Saturday, November 16, 2013

Texas Death Penalty Procedures

Texas Death Penalty Procedure
Dudley Sharp

SUMMARY

It is extraordinarily difficult for prosecutors to obtain a death sentence. They must, therefore, be extremely limited in their selection of cases to pursue.

100% of the 48 votes (4 voting issues for each of the 12 jurors), must be against the defendant/murderer, to be given a death sentence.

2%, only 1 of those 48 votes, must be for the defendant/murderer, to remove the death penalty option.

Any juror can use anything they want, personally and subjectively, to spare the murderer a death sentence.

TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 37. THE VERDICT

======

Article 37.071 PROCEDURE IN A CAPITAL CASE

Sec. 1.  If a defendant is found guilty in a capital felony case in which the state does not seek the death penalty, the judge shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without parole.

(Sharp: 12 unanimous votes required for guilt)

(Some deleted)


Sec. 2. (b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to the jury  (1) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society;  and  (2) . . .  whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.


(c) The state must prove each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury shall return a special verdict of "yes" or "no" on each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this Article.


(d) The court shall charge the jury that: (1) in deliberating on the issues submitted under Subsection (b) of this article, it shall consider all evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage and the punishment stage, including evidence of the defendant's background or character or the circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty;  (2) it may not answer any issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article "yes" unless it agrees unanimously and it may not answer any issue "no" unless 10 or more jurors agree;  and


(Sharp: 24 unanimous votes required to find against the murderer and keep the death penalty option)


(3) members of the jury need not agree on what particular evidence supports a negative answer to any issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article.


(Sharp: any juror can use any reason they want to vote "no" and to spare the murderer from death, with no other agreement, whatsoever, with any other juror. The chances to escape death are nearly endless.)


(e)(1)  The court shall instruct the jury that if the jury returns an affirmative finding to each issue submitted under Subsection (b) 


(Sharp: That being 24 unanimous "yes" votes against the murderer)


, it shall answer the following issue:


Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed.


(2)  The court shall: (A)  instruct the jury that if the jury answers that a circumstance or circumstances warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed, the court will sentence the defendant to imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life without parole; and (B)  charge the jury that a defendant sentenced to confinement for life without parole under this article is ineligible for release from the department on parole.


(Sharp: In making this decision, any juror can use anything they want, personally and subjectively, under (e) (1&2) to spare the murderer a death sentence.)


(f) The court shall charge the jury that in answering the issue submitted under Subsection (e) of this article, the jury:


(1) shall answer the issue "yes" or "no"; (2) may not answer the issue "no" unless it agrees unanimously and may not answer the issue "yes" unless 10 or more jurors agree; (3) need not agree on what particular evidence supports an affirmative finding on the issue;  and (4) shall consider mitigating evidence to be evidence that a juror might regard as reducing the defendant's moral blameworthiness.


(Sharp: There must be 12 jurors voting unanimously "no", to the mitigation consideration or ANY consideration, in order to keep the death penalty option.)


(g)  If the jury returns an affirmative finding on each issue submitted under Subsection (b) and a negative finding on an issue submitted under Subsection (e)(1), the court shall sentence the defendant to death.  If the jury returns a negative finding on any issue submitted under Subsection (b) or an affirmative finding on an issue submitted under Subsection (e)(1) or is unable to answer any issue submitted under Subsection (b) or (e), the court shall sentence the defendant to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life imprisonment without parole.


(h) The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Court of Criminal Appeals.


Sharp: 100% of the 48 votes (4 voting issues for each of the 12 jurors), must be against the defendant/murderer to obtain a death sentence.

2%, only 1 of those 48 votes, must be for the defendant/murderer, to remove the death penalty option.

Appeals:


In Texas, appeals take, on average, 11 years prior to execution, and can go through 4 courts: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (a Supreme Court that only looks at criminal cases), the Federal District Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court, all of which review both direct appeals and the writ.


1) Texas death  penalty cases are overturned 17% of the time. Nationally, absent Texas, 40% of death penalty cases are overturned within appeals (1).


Texas's due process shows a 58% improvement over the national average.


2)  Texas has executed 45% of those sentenced to death. Nationally, absent Texas, that figure is 11% (1).


Texas' appellate record is 310% better than the national average.


NOTE: Virginia has executed 72% (109) of those so sentenced and has an overturning rate of only 11% (1)  and executes within 7.1 years, on average (2).


Nationally, within appeals, inmates are twice as likely (42%, 3481 cases) to be removed from death row by means other than execution or other death (21%, 1737) (1).


In Virginia, inmates are 4.1 times more likely (76%, 115) to be removed from death row by execution or other death than to be removed by other means (18%, 28) (1).

Why such a disparity? The judges (3).



An example: How bad are California Judges?

As of 2011, 962 murderers have been sent to California's death row, with 13 (1.3%) having been executed, the last 5 averaging 22 years on death row, prior to execution,  and 148 (15%) overturned on appeals.

The 15% overturned on appeal doesn't look so bad, until you realize it is because California judges do all they can to drag out these cases, taking a reported 5 years to hear the first appeals, after sentencing!

That willful mismanagement has cause a terrible backlog, is a huge insult to murder victim survivors, as to justice, and has created a huge burden on taxpayers, all because of this nest of boondoggles, aka judges.

For the last 6 years, these judges have prevented executions based upon California's lethal injection protocol, which mimics the successful use of intravenous medical procedures in countless millions of cases, worldwide, over decades. The lethal overdose of the drugs used in California's protocol have well known, never changing pharmacological properties.

Shocking that these judges haven't stopped all medical intravenous procedures in California, based upon them being cruel and unusual.

California judges are cruel and unusual.

Virginia has executed 70% (110) of their death row murderers, within 7.1 years, Texas 45% (510) within 10.5 years. Since 1976, Texas has executed about 0.8% of her murderers, Virginia 0.7%, California 0.014%.




1) Capital Punishment, 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2013,  Table 17, Number sentenced to death and number of removals, by jurisdiction and reason for removal, 1973–2011, page 20

2) Path to execution swifter, more certain in Va. , FRANK GREEN, Richmond Post-Dispatch, December 4, 2011 Page: A1 Section: News Edition: Final 

3) Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/judges-responsible-for-grossly-uneven.html


Friday, November 15, 2013

Few Conservatives Embrace Anti Death Penalty Deceptions

Few Conservatives Embrace Anti Death Penalty Deceptions
Dudley Sharp

The newest anti death penalty trend is to present conservatives who oppose the death penalty, now spearheaded by a group called Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty (CCATDP), funded and founded by another liberal anti death penalty group, Equal Justice USA (1), supported by George Soros.

They are no different than standard anti death penalty folks, in that they either present known deceptions, as does CCATDP (1,2), or  they, simply,  accept those frauds, or otherwise presume, without investigation, as Ron Paul, Richard Viguerie (both rebutted, below) and others quoted by CCATDP (1,2).

Some conservatives have morphed into anti death penalty advocates, displaying the common tendency of either blindly accepting false anti death penalty claims, with willful ignorance, or knowingly pushing deceptions, as does CCATDP, as detailed, below.

CCATDP has no "concerns" about the death penalty. Their only goal is saving all murderers, no matter the cost, just as their master, Equal Justice USA, dictates (5).

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

Conservative Support

The most accurate, recent poll (Angus Reid, April 2013) found 86% death penalty support, with only 9% opposing all execution (3a), the highest and lowest, respectively, that I have ever seen.

As a rule Republicans/Conservatives show (more discretion and)  higher support, plus 3-9% (3b), within some polls.

CCATDP

With CCATDP , deception would come naturally, as a creation of Equal Justice USA.

The rebuttal of CCATDP is so extensive, I had to put it within another post at footnote (1), as well as the rebuttal of Montana CCATDP (2), which was the inspiration for the national CCATDP.

They are just the same ole liberal anti death penalty groups, who must save all murderers, no matter the deceptions (5).

Rebuttal: Ron Paul

Ron Paul used to support the death penalty, but has switched, citing two reasons for his opposition: the risk of executing an innocent, due to an incompetent government, and that there is a disparity, based upon class, of those sentenced to death and/or executed.

He has bought into the anti death penalty frauds, without fact checking them, a common liberal problem, now infecting some libertarians and conservatives.

Death Penalty: Government protection of the innocent

From 25-40 actual innocents have been discovered and released from death row (4) . That is 0.4% of the 8400 sentenced to death in the modern death penalty era, post Gregg v Georgia (1976) -  a 99.6% accuracy rate in actual guilty findings, with the 0.4% actual innocents being released upon appeal (4).

This may be the most accurate sanction, as the super due process protections would mandate.

Paul may have relied upon anti death penalty claims of the, now, 143 "exonerated" (1.7%) from death row claims, a fraud known to have originated in 1997, with 69 "exonerated" (4), numbers shown, over that period,  to be from 70-85% false (4).

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the modern era, but there is much anti death penalty deception with regard to quite a few cases (4), from Sacco and Vanzetti through to Troy Davis (4).

Innocents More Protected with The Death Penalty than with LWOP

Many fail to to look at how innocents are at risk without the death penalty, a much more real and severe problem than the execution of innocents (5).

Innocents are more protected with the death penalty than with LWOP (4-6).

How Due Process So Protects the Innocent (and the Guilty)

This is what we have with the death penalty, a government program:

The death penalty may be the most limited, precise and monitored of all government programs, affecting from 0.003% - 0.009% of the population, at the state, military and federal levels (4,6,7).

There is no sanction which has fewer crimes that qualify for it; nor is there any sanction with greater limitations on its application; nor one that has greater controls in pre trial and at trial; nor one that has two separate trials - one for the verdict, the other for punishment; nor one with greater care in jury selection; nor any sanction with more thorough and extensive appeals; nor one with more consideration in commutation, clemency and pardons within the executive branch.

1) Pre trial has unmatched requirements and protections.

2) Trial

The defendant is presumed innocent.

A look at the legal provisions for Texas, the most active death penalty state:

In Texas, the jury has to find against a defendant/murderer with 100% of the votes (48 votes or 12 jurors times 4 separate issue votes) in order to give a death sentence, but only 1 vote (2%) for the defendant/murderer (or rare innocent) to be spared the death penalty (7).

Many if not all jurisdictions have two or more prosecutors and two or more defense counsels for capital trials, rarely seen in other cases.

Nationally, 2/3 of death penalty eligible trials end in sentences less than death (8 ). No surprise when things are so stacked in favor of the murderer or the rare innocent party.

3) Appeals

Nationally, within appeals, death row inmates are twice as likely (42%, 3481 cases) to be removed from death row by means other than execution or other death (21%, 1737) (9).


The opposite of Virginia, wherein inmates are 4.1 times more likely (76%, 115) to be removed from death row by execution or other death than to be removed by other means (18%, 28) (9).

Why such a disparity? The judges (10).

Nationally, there is an 11 year average between sentencing and execution,  for the 15% of those murderers sentenced to death.

Texas appeals take, on average, 11 years prior to execution, and can go through 4 courts: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (a State Supreme Court that only looks at criminal cases), the Federal District Court, the (federal) Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court, all of which review both direct appeals and appeals based upon the writ.

What do those courts think of Texas?

a) Texas death  penalty cases are overturned 17% of the time. Nationally, absent Texas, 40% of death penalty cases are overturned within appeals (9).

Texas's due process shows a 58% improvement over the national average.

b)  Texas has executed 45% of those sentenced to death. Nationally, absent Texas, that figure is 11% (9).

Texas' appellate record is 310% better than the national average.

NOTE: Virginia has executed 72% (109) of those so sentenced and has an overturning rate of only 11% (9)   and executes within 7.1 years, on average (11).


Could all states come close to Texas and Virgina results? Yes, if liberal judges and legislators would get out of the way, something that CCATDP will not request, because CCATDP approves of the delays and additonal costs, as their only concern, as dictated by Equal Justice USA, is saving all murderers, at all costs.

4) Clemency/Commutation/Pardon   -   I am unaware of any sanction that has greater consideration within the executive branch, than does the death penalty.

5) The judicial factor

All of these protections  represent super due process but, also, how liberal anti death penalty judges have infected the process by obstructing these cases, as is clear from a review of the states (10).

======

The protections for the guilty murderer and innocent defendant/inmate are extraordinary.

Based upon reality. this provides greater support for the death penalty and greater protections for the innocent, the opposite of Paul's consideration.

Is there class disparity with executions?

I believe that truly wealthy capital defendants/murderers, who can hire the finest counsel, must have an advantage over their poorer ilk, but that the database of wealthy capital murderers is so small as to, likely, make moot any statistical relevance and that only how "wealthy" is defined could determine if their may be a disparity or not, as detailed (12).

Poor murderers are avoiding execution about 99.8% of the time - and I don't think we have any evidence that wealthy murderers are executed substantially less than 0.2% of the time, or a properly corrected 0.02-0.04% of the time (12).

I think death penalty eligible capital murders represent only about 10% of all murders. Some believe the percentage is 15-20%.

We may even be executing wealthy murderers at a rate higher than expected (12).

This is, hardly, a reason to oppose any sanction.

Paul offers no rational foundation for ending the death penalty any more than he has reasons to end all sanctions.

Richard Viguerie

Viguerie's inaccuracies are so substantial that I had to address them in a separate rebuttal (13).

