Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Moral Hypocrisy: European Union & The US Death Penalty

Moral  Hypocrisy: European Union & The US Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

updated 8/2019

The majority population in most (if not all) EU countries support the death penalty for some crimes (1) . 


EU governments/politicians wine about the US using propofol (and other drugs) for the execution of guilty murderers (3), as Syria wipes out thousands of innocents with sarin gas, thanks to Germany (4).  

EU politicians and world sanctions against Germany? Zero.  


Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon decided to suspend the execution of multiple murderer Allen Nicklasson because Missouri's use of propofol for executions, prompted an EU threat to withhold propofol, thereby putting milllions of innocent patients at risk -  propofol use is " . . .  about four-fifths of all anesthetic procedures (in the US). . . ". (5)

see crimes of Allen Nicklasson (6)

Pro death penalty Gov. Nixon was compassionate for all of the innocent patients who would be harmed had propofol been withheld as Gov. Nixon was certain that the EU and those drug companies would harm innocent patients, by withholding that drug, had Nixon allowed the execution to go forward.

Save murderers, at any cost

Anti death penalty EU governments/politicians are much more concerned that all guilty murderers must live, than they are for innocent patients or innocent murder victims. They made their choice. 

The EU and drug companies moral calculus being  that it is preferable to harm millions of innocent patients in protest of those drugs being used in the executions of known guilty murderers.

Nor do they prohibit the use of drugs in the use of innocents deaths with abortion or euthanasia, both of which are banned by the Hypocratic Oath - the death penalty is not (7).

As Washington Post columnist Charles Lane observes:   " . . . just when I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, some Europeans  (EU governments/politicians) go and do something irresponsible like restricting the export of sodium thiopental, an anesthetic, to the United States -- because some death penalty states use it in lethal injections. Not only is this gesture unlikely to prevent any executions -- it actually could put the lives and health of innocent Americans at risk." (8)  

6.3 million murdered innocents preferred over 1300 guilty murderers executed

EU governments/politicians know that they are putting innocents at risk, in order to benefit guilty murderers. That's been an anti death penalty staple forever - save all murderers, no matter the cost (9).

It seems that anti death penalty EU politicians have a moral preference for guilty murderers over innocent patients or innocent murder victims, very similar to that of anti death penalty activists in the US, whose moral/scholarly leadership has stated a preference of sacrificing an additional  6.3 million innocent murder victims rather than executing 1300 murderers (9).

Astounding, but true.

A human rights violation?

The EU and some others claim that the death penalty is a human rights violation. They have never proven it, nor can they.  

Both life and freedom are fundamental human rights. However, for those who violate the rights of others both freedom and  life may be removed from those criminals, which is why we have incarceration and executions. Why is it that the human right of freedom can be taken away, but not the human right of life? Anti death penalty folks have no rational argument for that. 

Why? Because there isn't one (9).

Anti death penalty folks have an irrational belief that all murderers have the absolute right to life, no matter their crimes and no matter the cost. They're wrong.

Money well spent?

In 2009, the EU spent $3.6 million (US) to lobby on behalf of US murderers (11). The EU motto appears to be "Save murderers at any cost",  just as it is with US based death penalty opponents (10).   Should the EU spend that $3.6 million as compensation for EU murder victims families, rather than lobbying for US murderers?  Do an EU poll.  

Harming Children

How bad can it get? 5 year olds more mature than 17 year olds? Of course, says the EU.

As a matter of law, Belgium has agreed that children of any age can commit suicide (12),  if they possesses "the capacity of discernment"  --   undoubtedly, a human rights movement that will sweep throughout the EU.

I'll take a chance, here, and say that Belgium and the EU may end up drawing the line at 5, unless they find that would violate the human rights of those children 0-4.

EU politicians were aghast that the US would allow 16-17 year old murderers to be executed, even with thorough reviews of their mental and psychological capacities.  

Why? Well, because they said, no matter what, 16-17 year olds are not mature enough to be subject to such a punishment because they can't possibly discern either murder or execution - although, somehow,  16-17 year olds do discern both murder and incarceration for that murder? Really? 

But, of course, the EU finds that 5 year olds have the discernment to decide their own suicide.

EU politicians could not see that some 16-17 year old murderers may be more mature than many 18 year olds, just as many non murderous 16 and 17 years are, as the rest of us know.

But, 5 year olds? Of course. 

Some idiotic US Supreme Court judges used that same illogic in Roper v Simmons, based upon EU sensibilities, to outlaw the execution of any 16-17 year old murderers, regardless of how mature they are and regardless that the rest of us, with some sense, knows than many 16-17 year olds are more mature, in every way, than are many 18 year olds. All criminal cases evaluate suspects/criminals, individually.

Prof. Kontorovich writes: " . . . a system that permits the euthanasia of innocent 12 year-olds but not the punishment of guilty 17-year-olds is one that exalts autonomy without culpability." So it comes out that the juveniles cannot really make accountable decisions when it comes to killing people, unless it is themselves. Or to put it differently, Belgium will not hold children responsible when they hurt others, but gives them free license to hurt themselves." (12)

Undoubtedly, the EU will make child suicide a human right.

Complete moral bankruptcy. Nothing new.

1)  86% US Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
     World Support Remains High
    95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty


2)  John Murray: "Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life." "... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty." "It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit." (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).

Plato: “Longer life is no boon to the sinner himself in such a case, and that his decease will bring a double blessing to his neighbors; it will be a lesson to them to keep themselves from wrong, and will rid society of an evil man. These are the reasons for which a legislator is bound to ordain the chastisement of death for such desperate villainies, and for them alone”

3300 additional pro death penalty quotes

3) German firm halts US exports over execution drug row, Oman Tribune

4) Report: Germany gave Syria ingredients for deadly gas in 2011

5) "Use of anesthetic propofol in executions might cut supply", The Denver Post, Jim Salter (AP), 9/29/2013

6) Crimes of Allen Nicklasson: His many (known) murders:  On a drive to buy drugs, Allen Nicklasson's car broke down.   Richard Drummond stopped to help, was kidnapping,  robbed and murdered by Nicklasson.  In a later incident,  both Joseph Babcock, 47, and his wife, Charlene, 38  also tried to assist Nicklasson, who robbed and  murdered them both.  During a string of additional robberies, Nicklasson murdered an unnamed waitress in Mexico (7).  These are the murders we know of.
Murderpedia, Allen Nicklasson, http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/nicklasson-allen.htm      

7) Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Medical Ethics Dilemma

8) "Europe's dangerous death penalty gesture", By Charles Lane, Washington Post, 2:39 PM ET, 02/ 1/2011,

9) The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation

10) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?

11) "The European Union gives millions in taxpayers’ money to anti-death penalty groups in America", By Nile Gardiner, World, THE TELEGRAPH,  Last updated: March 2nd, 2011

12) What Belgium’s child euthanasia law means for America and the Constitution

Why? Justice (2).

Now that Belgium and, soon, the EU, are to agree that some children, of any age, are mature enough to off themselves, I guess the EU and those US Supreme Court Judges will have to change their opinions on the 16-17 year old murderers. Right? Well, no. Hypocrisy will rule the day.

All of a sudden, 5-17 year olds are more than capable of offing themselves, because they are mature enough. I guess mental and psychological maturity is dependent on the type of killing - or,  at least, that is the only "rational" for their illogic.

William A. Petit, Jr.:  "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions," according to philosopher John Rawls. It transcends national borders, races and cultures. The death penalty is the appropriate societal response to the brutal and willful act of capital felony murder. Every murder destroys a portion of society. Those murdered can never grow and contribute to humankind; the realization of their potential will never be achieved. I support the death penalty not as a deterrent or for revenge or closure, but because it is just and because it prevents murderers from ever harming again. By intentionally, unlawfully taking the life of another, a murderer breaks a sacrosanct law of society and forfeits his own right to live.  (In a home invasion, Dr. Petit was, severely injured, his wife  Jennifer and their 11 year old daughter Michaela were raped and murdered. Both daughters, Michaela and Hayley were burned, alive.)

The Death Penalty: Fair & Just

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge

Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents

BY EUGENE KONTOROVICH, OP/ED, Washington Post, February 13, 2014 at 6:06 pm


Quakers & The Death Penalty

Death Penalty: Reconsidering the Quaker Position
Dudley Sharp

1) Genesis 9:5-6, from the 1764 Quaker Bible, the only Quaker bible.

5 And I will certainly require the Blood of your Lives, and that from the Paw of any Beast: from the Hand likewise of Man, even of any one’s Brother, will I require the Life of a Man.

