Troy Davis: misleading anti death penalty campaign

Based upon the evidence presented in the June, 2010 hearing, it was clear that the federal district court would rule against Davis and that SCOTUS would not intervene.
This shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone who knew the facts of the case.
Anti death penalty folks, were, of course, fed a bunch of nonsense by their leadership and they simply accepted it.
1) Debunking the Myths Surrounding The Murder of Officer Mark MacPhail Sr. and the Conviction of Troy Anthony Davis”
http://www.fop9.net/markmacphail/debunkingthemyths.cfm
2) Innocence claims will offer no reprieve for Troy Davis
Dudley Sharp, 6/25/10
Based upon the media reports, alone, of the two day hearing of June 2010, just as I suspect Davis’ attorneys have known all along, the appellate case cannot prevail in overturning the findings that Troy
Davis is guilty of the murder of Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail.
What happened in the two day hearing was very ordinary, if you are aware of anti death penalty nonsense. (1)

The Threat Of Liberal Judicial Activism Reaches New Heights

In making the case for judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out that judges take a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States. Until last month, it would have been unnecessary to stress that he was obviously referring to actual laws, not the unfulfilled fantasies of a lone member of Congress. Nevertheless, on July 7, in a case largely ignored by the media, dissenting Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan carried judicial activism to new heights by advocating a stay of execution on the basis of an imaginary law.

Linda Greenhouse’s Hatchet Job On Justice Scalia.

In a vitriolic column employing the very style for which she attacks Justice Anonin Scalia, Linda Greenhouse repeats the old banal “bad-boy” narrative of a long hostile media. This unanswered charge is misleading in the extreme.
What Greenhouse Wants Readers To Believe
Greenhouse asserts Scalia utterly lacks “pragmatism,” is “angry,” “enraged,” “furious,” “inflammatory,” “bomb-throwing,” “intemperate,” “self-indulgen[t],” “bullying,” and prone to “insults,” “put-downs,” “lashing out,” publicly “thrashing…a junior colleague” and, indeed, “undermin[ing] the court’s … legitimacy.”

Does Forensic Science Comm. have any jurisdiction in Willingham case?

Regarding the jurisdiction, by time, of the Texas Forensic Science Commission in the Willingham case:
It seems clear that the TFSC has no jurisdiction in this case. But, that is why we have AG opinions.
The question in not why the TFSC has submitted questions to the Texas AG for his opinion, now, but why and how the TFSC could have spent all of the time, money and other resources on the Willingham case, without being responsible enough to get an opinion from the AG, prior to all of those expenditures.

Nicarico statement on death penalty ban

Pat and Tom Nicarico, whose 10-year-old daughter Jeanine was abducted from their Naperville home and killed in 1983, are among those urging the Illinois Senate and Gov. Pat Quinn not to follow suit with the House’s vote to abolish the death penalty. Jeanine’s killer, Brian Dugan, was sentenced to death in 2009.
The Nicaricos issued the following statement on the (Illinois) House vote (to repeal the death penalty):

A response to the Dallas Morning News’ “Editorial: Death penalty debate needs forum” (1).

The community used to have a forum. It was known as the Fourth Estate.
Everyone in the death penalty debate, inclusive of the Dallas Morning News, knows how the anti death penalty folks have so distorted the meaning of exonerated, as to mask its real meaning.
The 138 exonerated from death row, a Death Penalty Information Center deception, has been widely and freely dissenminated by media throughout the world, for over a decade, not because it is true, but only in service to the anti death penalty movement, for which the DMN, as others, has sacrificed their Fourth Estate soul.

The One-Sided Media Coverage of Justice Stevens.

Last April’s retirement announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens occasioned an outpouring of adulation: Champion of the Powerless. The Greatest Justice, etc. His absence from the new Supreme Court term renewed the love fest, evoking honor and award for his “open mind.” Liberal judicial activists depict him as an authoritative hero and saint (most recently: 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley and The New York Times’ Adam Liptak).

The Petit murders: we must hate evil

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. William Petit who, in his extreme hour of grief, taught us a valuable lesson about the nature of evil, forgiveness, and the problem of suffering.
No, not what you would expect.
In speaking of the man convicted of killing his wife and two daughters, Petit did not deliver an amoral, slobbering speech about forgiving his wife and daughters’ murderer and how all suffering teaches us some valuable lesson, enriching us in the process.

Rick Halperin & SMU: Dead Wrong on the death penalty

RE: Reply to Rick Halperin’s “Why don’t people in Texas talk about the death penalty?” (1)
Prof. Halperin is director of Southern Methodist U. Embrey Human Rights Program and is a well know anti death penalty activist
From: Dudley Sharp, a pro death penalty guy
There is a difference between open discussion and fair debate and what Rick Halperin presents, which is one sided and false propaganda and indoctrination.

The California Death Penalty Cost Fraud: A Rebuttal to “Cut This: The Death Penalty

Clark/CCFAJ’s cost review is wildly inaccurate and I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than with their lifer cost evaluations. None of Clark/CCFAJ’s numbers can be relied upon.
Clark says: “In total, California’s death penalty system costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.”

Mercy, Redemption & the Death Penalty

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).

MORE ON GARLAND’S DEATH PENALTY “MYTHS”

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.

The 5 Myths of Prof. David Garland – death penalty

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.