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



1) Conservatives Concerned About The Death Penalty:
      Just another dishonest anti death penalty group

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

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

b)   Within poll number 43 and 45 


RELEASE, March 10, 2011 - "Death Penalty Support At New High In Connecticut, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters High On Medical Marijuana, Sunday Liquor Sales"http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=1566

4) 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

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

5) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

6) THE DEATH PENALTY: LEAST ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS:
Both the guilty & the innocent have the greatest protections
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-death-penalty-neither-arbitrary-nor.html


7) Texas Death Penalty Procedures
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/texas-death-penalty-procedures.html

8) Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty, Mark Costanzo, Macmillan, 1997


9) within    Texas Death Penalty Procedure

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/texas-death-penalty-procedures.html

10) Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/judges-responsible-for-grossly-uneven.html

11) Path to execution swifter, more certain in Va. , FRANK GREEN, Richmond Post-Dispatch, December 4, 2011 Page: A1 Section: News Edition: Final

12)  Is There Class Disparity with Executions?
 http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-there-class-disparity-with-executions.html

13) Rebuttal to Richard A. Viguerie's "A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/rebuttal-to-richard-vigueries-when.html

Thursday, November 14, 2013

'Sleeping attorney' case isn't what it seems

'Sleeping attorney' case isn't what it seems
Austin American Statesman
by Dudley Sharp

The headlines proclaim that defense attorney Joe Cannon slept through significant portions of his client's, Calvin Burdine's, death penalty trial.

But did he?

Why did it take 11 years to bring this claim forward? Why did Calvine Burdine not make a sworn statement that he observed his own defense attorney sleeping? And why did Burdine hire that very same attorney for his direct appeal after he received a death sentence?

Why did the state argue that the attorney was sleeping, but that there was not sufficient error to overturn the case? Because law requires that both the superior appellate courts and the state accept the federal district court's finding of fact that Cannon was asleep, even if they do not believe he was.

There is often much more to the story than what appears in the headlines and this is no different.

On June 3 (2002), the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear this case, meaning that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-5 decision to overturn the case stands.

A three-judge panel within the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first heard Burdine's appeal. 

Quoted below is the 2-judge majority opinion. Following each quote is (my) response.

"Burdine was represented at trial -- and, at his request, on direct appeal -- by court-appointed counsel, Joe Cannon. . . . Burdine filed a second state habeas application later that month, nearly 11 years after trial, claiming for the first time denial of assistance of counsel because Cannon repeatedly dozed and/or slept at trial."

Why wait 11 years to file such a claim? Why wait one minute? Why hire your sleeping trial attorney to be your appellate attorney after said sleeping attorney got you a death sentence?

" . . . the claim was not raised until over 10 years after trial, after it was first raised by another death row inmate."

It appears that Burdine and his attorneys may not have gotten the idea about the sleeping lawyer claim until after another inmate came up with it. Just a coincidence?

" . . . we (the Fifth Circuit) are bound by the state habeas court's finding that Cannon slept during trial, even though (Cannon) testified at the state habeas evidentiary hearing that he had not slept; that, instead, he often kept his eyes closed and might nod his head while thinking or concentrating, and that it was possible for someone observing him to think he was sleeping."

Cannon gives a plausible explanation for his perceived sleeping and such would explain why many did not observe Cannon sleeping. The attorney had a history of closing his eyes, often, which many knew about.

======

EDIT

The prosecutor, the trial judge and two jurors testified, during the hearing, that they never saw Cannon sleeping.

Two jurors stated that they observed Cannon sleeping.

======

Not even Burdine, who sat right next to Cannon throughout the trial, ever made a sworn claim to have observed his own attorney sleeping.

" . . . we (the Fifth Circuit) are troubled, to say the least, by wide-ranging abuses that can result where, as here, a criminal defendant sits next to counsel during trial; makes no mention then of counsel sleeping during trial; requests that the same counsel represent him on direct appeal; and then, over 10 years after trial, claims ineffective assistance because counsel slept during trial, despite defendant never, by affidavit or testimony, stating under oath that counsel engaged in such conduct."

Three possibilities exist.

One, Burdine never observed Cannon sleeping and simply made the issue up because another inmate raised such on appeal.

Two, Burdine did observe Cannon sleeping and decided that a sleeping attorney at trial and using that same lawyer on appeal was the best way to prolong his life by later using such as an appellate issue later.

Three, Burdine didn't mind that he received the death penalty while his attorney slept through significant portions of the trial -- he liked his sleeping lawyer so much that he hired him for his appeal.

Also, the two judges on the panel reviewed the trial transcript during the alleged periods of sleeping. They found no reversible error where Cannon failed to object to testimony or the state's presentation.

If Cannon slept through significant portions of Burdine's trial, should the case have been overturned? The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question "Yes," and the Supreme Court accepted it. But, did Cannon sleep through significant portions, or any portion, of the trial?

Remember, the court had to accept that Cannon was sleeping, after the state habeas court's finding, even if it disagreed with the ruling. So all the state's arguments had to be based upon challenging the overturning of the case because Cannon slept, even if the state didn't believe that he had. 

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