Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty (CCATDP)


Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty (CCATDP):
Just another dishonest anti death penalty group

Dudley Sharp


CCATDP is but another anti death penalty group, whose claims are, easily, rebutted, below, and which was founded and funded by a long time, well known liberal anti death penalty group, Equal Justice USA, which is supported by George Soros.

A rebuttal to each of the CCATDP's claims, from their website (1).


1) Innocence

CCATDP claim: "The risk of executing an innocent person is real. Since 1973, over 140 people have been freed from death row after evidence of innocence revealed that they had been wrongfully convicted (1).

REBUTTAL:   It is no small irony that CCATDP would say this.

  Common fraud:

The 140 "innocence" claim is a well known fraud, spread for over 16 years, with varying numbers, now at 142 and starting in 1997 with 69  (2a).

Based upon numerous, confirmable, reviews, the true actual innocence numbers are from 25-40, or 0.4% of those so discovered and released from death row, a record of accuracy that may be unequaled, by any other single sanction.

Major confession:

The academic leadership of the anti death penalty movement has long held that, if they could choose, the would choose sparing murderers lives, even if it meant that hundreds of thousands or millions of additional innocents would die, as a result (2b).

Astounding, but that is their confessed position.

The not very well hidden agenda of anti death penalty folks/groups is this: "We must save all murderers, not matter the cost", inclusive of the many  innocent lives lost.

That theme extended:

The death penalty protects  innocent lives better than does life without parole (LWOP), in three ways: 1) Enhanced incapacitation - living murderers harm and murder, again, executed ones don't, a truism; 2) enhanced due process - self explanatory and a truism and 3) enhanced deterrence, also self explanatory and a much challenged truism (2c, in much detail).

CCATDP, as most anti death penalty folks,  have a political reluctance to concede enhanced deterrence, as it would mean they would be  admitting to what their academic leadership already has, that they would, willfully and knowingly, sacrifices more innocent lives so that all murderers could live.

Politically, a good idea not to spread that word.

Both the factual and anecdotal evidence support that the death penalty deters and is an enhanced deterrent over LWOP (2d).

Put another way, ending the death penalty will sacrifice more innocent lives, enforcing the death penalty will spare more innocent lives.

There is no credible claim of an innocent executed in the modern, post Gregg v Georgia, era (2a).

From 1973-2013, up to 200,000 innocents have been murdered by those criminals, murderers and others, who we allowed to harm, again, while on parole or probation, with early release, accidental release and/or failing to control known criminals, in any manner (2b&c).


2)  Cost 

CCATDP claim:  "The complicated process has drained our resources.  In California, a 2011 study showed death penalty cases are 20 times more expensive. That state has spent over $4 billion on the death penalty since 1978." (1)

REBUTTAL:  Completely absurd.

The 2011 California study was so pathetic that the numbers had no attachment to reality (3a), with lifer costs being at least 4 times more than  this "study" fabricated (3a), just as the "study" conceded artificially raising their death penalty costs (3a), as well.

The researchers who came up with the $4 billion cost figure, a judge and his assistant, refused to release any information regarding their database for that number (3a), providing nothing but appropriate skepticism.

Former Calif. State Finance Director stated that removing the death penalty in California may increase costs and endanger the public (3a).

It appears that all the other cost studies have been just as perverted by anti death penalty folks (3b).

Virginia has executed 70% of their death row inmates, or 110 inmates, since 1976 and has done so within 7.1 years of sentencing, on average (3c), a protocol that all states could duplicate, most likely saving quite a bit of money, as demonstrated with Florida (3d).


3)  CCATDP claim:  "The death penalty has failed victims’ families (1).

REBUTTAL:   It is the CCATDP and other anti death penalty activists/groups that are failing victim's families.

"Those who have lost loved ones to death penalty eligible murders, if not all murders, support the death penalty above 95%, based upon the anecdotal evidence. (4a).

That should come as no surprise, as we would expect, at least, a 10% greater support for the death penalty, by those who lost loved ones to murder, in the context of accurate polling finding 86% death penalty support by the general public (April 2013) (4b).

Anti death penalty activists hurt murder victims' families (4c).

Many of the death penalty failures have been a result of anti death penalty efforts, by anti death penalty activists,  such as CCATDP, defense counsel, anti death penalty judges, etc., who do all they can to obstruct the death penalty process, harming justice, increasing costs and times for appeals, further harming murder victims'  families, as all citizens (3).

Of course the death penalty represents "closure" for murder victims'  loved ones (4d).

We know what a responsible death penalty protocol can do for justice and for victims.

Virginia has executed 70% of their death row inmates, or 110 murderers, since 1976, since 1976  averaging 7.1 years of appeals prior to execution (3c), a protocol that helps murder victims families and a protocol that CCATDP will help to work against and will hide from all who they can, because CCATDP's only agenda is getting rid of the death penalty, being deceptive about its implementation, all of which hurts murder victim survivors.


4) CCATDP claim  "The death penalty doesn't keep us safe" (1).

REBUTTAL:    See (1) Innocence, REBUTTAL, above, for a full rebuttal


5) CCATDP claim:  "Fairness in the death penalty is a moving target" (1).

REBUTTAL:   Some recognition of what "fairness" means, seems in order.

There is no credible claim of an innocent executed in the modern, post Gregg v Georgia (1976), era.

From 1973-2013, up to 200,000 innocents have been murdered by those criminals, repeat murderers and others, who we allowed to harm, again, while on parole or probation, with early release, accidental release and/or failing to control known criminals, in any manner (2b&c).

The unfairness is staggering, which CCATDP will not recognize. So much for CCATDP caring about innocent victims.

Instead, what CCATDP is speaking of, is "unfairness", as defined, solely,  by concern for the murderers and additional anti death penalty deceptions, rebutted, here:

CCATDP claim: A Lottery of Geography

REBUTTAL: Of course there is geographic disparity. The majority of capital murder cases (51%) will likely be in a small percentage of the counties, as expected, say 63 of the largest counties (2% of all counties) that have 63 of the largest cities, just as a lower percentage of counties will have a majority of executions, as expected (5a).

Many factors are at play, with death sentences and executions. The nefarious culprit among them would be the judges, many of whom overturn death sentences and stop executions, with dictatorial like contempt for the law (5a), which creates the execution imbalance.

The unfairness is in those many cases is when the murderer is not sentenced to death and executed.

CCATDP claim: "No Dream Team No Defense" and "Bad lawyers: Stories of a broken system"

REBUTTAL: Very few death penalty cases are overturned because of "ineffective assistance of counsel", which is what we are speaking of.

Do wealthy capital murderers have an increased probability, over their poorer ilk, to avoid the death penalty and execution? I presume so. Is there statistical proof of that? Probably not. A case can be made that wealthy capital murderers, whose percentage of all capital murders is close to "0", are more likely to receive the death penalty (5b). To date, poor murderers avoided executions about 99.8% of the time.

CCATDP, as is the norm  with other liberal anti death penalty groups,  left out a lot of facts with regard to the "Sleeping Lawyer" case (5c).

CCATDP claim: Plagued by arbitrariness

REBUTTAL: The entire criminal justice system has this problem. But, the death penalty much less so. All crimes and their sanctions vary, often a great deal. Rape can get probation or life.

THE DEATH PENALTY: NEITHER ARBITRARY NOR CAPRICIOUS

There is no sanction which has fewer crimes that qualify for it, with greater limitations on its application, with greater controls in pre-trial and at trial, nor one that has two separate trials - one for innocence or guilt, the other for punishment, nor one with greater care in jury selection or one with more thorough and extensive appeals.

The US Supreme Court has stated that the death penalty has "super due process".

Is there any other trial, whereby mandatory sentences are not used, where the result, so often is the maximum sentence? Is there any trial, whereby mandatory sentences are not used, wherein only two possible sentences are available, either death or life without parole

The facts tell us that the death penalty is the least arbitrary and capricious sanction in the US, if not the world.

Nothing else comes close.



CCATDP claim: A jury of your peers?


REBUTTAL:  Of course those opposed to the death penalty cannot serve as jurors in death penalty eligible  trials, just as no one can serve on any jury when they are  opposed to any of the eligible sanctions in that case.

If you can't follow the law in any given case, you cannot serve of that jury.


Let's not allow ignorant (or lying) conservative to become the next deceptive arrow in the anti death penalty quiver.

======


Few Conservatives Embrace Anti Death Penalty Deceptions 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/few-conservatives-embrace-anti-death.html


DEAD WRONG: (Montana) Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty (MCCATDP) 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/08/conservatives-concerned-about-death.html

Rebuttal to Richard A. Viguerie's "A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty"

======


FOOTNOTES


1) "We've learned a lot about the death penalty in the last 30 years", from Concerned Conservatives Concerned About The Death Penalty website, on November 12. 2013
 
http://conservativesconcerned.org/why-were-concerned/

A more appropriate heading for the anti death penalty folks is  "We've learned a lot about using deceptions in the last 30 years".


2)  a)  The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy  and
      THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

b) Section 2) ANTI DEATH PENALTY: SPARING MURDERERS, NO MATTER THE COST
            from THE DEATH PENALTY: DO INNOCENTS MATTER? 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

c) Section 1) PRO DEATH PENALTY: THE DEATH PENALTY PROTECTS MORE INNOCENT LIVES,
     from THE DEATH PENALTY: DO INNOCENTS MATTER?

d)  OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate   and
       MURDERERS MUCH PREFER LIFE OVER EXECUTION:
        99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html


3)  a) See Death Penalty Costs: California  within


b) Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

c) See The Virginia Example within 3b


d) See The Florida Example within 3b


4) a) US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html

b)  86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

c)  Murder Victims' Families Against The Death Penalty: More Hurt For Victims Families
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/is-execution-closure-of-course.html

5) (a) Judges Responsible For Grossly Uneven Executions