dudleysharp

Follow

Comment history

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

The death penalty is cheaper.

There are three states, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas were the death penalty is most likely less expensive than life without parole.

I posted a review of those in this comment section, but, evidently, it takes a while to approve linked comments.

Virginia executes within 7.1 years of sentencing and has executed 72% of those so sentened, or 108 murderers, since 1976. All states could be responsible and work to emulate those protocols.

That would be less expensive that life without parole (LWOP) in all states, I suspect.

Of course, LWOP cases can appeal for life.

In addition, geriatric care costs for LWOP is enormous, in the range of $50,000-$100,000 per inmate per year.

And there is the death penalty cost benefit of being able to plea bargain a case to LWOP, a plea which goes away if the death penalty is gone.

April 20, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

von Drehle is totally anti death penalty.

If you want a book that really looks at both sides, these two have authors who are well known pro or anti.

Two best books for an even and balanced review of the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: For and Against, by Jeffrey Reiman and Louis P. Pojman, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997)

Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case, edited by Hugo Adam Bedau and Paul Cassell, who are also included authors. (Oxford U Press, 2004)

-----------

NOTE: The Opposing Viewpoints Series on the death penalty/capital punishment has, over decades, provided the best, most evenly balanced reviews of this debate. Publishers Greenhaven Pres and/or Gale).

April 20, 2013 at 4:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

As reviewed, the 142 "exonerated" is a scam. Possibly, the number is about 33.

8300 have been sent to death row since 1973. That is about .04%, all of whom were released from death row.

April 20, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

The 142 "exonerated" is a well known fraud, easily discovered by the most basic of fact checking, which even the New York Times did and found a 66-75% error rate in the exoneration claims, in ine with the other reviews, finding a 70-83% error rate.

a) The 130 (now 142) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/...

b) The "Innocent", the "Exonerated" and Death Row
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03...

=======

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04...

April 20, 2013 at 3:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill introduced to abolish death penalty in Kansas

truth and justice matter

March 9, 2013 at 6:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill introduced to abolish death penalty in Kansas

PRO LIFE: THE DEATH PENALTY
Dudley Sharp

The "pro life" term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.

In the context of the facts, yes, of course you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradiction.

Based upon biblical and theological teachings, one can, reasonably and responsibly, find that an anti death penalty view is not pro life. See below.

All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.

Whether it be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken
away? It can't.

In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit. See below.

There is the well known Genesis passage, reviewed below, wherein the death penalty is based upon life being sacred. Genesis is for all peoples and all times.

In addition, there is Numbers 35:31 which states that there can be no reduction in sentence for murder, that the murderer must be executed. All other crimes are subject to reduced sentences.

The good thief on the cross stated the two thieves were being justly executed for their crimes. Jesus did not reply "you should not be executed". His reply was that the good thief would attain eternal salvation. The concern seems not the manner of our earthly deaths, but our state of redemption and salvation at the time of our deaths - the concern for eternal life.

contd

March 8, 2013 at 5:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill introduced to abolish death penalty in Kansas

contd 2

11) There is substantial factual evidence for anecdotal death penalty deterrence and as an enhanced deterrent (1).

12) If still in doubt, consider this:

If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared even more additional innocent lives via deterrence. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, via the loss of a greater deterrent, as well as by lesser incapacitation. If we don't execute and there is no deterrence, we risk more harm and death to innocents, because living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed murderers do not.

"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."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

13) "How much does the death penalty deter?". There will never be a consensus answer to that question. Even the 28 studies that have found for death penalty deterrence since 2000, have widely different findings, that from 1-28 murderers are deterred per execution (or 33 to 924 saved per year via deterrence, or 1,320 - 36,960 for the fourty years, 1973-2012. This is an average from when new statutes came into law, post Furman, 1972. Executions did not resume until 1977.) (6)

Although these studies have been subject to criticism, the criticism, itself, has been rebutted and/or the criticism is weaker than the studies finding for deterrence (7). In addition, none of that criticism negates 1-12, 14 and/or 15, hereto. It can't.

Even without those 28 studies, the argument for death penalty deterrence and its enhanced deterrent effect still overwhelm any claim that the death penalty deters none, for which no evidence exists.

14) If you are concerned about innocent lives that deserve to be saved, you will support the death penalty (8).

15) Reason, common sense, history and the facts support that the death penalty deters and deters more than lesser sanctions.

FOOTNOTES

ALL MY ACTIVE LINK COMMENTS ARE NOT BEING POSTED, SO I HAD TO REMOVE THE FOOTNOTES.

ENTER THE TITLE AND MY NAME INTO A SEARCH ENGINE AND IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THEM.

March 8, 2013 at 5:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill introduced to abolish death penalty in Kansas

CONTD


8) Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penalty deters none." "Will someone bent on murder turn from the crime when he contemplates the fact that he may be executed for it? Obviously that will happen." (3). More precisely, it "does" happen and always has. Yes, some do argue, without rational and factual support, that the death penalty deters none.

Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degree. Therefore, anti death penalty efforts must contend with the reality that sparing murderers does sacrifice more innocent lives , by reduced deterrence, lesser incapacitation and lesser due process, and executing murderers does save more innocent lives, by enhanced incapacitation, enhanced deterrence and enhanced due process.

9) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters, but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence (4). Both the anecdotal and rational evidence finds that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence.

10) The evidence is expressly clear and overwhelming that death is feared more than life and life is preferred over death, not just for murderers facing death, but by a majority of all of us.

When 99.7% of murderers, who are subject to the death penalty, tell us they fear death more than life (5) and when about 99.9% of the rest of us (excluding the determined suicidal and/or terribly ill) tell us they prefer life over death, it is a certainty that potential murderers, overwhelmingly feel the same, and thus fear execution more than life.

What we fear the most deters the most. This is historically, factually and rationally true.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise.

Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course - just as we all do.

contd

March 8, 2013 at 5:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill introduced to abolish death penalty in Kansas

Yes, it is.

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
Dudley Sharp

It is odd that anyone would think the death penalty was not a deterrent.

1) All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. That is a truism. Execution is a negative outcome for criminals.

2) No study finds that the death penalty deters none. They cannot. No credible academic says the death penalty deters none. Rationally and factually, they cannot.

3) There are numerous cases where it has been found that potential murderers have been deterred from committing murder, because of their fear of the death penalty (1). This is known as individual deterrence. The death penalty deters some. Not only is such confirmed, it cannot be rebutted, as neither rationally nor factually can anyone state the death penalty deters none.

4) General deterrence exists, because individual deterrence could not exist without it.

5) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. As it is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception It, then, follows that it is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot.

6) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Lawlessness becomes the law. Somalia comes to mind.

Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

7) All criminal sanctions, regardless of crime/murder rates, deter some (2). Just because crime/murder rates are low in one jurisdiction and high in another, that doesn't mean that no one is deterred in the jurisdiction with higher rates, as death penalty opponents would claim.

We all know that within different states or countries, there are towns, cities and neighborhoods which have varying crime/murder rates. All sanctions deter in all of those jurisdictions, but they have different rates because of different circumstances (2). It is not that none are deterred, simply because there are higher crime/murder rate in one jurisdiction than another. The claim is irrational on its face (2).

Let's say one jurisdiciton has the lowest of all crime rates. Does than mean that in all other jurisdicitions that none are deterred, because all of them have higher rates than that one? Again, it's ridiculous on its face, but that is what anti death penalty folks are saying.

CONTD

March 8, 2013 at 5:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill introduced to abolish death penalty in Kansas

Nope, there are no DNA proven exoneration of those executed, ever,

March 8, 2013 at 5:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous