)
---*The criticism of our studies is flawed and does not effect the strength of the measured deterrent effect.
"The Impact of Incentives On Human Behavior: Can we Make It Disappear? The Case of the Death Penalty",* Naci H. Mocan, R. Kaj Grittings, NBER Working Paper, 10/06, www(dot)nber.org/papers/w12631


(2007) "Had*(D&W's) paper been subjected to the normal blind peer review process in an authoritative economic journal it is highly unlikely that it would have survived intact , if at all. "
*
"(D&W's) Quibbling over numerous and sometimes meaningless statistical issues obscures the picture painted by the cumulative effect of the nearly dozen studies published since the turn of the 21st century."*
*
*"Using differing methodologies and data sets at least five groups of scholars each working independently (and often without knowledge of the others) have arrived at the same conclusion—there is significant and robust evidence that executions deter some homicides.* While there may be merit in some of*(D&W's) specific criticisms, none addresses the totality of the collection of studies.* The probability that chance alone explains the coincidence of these virtually simultaneous conclusions is negligible."
*
"DW’s unsupported claim that the appropriate variable in studies of deterrence using these borrowed tools from portfolio analysis is the amount or level of homicides in the respective jurisdictions.* This claim is without theoretical basis or empirical precedent.*"

*
"With regard to DW’s specific comments on our two papers (Cloninger & Marchesini, 2001 & 2006) we find very little requiring defense.* Implicit in their critique, and explicitly stated in private communications, DW were able to replicate our results based on data we furnished, at their request, as well as data they acquired independently.*"
*
"Reflections on a Critique", Dale O Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, forthcoming Applied Economic Letters

The findings for deterrence reflect reason, common sense and history.

"According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime."* "Capital punishment is particularly significant in this context, because it represents a very high cost for committing murder (loss of life).* Thus, the presence of capital punishment in a state, or the frequency with which it is used, should unequivocally deter homicide." Furthermore, "an increase in pardons (commutations) implies a decrease in the probability of execution, which economic theory predicts should have a positive (increase) impact on murder rates." (8)

Isaac Ehrlich (1975) provided the first systemic analysis of the relationship between capital punishment and the crime of murder along with the first empirical analysis of the deterrence hypothesis. He found that each execution deterred, on average, 8 murders. Many additional studies have found corroborating evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty --** from the United States* (Ehrlich, 1977,* Layson, 1985, Cloninger, 1992, Ehrlich and Liu, 1999, Dezhbakhsh et al, 2000) and Canada (Layson 1983) and the UK* (Wolpin, 1978). (9)

Pubic policy makers take note.* Stopping executions will sacrifice innocent lives.* Reinstating capital punishment will spare more innocent lives.

full report

THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF THE DEATH PENALTY
by Dudley Sharp
last update 42707
(contact info, below)

". . . (E)ach execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders . . . ".

Deterrence

The potential for negative consequences deters some behavior.* The most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding. Reason, common sense, history and the weight of the studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty.* The death penalty protects innocent lives. The absence of the death penalty sacrifices innocent lives.

Is there any group, be they criminologists, historians, psychologists, economists, philosophers, physicians, journalists or criminals that does not recognize that the prospect of negative consequences constrains or deters the behavior of some?* Of course not -- not even fiction writers so speculate.* Even irrational people wear seat belts, choose not to smoke and do not rob police stations because of the potential for negative consequences.

I.*Twelve Recent Deterrence Studies-- The death penalty saves innocent lives

Above

ll. Historical support

Reason, history and common sense all support that the potential for negative consequences deters or alters behavior. In short, incentives, negative or positive, matter. That is undisputed.

Numerous, previous studies have also supported a deterrence finding. And the studies that find a deterrent effect of other criminal sanctions give additional support to the deterrent effect of the death penalty, because, if lesser sanctions deter, then we know that more severe sanctions also deter. The studies that find a deterrent effect of 1. increased police presence, or any other levels of security; 2. arrest/arrest rates; 3. criminal sentencing/incarceration terms; and 4. the presence of rules, laws and statutes all provide additional, collateral support for the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of such studies and examples (database in progress).

lII.* Negative consequences matter

Many have discounted a deterrent effect because of the irrationality of potential and active criminals.* However, both reason and the evidence support that the potential for negative consequences does affect criminal behavior.

Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment.* Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital murderers, act in such a fashion.* Fear of capture does not exist without an expectation of punishment.

This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal action.* Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious, thoughtful or instinctive.* And we instinctively know the potential negative consequences of some actions.* Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection.* And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.

When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to murder, such is a more reasoned group.* It would be illogical to assume that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative consequences.* Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.

As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying alive than about avoiding incarceration."* (10)

Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

IV.* The pre trial, trial and death row evidence -* the survival effect

At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all criminals do everything they can to lessen possible punishments.* I estimate that less than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death sentence in the punishment phase of their trial.* The apprehended criminals' desire for lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.

Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals.* The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row than die.* Why?* The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life.* Even on death row, that is the rule.

Even such marginalized personalities as capital murderers fear death more than imprisonment.* And that which we fear the most, deters the most. (kudos to Ernest van den Haag and many others)

It is logical to conclude that some of those less marginalized personalities, who choose not to murder, also, overwhelmingly, fear death more than life, and, we, thus, logically conclude that some are deterred from murdering because of the enhanced deterrent effect of execution.

The evidence for the survival effect in pretrial, trial and appeals is overwhelming and that weighs in favor of execution as a deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser sentences.

V.* If unsure about deterrence

Common sense, reason and history all support that the potential for negative consequences restricts the behavior of some.* But, if unsure of deterrence, we face the following dilemma -- If executions do deter, halting executions causes more innocents to be murdered and gives those living murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.* If the death penalty does not deter, and we do execute, we punish murderers as the jury deemed appropriate and we prevent those executed murderers from harming or murdering again.

Oddly, death penalty opponents believe that the burden of proof is on those who say the death penalty is a deterrent.* Clearly it is not.* The weight of the evidence, within reason, history, common sense and the social sciences is that the potential for negative consequences restricts the behavior of some.* That is not in dispute.* Furthermore, if opponents cannot prove it is not a deterrent, which they never have and never will, then they are the ones who risk sacrificing innocents, both by absence of deterrence and reduced incapacitation.

Regardless of jurisdiction, under all debated scenarios, more innocents are put at risk when we fail to execute.* Any alleged concern for innocents weighs in favor of executions.

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

death penalty deterrence - 16 recent studies

contd

Vl. The individual deterrent effect

The individual deterrent effect is represented by those who state that they were deterred from committing a murder only because of the prospects of a death sentence. Individual cases support the enhanced deterrent effect. (11)

One Iowa prisoner, who escaped from a transportation van, with a number of other prisoners, stated that he made sure that the overpowered guards were not harmed, because of his fear of the death penalty in Texas. The prisoners were being transported through Texas, on their way to New Mexico, when the escape occurred. Most compelling is that he was a twice convicted murderer from a non death penalty state, Iowa. In addition, he was under the false impression that Texas had the death penalty for rape and, as a result, also protected the woman guard from assault. (12)

New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker recorded his interview with a convicted murderer. The murderer robbed and killed drug dealers in Washington DC., where he was conscious that there was no death penalty. He specifically did not murder a drug dealer in Virginia because, and only because, he envisioned himself strapped in the electric chair, which he had personally seen many times while imprisoned in Virginia. (13)

Senator Dianne Feinstein explained, ''I remember well in the 1960s when I was sentencing a woman convicted of robbery in the first degree and I remember looking at her commitment sheet and I saw that she carried a weapon that was unloaded into a grocery store robbery. I asked her the question: ‘Why was your gun unloaded?’ She said to me: ‘So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty.’ That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death penalty in place in California in the sixties was in fact a deterrent.''(13A)

Logic requires that the individual deterrent effect cannot exist without the general deterrent effect. Therefore, reason dictates that the general deterrent effect must exist. The question is not: "Does deterrence exist?" It does. The issue is: "What is the quantifiable impact of deterrence?"

Individual cases support the individual deterrent effect and such cases insure that general deterrence must exist. And, for both, the evidence also suggests that executions provide enhanced deterrence over incarceration.

VlI. Conflicting studies

In reviewing 30 years of deterrence studies, the strongest statement one may make against deterrence is that there is conflicting data (14).

Yet, even when academic bias against capital punishment is overt, such as in the case of the American Society of Criminology -- the subtitle to their death penalty resources page is "Anti-Capital Punishment Resources" -- even they fail to state that the death penalty does not deter some potential murderers, only that "social science research has found no consistent evidence of crime deterrence through execution." (15) That is far from stating that executions do not deter. And the criminologists are, very likely, that academic group most hostile toward the death penalty. What social science conflicts with the notion that the potential for negative consequences restrains the behavior of some? And most would agree that execution is the most serious negative consequence that a murderer may face.

Numerous studies find that executions do deter. And there is a rational conclusion based upon common experience. It appears that all criminal sanctions deter some. It would be irrational to conclude that the most severe and publicized sanction -- execution -- does not deter some potential murderers.

Those studies which do not find deterrence say that they could not detect it, not that it doesn't exist. Those studies which find for deterrence state such.

As Professor Cloninger states: " . . . (Our recent) study is but another on a growing list of empirical work that finds evidence consistent with the deterrence hypothesis. These studies as a whole provide robust evidence -- evidence obtained from a variety of different models, data sets and methodologies that yield the same conclusion. It is the cumulative effect of these studies that causes any neutral observer to pause." (16)

Conflicting studies and reason both weigh in favor of the death penalty as a deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

VlII. The brutalization effect of executions

Some, particularly death penalty opponents, find that the brutalization effect is more likely than the deterrent effect. The brutalization effect finds that murders will increase because potential murderers will murder because of the example of state executions.

Why would potential and active murderers be so influenced by the state in such a deep philosophical manner, revealed by brutalization, but they wouldn't be more affected by the simple "you murder, we execute you?"

Death penalty opponents make an interesting about face on this issue. They insist that criminals are so thoughtless and impulsive that they can't be affected by the potential of negative consequences but, then, those same opponents see criminals as so contemplative that their criminal actions increase BECAUSE those criminals follow the example of the state. One might ask those opponents: "Is there any other government action which influences criminals in such a fashion?" Do criminals kidnap more BECAUSE the state increases incarceration rates? Do criminals give money to potential victims BECAUSE the state donates to needy causes?

Murder rates and execution rates

Although deterrence is much more than a simple look at only execution rates and murder rates, we do find that as executions have risen dramatically, the murder rate has plunged.

From 1966-1980, a period which included our last national moratorium on executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from 11,040 to 23,040. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to 10.2/100,000. During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged 1 execution every 3 years, with a maximum of two executions per year. From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period. The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000 -- a 46% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966 (17).

The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000 (18). Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US. The Harris County murder rate dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar periods. Texas' murder rate dropped 62% during that same period, or 41% more than the national average.

Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization.

And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that aggressively use capital punishment." (19)

After a thorough review of deterrence studies, Professor Samuel Cameron observed, "The brutalization idea is not one the economists have given any credence." "We must conclude that the deterrence effect dominates the opposing brutalization effect." (20)

Reason, history, common sense and the studies weigh against the brutalization effect.

lX. The incapacitation effect

The incapacitation effect states that executed murderers cannot harm or murder again. Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder again than are executed murderers.

That obvious logic escapes death penalty opponents who say that we can have foolproof incarceration. What hypocrisy. This is the same group of folks who tell us that our system of justice is so fraught with error that we cannot possibly continue the death penalty. Yet, the facts tell us that living murderers harm and murder again, in prison, after escape and after improper release. Executed murderers do not. In addition, the US death penalty appears to be that criminal justice sanction which is the least likely to convict the factually innocent and the most likely to remedy such rare error upon post conviction review.

Stuart Taylor: "Statistical studies and common sense aside, it's undeniable that the death penalty saves some lives: those of the prison guards and other inmates who would otherwise be killed by murderers serving life sentences without parole, and of people who might otherwise encounter murderous escapees". (21)

Under all circumstances, the execution of murderers will protect innocents at a higher rate than will incarceration.

X. Death Penalty Opponents

Why is it that some death penalty opponents appear to laugh off any potential for a deterrent effect of executions? Because to admit that executions deter some potential murderers would be to admit that, in reaching their goals, they will knowingly benefit murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives. Of course, opponents will never prove it is not a deterrent and many will admit that executions do deter some.

How many would still oppose executions if they knew that the evidence supported the deterrent effect and that many more innocents are put at risk by not executing?

Stuart Taylor: "So those of us who lean against the death penalty must confront the very real possibility that abolishing it could lead to the violent deaths of unknown numbers of innocent men, women, and children. And those who are still skeptical that the death penalty deters any killings must also confront the risk-benefit calculus suggested by political scientist John McAdams of Marquette University: 'If we execute murderers, and there is, in fact, no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.' " (22)

Xl. Conclusion

Those of us who support execution do so because it is a just punishment. The moral foundation for all punishments is that they are deserved. One cannot support a punishment based upon deterrence alone.

Reason, common sense and history all fall on the side of deterrence. Be it Sweden or Rwanda, Texas or Michigan, Singapore or Chile, England or Japan, whether high crime rates or low, the death penalty will always deter some potential murderers. Regardless of jurisdiction, the potential for negative outcomes will always restrict the behavior of some. And, the weight of the evidence clearly supports execution as an enhanced deterrent.

As Professor Rubin states, "Our evidence is that there are substantial benefits from executions and, thus, substantial costs of changing this policy (23).

From Prof. Robert Blecker, New York Law School,

"We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save lives which deserve to be saved. "

copyright 2001-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

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

Death Penalty Articles

www.dpinfo.comwww.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
Death Penalty Links
Josh Marquis, Clatsop County District Attorney
Death Penalty Debate
Pro-death penalty.com
yesdeathpenalty - The Death Penalty - a Defence (Sweden) Pro Capital Punishment Page


1). "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data", American Law and Economics Review V5 N2 2003 (344-376), Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd.
contact Dezhbakhsh at econhd@emory.edu, ph 404-727-4679, Rubin at prubin@emory.edu, ph 404-727-6365 and Shepherd at jshepherd@law.emory.edu, ph. 404-727-8957
The quotation is from the complete, pre publication study which can be found at
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cozden/Dezhbakhsh_01_01_paper.pdf
2) "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 46, Number 2, October 2003, at
Chicago Journals - The Journal of Law and Economics
registration required
H. Naci Mocan (mmocan@carbon.cudenver.edu, ph 303-556-8540) and R. Kaj Gottings (rgitting@carbon.cudenver.edu),
This is a revised version of "Pardons, Executions and Homicide," NBER WP8639) at
econ.cudenver.edu/mocan/papers/GettingOffDeathRow.pdf
The quote is from the working paper "Pardons, Executions and Homicide", October 2001, located at
http://econ.cudenver.edu/beckman/kai.pdf
downloaded on 1/22/01
3) "EXECUTION MORATORIUM IS NO HOLIDAY FOR HOMICIDES", Prof. Dale O. Cloninger and Prof. Roberto Marchesini. go to Moratorium No Holiday for Homicides
based on the study "Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group
experiment", Dale O. Cloninger (cloninger@cl.uh.edu, phone 281-283-3210), Roberto Marchesini (marchesini@cl.uh.edu, phone 281-283-3215), Applied Economics, 4/01, Vol 33, N 5, p569 -- p576
4) Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence, December 2001, Eastern Economic Journal, Forthcoming , ZHIQIANG LIU (e-mail zqliu@buffalo.edu, ph. 716-645-2121) on line at SSRN-Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence by Zhiqiang Liu
5) Murders of Passion, Execution Delays and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment, March 2003, at Clemson University : Page Not Found!, Joanna M. Shepherd, jshepherd@law.emory.edu, ph. 404-727-8957
6). "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network, SSRN-State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder by Paul Zimmerman
7) Dezhbakhsh, Hashem and Shepherd, Joanna, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'" (Aug 19, 2003). Emory University Economics Working Paper No. 03-14 at
ssrn.com/abstract=432621
contact Dezhbakhsh at econhd@emory.edu or ph 404-727-4679 and Shepherd at jshepherd@law.emory.edu, ph. 404-727-8957
8) "Pardons, Executions and Homicide", H. Naci Mocan (mmocan@carbon.cudenver.edu) and R. Kaj Gottings (rgitting@carbon.cudenver.edu), Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming. Online version located at
http://econ.cudenver.edu/beckman/kai.pdf
downloaded on 1/22/01
9) Professor Ehrlich, e-mail mgtehrl@acsu.buffalo.edu, phone (716) 645-2121. For support and defense of his work go to: Isaac Ehrlich's Crime & Justice Page
Review from Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence, December 2001, Eastern Economic Journal, Forthcoming , ZHIQIANG LIU, e-mail zqliu@buffalo.edu, ph. 716-645-2121, on line at
SSRN-Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence by Zhiqiang Liu
10) "Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?", Stuart Taylor, National Journal. D.C. Dispatch, 5/31/02 at D.C. Dispatch | 2001.05.31 | Taylor
11) see paragraph 14, Section B, "The Incapacitation and the Deterrence Effects", Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States, 10/1/97, at Death Penalty Paper
12) "Langley says Texas death penalty affected his actions during escape", by Stephen Martin, The Daily Democrat (Ft. Madison, Iowa), 1/8/97, pg 1.
13) Blecker book
13A) California District Attorneys Association, ''Prosecutors Perspective on California’s Death Penalty,'' March 2003
14) Section B, "The Incapacitation and the Deterrence Effects", Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States, 10/1/97, at Death Penalty Paper
15) "ASC RESOLUTION ON THE DEATH PENALTY", ASC Annual Meeting, Montreal, 1987, Anti-Capital Punishment Resources from the ASC's Critical Criminology Division, go to http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
last viewed 12/2/01.
16) "Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment", Dale O. Cloninger (cloninger@cl.uh.edu), Roberto Marchesini (marchesini@cl.uh.edu), Applied Economics, 4/01, Vol 33, N 5, p569 -- p576, located at Execution and Deterrence: A Quasi-controlled Group Experiment
17) i) Homicide trends in the U.S., Long term trends, Homicide victimization, 1950-99, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-2000
at Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States:
, Page last revised on January 4, 2001
(ii) Crime in the United States -- 2000, Section II -- Crime Index Offenses Reported, "Murder and non negligent homicide", FBI, Uniform Crime Reports at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_3.pdf
(iii) "Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2001", Key Facts at a Glance, Executions
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Source: Capital Punishment 2000, December 2001 at
Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance Number of persons executed in the United States
18) Texas Department of Public Safety, Uniform Crime Reporting, Harris County data, from 1982 and 2000 database.
19) Boston Globe, 10/28/97, p A12
20) "A Review of the Econometric Evidence on the Effects of Capital Punishment", The Journal of Socio-Economics, v23 n 1/2, p 197-214, 1994
21) "Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?", Stuart Taylor, National Journal. D.C. Dispatch, 5/31/02 at D.C. Dispatch | 2001.05.31 | Taylor
22) "Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?", Stuart Taylor, National Journal. D.C. Dispatch, 5/31/02 at D.C. Dispatch | 2001.05.31 | Taylor
23) "Death penalty deters scores of killings ", Paul H. Rubin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 3/13/02, from
www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0302/0314death.html

 

[dudleysharp]

Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear

Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, 0309

There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always deter some - it is a truism. Therefore, the question is not "Can we prove that the death penalty acts to deter some?" Of course it does. The question is "Can death penalty opponents prove the death penalty does not deter some?" Of course they can't.

Whether a jurisdiction has high murder rates or low ones, rather rising or lowering rates, the presence of the death penalty will produce fewer net murders, the absence of the death penalty will produce more net murders.

It is just like smoking rates or the rates at which people speed in their cars, whether a jurisdiction has the highest such rates or the lowest of such rates, there will always be some, in all jurisdictions, who don't smoke because of the deterrence of fear of health problems and don't speed because of the deterrence of speeding violations, resulting in criminal prosecution and higher insurance costs.

The Poor Model

In their story, "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (1)

What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you can't simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding deterrence.

As one observer stated: "The Times story does nothing more than repeat the dumbest of all dumb mistakes — taking the murder rate in a traditionally high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and concluding that the death penalty doesn't work at all. Even this comparison doesn't work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were 40 percent above Michigan's in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .". (2)

Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty."(3)

Even though easily observed on the Times' own graphics, they failed to mention the obvious. Michigan's murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US's 38 death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC (not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same period.

Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.

Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: "One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions." (4)

And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 -- possibly the largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.

Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than doubled in the US. Based upon the New York Times model, that indicates a strong and direct correlation between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is specifically what you are looking for. But, you shouldn't be.

If deterrence was measured by direct correlation's between execution, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate, only more confusion. Which may have been the Times' goal.

Let's take a look at the science.

Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and Louisiana, that have high rates.

To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally, geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the rates of homicides.

See murder rate REVIEW, below

As so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state, such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state, such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states, such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here, not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks already knew that.

As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations. That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations within and between others. Any direct comparison of only execution rates and only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or deception.

Ehrlich called the Times study "a throwback to the vintage 1960's statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal." "The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit." He called the Times story a "one sided affair" devoid of merit. Most interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time's writer, Fessenden, who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published. Somehow Ehrlich's overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.

Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh "says he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment."

Somehow, Fessenden's left that out of the Times story, as well. (5). This has become the common rule for anti death penalty journalism.

It is the same for all prospects of a negative outcome - they all deter some.

Maybe the Times will be a bit more thoughtful, next time.

REVIEW

"The List: Murder Capitals of the World", 09/08, Foreign Policy Magazine
Capital punishment (cp) or not (ncp)
murder rates/100,000 population

4 out of the top 5 do not have the death penalty

1. Caracas (ncp), Venezuela 130-160
Bad policing.
2. New Orleans (cp), La, USA 69-95
Variable because of different counts in surging population. Drug related.
Nos 2 & 3 in US, Detroit (ncp), 46 and Baltimore (cp), 45.
3. Cape Town (ncp), South Africa 62
Most crimes with people who know each other.
4. Port Mores (ncp), Papua New Guinea 54
Chinese gangs, corrupt policing
5. Moscow (ncp), Russia 9.6
various

Of the Top 10 Countries With Lowest Murder Rates (1), 7 have the death penalty

O f the Top 10 Countries With Highest Murder Rates (2), 5 have the death penalty

Top 10 Countries With Lowest Murder Rates
Iceland 0.00 ncp
Senegal 0.33 ncp
Burkina Faso 0.38 cp
Cameroon 0.38 cp
Finland 0.71 ncp
Gambia 0.71 cp
Mali 0.71 cp
Saudi Arabia 0.71 cp
Mauritania 0.76 cp
Oman cp


Top 10 Countries With Highest Murder Rates
Honduras 154.02 ncp
South Africa 121.91 ncp
Swaziland 93.32 cp
Colombia 69.98 ncp
Lesotho 50.41 cp
Rwanda 45.08 ncp
Jamaica 37.21 cp
El. Salvador 36.88 cp
Venezuela 33.20 ncp
Bolivia 31.98 cp

(1) Countries with the lowest murder rates no date

(2) Countries With Highest Murder Rates no date


FOOTNOTES

1) "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New
York Times 9/22/00 located at
Deadly Statistics: A Survey of Crime and Punishment - The New York Times and States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates - The New York Times
2) “Don't Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece", William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at Guest Comment on NRO
3) ibid, see footnote 11
4) "The Death Penalty Saves Lives", AIM Report, August 2000, located at
www. aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
5) "NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN", Accuracy in Media, 10/16/00, go to Accuracy In Media - For Fairness, Accuracy and Balance in News Reporting.

copyright 2000-2009 Dudley Sharp: Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

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.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

Welcome to Death Penalty Information @ DPINFO.com
Death penalty information
Death Penalty Links
Josh Marquis, Clatsop County District Attorney
Death Penalty Debate
Pro-death penalty.com
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
Pro Capital Punishment Page

 

[jillio]

Jillio:

It is fairly well estalished that executed murderers do not murder, again. I have found no one that has contradicted that, yet.

The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Enhanced Due Process

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.

Enhanced Incapacitation

To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.

Enhanced Deterrence

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 . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.

Even the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life.

Enhanced Fear

Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.

Reality paints a very different picture.

What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.

This is not, even remotely, in dispute.

What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

The False Promise

Part of the anti death penalty deception is that a life sentence, with no possibility of release, is a superior alternative to the death penalty. It's a lie. History tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc. There are few absolutes with sentencing. But, here are two: the legislature can lessen the sentences of current inmates, retroactively, and the executive branch can lessen any individual sentence, at any time. This has been, actively, pursued, for a number of years, in many states, because of the high cost of life sentences and/or geriatric care, found to be $60,000-$90,000 per year per inmate.

Innocents released from death row: Some reality

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking.

The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers, The New York Times, has recognized that deception.

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . "(1) This when death penalty opponents were claiming the release of 119 "innocents" from death row. Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their "exonerated" or "innocents" list. They simply invented their own definitions for exonerated and innocent and deceptively shoe horned large numbers of inmates into those definitions - something easily discovered with fact checking.

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can, reasonably, conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 8000 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This improved accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system, over and above DNA testing.

Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?

Unlikely.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

--------------------------------

Full report -All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request

(1) The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times

copyright 2007-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

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

Essays: Death Penalty Articles

www.dpinfo.comwww.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
Death Penalty Links
Josh Marquis, Clatsop County District Attorney See death penalty
Death Penalty Debate
Pro-death penalty.com
yesdeathpenalty - The Death Penalty - a Defence (Sweden)

Just because an executed murderer doesn't murder again does not in any way translate to execution leading to reduced murder rates. There is substantial research in the fields of criminology, law, and sociology that, in fact, shows no correlation between a countries use of the death penalty and murder rates.

In recent years, however, numerous studies have found that one in seven people sent to death row are later proven innocent. And in one disturbing recent case, a prisoner was 48 hours from execution when he was proven innocent. In the last 25 years, 102 innocent people have been released from death row.

American Civil Liberties Union : Stop the Execution of the Innocent

Given the imperfections in our criminal justice system, one can easily extrapolate from those numbers that there have also been innocents who have been executed. Likewise, perhaps you missed the news, but a man was recently posthumously found to be innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned and died while incarcerated. Likewise, you might want to keep in mind that as the vast majority of murders are considered to be "crimes of passion", chances of recidivism with a person convicted of a single murder are less than the recidivism rates for any other crime. And the vast majority of people convicted of murder are people who have committed a single murder. Mass murderers, the ones at risk for recidivism, are a neglible percentage of the population.

You also failed to answer several pertinent questions. I will repost them here.

You follow your name with the words "Justice Matters". Is this simply a personal perspective that you have decided to add to your name, or are you claiming membership in an actual organization known as "Justice Matters," or are you simply claiming to have read the newletter entitled "Justice Matters"?

Law student or sociology student? Or just someone who has joined a deaf message board for the express purpose of a hit and run posting?
__________________

 

[dudleysharp]

Jillio's errors:

Deterrence is not measured by a look at murder rates and executions. I thought you might make that error, that is why I posted:

Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear

Please read it.

The 102 "innocents" released from death row is a scam, easily detected by fact checking. The 102 has risen to 131, now:

The 130 death row "innocents" scam
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

NOTE: fact checking issues, on innocence and the death penalty.

It is very important to take note that the 130 "exonerated" from death row is a blatant scam, easily uncovered by fact checking.

Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) and DPIC have produced the claims regarding the exonerated and innocents released from death row list.

The scam is that DPIC just decided to redefine what exonerated and innocence mean according to their own perverse definitions.

How Dieter and DPIC define what "exonerated" or "innocent" means.

". . . (DPIC) makes no distinction between legal and factual innocence. " 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' "

That is untrue, of course. We are all aware of the differences between legal guilt and actual guilt and legal innocence (not guilty) and actual innocence, just as the courts are.

The only issue in the death penalty innocence debate is how many actual innocents are sent to death row and what is the probability of executing an actual innocent. Legal innocence is not the issue, for the simple fact that we cannot execute a legally innocent person. So the concern is over the actual innocent, those who had no connection to the murder(s).

Furthermore, there is no finding of actual innocence, but it is "not guilty". Dieter knows that we are all speaking of actual innocence, those cases that have no connection to the murder(s). He takes advantage of that by redefining exonerated and innocence.

Dieter "clarifies" the three ways that former death row inmates get onto their "exonerated" by "innocence" list.

"A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon."

None establishes actual innocence.

DPIC has " . . . included supposedly innocent defendants who were still culpable as accomplices to the actual triggerman."

DPIC: "There may be guilty persons among the innocents, but that includes all of us."

Good grief. DPIC wishes to apply collective guilt of capital murder to all of us.

Dieter states: "I don't think anybody can know about a person's absolute innocence." (Green). Dieter said he could not pinpoint how many are "actually innocent" -- only the defendants themselves truly know that, he said." (Erickson)

Or Dieter won't assert actual innocence in 1, 102 or 350 cases. He doesn't want to clarify a real number with proof of actual innocence, that would blow his entire deception.

Or, Dieter declare all innocent: "If you are not proven guilty in a court of law, you're innocent." (Green)

Dieter would call Hitler and Stalin innocent. Those are his "standards".

And that is the credibility of the DPIC.

For fact checking.

1. "Case Histories: A Review of 24 Individuals Released from Death Row", Florida Commission on Capital Cases, 6/20/02, Revised 9/10/02 at http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

83% error rate in "innocent" claims.

2. "Is 'the innocence list' an appropriate name?", 1/19/03
FRANK GREEN, TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
TimesDispatch.com | Is 'the innocence list' an appropriate name?

Dieter admits they don't discern between legal innocence and actual innocence. One of Dieter's funnier quotes;"The prosecutor, perhaps, or Dudley Sharp, perhaps, thinks they're still guilty because there was evidence of their guilt, but that's a subjective judgment." Yep, "EVIDENCE OF GUILT", can't you see why Dieter would think they were innocent? And that's how the DPIC works.

3. The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ".

That is out of the DPIC claimed 119 "exonerated", at that time, for a 75% error rate.

NOTE: It's hard to understand how an absolute can have a differential of 33%. I suggest the "to be sure" is, now, closer to 25.

4. CRITIQUE OF DPIC LIST ("INNOCENCE:FREED FROM DEATH ROW"), Ward Campbell, DPIC "Innocence" List


5. "The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois", JJKinsella,6/2000, DCBA Brief, June 2000 Issue - The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois


6.THE DEATH PENALTY - ALL INNOCENCE ISSUES, Dudley Sharp
Death Penalty Articles

Origins of "innocence" fraud, and review of many innocence issues

7. "Bad List", Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, 9/16/02
NR Advance: September 16, 2002, issue

How bad is DPIC?

8. "Not so Innocent", By Ramesh Ponnuru,National Review, 10/1/02
Ramesh Ponnuru on Death Penalty on National Review Online

DPIC from bad to worse.

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.

 

[jillio]

Jillio's errors:

Deterrence is not measured by a look at murder rates and executions. I thought you might make that error, that is why I posted:

Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear

Please read it.

The 102 "innocents" released from death row is a scam, easily detected by fact checking. The 102 has risen to 131, now:

The 130 death row "innocents" scam
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

NOTE: fact checking issues, on innocence and the death penalty.

It is very important to take note that the 130 "exonerated" from death row is a blatant scam, easily uncovered by fact checking.

Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) and DPIC have produced the claims regarding the exonerated and innocents released from death row list.

The scam is that DPIC just decided to redefine what exonerated and innocence mean according to their own perverse definitions.

How Dieter and DPIC define what "exonerated" or "innocent" means.

". . . (DPIC) makes no distinction between legal and factual innocence. " 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' "

That is untrue, of course. We are all aware of the differences between legal guilt and actual guilt and legal innocence (not guilty) and actual innocence, just as the courts are.

The only issue in the death penalty innocence debate is how many actual innocents are sent to death row and what is the probability of executing an actual innocent. Legal innocence is not the issue, for the simple fact that we cannot execute a legally innocent person. So the concern is over the actual innocent, those who had no connection to the murder(s).

Furthermore, there is no finding of actual innocence, but it is "not guilty". Dieter knows that we are all speaking of actual innocence, those cases that have no connection to the murder(s). He takes advantage of that by redefining exonerated and innocence.

Dieter "clarifies" the three ways that former death row inmates get onto their "exonerated" by "innocence" list.

"A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon."

None establishes actual innocence.

DPIC has " . . . included supposedly innocent defendants who were still culpable as accomplices to the actual triggerman."

DPIC: "There may be guilty persons among the innocents, but that includes all of us."

Good grief. DPIC wishes to apply collective guilt of capital murder to all of us.

Dieter states: "I don't think anybody can know about a person's absolute innocence." (Green). Dieter said he could not pinpoint how many are "actually innocent" -- only the defendants themselves truly know that, he said." (Erickson)

Or Dieter won't assert actual innocence in 1, 102 or 350 cases. He doesn't want to clarify a real number with proof of actual innocence, that would blow his entire deception.

Or, Dieter declare all innocent: "If you are not proven guilty in a court of law, you're innocent." (Green)

Dieter would call Hitler and Stalin innocent. Those are his "standards".

And that is the credibility of the DPIC.

For fact checking.

1. "Case Histories: A Review of 24 Individuals Released from Death Row", Florida Commission on Capital Cases, 6/20/02, Revised 9/10/02 at http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

83% error rate in "innocent" claims.

2. "Is 'the innocence list' an appropriate name?", 1/19/03
FRANK GREEN, TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
TimesDispatch.com | Is 'the innocence list' an appropriate name?

Dieter admits they don't discern between legal innocence and actual innocence. One of Dieter's funnier quotes;"The prosecutor, perhaps, or Dudley Sharp, perhaps, thinks they're still guilty because there was evidence of their guilt, but that's a subjective judgment." Yep, "EVIDENCE OF GUILT", can't you see why Dieter would think they were innocent? And that's how the DPIC works.

3. The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ".

That is out of the DPIC claimed 119 "exonerated", at that time, for a 75% error rate.

NOTE: It's hard to understand how an absolute can have a differential of 33%. I suggest the "to be sure" is, now, closer to 25.

4. CRITIQUE OF DPIC LIST ("INNOCENCE:FREED FROM DEATH ROW"), Ward Campbell, DPIC "Innocence" List


5. "The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois", JJKinsella,6/2000, DCBA Brief, June 2000 Issue - The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois


6.THE DEATH PENALTY - ALL INNOCENCE ISSUES, Dudley Sharp
Death Penalty Articles

Origins of "innocence" fraud, and review of many innocence issues

7. "Bad List", Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, 9/16/02
NR Advance: September 16, 2002, issue

How bad is DPIC?

8. "Not so Innocent", By Ramesh Ponnuru,National Review, 10/1/02
Ramesh Ponnuru on Death Penalty on National Review Online

DPIC from bad to worse.

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.

Not a scam at all, but easily supported through factual data. And deterrence is most definately decided by a look at capital punsihment rates and murder rates. You might want to refresh your understanding of empirical research.


People are not sent to death row based on actual guilt. They are sent to death row based on legal guilt. Duh. And that legal guilt can often found to be in error. And one does not receive a commuted sentence, nor even granting of a new trial, without sufficient evidence that the first sentence was not just based on the evidence.

So, you are claiming to be the above Mr. Sharp? Then why the refusal to answer direct questions regarding your status? Or why it is that you post the phrase "Justice Matters" after your name? Are you trying to tell us, in some obsure way, that you are indeed the author of the newsletter entitled "Justice Matters"? Odd, that no where in that description does it indicate any expertise in criminology, sociology, or law. All it really states is that he is a man with an opinion. And not a very consistent opinion, as all the hype is over the fact that he changed his mind, and now has nothing more than a different opinion. And, you do know what they say about opinions, don't you?

 

[jillio]

The first of the comparative studies of capital punishment was done by Thorsten Sellin in 1959. Sellin was a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the pioneers of scientific criminology. He was a prime mover in setting up the government agencies that collect statistics on crime. His method involved two steps: “First, a comprehensive view of the subject which incorporated historical, sociological, psychological, and legal factors into the analysis in addition to the development of analytical models; and second, the establishment and utilization of statistics in the evaluation of crime” (Toccafundi 1996).

Sellin applied his combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in an exhaustive study of capital punishment in American states. He used every scrap of data that was available, together with his knowledge of the history, economy, and social structure of each state. He compared states to other states and examined changes in states over time. Every comparison he made led him to the “inevitable conclusion . . . that executions have no discernable effect on homicide rates” (Sellin 1959, 34).

Sellin’s work has been replicated time and time again, as new data have become available, and all of the replications have confirmed his finding that capital punishment does not deter homicide (see Bailey and Peterson 1997, and Zimring and Hawkins 1986). These studies are an outstanding example of what statistician David Freedman (1991) calls “shoe leather” social research. The hard work is collecting the best available data, both quantitative and qualitative. Once the statistical data are collected, the analysis consists largely in displaying them in tables, graphs, and charts which are then interpreted in light of qualitative knowledge of the states in question. This research can be understood by people with only modest statistical background. This allows consumers of the research to make their own interpretations, drawing on their qualitative knowledge of the states in question.

Capital Punishment and Homicide: Sociological Realities and Econometric Illusions | Death Penalty Information Center

Another method is to follow the murder rate in a fixed state or jurisdiction
and see what happened when capital punishment was abolished, and, in some
cases, when it was reintroduced. Sellin and others did studies of this kind too.
These investigations again failed to reveal any additional deterrent effect due to capital punishment.5

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

And it would seem my questions are answered more readily with a bit of superficial research:

About Dudley Sharp
Expertise
Any question specific to the death penalty.

Experience
Partial CV of Dudley Sharp
Re: For the death penalty

not updated for a while

This CV goes through a list of the three websites of Justice For All. If it doesn't all come through, please let me know.

Mr. Sharp, a former opponent of capital punishment, has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Crime-Law-Enforcement-341/2009/3/capital-punishment-3.htm

Perhaps you are unaware of the the fact that a Curriculum Vitae is to include educational experience, degrees achieved, and degrees currently being sought. Therefore, what has been posted is nothing more than a biography, not a CV. I suppose that you used CV as another way to infer competence and qualification where none actually exists.

Position: Mr. Sharp was Vice President, Political Director and member of the Board of Directors of JFA from July 1993, when JFA was founded, through January 2000. He opposed capital punishment until December 1995. He is now Resource Director for JFA.
JUSTICE FOR ALL is a criminal justice reform organization. Our focus is solely on violent crime issues and what we can do, within the criminal justice and legislative systems, to lessen injury to the innocent and to prosecute the guilty. To accomplish that goal, we are actively involved in community education, elections, legislation, victim's rights issues, including our involvement in many individual cases.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Crime-Law-Enforcement-341/2009/3/capital-punishment-3.htm

JFA websites
Justice For All - A Criminal Justice Reform Organization
Pro-death penalty.com
Murder Victims.com

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Crime-Law-Enforcement-341/2009/3/capital-punishment-3.htm

How thoughtful of you to direct us back to your own websites.:roll:

Quite obvious that "Mr. Sharp" is nothing more than a man with a personal agenda and internet access.:P

 

[dudleysharp]

Jillio's willful errors

Jillio:

Of course it is a scam. The innocence issue is specific to "actual innocents" and the probability of executing an actual innocent. That is the whole innocence debate.

And deterrence is not measured by a blind look at only murder rates and the death penalty. That is also quite clear.

These are fact issues, not opinion issues.

Your obfuscation and willful ignorance stand in the way of reason.

Please refer to:

Aristotle (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”

 

[jillio]

The dozen states that have chosen not to enact thedeath penalty since the Supreme
Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have
not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty,
government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show.

Capital Punishment and Homicide Rates

The death penalty, emotional beliefs not-withstanding, is not a deterrent. In country after country, it has been found that the existence, abolition, or re-introduction of capital punishment has no discernible effect on the murder rate.

What does have a discernible effect, on the murder rate, on other crimes of violence, and on the crime rate in general, are various social factors.

The Capital Punishment Debate

The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, statistics and analysis show.
Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, FBI data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. A state-by-state analysis found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

The Times study also found that homicide rates have risen and fallen along roughly symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty, suggesting to many experts that the threat of the death penalty rarely deters criminals.

States Without Death Penalty Have Lower Homicide Rates

"This study provides some sobering evidence to those who believe that the death penalty deters," stated Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and report co-author, "the evidence revealed in this report is that the death penalty is simply not a deterrent."

For the 15 year period in which California carried out an execution every other month (1952 to 1967), murder rates increase 10% annually, on average. Between 1967 and 1991, when there were no executions in California, the murder rate increased 4.8% annually. The study also found that, in the four months preceding Harris' death, the average monthly number of homicides in California was 306. In the four months following his highly publicized execution, an average of 333 persons fell victim to homicides, an astonishing 9% increase.

"This data mirrors research from other states which has shown that, contrary to deterring murders, state-sanctioned killing may actually have a "brutalizing effect", wherein the state legitimizes the act of taking another's life," stated Michael Godfrey, report co-author, "in that sense, the state may tragically be leading by example."

Study: Homicides up during time of executions


In theory, the death penalty saves lives by staying the hand of would-be killers. The idea is simple cost-benefit analysis: If a man tempted by homicide knew that he would face death if caught, he would reconsider.

But that's not the real world. The South executes far more convicted murderers than any other region yet has a homicide rate far above the national average. Texas' murder rate is slightly above average, despite the state's peerless deployment of the death penalty. If capital punishment were an effective deterrent to homicide, shouldn't we expect the opposite result? What's going on here?

Human nature, mostly. Murder is often a crime of passion, which by definition excludes the faculties of reason. The jealous husband who walks in on his wife and another man is in no position to deliberate rationally on the consequences of killing his rival. The convenience store robber who chooses in a split-second to shoot the clerk has not pondered the potential outcomes of pulling the trigger.

People overtaken by rage, panic or drunkenness should be brought to justice, of course, but they are hardly paragons of pure reason, and it's unreasonable to assert that they consider the possibility of a death sentence when committing their crimes.

Too distant a threat
Even premeditated killers don't expect to be executed. And for good reason. Statistics show that a homicidal gangster is far more likely to die at the hands of his fellow thugs than the hands of the state. As economist and Freakonomics author Steven Levitt writes, "No rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention."

Well, then, just speed up the appeals process, some say. But the appeals process has already been shortened as much as possible without being reckless. This at the same time that a steady stream of DNA exonerations have raised important questions about investigative tactics once thought to be foolproof.

Is it worth the risk of killing innocent people on the unproven theory that it would result in fewer innocents dying via homicide?

This year, this newspaper reversed its longstanding support of the death penalty because the process is deeply flawed and irreversible. Among the moral, legal and practical reasons for our stance is the absence of hard evidence that capital punishment prevents murder.

Some recent studies purport to show that executions actually deter murders. These studies have been analyzed by others and found to be fatally flawed – "fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors," as Columbia Law professor and statistics expert Jeffrey Fagan testified to Congress. One Pepperdine study touted last month on the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages found that a national decline in the murder rate correlated with executions. But that study links two broad sets of numbers and leaps to a simple conclusion.

Inconclusive at best
The devil really is in the lack of details. The national murder rate has been declining for a decade and a half – in states with and without the death penalty. But the drop has been faster in states that reject capital punishment. At best, evidence for a deterrent effect is inconclusive, and shouldn't officials be able to prove that the taking of one life will undoubtedly save others? They simply have not met that burden of proof, and it's difficult to see how they could.

The only murders the death penalty unarguably deters are those that might have been committed by the executed. But we shouldn't punish inmates for what they might do. Besides, society has an effective and bloodless means of protecting itself from those who have proved themselves willing to murder. It's called life without benefit of parole. In a previous editorial, we called this "death by prison."

Granting the state the power of life and death over its citizens requires something far more solid and certain than mere guesswork.
The Myth of Deterrence: Death penalty does not reduce homicide rate | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Editorials

 

[jillio]

Jillio:

Of course it is a scam. The innocence issue is specific to "actual innocents" and the probability of executing an actual innocent. That is the whole innocence debate.

And deterrence is not measured by a blind look at only murder rates and the death penalty. That is also quite clear.

These are fact issues, not opinion issues.

Your obfuscation and willful ignorance stand in the way of reason.

Please refer to:

Aristotle (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”

The only scam being conducted here is the attempt to present yourself as an expert on anything. Quite clearly, you are no more than a man with an opinion. An opinion that is easily refuted by actual statistics, data, and research.

You have presented no facts. You have presented nothing more than the opinion of a man who has changed his mind and tried to make a career out of it.

You might try reading and comprehending Aristotle before you attempt to quote him.

A quick internet search has destroyed all of your credibility. You have done nothing more than attempt a dishonest portrayal of yourself and your expertise in order to further a personal agenda.