Posted on 10/25/2002 7:24:47 PM PDT by GailA
Do We Need the Death Penalty? Yes, It's Still Necessary
by Dudley Sharp Justice For All September, 2002 World and I
Some crimes are so horrendous that only the ultimate penalty can make restitution. Leading the nation: View of the death chamber from the witness room at the Texas State Prison in Huntsville. here is nothing quite like hanging out with your best friend. Jenny Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peûa, 16, shared their hopes and dreams with each other. Like millions of other teenagers, they liked to have fun, to laugh and smile. One summer evening in Houston, Texas, they shared their last moments on earth together--their own murders. They were late returning home and took a shortcut through the woods, next to some railroad tracks. They ran into a gang initiation. They were both raped: orally, anally, and vaginally. The gang members laughed about the virgin blood they spilled. When they had finished, they beat and strangled the girls. But Jenny and Elizabeth wouldn't die. With all their strength, with their souls still holding on to the beautiful lives before them, they fought for life. The gang worked harder. The girls were strangled with belts and shoelaces, stomped on and beaten. Their dreams disappeared as life seeped away from their broken bodies. Their parents are left to visit empty rooms, to cry upon the beds of their daughters and think what could have been. How beautiful Elizabeth would have been in her prom dress. Her corsage was replaced by the flowers on her grave. And Jenny's future children, would their grandparents have spoiled them? You know the answer. The immutable joy of grandchildren's laughter was silenced by the cruel selfishness of murder.
Why the Death Penalty
ometimes, the death penalty is simply the most appropriate punishment for the vile crime committed. In such cases, jurors are given the choice between a death sentence and a variety of life sentences, depending upon the jurisdiction. It is never easy for juries to give a death sentence. Neither hatred nor revenge is part of their deliberations. The search for justice determines the punishment. The murder of the innocent is undeserved. The punishment of murderers has been earned by the pain and suffering they have imposed on their victims. Execution cannot truly represent justice, because there is no recompense to balance the weight of murder. For some crimes, it represents the only just punishment available on earth. Today, much more than justice is part of the death penalty discussion. Opponents are relentlessly attacking the penalty process itself. They insist that it is so fraught with error and caprice that it should be abandoned. At the very least, they say, America should impose a national moratorium so the system can be reviewed. The leading salvo in those claims is that 101 innocent people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. The number is a fraud. Unfortunately, both the international media and, most predictably, the U.S. media have swallowed such claims and passed them along to the public. Even Jury's verdict: David Westerfield was found guilty of kidnapping and murder of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. The sentencing phase begins August 28, 2002 where he faces the possibility of the death penalty. many of our elected officials in Washington have blindly accepted those numbers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said: "What we know is that nearly 100 innocent people have been released from death row since 1973." The source for these claims is the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), the leading source of antideath penalty material in the United States. Richard Dieter, head of the DPIC, has admitted, in the June 6, 2000, ABA Journal, that his group makes no distinction between the legally innocent ("I got off death row because of legal error") and the actually innocent ("I had no connection to the murder") cases. Although the DPIC has attempted to revise its standards for establishing innocence, none of the various contortions even suggests actual innocence. As everyone knows, the debate is about the actually innocent. To strengthen their case, death penalty opponents have broadened their "innocent" count by cases that don't merit that description. On June 20, for example, the Florida Commission on Capital Cases released its review of 23 death sentence cases that the DPIC had called into question. Its conclusion was that in only 4 of those cases were there doubts as to guilt. Though the DPIC claims that 101 cases were released from death row with evidence of innocence, the actual number is closer to 30. That is 30 cases out of 7,000 sentenced to death since 1973. It appears that the death penalty may well be this country's most accurate criminal sanction, when taking into account the percentage of actual innocent convicted (0.4 percent) and the thoroughness of preventing those allegedly innocent from being executed (100 percent). Of all the world's social and governmental institutions that put innocents at risk, I can find only one, the U.S. death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900. Can you think of another?
Saving Innocent Lives
wo other factors weigh into the innocence consideration. First, the death penalty remains the most secure form of incapacitation, meaning that executed murderers do not harm and murder again. Living murderers do, quite often. This is unchallenged. Second, although the deterrent effect of capital punishment has been unjustifiably maligned, the evidence is overwhelming that the potential for negative consequences deters or alters behavior. History and the social sciences fully support that finding. Three major studies were released in 2001, all finding for the deterrent effect of the death penalty. One, out of Emory University, finds that "each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders--with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." Another, out of the University of Houston, found that a temporary halt to executions in Texas resulted in an additional 90--150 murders, because of the reduction in deterrence. One author, Professor C. Robert Cloninger, states: "[Our] recent study is but another of a growing list of empirical work that finds evidence consistent with the deterrent hypothesis. It is the cumulative effect of these studies that causes any neutral observer to pause." Death penalty opponents want us to believe that the most severe criminal sanction--execution--deters no one. However, if reason is your guide and you remain unsure of deterrence, you are left with the following consideration. If the death penalty does deter, halting executions will cause more innocents to be slaughtered by giving murderers an additional opportunity to harm and murder again. If the death penalty does not deter, executions will punish murderers as the jury deems appropriate, preventing them from harming any more victims. Clearly, ending or reducing executions will put many more innocents at risk. Another major factor in the debate was introduced in a study headed by James Liebman, a professor at Columbia University Law School. A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases revealed that there was a 68 percent reversal rate in death penalty cases from 1973 to 1995. The error rate within that study has not been publicly discussed. Professors Barry Latzer and James Cauthen of John Jay College of Criminal Justice found a 25 percent error within the study's calculations, bringing the reversal rate down to 52 percent. Unfortunately, they had to accept the accuracy of Liebman's assessments, because he refused to release his database. Case reviews in Florida, New Jersey, Utah, and Nevada have provided specific cause to challenge his data. Florida challenges any assessment of error in 33 percent of the cases identified by Liebman, suggesting that the national "error" rate may be closer to 35 percent. But even that number is suspect. The Supreme Court has stated that the death penalty system receives super due process. This means that the courts are extraordinarily generous in granting reversals in death penalty cases. In fact, the appellate courts are twice as likely to reverse the sentence in death penalty cases as they are the conviction. Traditionally, death penalty opponents have stated that racism and poverty determine who receives the death penalty. Those arguments persist. What they fail to reveal is that white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as black murderers and are executed 12 months faster. Some claim that the race of the victim determines the sentence. While those who murder whites dominate death row, it is also true that, overwhelmingly, whites are the victims in robberies, rapes, burglaries, and carjackings, which make up the majority of death penalty crimes. No one disputes that the wealthy have an advantage in avoiding a death sentence. The United States executes about 0.1 percent of its murderers. Is there any evidence that it is less likely to execute the wealthier ones, based on the ratio of wealthier to poorer capital murderers? Surprisingly, no.
The Justice Factor
his brings me back to where I started: justice. Some say that executions show a contempt for human life, but the opposite is true. We would hope that a brutal rape may result in a life sentence. Why? We value freedom so highly that we take freedom away as punishment. If freedom were not valued, taking it away would be no sanction. Life is considered even more precious. Therefore, the death penalty is considered the severest sanction for the most horrible of crimes. Even murderers tell us that they value life (their own) more than freedom. That is why over 99 percent of convicted capital murderers seek a life sentence, not a death sentence, during the punishment phase of their trials. Even some of those traditionally against capital punishment have decided that some crimes are justly punished with death. Timothy McVeigh's 2001 execution was thought a just punishment by 81 percent of the American people, reflecting an all-time high of support. When 168 innocents were murdered, including 19 children whom McVeigh described as "collateral damage," the collective conscience of the American people reached an overwhelming consensus. A Gallup poll, released on May 20, shows that 72 percent supported the death penalty, with nearly half those polled saying the sanction is not imposed enough. Why didn't I invoke the murder of 3,100 innocents on September 11? Because the murder of one Jenny Ertman is enough--much too much. Which one of the murdered innocents was more valuable than another? Was one child blown apart in Oklahoma City not enough? Was a father forever lost on September 11 not enough? A son? A granddaughter? Is it the numbers, at all? No, it is the realization that those innocent lives, so willfully ripped from us, represent individuals who contributed to someone's life and happiness. The sheer numbers of murders committed each year may numb us beyond what an individual murder can. But that is only because we must shield ourselves from the absolute horror represented by one innocent murdered. It is a matter of emotional self-preservation. Often, in the most horrible of times, we find that the goodness in people stands out. At one point during the attack, Jenny was able to escape and run away. Elizabeth's cries brought Jenny back in a fruitless attempt to aid her friend. Love, friendship, and devotion overcame fear. Of the six attackers who brutalized these girls for over an hour, five received the death penalty. The sixth was too young to prosecute for death. And why did five separate juries give death? Justice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dudley Sharp is vice president of Justice for All, a criminal justice reform organization in Houston, Texas. Web sites include www.jfa.net, www.prodeathpenalty.com, and www.murdervictims.com
Dudley is an expert on the DP who has appeared on national TV and radio on the subject.
Politics suck --
Politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in
Nobody else has the answer for you. You'll have to do your own rational thinking to figure it out for yourself -- or don't.
Mistakes happen.
Sometimes a small error will be compounded over and over until it becomes a massive problem.
In mid-term and presidential elections tens-of-millions of people vote for the lesser of evils despite the fact that it still begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?
"We have enormous protections, the best by far, but we're never going to have a system that will never execute an innocent person."
-- Statement of Chairperson of the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee made while supporting the death penalty in 1997.
How many innocent prisoners on death row have been executed? To any person that would imply that it's "collateral damage" I ask: what if it was you, your spouse or one of your children that was "collateral damage" put to death for a crime they didn't commit?
More than 75 men and women have been released from US death rows since 1972 -- Figures from Death Penalty Information Center, Washington DC
We're all collateral damage of "higher authorities" that figured it all out for us. Reality is, each individual is the higher authority.
Politics suck.
War of Two Worlds
Value Creators versus Value Destroyers
The first thing civilization must have is business, science and art. It's what the individual and family needs so that its members can live creative, prosperous, happy lives. Business, science and art can survive, even thrive without government and its bureaucracy.
Government and its bureaucracy cannot survive without business and science. In general, business, science and the individual and family is the host and government and bureaucracy are parasites.
Keep valid government services that protect individual rights and private property rights while upholding the sanctity of private contracts -- military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a relatively free market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to people and society -- there are a few -- could much more effectively serve people and society by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They're parasites. We're their host. We don't need them. They need us.
You're the host. You don't need them -- they need you.
It's your life. Make them meet your terms and become a value creator or let them chose to perish.
How many innocent prisoners on death row have been executed?
What is so funny about this is no evidence exists that a factually innocent person has been executed for the crime of murder in the United States since 1900. Proof positive the system works.
And, if you don't want to waste money on appeals, then back what I propose: One appeal (covering everything). One year for it to run its course. Then execution in the electric chair. (Lethal injection is for animals. Murderers are lower on the food chain than animals and should be treated as such.)
What is so funny about this...
Only a looser would think such a serious life-or-death issue is in anyway funny. ...And only a big time looser would think it's so funny. Next time, try not to discredit yourself before you're out of the gate.
For readers that don't think it's "so funny", here's a link where you can get more information and make a more informed decision: AIUSA Rights for All Innocence and the Death Penalty
1) You focused only on a single phrase, taken out of context;
2) You call me a loser and yet you cannot spell it. Unless, of course, you really did mean to call me a looser, in which case I have no idea what you mean.
Come back when you have something of substance to add.
Oh! Were you trying to make a point? What was it?
Are most of your responses copy and paste?
Look, you obviously cannot engage in a reasonable debate over something like this. This is almost certainly because you are way out of your league.
Why don't you do yourself and the others who have to read this a favor: Leave the discussion of subjects like the death penalty to the grown-ups and stick to things that are more your age and intellectual level, like, "Who are you going to be trick or treating as this year?"
Houmatt: Oh! Were you trying to make a point? What was it? 12
Zon: Any person that thinks such a life-or-death situation is funny doesn't deserve a more lengthy response than to highlight your feckless existence.13
That was my answer to your question. Are you usually so dense or just today?
You are not helping your case by swinging that shovel around.
Quit while you are gracefully behind and do not make things worse for yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.