6 He that sheds Man’s Blood, shall have his own shed by Man; because in the Likeness of God he made Mankind.

Of all the versions/translations, this may be the most unequivocal.

2) Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey

” . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect.” (p. 111-113) “A Bible Study”, within Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Carey was a Professor of Bible and Past President of George Fox College.

3) Quaker leadership

Quaker founder George Fox was only opposed the death penalty for lesser crimes, such as stealing, but not for murder. I have found no evidence that he opposed capital punishment for all crimes.

The other major figure in Quaker history was William Penn who, ” . . . in the preface to the “First Frame of Government”, argued for the divine right of government to “terrify evildoers” . . .”

In the Pennsylvania Holy Experiment of Quaker government ” . . . capital punishment was only allowed for treason and murder.” “However, in 1700 mutilation and branding were added, and in 1718 the provincial (Quaker) assembly extended the death penalty to twelve more felonies.”

” . . . Quakers in the assembly said that killing a soldier, whose sole crime was obeying his sovereign, was vastly different from executing a murderer or a burglar for violating laws, (which was proper).” “Quakers: Fox and Penn’s Holy Experiment”, Guides to Peace and Justice from Ancient Sages to the Suffragettes, HISTORY OF PEACE – Volume 1, by Sanderson Beck, World Peace

4) Rebuttal:  The American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee’s (AFSC) statement against the death penalty

Today, the AFSC statement against the death penalty is error filled, as many of the religious statements, now, are. All but one of the AFSC statements is secular, a common problem with many "religious" denunciations of the death penalty.

My replies as “Reply”.

AFSC: “We base our stand on the Quaker belief that every person has a value in the eyes of God and on Quaker testimonies against the taking of human life.”

Reply: This contradicts the biblical instruction of Genesis 9:5-6, as reviewed by many, see 1764 Quaker Bible, the only Quaker bible. whereby it is in the value of human life, as based in God’s image, which demands the death penalty. The Noahic covenant is for all times and all peoples.  It is the value of innocent life which supports the death penalty.

AFSC: “The Supreme Court agrees that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime. It recognized that the continuing demand for capital punishment is in part a manifestation of a desire for retribution. We find it particularly shocking that the Supreme Court would give credence to retribution as a basis for law.”

Reply: Retributive justice has its foundation in justice, in that we find that with all criminal sanctions, the support is based upon the sanction being just, proportional and appropriate for the crime committed. If the proper foundation for sanction is not justice, what does AFSC think it should be? All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism (1) No credible source can say the death penalty deters none (1). Therefore, the discussion is only about how much the death penalty does deter (1).

AFSC: “The grossly disproportionate number of nonwhites sentenced to be executed and the continuing demand for the death penalty indicate that the death penalty may constitute an outlet for acknowledged racist attitudes. This outlet is now legally sanctioned, but is nonetheless morally unacceptable.” “Punishment by death is inflicted most often upon the poor, and particularly upon racial minorities, who do not have the means to defend themselves that are available to wealthier offenders. A minority person convicted of a capital offense is much more likely to pay the extreme penalty than a white person convicted of the same crime. Discretion as to whether to execute continues under the Supreme Courts guidelines, and minority persons will continue to be victims of this discretion. The Supreme Court in its 1976 decision ignores this reality.”

Reply: There is no disproportionate application, gross or otherwise, based upon the only thing that matters - those that commit murder. If the AFSC wishes to complain, possibly they would address that white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers (2) with 56% of those executed whites, 37% black. (1973-2009) (2) .

The poor most often commit capital murders, therefore they are most likely to receive the death penalty (3).

The AFSC’s statement that “the death penalty may constitute an outlet for acknowledged racist attitudes.” appears to have only one purpose,  slander and insult, reflecting AFSC’s ignorant contempt of those who believe differently than they do.

I suspect the AFSC just, irresponsibly,  adopts anti death penalty claims without fact checking them, as revealed.

AFSC: “The death penalty is especially abhorrent because it assumes an infallibility in the process of determining guilt. Persons later found to have been innocent have been executed. This will happen again when killing by the state begins anew.”

Reply: I have never heard anyone claim the death penalty infallible. Has the AFSC? Of course not. It appears that the AFSC just made it up. Hardly wise. Innocents are more protected with the death penalty than without it. (1).

AFSC: ” . . . the death penalty restores no victim to life and only compounds the wrong committed in the first place.”

Reply: No one has every stated that execution resurrects the innocent murder victim. Why anti death penalty groups continuously proclaim this idiocy is a mystery. The death penalty does, however, help to spare more innocent lives (1). It is a wonder why some of the religious fight to spare the lives of guilty murderers lives, at the cost of more innocents sacrificed (1). The AFSC claim that the justice of the death penalty is “wrong” is most unpersuasive, has no cogent argument to support the claim and contradicts the teachings in Scripture.

AFSC: “We affirm that there is no justification for taking the life of any man or woman for any reason.”

Reply: Many, rightly, disagree. Both sparing innocent lives and justice through self defense and defense of others, a just war, as well as the just imposition of the death penalty are justifiable reasons for taking lives, a position accepted by many well known Quakers, inclusive of George Fox.

5) Biblical death penalty support

There is much support for the death penalty by God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, which conflicts with the common anti death penalty position taken by AFSC.

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references and upholds many of the same from the OT.

There is the Noahic covenant, which is for all peoples and all times, as per Carey and others.:

Genesis 9:5-6 – “For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made.” (NAB)

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For some crimes, God commands there is no mitigation from a death sentence for murder.

Much more support, here (4).

6) Improvement/Rehabilitation/Redemption

Murderers can morally/criminally/spiritually:

(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.

Execution could be the best outcome, as it represents a just sanction for the crimes committed and, therefore, a lesson in justice for all of us, as well as guaranteeing that the murderer will never harm again, as opposed to the hope that some murderers might, possibly, improve.

Please weigh justice and the guarantee of no more innocents harmed against the possibility of murderers becoming a positive role model.

7) Forgiveness is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged.

The directly harmed innocent murder victims are dead and cannot offer their forgiveness.

One can forgive and fully understand that justice for the crimes are both desirable and beneficial.

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer:

“. . . 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.” (p. 116). “A Bible Study”, within Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

“The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

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.)

St. Thomas Aquinas:

“If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6


1) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues


Pro Life: The Death Penalty

95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High

Sunday, October 27, 2013


A Review of All Innocence Issues
Dudley Sharp 

updated 9/2019

Nobel Prize Laureate Gary Becker:

“the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” ( Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate, by Adam Liptak, NY Times, NOV. 18, 2007)

"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (1964-2014) (The New York Times May 5, 2014). Becker was an economist, sociologist and empiricist at the U of Chicago.

There are two primary, conflicting views on innocents and the death penalty.

The pro death penalty view, that, in addition to justice, saving innocent lives is a benefit of the death penalty/executions.

The anti death penalty view, that, even if just,  the sanction should be ended, if there is only the prospect of an innocent executed.


The death penalty/executions protect innocents, in three ways, better than does life without parole (LWOP): enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation and enhanced deterrence:

a) Enhanced due process - No knowledgeable party disputes that the death penalty has the greatest of due process protections (1), what the US Supreme Court has called "super due process", meaning that actual innocents sentenced to LWOP are more likely to die as innocents in prison, than are innocents likely to be executed. Even many death penalty opponents, publicly, agree.

As death penalty opponents, now, argue that LWOP is more cruel than execution, this takes on greater importance , as their position is to support the more cruel sanction, LWOP, over death, and with LWOP having a higher probability of sanctioning innocents with incarceration and death. Interesting and consistent.

Why do nearly 100% of murderers do all they can to avoid the death penalty and get life, instead? (2)  No, those murderers were not deterred, at least not that time, but they reflect the same basic nature that potential murderers and the rest of us do, which is:

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. What we prefer more deters less. What we fear more deters more. Basic.

Read The Death of Punishment by Robert Blecker.

b) Enhanced incapacitation - Living murderers are, infinitely, more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - No one disagrees.

c) Enhanced deterrence -  All severe sanctions deter some. Never has the deterrent effect  of the death penalty or any other severe sanction been negated. It can't be.

The death penalty/execution is the most severe sanction. 

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more, deters more. Rationally, indisputable.

The death penalty/executions are an enhanced deterrent over LWOP. 

The only honest disputes are 1) if the death penalty/executions are a greater deterrent than LWOP - both the evidence and reason says yes (2,3) - and 2) "How much do death penalty/executions deter?" -  a question that will never be answered to any consensus, as the soft sciences can only offer general and, often, wildly different results, often, criticized, as with the 24 studies, post 1996,  finding for US death penalty/execution deterrence of from 1-28 murders deterred by each execution (2,3).

Even with the highest 28 number, such represents a net 5% reduction in murders, a net reduction that could "vanish" within gross annual murders and murder rates, even though it still represents a very important net reduction of 924 murders per year, attributable to the deterrent effect. (based upon 33 executions/yr and 18,000 murders/yr).

As a rule, the criticism of the studies finding for deterrence are far less credible than are those studies finding for deterrence (2,3).

d) Doubting Deterrence -  It is not up to death penalty supporters to prove deterrence. It is up to deterrence naysayers to prove that the death penalty/executions deter none, which death penalty opponents have never and can never establish, as all severe sanctions, all severe negative prospects and all sever negative incentives deter some, all truisms and all well known, with the death penalty being the harshest sanction, the worst negative prospect and the greatest of negative incentives.

If deterrence is an unresolved issue, this remains:

We can risk sacrificing more innocents by ending the death penalty/executions, or
We can "risk" saving more innocents by having the death penalty/executions.

Pick your risk.

Does anyone doubt that if we removed all law enforcement and all criminal laws that every "crime" would escalate? Of course not, sanctions deter some. 

Historically, factually and rationally, the evidence that all severe sanctions, all sever negative prospects and all severe negative incentives deter some is overwhelming (2,3) and the evidence that any severe sanction, any severe negative outcome  or any sever negative incentive deters none does not exist (2,3).

The death penalty/executions prevail over LWOP, if protecting the innocent is your concern:

(1) If the death penalty/executions do not deter, and we end death penalty/executions, both enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation tell us we will be sacrificing more innocents;
(2) If the death penalty/executions do deter, and we fail to execute, we will be sacrificing even more innocents than in 1, just above;
(3) If the death penalty/executions do not deter and we execute, we have enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation, thereby sparing more innocent lives;
(4) If the death penalty/executions do deter and we execute, we have all three benefits, sparing even more innocent lives than in 3, just above.

Getting rid of the death penalty/executions will sacrifice more innocents. Keeping or adding the death penalty/executions will spare more innocent lives, over LWOP (2,3).

With or without deterrence, the option is to "risk" sparing more innocent lives with the death penalty/executions or to risk sacrificing more innocents by not using the death penalty/executions.

Pro death penalty folks make that argument.

A responsible protocol:

Virginia executes within 7 years of sentencing, on average, and has executed 72% of their death sentenced murderers (111 murderers), since 1976 (4), with not even a false hint of innocents executed (5-8).

All states could match that protocol with 2-3.3 years at each court level, the state supreme court, the federal district court and federal circuit courts, averaging 6-10 years of appeals,  prior to execution. Cases heard at SCOTUS are rare.

Legally and rationally, 6-10 years of appeals, on average, is a responsible time. All it takes is responsible judges (9) who, as the case managers, control both time and costs, at pre trial, trial and within appeals.


A) Sacrificing the Innocent To Spare Murderers

The latest anti death penalty mantra is, "If just one innocent can be spared from execution, we must end the death penalty." Let's review.

1) Well known anti death penalty scholars "(Charles) Black and (Hugo Adam ) Bedau said they would favor abolishing the death penalty even if they knew that doing so would increase the homicide rate by 1,000 percent." (10).

They both chose sparing the lives of 1500 guilty murderers (executed from 1973-2018) over saving an additional 7.2 million innocent lives, taken by murder (a 1000% increase in the murder rate 1973-2018).

Anti death penalty. academic leaders make that argument.  Astounding, yet no surprise. The goal of anti death penalty folks is making sure that all murderers live, no matter the cost.

2) Pro death penalty scholar Ernest van den Haag interviewed well known anti death penalty activists, asking them, if it was proven that 100 innocent lives were spared per execution, via deterrence, would you still oppose the death penalty. All said yes (10).

Based upon our 1500 executions (1973-2018), those anti death penalty folks would chose sparing the lives of 1500 guilty murderers over saving the lives of 150,000 innocents from murder.

The anti death penalty goal is to save guilty murderers, no matter the cost, including the cost in innocent lives, as they admit.

Anti death penalty folks make that argument.

B) The Blatant "Innocence/Exoneration" Frauds

No known innocents have been executed in the US, within the modern death penalty era, post Gregg v Georgia (1976). There is much deception regarding innocents executed and little else (5).

No one doubts the possibility of an innocent executed. However, the facts reveal that, with the death penalty/executions, retained or enacted, that many more net lives are spared because of our use of the death penalty/execution, with many, many more net innocents will die when we allow murderers to live.

1) The Frauds of the "Innocent/Exonerated" Released from Death Row

Anti death penalty folks constantly lie about the "innocents' or "exonerated" who were released from death row, with their newest false number now at 166 (6-8), reflecting a degree of deception, where is found up to an 83% "error" rate in such "innocence/exonerated" claims from Texas and Florida (8). It is, truly, a blatant lie rate, by death penalty opponents.

The worldwide media pushes these frauds on a daily basis. It is one of the worst journalism disasters, from either the no fact checking/vetting or fraud enabling perspective.

Based upon various reviews (6-8), we have discovered and released 25-46 actual innocents from death row, or 0.4% of those so sentenced, since 1977.  

Is there a more accurate sanction than one which has a known record of 99.6% accuracy in convicting the actually guilty and releasing the o.4% actually innocent upon appeal?

Probably not.

Somehow, the anti death penalty folks have gotten truly, actual innocents released from
death row, to lobby against the death penalty, using these same lies. Despicable.  Are they paying them that much? See "Witness to Innocence" organization, started by Sister Helen Prejean (11).

If they respected innocence they wouldn't lie about it and they lie, a lot.

The DPIC's lies regarding this list are numerous and ongoing, as the most basic of fact checking/vetting confirms.

2) The 4.1% "innocents" on death row nonsense (12).

This is a stark example of how bad anti death penalty academic studies can be.

The study's foundation for the 4.1% "false conviction" rate is based upon the well known, misleading database from the anti death penalty organization, Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) (6-8), reviewed, just above in 2B1.

3) The Fraud of False "False Confessions"

The Innocence Project Invents 250% error rate in "false confessions"? (13)

"Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project, . . . did not deny Dr. Welner’s charge that The Innocence Project has falsely inflated its numbers of false confessions. Neufeld additionally revealed, in his response to Dr. Welner, that The Innocence Project also classifies cases as false confessions even when their own exonerated clients are adamant that they never confessed – because, as Neufeld asserted, “some of our clients are not reliable with what they tell us.” (13)

"Dr. Welner demonstrated how poor scientific methodology and an anti-police agenda among declared scholars in this novel area of scientific interest result in inflated perceptions of the prevalence of false confessions." (13)

These include false representations by The Innocence Project that the proportion of false confessions in wrongful conviction cases is 25 percent when that percentage is in actuality close to 10 percent.

"Dr. Welner challenged assertions of published academics such as Gisli Gudjonsson, Saul Kassin, Richard Ofshe, Richard Leo, and Steven Drizin that confirmed false confessions are “frequent,” a “small but significant minority” of confessions, and “the tip of the iceberg.”
Welner: "Objectivity does not allow forensic science the liberty of changing a threshold of ‘reliable’ to suit the argument of the moment.” (13)


We can speculate as to 1) how many more innocents may have been sent to death row, just as we may speculate as to 2) how many more innocents are at risk if we stop the death penalty/executions and allow more murderers to live, the later being a hugely more significant number than the former, based upon the known facts, below:


As anti death penalty folks insist on getting rid of the death penalty, based upon the possibility of an innocent executed, what of these?

33/yr, on average, are executed, in the US.  

Then, we have these:

a) 5000 die/yr in US criminal custody (14).

Following the anti death penalty mantra: "We must not incarcerate any more people, just to make sure that not one more innocent will die while incarcerated, How many of those 5000 are innocent - it is inevitable - we must ban all forms of custody, so that one innocent, or thousands,  might be spared".

But, of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.

21, 840 more innocents were murdered by those known murderers that we allowed to murder, again, --  recidivist murderers -- since 1973 (15)  -  but no known innocents executed. This based upon three different recidivism studies, for three different periods (15).

Following the anti death penalty mantra: "from 16,000 - 31,000 innocents were murdered because we allowed known murderers to murder, again - we must execute all murderers, so as not to allow murderers to murder one more innocent, again, much less allowing known murderers to murder an additional 16,000 - 31,000 innocents."

Of course, anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.

c) Every year, approximately 9000 known criminals, with criminal convictions and who were either released or never incarcerated, are allowed to murder (16).

Every year.

d) some 440,000 innocents have been murdered by those known criminals we have released on parole and probation, while under government supervision, and/or, were otherwise released or were criminals never incarcerated, since 1973 (17).

Following the anti death penalty mantra: "400,000 innocents died because we allowed known criminals to murder - we must not release any criminals, to spare one more innocent and those 400,000 innocents."

But, of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.

d)  Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 94 percent of state prisoners in 1991 had committed a violent crime or been incarcerated or on probation before. Of these prisoners, 45 percent had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole. When "supervised" on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children) (18).

This is just for a review of prisoners for one year, only --   1991.

Following the anti death penalty mantra: "We must stop paroles and probations, to spare one more innocent murdered, much less the 13,200 innocents murdered and 11,600 innocents raped (more than half against children)" found from a review of prisoners incarcerated in that one year.

But, of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.

e) Patrick A. Langan, senior statistician at the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, calculated that tripling the prison population from 1975 to 1989 may have reduced "violent crime by 10 to 15 percent below what it would have been," thereby preventing a "conservatively estimated 390,000 murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults in 1989 alone." (18).

In that one year alone!

Following the anti death penalty mantra: "We must incarcerate more and release no prisoners, just to protect one innocent and the future millions of innocents from harm by known criminals."

But of course, the anti death penalty folks don't make that argument, even though it represents their mantra.

See where the innocents at risk problem really is?


"We must spare the lives of all murderers, no matter the cost, inclusive of the cost of more innocent lives taken, no matter the number".

Additionally disturbing, is that death penalty opponents, now, state that LWOP is harsher than execution.

Death penalty opponents claim a desire to treat murderers more harshly, with LWOP, calling for a ban on the  death penalty, which they declare a cruel and unusual punishment and a human rights violation (19) , desiring LWOP more, which, according to death penalty opponents, must be a more cruel human rights violation.

This from the "compassionate" side? They don't really believe it - it's just another lie, another tactic - "Get rid of the death penalty, be tougher with LWOP".

Capital murderers prefer LWOP 99.7% of the time over the death penalty (2). 

Death penalty opponents can't help but give murderers exactly what they want, at the expense of more innocent lives taken.

1) a)  Texas Death Penalty Procedures


Both the guilty & the innocent have the greatest of protections

Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions

3) Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended and Advanced

4)   Saving Costs with The Death Penalty

5) paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 5-15 within:

The Innocents Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy,

6)  The Blatant Fraud -  The (now) 166 "exonerated" from death row

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) simply decided to redefine both "exonerated" and "innocent", in the same fashion as if they redefined "lie" as "truth".

Death Row, "Exonerations", Media  & Intentional Fraud  
An Open Fraud in the Death Penalty Debate: How Death Penalty Opponents Lie

This is a look at how well destroyed the "EXONERATED" and/or "INNOCENTS" list is and how it has been so deceptively used by the anti death penalty movement.

8)   Florida and Texas: The 83% error rate in "exoneration" claims.


4 of the alleged 24 (now 25) "exonerated" may be innocent, as found in 2 studies, 2002 and 2001, by a Florida state agency, the Florida Commission on Capital Cases.  It is no surprise that the 24/25 "exonerated" claims comes from the deceptive DPIC.

From page 5 (2002 study) and page 7 (2011 study):

"The guilt of only four defendants was subsequently "doubted" by the prosecuting office or the Governor and Cabinet members: Freddie Lee Pitts and Wilbert Lee were pardoned by Governor Askew and the Cabinet, citing substantial doubt of their guilt, Frank Lee Smith died before the results of DNA testing excluded him as the perpetrator of the sexual assault, and the State chose not to retry James Richardson due to newly discovered evidence and the
suspicion of another perpetrator." 


The deceptive DPIC, again, claims 12 death row "exonerations" in Texas.

By Texas law, Texas has only identified one former death row inmate , Anthony Graves, as actually innocent and that, only, after Texas had to change the definition of "actual innocence, for Graves to qualify.

1 not 12. Michael Blair, although he did not qualify under that statute, is a truly actual exonerated from death row, but guilty of multiple sexual assaults on children

Both states with 83% error rates in the fraudulent "exoneration" claims.

See both within:

Death Row, "Exonerations", Media  & Intentional Fraud  


The Innocents Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy,


9) Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions

10) Louis P. Pojman. "The Wisdom of Capital Punishment." p 281, Excerpted from The Death Penalty by Louis P. Pojman and J. Reiman. Copyright 1998. taken from

Review: Read the above book. A great look at both sides of the debate.

11) Sister Helen Prejean: Does Truth Matter?

12) Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death,  Samuel R. Gross, Barbara O’Brienb, Chen Huc, and Edward H. Kennedy, National Academy of Sciences

13)  "Forensic Panel Chair’s Testimony on False Confessions to NYS Justice Task Force Tackles Myths, Proposes New Solutions ", NEWS RELEASE, The Forensic Panel, Michael Welner, M.D., Chairman, JANUARY 24, 2011,  


14)  Deaths in Custody Statistical Tables, Bureau of Justice Statistics, SEE 7 links on right side of page. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcrp/dictabs.cfm

15) a) 3 year recidivism studies

6.6% repeat murderer recidivism rate, 1989 study of 1983 data

Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 1983

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., Bernard E. Shipley, Bureau of Justice Statistics
April 1, 1989    NCJ 116261

1.2% repeat murderer recidivism rate, 2002 study using 1994 data

Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 1994
Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., David J. Levin, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics
June 2, 2002    NCJ 193427


9 year recidivism study, 2018 study using 2005-2014 data

Violent prisoners released reoffended at at rate of 75% for additional violent crimes and 77% for all crimes. 

(last section, Table 7, page 11, 2018 UPDATE ON PRISONER RECIDIVISM: A 9-YEAR FOLLOW-UP PERIOD (2005-2014) | MAY 2018, Buraeu of Justice Statistics,  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf 

11 yrs (73-83)  at 6.6 equals 72.6

35 yrs (84-2018) at 1.3 equals  45.5, using only a 10% increase, total, for an additional 35 years of recidivism.
resulting in an average of 2.6% recidivism rate for repeat murderers for 46 years or 21, 840 additional murders


Why the recidivism rates should be higher:

Both of the studies which include murderer recidivism rates only looked at recidivism for 3 years after release. We are concerned with recidivism for 45 years and less, years 1973-2018, as the modern era of new death penalty statutes began in 1973. Recidivism rates will be higher if released prisoners were tracked for the additional 4 years to 45 years, as the 9 year study (above) shows and reason dictates, as opposed to only 3 years. 

Why the recidivism rates should be lower:

The dramatic reduction in recidivism between the two  3 year studies reflects a dramatic increase in sentencing terms and incarceration rates, which amounted to lower rates of early release
and thus recidivism, with other contributing factors as well.

That will be countered by the increased recidivism rates from the 10+ years studies, just as with the 9 year period data, whereby recidivism rates will only get higher, as proven, looking at repeat murderer recidivism for the additional 4-44 years, which is what I am looking at.


EXACT NUMBERS: Based upon convictions, 8.4% of those
on death row had murdered, at least one person, prior to committing additional murder or murders which put them on death row --an estimated 600-1000 additional innocents murdered, by those who had murdered before, just for that small set that have made it to death row.

Table 8. Criminal history profile of prisoners under sentence of death by race and Hispanic origin, 2005", p 6, Capital Punishment, 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp05.pdf

2005 was the last year of this analysis

16) I am estimating 18,000 murders per year (1973-2018), therefore approx. 9000 murderers/ year with prior convictions

a) 53% of murderers had a prior conviction record.
b) Median prison sentences received included a maximum of 240 months for murder, 120 months for rape, 60  months for robbery, and 48 months for other violent felonies. 20 YEAR MEDIAN SENTENCE FOR MURDER  --  20 years.

a and b from

State Court Processing Statistics, 1990-2002, Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties,Special Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,  July 2006, NCJ 205289,

17)  "Sixty-seven percent of murderers  . . . had (a prior)  arrest  record  . . ."  " . . . with 56% of violent felons (having) a prior conviction record.", for 12 years of data.

From 1973-2018, using only a 53% prior record (16a), this would mean that known criminals, released on parole, probation, release pending disposition and other releases  and those not incarcerated, have murdered approximately 440,000 persons, after they were released.

Calculation; An average of 18,000 murders per year (1973-2018) times 46 years times 53% (16a). I suspect the count of "non violent: offenders would raise that number to at least 400,000, based upon there being far more "non violent" offenders being released.

1) See Highlights, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, State Court Processing Statistics, 1990-2002

Violent Felons in Large Urban Counties, July 2006, NCJ 205289.


The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation


Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents