Dudley Sharp talks on the Thom Hartman show about the death penalty on Amnesty International’s “International Day of Action for Troy Davis” day.
Troy Davis is the convicted murderer of Officer MacPhain in Georgia who was recently put to death.
- Dudley Sharp on the Thom Hartmann Show – Should Children Get Life In Prison?
- Crime Without Punishment
Troy Davis received his sentence carried out for killing a police officer over 20 years ago, the officers’ family FINALLY received justice and Davis lived way too long after his conviction. The phoney appeals were legal delay tactics, which unfortunately cost tax payers a lot of money and the victims’ family extended grief. Don’t ‘do away’ with the death penalty, do away with the numerous appeals!
Mr. Sharp was obviously not prepared for this interview and admitted he tried to interrupt the commentator. His statement that researchers who came to conclusions opposite those he came to are “WRONG” without any form of backup documentation is amazing. Why should anyone believe Mr. Sharp? I don’t believe him. He has no listed education, is a poor debator who makes a mockery of debate decorum, and has no credibility. Why should I believe you, Mr. Sharp?
@Jurinne You can choose not to believe Mr. Sharp’s arguments all you want but that will not change the facts that he presents. Mr. Sharp has done extensive research over the years on the subject of the death penalty. He cites that at the end of his articles.
“Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.”
In all his articles he states his sources for the facts he presents.
The definition of Expert is as follows:
1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert.
2. Military .
a. the highest rating in rifle marksmanship, above that of marksman and sharpshooter.
b. a person who has achieved such a rating.
adjective
3. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled (often followed by in or at ): an expert driver; to be expert at driving a car.
4. pertaining to, coming from, or characteristic of an expert: expert work; expert advice.
Mr. Sharp certainly is an expert on this subject.
In this interview/debate I saw a commentator who interrupted Mr. Sharp several times and as I listened I got very frustrated because I was not allowed to hear the full point of his statements.
I believe the arguments for capital punishment that Mr Sharp presents. He has credibility and I believe you are way off base in your assessment of Mr. Sharp as a debater.
Jurinne wrote:
“Mr. Sharp was obviously not prepared for this interview and admitted he tried to interrupt the commentator. “
I inteerupted the commentator because he went on and on, without allowing me to speak.
I won’t allow that.
It didn’t bother him. I have been invited back 2 or 3 additional times.
I have back up information for everything I said.
Could you not tell there was not time for that during the show?
If you need back up for anythining I said, just ask. I will supply it.
You have no reason to believe me or to doubt me, because, I suspect you don’t know, either way.
But I am am more than happy to supply any information which you care to challenge.
Can’t do better than that !
I have a dictionary. It’s a good one; very thorough. I also have access to several on-line dictionaries. I know what the word “expert” means. I don’t know why you presented the definition.
Part of the definition you have used is “a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field.” The only skills I have seen Mr. Sharp show are the ability to list references ad nauseum, be rude to people who wish him a peaceful Christmas, and use the same arguments over and over and over.
Even if Mr. Sharp were an expert that would not necessarily mean that he is correct.
The show belongs to the commentator. He is the one who is responsible for keeping it in the correct time-frame. Mr. Sharp admitted that he tried to interrupt the commentator. His attempt to do so shows his rudeness. He is not a good debater, he has no credibility with me, and my assessment is not off base.
I don’t care if he is a published author. I don’t care if he has appeared on TV and radio shows. That does not mean he is right.
My last point is that he needs to learn how to spell and use punctuation properly.
Your assessment is off base.
I can, correctly, confirm everything I said on the show with verifiable references.
Simply ask. But, you have not been specific on one fact issue, although you have had all opportunity to do so.
You point our spelling and punctuation errors – fine by me, but not the important points from the show.
Come on.
Why are your comments attributed to me? I request that you correct this error.
@Mr. Sharp: I tried to respond to your comment but my comment disappeared. This is now my second try.
Your comments are being presented as if I wrote them. Please correct this error. I will be happy to ask you some questions if this error is corrected. I did not write what has been attributed to me.
“Can’t do better than that!” Yes, you can. Please correct the error. Patti had no problem and I wonder why you do. Thank you.
@Jurinne
Resorting to insults regarding spelling or punctuation just shows you are ignorant and not interested in any real debate with real facts. So you can spell and punctuate. Whooo Hoooo!
Your ignorance shines through with your personal attacks. Based on your posts I am assuming you just want to forget justice for the victims in order to save the lives of killers.
Murderers do not deserve anymore then what they dished out to the innocent victims.
I would even venture to say that brutal killers deserve worse then what they gave their victims. If your God wants to forgive them I don’t care but I want to see justice here on earth for the innocents.
Now don’t freak out. Your comments did not disappear. Do you want to discuss the issues or do you care more about simple errors? Heaven forbid someone should think you made a mistake in spelling when murderers lives are at stake!
Patti:
Jurinne is right, I messed up my post, which looks like her words.
As with:
Dudley Sharp wrote:
Jurinne wrote:
If you delete it, I’ll add it properly.
Jurinne,
I interrupted the commentator because he went on and on, without allowing me to speak.
I won’t allow that. I was his guest. He should treat me in the proper fashion.
It didn’t bother him. I have been invited back 2 or 3 additional times.
I have back up information for everything I said.
Could you not tell there was not time for that during the show?
If you need back up for anything I said, just ask. I will supply it.
You have no reason to believe me or to doubt me, because, I suspect you don’t know, either way.
But I am more than happy to supply any information which you care to challenge.
Can’t do better than that!
@Dudley: “Cmon?” I’ve already submitted two comments today to you today and the pop-up” stating “Success!” appeared on my screen. Neither comment has appeared even though both only contained a request that you correct the comment that has mistakenly attributed your statements to me. I will be happy to discuss the death penalty with you if this error is corrected. This is now my third attempt.
Please correct the error. Thank you.
@Patti: I am not interested in carrying on a debate with you.
@Patti: I’m not interested in discussing the issues with you.
@Dudley: My apologies. I don’t know if it is this website or my computer but sometimes my comments appear and sometimes they don’t. I finally found my first two comments, which makes this third comment unnecessary. But if I hit “Refresh” my comments disappear. Go figure. Anyway, I apologize for this comment.
@Jurinne,
Then don’t, that’s your prerogative. You posted on this forum, bashed Mr. Sharp and praised the idea of showing murderers dignity and respect and I responded. No worries here. I am sure you couldn’t give any solid argument that would change my mind.
@Dudley,
I deleted the incorrect post as you requested. Your correct post is below so this thread may look a bit out of order.
Patti
@Patti: I agree that I couldn’t give you any solid argument that would change your mind. It seems to be firmly made up. But I would never try to change your mind. I don’t even know who you are.
But I do want to say that I am not against the death penalty. For some reason you seem to think I am.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. 🙂
@Dudley: TY for correcting the error. The first question I would like to ask is: Do you believe that all alleged murderers (by that I mean those who have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced to death) should be executed?
Real facts? Hmmm….that’s interesting. Is there such a thing as an unreal fact?
apology accepted.
Now, tell me what you wish me to confirm.
@Jurinne
Your post to Debi on another article today lead me to believe you are against the death penatly. I don’t think I can read it any other way.
I quote your post here:
“Murderers are also created by God and should be treated with dignity – even if they have committed a heinous sin. God will forgive that sin if the murderer is sorry and atones.
Every single human being in the world should be treated with dignity.
Taking the life of a human being when that human being can be kept in prison for the rest of his life with absolutely no possibility of parole (with the exception of exoneration)goes against his/her dignity. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The innocent public can be kept safe and the murderer can and should be punished. Being kept in prison for the rest of his/her life is a punishment.”
Jurrine:
You question my credibility based upon my interview with Hartman.
I have asked you several times to address what you see as those creibility issues. Each response from you avoids that specific issue.
Now, you do so, again.
If you are going to questions someones credibility, then be honorable enough to address those credibility issues so that the person may defend themselves.
It’s a dignity issue, which you either care about or you don’t.
Which is it?
Stop changing the topic and deal with your specific issues with my credibility.
I am nore than happy to answer any “additonal” questions, once we have dealt with your not believing what I said in the interview.
As of now, you are just another anti death penalty person that likes to take personal shots at people they disagree with and runs away when a meaningful discussion is demanded. Very common.
Are you that sort? We shall see.
To Patti and Jurrine:
It is very difficult to change anyone’s mind on the death penalty.
I am one of the few people, that I know of, that has.
The main reason for that, as with all things, is the matter of perspective, which is, uniquely, individual and is one of the very few things in life that can never be shared, as it comes from our own, individual life experience.
Jurinne, do you really not understand why Patti might think you are against the death penalty?
It was a reasonable presumption, although you never stated your opposition.
Regarding decorum.
You stated that I had no credibility and then you asked “Why should I believe you, Mr. Sharp?”
In other words, you said I wasn’t credible, prior to any investigating by you of my credibility.
Furthermore, although Hatman I I were debating, it wasn’t a debate forum. If it were, then the moderator who have stopped Hartman and allowed me to rebut, instead, I had to do it myself.
Now, what, specifically, do you find as a challenge to my credibility?
Illogical. If I were against the death penalty I would have written that it should never be used. I didn’t write that. What I wrote was “Taking the life of a human being WHEN THAT HUMAN BEING CAN BE KEPT IN PRISON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXONERATION)…. If I were against the death penalty I would have said there are no circumstances which make it appropriate to use. Also, it is illogical to conclude that I am against the death penalty because I believe it goes against the dignity of the murderer. Even if it goes against the dignity of the murderer the death penalty may be a just punishment. If you are confused about my statement I surely don’t see why.
@Dudley, I submitted a question yesterday. I replied to your orignal comment. It’s near the bottom of the page.
@Jurinne Ok so you are correct that I used the english language incorrectly, but now you are just being petty. I could have said if you want the facts instead of falsehoods put out by the anti death penalty folks, but “real facts” worked fine for me. If you are halfway intelligent then you knew what I meant.
@Dudley: My responses to you have been limited to requests to correct an error in your presentation of your comment, an apology, and a question about a specific part of your position on the death penalty. Only the third (the question) could logically be seen as an attempt to avoid the credibility issue. It was not but I can understand how it could have been taken that way. The reason I asked that question is that I was attempting to build a foundation upon which your credibility could be examined.
Perhaps you will answer this next question, although it is more of a request (this would have been my second question (or request) but it is now my first): Will you please list the research papers the commentator presented on the show to which your response about the data, findings, or conclusions (I don’t know which) was “They’re wrong?”
Is this an appropriate request? If you want me to specifically point to your crediblity at this time I will do so. You were interrupting the commentator to the point that I could not even find out the titles of the research papers he was referring to. It appears that you knew which research papers he was referring to as you responded that the researchers (or their findings) were “wrong.” I, on the other hand, do not know which research papers he was referring to.
I can point to another problem with your credibility. You did not even spell my name correctly in your last comment. Will you please make the effort to at least spell my name correctly?
@Dudley: Am I that sort? You have already stated that I am “another anti death penalty person that likes to take personal shots at people they disagree with and runs away when a meaningful discussion is demanded.”
You have answered your own question with the above statement even though you have no evidence to back up your claim that I “like” to take personal shots at people. I do not like to take personal shots at people.
I am not anti death penalty. You have decided that I am.
You also stated that I run away. I’m here. I didn’t run away.
It appears that you have made up your mind about me. I have also made up my mind about you. The difference is that you made up your mind based on unsubstantiated, illogical claims. I have based my conclusion on your behavior during the radio show, your jumping to conclusions about my character, your rudeness to others in the past (on other websites) and your inability or unwillingness to take the time to even spell my name correctly.
Those are the major reasons I have problems with your alleged credibility. As is true with your cohort I am afraid that nothing I ask or say will make the slightest difference to you. What I seek is truth. I search for it everywhere. Truth is more important than personal opinions and subjective beliefs. But I believe I will have to go elsewhere to find this truth.
I am sorry it has come to this.
@Dudley: I asked a question specifically related to your credibility. The only response I received was a removal of my comments. I wonder if you treat all who disagree with you this way. It makes it look like you’re such a nice guy and that I must not have been able to even respond to your comments and ran away. The truth is that I did not run away, although I did state that it appeared that you had already made up your mind about me and that I would have to look for truth elsewhere.
You didn’t even spell my name correctly.
You have no credibility with me and from what I have now read from others, you have no credibility with many people.
I don’t think you have the nerve to even post and leave this comment. It’s nice to be able to remove comments, isn’t it? You have complete control over what is stated by others. If you don’t like what is stated you can simply delete the comment.
That is disingenuity and hypocrisy. I’m not surprised that so many others have given up with their attempts to communicate with you.
Dahn, I mean Jurinne,
I am used to dishonorable peole like you who question my credibility and then do not address the details of the credbility issue, which was specific to the show with Hartman.
Dahn, I mean Jurrine, you have had 5 or 6 wasted posts to address those issues, but you will not, only because you know what will happen, just as with the other discussions I have had with Dahn or Jurinne, who takes on many aliases so as not to be be caught being embarrased, any more.
Deal with the specifics of the show or go away.
Dahn (Jurinne) is a silly fellow who has followed me around the web for years, making false accusations and making no contributions to the death penalty discussion, as here.
My thorough responses to him, here, which demonstrate, once again, that anti death penalty claims are either false or that the pro death penalty positions are stronger.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Crime-Law-Enforcement-341/2011/7/death-penalty-23.htm
@Dudley: Uh, I have no idea who “Dahn” is but apparently you have decided that I, a woman, am this “silly fellow.” I don’t know if “Dahn” follows you around. I don’t know who “Dahn” is. I am not “Dahn.”
Yesterday I asked you to present the research papers referred to on the show. Although you said “They’re wrong!” when you were presented with what appeared to be either their findings or conclusions as stated by the commentator, in no way was I able to find out what these research papers are. I can’t read them if I can’t find them.
You did not answer my question even though it specifically related to your credibility. Instead you said that I am an anti death penalty person who runs away. You threw in some more ad hominems but as the comment has been removed and they were simply ad hominems I didn’t pay much attention to them, except as regards your credibility.
Now you are calling me by another person’s name. I am not “Dahn.” You have accused me of being anti death penalty. Untrue. You have accused me of running away. Dudley, I had to go to sleep eventually and I am not tied to my computer with a chain. I have a life to lead that has nothing to do with you. I did not run away.
You have lived up to my opinion of you. You have no credibility. You make unwarranted assumptions. You refuse to back up your assertions. You refuse to show that you have credibility. Why should I believe what you say? You won’t even reference the research papers used on the show! And now you’re claiming I’m someone I’ve never even heard of!
Your removal of comments which requested a correction of an error which you made and admitted you made, your refusal to answer a question which would at least have given me a basis on which to examine your alleged credibility, and your refusal to answer a question specifically related to your credibility, along with your ad hominems and bizarre conclusion that I am someone I am not have led me to once again state that you have no credibility.
As as I stated yesterday, I am trying to find truth. I will go somewhere else to find it as you don’t seem to be willing to defend your alleged credibility. With every comment you’ve written you have just shown once again that you have no credibility.
Goodbye, Dudley. You are in my prayers. Patti, too, even if she doesn’t believe in “my” God.
Have you considered getting some professional help?
@Dudley: I have now asked twice for the research articles addressed in the radio program. As you claimed “They’re wrong!” when the findings and/or conclusions were summarized by the commentator I have to assume that you are familiar with these works. Yet not only have you failed to list these works you have not even posted the comments in which I asked for them. This has a direct bearing on your credibility.
If you can’t provide the references I will be forced to conclude that you just blurt out “They’re wrong!” without even reading research papers when alleged findings and/or conclusions disagree with your own.
If you did do this sort of thing your credibility would be suspect.
Please provide the references which I have now requested for the third time. You speak of wasted comments. Yes, it is a waste of comments (and my time) to have to continually ask for what should be so easy to provide – if you are credible.
Jurinne (Dahn):
I asked you to be specific with your inquiry.
You questioned me. Provide those specific comments of mine which you questioned.
I am not going to review the show. That’s your job, you have the inquiry so you provide the specific question, or
go away.
@Dudley: All of my posts have been wasted because you refuse to even list the research references I have requested – the ones from the show. This has a direct bearing on both the show and your credibility yet you not only refuse to answer the question you refuse to even post the question. You continue to misspell my name which is Jurinne, not Dahn, you have tried to take away my identity as a real human being, you’ve even tried to change my gender (I googled “Dahn Death Penalty”).
Do you know what credibility is? A good dictionary would be useful. Perhaps Patti could help you with this.
You can’t even publish the references referred to in the show although you said “They’re wrong!” when the commentator presented their findings and/or conclusions. How do you know they were wrong if you aren’t even familiar with the research?
You have proven to me that you have no credibility. You appear to be afraid to post my question. How many times do I have to ask? I really wanted to know what that research was so that I could read it and know why you said “They’re wrong!”
By the way, you should probably clean up the article you referenced in your last comment. Many of the links do not work and I was not allowed access when I clicked on others.
Sloppy, Dudley. Very, very sloppy.
You have absolutely no credibility and as it is obvious that you can’t back up what you said in the show I’m not going to waste any more time than I already have with you.
@Dudley: I see you still have not provided the references to the research papers presented on the show, yet you said “They’re wrong!” when the findings or conclusions were presented on the show. You say you can back up everything you say. Well, here is what you said: “They’re wrong!” What was wrong? Why did you disagree with those findings? I asked you twice already and it’s been days. I asked you a question specifically related both to the program and your credibility. I gave you the chance to show that you can back up anything you said on the show.
You can’t, can you? Or you won’t. In either case I can only conclude that it won’t happen and you have no credibility. You are also a liar.
You might want to check the link you provided in your last comment. Some of the links that showed up when I clicked on it didn’t work and I was not allowed access to others. Very sloppy work, Dudley.
Jurinne:
About 3/4 of the show is Hartman not knowing the difference between murder and execution, crime and punishment and my correction of him on that.
So that can’t be what you want.
Hartman quoted the falsehoods about the innocents sent to death row, my corrections for which I mentioned on the show and which are sourced at all the innocent and exonerated commentaries withn my posts on this site.
The deterrenc studies are reviewed on this site as well, within my secitons, as well as the defenses of them, including rebuttals to Donahue and Wolfers.
Read all the articles on deterrence, saving lives and innocence and exonerated and you will find all the sourced material you need, plus some.
@Dudley: I have asked for information specifically related to both the radio show and you credibility. Instead of providing the information I requested you have ignored my comments (except to say they are wasted) and now have attempted to take away my identity. I am not “Dahn.” How insulting to both “Dahn” and myself! How disingenuous!
You said you could back up everything you said. You either can’t or won’t. You said “it can’t get better than that!” You lied. You can’t even manage to spell my name right!
You are not an expert. What you are is a self-proclaimed expert with zero credibility. You are a liar and a hypocrite.
You said “They’re wrong!” But you have never said why. And that is why you have no credibility as far as I am concerned.
I will not be commenting again. I hope you have a peaceful Christmas.
@Dudley and Jurinne,
It is my fault that the posts were not answered Jurinne. Sorry.
I apologize for not publishing these comments sooner.
Thanks Patti
You seem to be as bad as you think he is. Your attack on him, in my opinion, is an ad homeniem fallacy. His arguments and rebuttals are fairly valid. He may not be an “expert”, however he has researched the topic for years and, therefore, knows more about the topic then you.
He has been attacked many times by legal PHD’s, however they seem to use similar arguments in your post, Jurinne. They merely attack the messenger as his arguments are perfectly valid. All of these anti-death penalty “experts” are not contributing to proper discourse.
His arguments are valid. His sources link to articles he formerly wrote which cite either links that hold studies (for example many of the prodpinnc.com links cite studies) or he cites the studies himself.
You shouldn’t criticize him, if he remembers he usually responds to most comments and his work is very valid. Don’t attack the messenger, as this is a sign of “I’m losing this debate” syndrome. Attack his facts. if you can’t, he then wins.
Alexander:
I don’t mind the criticism, it is part of the territory, as with all public policy debates.
The irritating part is folks dishonesty. They question my material, but won’t be specific, as I repeatedly asked for, in this circumstance.
As you noted, I am more than happy to address any issue and continue the conversation.
But some folks just make it a waste of time, as Jurine (Dahn), who would never respond to my specifics inquiry.
Typical.