more ON GARLAND’s Death penalty “myths”

Lester Jackson

[references in brackets]

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 abolitionist fish rots from the head down. When a bare 4-3 majority of New York State’s highest court issued its diktat that the state’s death penalty was unconstitutional [1-p42], it purported to rely on then-recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
          Prof. Garland creates his own myth with the flatly false assertion that, in response to its unpopular Furman fiat, the U.S. Supreme Court “backed down” and “insisted that the death penalty must remain a matter for state lawmakers to decide.” What really happened is that the court, with the aid of a protective media, stealthily engaged in a “boil the frog” abolition strategy that, in contrast to one full stroke, most would hardly notice [4]. Patiently, slowly and with utter arrogance, contempt for democracy and dishonesty, justices decided that if they could not completely abolish capital punishment all at once, they would do it piecemeal. If abolition is not 100%, the above statistics show, it is almost so.
          A perfect example of such a justice is John Paul Stevens. The universally one-sided media portrayal is that of a polite, compassionate, modest moderate who “evolved” on the death penalty. Nothing could be further from the truth. An elitist with a remarkable amalgam of heartless lack of concern for victims and a cornucopia of “compassion” for their brutal murderers, Stevens missed no chance to render the death penalty’s application as “narrow” and difficult as possible, often using blatantly contradictory rationales to impose his abolitionist will upon a pro-death penalty democracy. Those aghast at this characterization can find ample documentation [4].
          Students of capital punishment are well aware that “guaranteed”  life without parole is an utter fraud. Not only can murderers serving life sentences appeal repeatedly to seek their release, but they also can escape, be paroled, pardoned by governors, murder fellow inmates and prison guards, and even order murders outside prison; and “mandatory” laws can be and have been legislatively repealed, or judicially nullified by five Supreme Court justices. [2-pp9-10]  The death penalty works because executed murderers can never murder again. Tragically, there have been far fewer executions of murderers than avoidable murders of innocent victims by recidivists [1].Those repulsed by the execution of murderers seem to have no room in their “compassionate” hearts for the multiple new victims of already convicted murderers, who must be given more bites at the murder apple. [1] The Supreme Court even has ordered trial judges to mislead juries with an instruction that LWOP can be guaranteed when it never can.
          The media has refused to inform the public about some really outrageous and absurd views expressed by justices over the years. For example:
              (1) Repeated Supreme Court claims of moral superiority of the “independent judgment” of five justices as to whether the penalty is “acceptable”: “The mere fact that the community demands the murderer’s life … cannot sustain the death penalty”; it is insufficient “that a challenged punishment be acceptable to contemporary society”; and “public perceptions of standards of decency … are not conclusive.” [2-p36]
              (2) A convicted murderer must be allowed to successfully argue he should not be executed because he only endangers old ladies. [2-p9]
              (3) Rape under threat of death three weeks after giving birth can be unharmful. [2-n265]
              (4) It is a “misnomer” to consider as victims the families (mere “third parties”) of girls brutalized, raped and murdered. [4]
              (5) There is a “constitutional right” to commit punishment-free rape and murder. [4]




                  [1] “The Sinister Secret of Abolitionists – Do death penalty opponents really oppose capital punishment?”–do-death-penalty-opponents-really-oppose-capital-punishment/print.aspx
                  [2] “Fact Suppression and the Subversion of Capital Punishment: What Death Penalty Foes on the Supreme Court and in the Media Do Not Want the Public to Know”
                  [3] “Texas Crime Rates 1960 – 2008”
                  [4] “The “Moderate Republican” Death Penalty Values of Justice Stevens – Do Tormented Victims Matter?”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *