Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Moral Hypocrisy: European Union & The US Death Penalty

Moral Hypocrisy: European Union & The US Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

Human Rights & The  Europena Union's Hypocrisy

As with all sanctions, the death penalty represents justice and it saves more innocent lives (2). Therefore, the lack thereof confounds justice and is a greater harm to innocents (3), which the EU supports, therefore making EU the greater human rights violator.
 
a) Sarin Gas
 
The EU could hardly be more hypocritical on this issue, with Germany selling tons of materials, which produced sarin gas, which Syria used to murder a huge number of innocents (1).
 
In the US, guilty murderers are executed within justice, making no profit, except that of justice and saving more innocent lives ((())), a huge profit, indeed.
 
b) The European Union's vile immigration system captures migrants arriving from Africa. then sends them to brutal detention centers run by Libya militias, with unknown numbers of innocents killed.
c)  Children committing suicide

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

Why? Justice (2).

MORAL COMPASS

EU governments/politicians whine 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.  

 Compassion

 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 millions 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 (7) - 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)  

"After Hospira announced its decision, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a strongly worded statement saying it was "extremely troubled" by Hospira's forced exit from the market and criticizing the anti-death-penalty movement for "using" thiopental supplies to make a point. The doctors noted the "unfortunate irony that many more lives will be lost or put in jeopardy as a result of not having the drug available for its legitimate medical use." (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 that if the deterrent effect of the death penalty/executions was proven that they would choose 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.  

Life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness and ownership of property may be and often are considered fundamental human rights. However, all countries find that, for those who violate the rights of others. freedom may be taken away with incarceration, property may be taken with fines or seizure of property, thankfully, happiness may be taken away from thieves, rapists and other criminals, and all countries believe that life may be taken within self defense, defense of others, in a just war, all against unjust aggressors, with many countries allowing euthanasia, abortions and about half of the countries finding that some criminals may be executed, for severe transgressions.

Why is it that the human right to life, freedom, property and happiness can be taken away, but not life taken by execution? 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 a EU poll.  

Harming Children

 How bad can it get? 5 year olds are 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 possess "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 year olds, 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? 

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.

 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, know than many 16-17 year olds are more mature, in every way, than are many 18 year olds. 

All US criminal cases are supposed to evaluate suspects/criminals, individually, not collectively.

 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, someday, 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 

2)  600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 

 3) German firm halts US exports over execution drug row, Oman Tribune
http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=153288&heading=Europe  

4) Report: Germany gave Syria ingredients for deadly gas in 2011
http://www.jpost.com/International/Report-Germany-gave-Syria-ingredients-for-deadly-gas-in-2011-327964  

5) "Use of anesthetic propofol in executions might cut supply", The Denver Post, Jim Salter (AP), 9/29/2013
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_24194351/use-anesthetic-propofol-executions-might-cut-supply  

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
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

 8) "Europe's dangerous death penalty gesture", By Charles Lane, Washington Post, 2:39 PM ET, 02/ 1/2011,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/europes_dangerous_death_penalt.html  

9) The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation within
The Death Penalty: Fair and Just
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-death-peanalty-fairjust.html

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

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
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100078360/the-european-union-gives-millions-in-taxpayers%E2%80%99-money-to-anti-death-penalty-groups-in-america/  

12) What Belgium’s child euthanasia law means for America and the Constitution, Washington Post, 02/13/2014

Belgium minor first to be granted euthanasia, BBC, 9/17/2016 

Belgian Children Being Euthanized, Canada Also Embraces Culture of Legally Assisted Suicide STEVE WARREN, CBN, 12-10-2022
https://www2.cbn.com/news/news/belgian-children-being-euthanized-canada-also-embraces-culture-legally-assisted-suicide 

 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
======
 
Additional research,w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.  
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
======
 
Partial CV


=================================================================================================================================

The Death Penalty: How bad is the European Union?
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
 
c


2) Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Patients
 
The state of Missouri had planned to use propofol for executions, which no one doubted would result in a quick, painless death. The European manufacturer stated that they would withhold that drug from the US if propofol were used in executions, thus denying its use, estimated at 50 million uses per year in the US (4).

Missouri Governor Nixon was much more concerned about those innocent patients and how their lives and suffering would be additionally threatened and increased, respectively, by the withholding of that drug, that he ordered the drug not be used, because he was certain that the drug manufacturer would increase the harm and suffering to all those innocent patients, by withholding that drug (4).

Drug manufacturers in Europe are so against the death penalty that they would, knowingly, put more innocent patients at risk, by withholding their drugs from the US, while benefiting US murderers. 
 
Favoring guity murderers over the innocent is a standard anti-death penalty malady (((()))).
 
"After Hospira announced its decision, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a strongly worded statement saying it was "extremely troubled" by Hospira's forced exit from the market and criticizing the anti-death-penalty movement for "using" thiopental supplies to make a point. The doctors noted the "unfortunate irony that many more lives will be lost or put in jeopardy as a result of not having the drug available for its legitimate medical use." (4)

The European Union is proud of this.
 
3)  The Ethics Time Gap
 
The drug companies were invisible and speechless, from 1977, when the lethal injection protocols were, publicly, adopted by Oklahoma, and from 1982, when they were first used for executions, in Texas, until 2009 - 32 years and 27 years later, respectively. 

Why did the moral outrage take 27-32 years to surface? 

Anti-death penalty folks didn't, publicly, criticize the drug companies (and their countries of origin), until 2009.  Of course, the drug companies and their countries of origin were well aware of the lethal injection use of drugs from 1977, but were not embarrassed, publicly, until 2009.

The response was all PR, not ethics. Obvious.

4) EU Rejects Hippocratic Oath
 
Would the EU ban such drugs for use in euthanasia and abortion, which are both banned by the Hippocratic Code, which the death penalty is not (5)?  
 
Of course not.
 
For the EU, as so many others, the Hippocratic Oath has become the Hypocrisy Oath.
 

5) The EU: Lack of Reason - Human Rights & The Death Penalty
 
The EU opposes the death penalty, allegedly because they find it a human rights violation, even though they have never shown it to be one . . . but they have tried.
 
The EU's lack of reason.
 
Fundamental human rights include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to the fruits of our labors, meaning earnings and possession of property, and the right to pursue happiness.
 
Human rights tell us that all of those may be taken away, by the due process of law, when the social contract, the laws of our land, are violated, with all countries accepting a) incarceration taking away freedom; b) fines taking away currency or other property; c) with about half the countries retaining the death penalty, taking away life, with d) all countries, fortunately, taking away the happiness of criminals, from continuing their trade and e)  with some countries providing community service, whereby the sanction is both time and labor, taking both freedom and currency.
 
According to the reasoning of anti-death penalty human rights activists, all of those should be human rights violations, even though such activists, only, claim the death penalty to be, when all should be, given their reasoning.
 
Consistent activist reasoning finds the death penalty not a human rights violation.

6)  EU Population Supports The Death Penalty
 
The EU contradicts their own population, a majority which supported the execution of Iraqi dictator/mass murderer Saddam Hussein (7) and, very likely, a majority would support the death penalty for cases where children were raped, tortured and murdered, as well as cases of mass and serial murders (())))), with the EU supporting an anti-democratic position.
 
Majority does not make right, but all other points, herein, do make it right, as is that majority.

7) EU Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Victims
 
 "EU agencies contributed over $4.8 million in donations to U.S. anti-death-penalty organizations between 2009 and 2013" (((())))) and, if the same average annual contributions, $15 million through 2023, supporting US murderers instead of giving that money to innocent victims of crime, within Europe, another example death penalty opponents valuing the lives f guilty murderers over innocent rape and murder victims ((())).
NOTE: The US and the EU have never had a problem in extraditing criminals to the US, that face the death penalty, as the US simply waives seeking death in those cases, putting more innocents at risk ((())))), at the behest of the EU.
======
 
FN
 
1)  Gross Hypocrisy & Moral Choices: Germany/European Union & The US Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/germanyeuropean-union-us-death-penalty.html  

2)  The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
 http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html 

3) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?: A Review of All Innocence Issues
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html 

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

5) Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Medical Ethics Dilemma
 http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html  

6) The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
http://homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2006/03/21/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation/ 

7) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
    World Support Remains High
    95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html 

8)  European Union financing efforts to end death penalty in U.S., By Lachlan Markay — The Washington Free Beacon, carried by the Washington Times, 10/31/2013, 
Posted by at

Quakers & The Death Penalty

Death Penalty: Reconsidering the Quaker Position
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

2) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
Pro Life: The Death Penalty



Posted by at

Sunday, October 27, 2013

DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

updated 10/2024

The Death Penalty: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
A Review of All Innocence Issues
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, 832-439-2113, 
CV at bottom

 ======
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.

Anti-death penalty folks do not call for any other or all government, social or ngo's programs to end, when many innocents are killed. Why? Because it is about saving guilty murderers, not innocents, as detailed.


 1) PRO DEATH PENALTY: THE DEATH PENALTY PROTECTS MORE INNOCENT LIVES

The death penalty/executions protect innocents, in six ways, better than does life without parole (LWOP): enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation, enhanced probability, in three ways, 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. It is not, factually, disputed.
 
b) Enhanced incapacitation - Living murderers are, infinitely, more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - No one disagrees.
       Since 1973, about 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers. 
      We MIGHT have proof of factually innocents executed, as recently as 1915.

c) Enhanced  Probability: 
1) About 5000 persons die, annually, within US criminal custody. We execute about 30 murderers/yr. By numbers and lesser due process, we know that many more innocents will die in non-death penalty custody, than by execution, by a huge margin, further supported:
       a) As some death penalty opponents, now, argue that LWOP is more cruel than execution, this takes on greater importance, as their position is to a) support the more cruel sanction, LWOP  and with 2) all non-death penalty, in custody deaths with much higher numbers than by execution, thereby preferring more innocent deaths;
       b) Since 1973, we have had about 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals.
       . . . . and as rapes, robberies and other assaults are some 7 times greater than murders, such would equate to . . .
      c) Since 1973, 3.5 million ADDITIONAL innocents raped, robbed or otherwise assaulted by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals.
       d) Possibly, we have proof of innocents executed, as recently as 1915. 
      
Where are the innocents at risk, by the hugest of margins?

       e) Executed criminals do not harm/murder, again,
2)  Murderers have three choices: a) they can stay the same, very bad; b) they can become worse, very bad indeed; or c) they can become better, which can mean, still pretty bad, all the way to sainthood, meaning the probability of remaining a danger is much higher than the probability of becoming much better, or a continuing threat while in prison, after escape or after release.
3) If the death penalty is abolished and murderers can, only, receive a maximum sentence of LWOP, then they can murder as many as they wish, with no additional punishment.
                  
Since 1973, for some perspective, we have had 900,000 murders and 60 million violent crimes, THAT WE KNOW OF.
 
It's not hard to see where the innocents are at risk, unless a fact avoiding anti-death penalty person.
 
d) Enhanced deterrence - All severe sanctions deter some. Never has the deterrent effect of the death penalty or any other severe sanction been negated. They cannot be.

The death penalty/execution is the most severe sanction. 
 
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. Rationally, indisputable.

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

The only honest disputes are:

1) if the death penalty/executions are a greater deterrent than LWOP - both the evidence and reason say 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 or death sentence (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 (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.

Many anti-death penalty folks will not, rationally, consider death penalty deterrence because such means that they, knowingly, support sparing murderers lives, when such will cost more innocents murdered  . . . and they do know it.

Even without enhanced deterrence, death penalty opponents, already, know that no executions means more innocent deaths, as detailed with enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation and by the enhanced probability numbers.

I am not sure why they cannot, rationally, see the deterrent effect, as well. In fact, they can and accept that outcome, as detailed, below.

But, if reason and evidence does not prevail and you find deterrence, still, an unresolved issue, this remains:

As proven, 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, all criminal laws and all sanctions that every "crime" would escalate? Of course not, all sanctions deter some. 

Historically, factually and rationally, the evidence that all severe sanctions, all severe 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, enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation and by enhanced probability, all, 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, enhanced incapacitation and by enhanced probability, thereby sparing more innocent lives;
(4) If the death penalty/executions do deter and we execute, we have all four 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.

=======
30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers 
     More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/full-rebuttal-of-sir-richard-branson.html 
======

2) ANTI DEATH PENALTY: SPARING MURDERERS, NO MATTER THE COST

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 nearly1600 guilty murderers (executed from 1973-2024), knowing that it would cause the murders of an additional 9 million innocent lives.

2) Pro-death penalty scholar Ernest van den Haag speaking to 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 1600 executions (1973-2024), those anti-death penalty folks, given the choice, would choose sparing the lives of 1600 guilty murderers knowing that it would cause the murders of 160,000 additional innocent.

The anti-death penalty goal is to save guilty murderers, no matter the cost, including the cost in huge numbers of additional innocents murdered, 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, by a huge margin, 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 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, after 50 years of  the most intense scrutiny, of 99.6% accuracy in convicting the actually guilty and releasing the o.4% proven factually 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  . . . meaning no respect for innocence, nor justice nor truth.

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

2) The 4.1% "innocents" more 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)

4) SPECULATION ON MORE INNOCENTS AT RISK

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:

5)  SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PERSPECTIVE AND PROPORTION IS REQUIRED

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

 30/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.

b) 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) more than 500,00 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: "500,000 innocents died because we allowed known criminals to murder - we must not release any criminals, to spare one more innocent and those 500,000 innocents."

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

e)  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.

f) 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?

6) REALITY: THE ACTUAL ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENT

"We must spare the lives of all murderers, no matter the cost, inclusive of the cost of more innocents murdered, 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 life, nearly 100% of the time, over the death penalty/execution (2). 

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

======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 

1) a) Texas Death Penalty Procedures

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

2)  Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/deterrence-death-penalties-executions.html  

3) Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended and Advanced

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

5) paragraphs numbered 1, 2, 5-15 within:
The Innocents Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy,
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standa-anti-death.html

6 & 7) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, 
Well Known Since 1998
and
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.

 Florida:

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." 

 Texas

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:

The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, 
Well Known Since 1998

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

 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 http://faculty.msmary.edu/conway/PHIL%20400x/Pojman%20Wisdom%20of%20CP.pdf

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

 11) Sister Helen Prejean: Her Lies, Deceptions . . . and/or 
Astounding Willful Ignorance? - A Compilation

 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
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111.full.pdf+html

 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,  
http://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/false-confessions-dr-michael-welner/

 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

NEW+++++++++++++++++

 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,
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt2

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.

19)  Human Rights & The  Europena Union's Hypocrisy

======

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/killing-equals-killing-amoral-confusion.html 

Additional research,w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.  
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
======
 
Partial CV
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)