|
|
|
| 1) Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)
2) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)
3) Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey:
“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (1) (p. 116).
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| Make no mistake. If the death penalty is “impossible in some jurisdictions,” it is almost impossible everywhere, including “bloodthirsty” Texas. Homicide does not entail anywhere near the same risk for murderers as for victims. This shocking fact is largely unknown: Between 1972 and 2008, there were 723,000 murders [1], more than the combined total of battle deaths in all our wars. [2-p43] As of the end of 2009, this resulted in 1,188 lawful executions (0.165%) [1]. Texas had 446 executions for 66,337 murders (0.67%) [3].
This is not simply a matter of different state court judges. |
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| It is difficult to say if Prof . Garland is just sloppy or if, like many in academia, he is happy to peddle bias in service of a goal, here, an end to execution.
("Five myths about the death penalty", By David Garland, July 18, 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602717.html)
Lets' look at Garland's myths:
1) Garland fails to mention that it is the judges that make the imposition of the death penalty all but impossible in some jurisdictions. Dictatorial judges in New Jersey never allowed an execution. There, the death penalty was repealed. Pennsylvania judges never allow executions other than those whereby the inmates waive appeals. If you appeal a death sentence in Pa, you have a life sentence, even if your death sentence is not overturned. Similar abusive judicial behavior is legendary in California.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
Understanding deterrence
Dudley Sharp
There are many misconceptions regarding deterrence.
No matter the level of violent crime, be it high or low, legal sanctions deter some from committing crimes( 1).
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence (2).
This is not surprising. No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thougtful or instinctive.
Most criminals do think about things. That is why, before their crimes, the usually choose locations other than police stations to commit their crimes. Criminals nearly always use some form of stealth before and during the crime, to avoid witnesses and to lower the probability of being caught, just as they use such stealth to withdraw after the crime.
We all know this to be true.
Such is based upon a fear of being apprehended. There is no fear of being caught unless there is a fear of sanction. We all know this to be true. Only sanction can put fear into being caught.
Even serial murderers care greatly about avoiding detection and apprehension. Of course, murderers are not deterred from committing all murders, but they, like nearly all criminals, understand sanctions and try to avoid them and are, therefore, deterred from some murders.
No, serial murderers are not deterred from committing murder, but they do tell us that they fear sanction and therefore, we all see their efforts at trying to avoid detection, even to the point that the will not murder under some circumstances, for fear of detection.
Virtually all serial murderers and other murderers tell us that they fear the sanction of execution far more than they fear the sanction of life imprisonment. The evidence is clear, in pre trial, trial and appeals. About 99.9% of death penalty eligible murderers show that they prefer a life sentence, fearing execution more than life.
It is reasonable to conclude that just as murderers fear execution, far more than life imprisonment, that more reasoned folks, those potential murderers, who choose not to murder, also share that universal degree of fears. Murderers, like the rest of us, prefer life over death and fear death more than life.
We do not execute or impose other sanctions based upon deterrence. We must base sanctions on them being a just and appropriate response to the crimes committed, the same foundation of support used for all criminal sanctions.
The reason for sanction is justice. Deterrence is a secondary reason for and a beneficial by-product of all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty.
Some more corrections.
Executions do not make murderers of us all, any more than incarceration makes all of us kidnappers or the imposition of fines makes us all robbers (3)
If you are amoral or immoral, you can equate executions and murder. However, if you know the moral distinctions between crime and punishment, criminals and their innocent victims, then you cannot equate executions and murder. (3)
Some believe that executions create martyrs. Untrue. It is the living who decide those that shall become martyrs. Those who choose that murderers are martyrs are foul, indeed.
There are obvious moral, factual and legal differences between revenge and retributive justice. In fact, the foundations for creating criminal justice systems was to take revenge out of the system and replace it with a system of justice based in law. (4)
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF A JUSTICE'S VALUES
Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens has long been the object of adulation. In 2005, President Ford said he was prepared for his presidency to be judged "exclusively" upon Stevens' 30-year record. In the dominant media narrative, Stevens is just an old-fashioned and modest conventional Midwestern Republican, as was Ford. If he moved left at all, he is still "in the mainstream." Jeffrey Toobin reverentially suggests he is "the last" moderate Republican on the Court and in the tradition of Harding and Coolidge.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| The New Jersey Death Penalty Commission made significant errors within their findings. The evidence, contrary to the Commissions findings, was so easy to obtain that it appears either willful ignorance or deception guided their report.
A brief review.
FORMAT: Below, are the 7 points made within the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January, 2007. The RUBUTTAL presents the obvious points avoided by the Commission and discussed by this author, a death penalty expert.
I was invited to be a presenter, before the NJDPSC, but my time didn’t fit their schedule.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
|
forwarded by Dudley Sharp
The Innocence List has been, conclusively, debunked for many years, without contradiction. Dudley Sharp
|
CJLF
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
|
10-12
PRESS RELEASE
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 8, 2010
|
Michael Rushford, President
(916) 446-0345
|
“EXONERATED” FORMER DEATH ROW INMATE RECONVICTED
So-called “Innocence List” Conclusively Debunked
Former death row inmate Timothy Hennis, listed as “exonerated” on the “innocence list” maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center, was found guilty of three counts of premeditated murder by a military jury today.
“This is the smoking gun that proves what we have been saying for years,” said Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. “The so-called innocence list is nothing of the sort.”
For years, the “innocence list” has been cited by opponents of the death penalty as a list of people once sentenced to death who were actually innocent of the crimes. Death penalty supporters have long maintained that this claim is false. Proof of actual innocence is not required to get on the list. In 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia challenged the list in an opinion in Kansas v. Marsh.
In Hennis’s case, his first conviction was reversed on appeal, and on retrial in 1989 the jury decided that the evidence available at that time was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a wide difference between doubt of guilt and proof of innocence.
In most cases, an acquittal prevents a second trial. However, because Hennis was in the military at the time and the first trial had been held in North Carolina state court, the double jeopardy rule did not preclude a military trial. In 2006, more advanced DNA technology tied Hennis to the rape and murder of Kathryn Eastburn and the murder of her two daughters, 5-year-old Kara and 3-year-old Erin.
“We have known all along that the ‘innocence list’ claim was a lie,” said Scheidegger. “Now we have official proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available for comment at (916) 446-0345.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has helped win five United States Supreme Court decisions during the Court’s current term.
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
2131 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 * P.O. Box 1199, Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 446-0345 * Web page: http://www.cjlf.org
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| As a general rule, the death penalty cost studies are worthless. Those that purport to compare life without parole costs to death penalty costs are, in most cases, comparing apples to kangaroos not apples to apples.
There is no reason that the death penalty, in general, should be more expensive than LWOP and, in many, if not most cases, the death penalty should be less expensive.
1) Virginia: How the death penalty will save money over life without parole (LWOP).
Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. (Source Virginia AG)
With the high costs of long term imprisonment, such a system, as Virginia's, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol. All states could duplicate this protocol, with the major exception that you can't transfer Virginia jurisdiction judges to other states.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| Judge Fine is not truly backing off or rescinding his finding that the Texas death penalty statute is unconstitutional. It is a tactical withdrawal to cover his ass.
I suspect it won't matter what happens in the April 27th hearing. Judge Fine will repeat his original finding.
Judge Fine realized that he looked like a fool and/or an idiot because he was wrong on the facts and the law in his first two episodes. (1)
The judge, now, says ". . . he still wants more information on whether the state’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it allows for the possible execution of an innocent person." Thus, the hearing.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
| The judge clarifies that his decision is " . . . limited only to the due process claim that 37071 has resulted in the execution of innocent people and/or has the potential to result in the execution of innocent persons". (1)
As such potential has existed since the beginning of executions, it is curious that the judge has made this ruling when (1) the probability of such an event occurring is now lower than at any other time in history, (2) the judge cannot point to a case whereby an innocent has been executed in the modern US death penalty era, post Gregg v Georgia, and (3) the judge can cite no precedent wherein perfection is required in the implementation of due process.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Homicide Survivors at
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
