Friday, December 31, 2021

Why Gov. Perry shook up the Texas Forensic Science Commission

Why Gov. Perry shook up the Texas Forensic Science Commission
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, pro death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

originally published 10/16/2009 (3)

Gov. Perry’s replacement of the Forensics Science Commission (FSC) members hurt him politically. He knew it would, yet he did it anyway. Why?  

The ridiculous speculation, that such was part of a cover-up to hide the evidence of an innocent executed, Cameron Todd Willingham, was humorous.  

Perry’s actions brought more light, more suspicion and more outrage to a case that was, already, fully exposed.  

Politicians don’t, usually, make decisions like this, intentionally inflicting harm to themselves, particularly in such a closely contested battle, as Perry has with Sen. Hutchison. 

Yes, politicians and their advisors can be unbelievably stupid, but bear with me.  

Perry’s silly explanation that “it was standard policy” to replace those members, rightly, fell on disbelieving ears. Yes, their terms had expired, 9/1, but the timing of the removals, 9/31, two days before the formal FSC hearing on this case, was explosive, just as Perry knew it would be.  

Perry’s response to gubernatorial political opponent Sen. Hutchison’s criticism was telling “She doesn’t have all the facts.” 

======
Added later. All of this, likely, was known by Perry, at the time of the Commission shake up:

1) By statute, the Commission was, illegally, investigating both Willingham and Willis cases, as was confirmed by the Attorney General, from the very clear statute.
2) The Beyler Report was, justly destroyed. Beyler didn't even know that 3 year old Amber was in bed, with Todd Willingham, during the fire. Grossly irresponsible forensic report.
3) There were leaks coming out of the TFSC.

The Commission shake up was, clearly, justified and, in addition, as, detailed later, by dismissed TFSC Chair Sam Bassett's interviews.
======

Perry publicly admitted that the reasons for replacing the members was not business as usual. He contradicted himself. Few noticed.  

First, the charge, true or false, that Perry is covering up his malfeasance in an innocent person being executed, is not a charge that Perry can avoid and just hope it goes away. Citizens are outraged by political cover ups, even more so if it concerns an innocent citizen being killed.  

For Perry’s political enemies, as well as the media and anti-death penalty folks (very often the same), there is blood in the water and they will not allow this to fade away – nor should they.  

Secondly, in the midst of a battle for Perry’s political life, the accusations are too damning and important not to be resolved, quickly and thoroughly.  

======
A Complete Compilation:
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same 
and
A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award: 
======

Thirdly, let’s presume the obvious, most politicians act with self -interest, with reelection as a primary goal. Enter Perry. 

He knew that his replacement of the 4 Commission members would be a huge pile of manure in his campaign and would remain a major negative throughout the campaign.  Therefore, he had to have known that there was a positive that was going to arise out of this short term disaster, a flower growing out of that manure, if you will. 

He wouldn’t have replaced those 4 members, unless there was something to serve his self interest, that would, better sooner than later, BENEFIT his campaign.  

NOTE: As one reporter speculated: “Dudley, you may be giving Perry’s advisors too much high IQ credit.” Point taken.  

Here is my speculation as to why all of this happened. (Later: All of which turned out to be true)

(1) The brief and incomplete Corsicana Fire Department report (CFDR) to the Beyler report (BR), certainly, offers a clue. It blasted the BR on some obvious and important points, making over a hundred comments and corrections to Beyler’s 19 page review of the Willingham case.  It made a decent case that Beyler’s report is both inaccurate and biased (A)  

The CFDR noted that it was very limited by time and other constraints. With the hearing delay, those time constraints have now been lifted. Likely, that will mean more criticism of the BR and a more thorough review of all the case evidence for the CFDR.  Even a curious layman could some real problems in the BR.  Any media folks interested in investigative journalism would have seen it as well. 

Apparently, none did. Hint. Read the incomplete CFDR, released Oct.3rd.


2) The evidence is that the pending Texas Fire Marshall’s (TFM) report, which is another formal part of this review process, is, also, going to be critical of the BR.  We know that because the TFM’s office has stated that they are standing by their deceased expert’s, Vasquez’s, report (A1).  

The BR laid waste to Vasquez’s report. Therefore, we already know what the TFM Report is going to do – lay waste to the BR.  

I’ve seen none in the media mention this obvious fact.  

3) Based upon the probability that Perry or his advisors either read or knew what was in either or both of the TFM and CFD reports, as well making their own critical review of Beyler’s report, prior to 9/31, it becomes understandable why Perry replaced the Commission members.  

Perry’s, likely, assessment was, “wait a minute, the Beyler report is so biased, so filled with inaccuracies, why didn’t the committee members request a more balanced report, prior to the hearing? They would be fools, idiots or worse not to.”  

In addition, I don’t think anyone can underestimate the effects of political paranoia, which run deep in such campaigns.  

4) It appears likely that there may be factors regarding the TFSC that we are, currently, unaware of as, specifically, suggested by Perry’s response to Hutchison. “She doesn’t have all the facts.”  If she doesn’t have them, we don’t either.  

In such a circumstance, any Governor, concerned with a fair evaluation of the government’s business, might feel the need to make changes.  Yes, I might be wrong, but it certainly makes more sense than to cover up what can’t be covered up, to sabotage your own campaign when you cannot afford to.  

Depending upon their schedules, can’t the 4 new commission members get up to speed within 4-8 weeks, meaning a new FSC hearing can, responsibly, be held in December or January?    

======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======

(A) 1. EXCLUSIVE: City report on arson probe: State panel asks for city response in Willingham case  http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/news/local_story_276222736.html  

(A)2.  No Doubts  http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_250180658.html  

3) http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/16/why-gov-perry-shook-up-the-texas-forensic-science-commission/ 

======

Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts, herein)

Innocence Project Report: Cameron Todd Willingham

Innocence Project Report: Cameron Todd Willingham  
Dudley Sharp, contact info below    

Originally published 10/26/2009 (1).   

In the Willingham case, the Innocent Project Report (IPR), in their executive Summary, found the fire was not an incendiary fire (2).    

The IPR provided no evidence of that and no other source for the fire was established. 

Discounting their statement goes to their lack of proof/evidence for the claim, for which they have none.   

It may go to a professional standard that says, if you can’t prove it’s arson, then it is accidental.  Not true, of course, at least in this case.  

Therefore, the IP Executive Summary conclusion is highly misleading or a lie, based only upon this layman’s understanding of “the fire was not an incendiary fire.”  

Not surprising. Barry Scheck, the head of the Innocence Project, states: “There can no longer be any doubt that an innocent person (Willingham) has been executed.” (3)

How, blatantly, dishonest can Scheck get? All Scheck is doing is removing any remaining doubt as to the IP’s bias and hurting an already damaged image of forensic scientists as anything but objective parties.  Barry, why do that? 

Likely, it is only based on a partisan anti-death penalty bias. No excuse.  Has the media gone after Sheck on this? Of course not. This goes to the media’s unchallenged bias against the death penalty in this, as in many death penalty cases.  Same ole story.   

The IPR, a short review:  

NOTE: I have significant problems with the way the IPR was written. The IPR often travels down one road, only, seemingly, that of the defense in a criminal case. What the IPR fails to do, is tell the reader the full story.  

I quote sections of the IPR, below, and after those are my reply, which is “WTIFTM” or “what the IPR forgot to mention”.  

IPR: “This process can create patterns on those surfaces of the type described by Mr. Vasquez as “puddle configurations” and “pour patterns.” More importantly, these patterns can be created in compartment fires where no flammable liquids were introduced.” (p 9, lines 8-11)  

WTIFTM: It also can be created by flammable liquids in an arson fire. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

IPR: “Based on this work, significant differences in the condition and appearance of the fire compartments and contents were observed between experiments with the same method of ignition. Simply stated, the patterns produced could not be used to discriminate an arson fire from an accidental fire.” (p9, lines 28-31)  

WTIFTM: Precisely, could have been arson, could have been accidental. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

======
Cameron Todd Willingham: Guilty By Forensic Science, 2019
======

IPR: “Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Vasquez’s repeated assertions that there was liquid accelerant used in this fire are correct, the distance between the three alleged areas of origin would not constitute an effective separation for a flammable liquid because the vapor would simply flash across the intervening space between the alleged pools of liquid fuel. In essence, there could only have been one origin given Mr. Vasquez’s determination.” (p 12, lines 3-8)  

WTIFTM: Yes, assuming that Vasquez was correct, the fire, most certainly, could have been arson. There could have been three origination points for the arson. Yet, the effects of a flashover may have erased any evidence of separation, possibly making an arson fire indistinguishable from an accidental fire and producing evidence of a single origin, when there may have been multiple origins. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

IPR: “Each and every one of the “indicators” listed by Mr. Vasquez means absolutely nothing, and, in fact, is expected in the context of a fire that has achieved full room involvement, as this fire clearly did. Low burning, charred flooring and burning underneath items of furniture are common characteristics of a fully involved fire.34 They mean nothing with respect to the origin and cause of the fire, and they absolutely do not support any hypothesis that the fire had been accelerated by liquid fuels.” (p17 lines 19-24)  

WTIFTM: In fact, it supports neither hypothesis, that it was arson or accidental. It could have been either. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

======
Complete Rebuttal of: (Updated through 2020)
"Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?", David Grann, The New Yorker, 9/7/2009: Cameron Todd Willingham: Media meltdown & the death penalty

IPR: “Further, as stated earlier, it is impossible for flammable liquid to flow underneath a threshold and burn, because there is a lack of available oxygen under the threshold to support flaming combustion. (p 17, lines 41-43)  

WTIFTM: To state the obvious, it depends upon how secure the threshold is. If loose, worn, old and cracked, there may be sufficient oxygen to support flaming combustion.  

IPR: “All of the (IPR) authors have seen reports like this one. If the Fire Marshal’s determination is wrong, his identification of the “lies” told by the defendant is equally wrong.”  p18, lines 13, 14)  

WTIFTM: In this case, that may not be true. 

It is important to note the IPR said ” ‘If’ the fire marshal’s determination is wrong."

Because the IPR cannot conclude arson or accidental, it is very possible that the Fire Marshall was correct in his conclusion of arson, even though his methodology and foundation for determining that may have been in error. 

He may have, allegedly, bumbled his way into the correct conclusion. If arson, Willingham’s lies may have been properly identified, bumbles and all. While the IPR may have made a good case for flawed forensics, they cannot dispute that the fire may have been arson. Therefore, the conclusion of the Fire Marshall may be correct, even though the method of arriving at it, possibly, was not. Possibly, persistent patterns remained.  

NOTE: we have, still, not seen the updated Corsicana Fire Department Report, if there will be one. I suspect there will be. Nor have we seen the report by the Texas Fire Marshal’s office, although we do have a statement from them that they will be standing by their expert, Vasquez’, report.  As I have, repeatedly stated, since August, do not make hasty decisions in this case. It has a long way to go.   

1) http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/26/innocence-project-report-cameron-todd-willingham/   

2)http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ArsonReviewReport.pdf

3) http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/2149.php  


Monday, December 13, 2021

Media Disaster: Death Penalty & Journalists Murdering Journalism

12/4/2021

To: Journalists and Journalism Schools, worldwide, and countless others

 Subject: Why Fact Checking & Vetting Matter: A Cautionary Tale for Journalists
 
RE: “Ohio should kill capital punishment,”, Jeff Gerritt, Deputy Editor Toledo Blade, November 17, 2013
 
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
 
This is a cautionary, prime example of how journalism is being destroyed.
 
Why this article? The breadth and depth, of the willful ignorance/no fact checking/vetting, covers, nearly, all of the major subtopics in the death penalty debate, as I have detailed for Gerritt, with all sources and for months, covering various Gerritt articles.
 
It is not that Deputy Editor Gerritt (now op/ed editor for the Pittsburg Post- Gazette) doesn't fact check and vet. It is that he refuses to, at least for the past 8 years, on this topic. Although this is from 2013, Gerritt, still, has not fact checked many, if not all, of these points, by 2021, as detailed (1), as with others, which I will forward upon request.
 
Gerritt won a Pulitzer. A Pulitzer should raise our expectations of a journalist, not lower them.  Giving a free pass, for error, benefits no one, unless error was intended. Not fact checking nor vetting is not an accident. Correct?
 
I quote Gerrit, then reply as "Sharp".
 

Preface

1) Gerritt: "(Ohio) can offer no rational defense for (the death penalty).".

Sharp: Gerritt, intentionally, evaded all the facts and reasoning, for death penalty support, as detailed, for every one of his topics/errors.

It appears that Gerritt got all of his material form the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), strictly, an anti-death penalty group and, he refused to fact check/vet any of it. I did. All of it, as detailed and sourced.

2) Gerritt: Justice and the slaughter of the innocent murder victims

Sharp: There are no quotes, here, because, in this long article (1017 words), Gerritt found no use for justice or for the reason for the death penalty, which is for particular murders of the innocent, for which the death penalty is an option.

This is a constant and vile omission by anti-death penalty folks. It is startling in its complete lack of compassion and consideration.

Justice and compassion for the innocent victims have, both, been two of the primary and "rational defenses" for all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty, for over 4000 years.  Such would include Ohio's death penalty consideration.

Gerrit does not see those as supportive of sanction, even though they are the foundation for it.

======
Media Disaster: C-Span & The Death Penalty Information Center
originally sent 3/5/2024, edits sent 3/23/2024, 7/22/2024 

======

Full article rebuttal, with sources

3) Gerritt: "Some people argue, without evidence, that capital punishment deters heinous crimes. In fact, according to FBI crime statistics, murder rates in death-penalty states are significantly higher than those in states without the death penalty, and they have been for decades."

Sharp: It has been known, for decades, that such is not how deterrence is measured (2, 3).

Let's count the 15 (now 16) plus ways:

1. Many death penalty states (and cities, towns and countries) have lower crime and murder rates than non-death penalty states (and cities, towns and countries) (2), as Gerritt, well, knows and failed to mention. And then, the reverse, is true, as well . . . which confirms why Gerritt's (DPIC's) method of measuring deterrence cannot be valid.

2. When both Delaware and New Hampshire had the death penalty, they, continuously, had some of the lowest crime and murder rates in the country, as is very easy to confirm. At one point, Delaware had the highest execution per murder rate in the US and among the lowest crime and murder rates. Gerritt? Look at Detroit and Washington DC, at the same times . . . similar in size to Delaware, all known, prior to Gerritt's article.

3. The evidence for death penalty/execution deterrence is very easy to find. Gerritt, simply, went with what the anti-death penalty folks (DPIC) presented to him and he didn't fact check nor vet, any of it, and, then failed to research further (2,3,4), as with all other subtopics/errors he presented, herein and elsewhere.

4. Since 1996, there have been, at least, 24 US based studies finding for death penalty/execution deterrence which were more credible than their detractors (3, 6,7) available for Gerritt and all.

5. Those recent studies found that executions deter "only" from 0.2%-5% of potential murders, that being a very important 33-900 innocents spared from murder, per year (4, 6, 7). Why didn't Gerritt include this? Either zero research or he, intentionally, left it out. One or the other.

6. Crimes are fewer with policing and sanction than without them. All know it. Why? Fear of sanction. Deterrence. Obvious.

7.  Gerritt: "Nor does the deterrence argument make sense. Does anyone really believe that the difference between execution and life in prison would deter any murder, whether committed in passionate heat or cold-blooded calculation?"

Sharp: Well, yes. Specifically, one study did show passion murders were deterred. There are many reasons that most people, often, can and do, restrain their passionate impulses. Deterrence being one. Makes sense. How is Gerritt unaware? Ask him. 

In addition, look at these.

8. Nobel Prize Laureate (Economics) 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.” (NY Times, 11/18/07)
 
"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (NY Times, 5/5/14)
 

9. The detractors found fault with the methodology, in some of the 24 studies, but did not state that death sentences/executions deter none. They cannot.  Makes sense. The methodology of the 24 studies is common, revered and awarded, when used with other topics. The studies were much more credible than were their detractors.

10. The average age of those put on death row is 28. What we all know is that life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life. What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more, deters more. Makes sense.

11. Both subconsciously and consciously, potential criminals are deterred by sanction, all the time, when they "case" potential crime scenes and decide not to commit crimes, because of police, cameras, witnesses, lighting and many other issues. Why? The deterrence of sanction. Makes sense. Obvious.

12. Has the deterrent effect of serious criminal sanctions and possible negative outcomes and negative incentives, ever, been negated? No. They cannot be (6). Just as positives affect behavior, so do negatives. 100% confirmed, with no dissent. Makes sense.

13. The honest folks in this debate, both pro and anti-death penalty, have conceded that all sanctions deter some and that the credible discussion within this debate is whether or not the death penalty/execution is more of a deterrent than a life sentence. As detailed, I find the proof of execution being more of a deterrent than life is overwhelming, both factually and rationally (2-7).

14. many instances of potential criminals confessing that the death penalty prevented them from committing death penalty eligible crimes (2-5), which is called individual deterrence, which . . .

15. cannot exist without general deterrence. Makes sense.

16. For criminals, the death penalty is the most serious sanction, the most negative outcome and the greatest negative incentive. Makes sense.

======

WHY DO ANTI DEATH PENALTY FOLKS FIGHT EXECUTION DETERRENCE SO MUCH, WHEN IT CANNOT BE NEGATED AND THERE IS SO MUCH EVIDENCE FOR IT?

Because they (and Gerritt) don't want to be known as the group that spares the lives of vile murderers which, then, as a result, causes the murders of more innocents. It's a horrible reflection on their position and they know it (7).

What many don't know is that the intellectual leaders of the anti-death penalty movement, actually, embrace that exact position (7). 

Plus, the death penalty/executions spare innocents in two, additional, ways, better than does LWOP, and those are not, even, in dispute: Enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation. (7).

Gerritt, of course, left all of that out. Makes sense, to Gerritt.

======

4) Gerritt: " . . . the legal expenses of prosecuting death-penalty cases and fighting appeals are far higher. Prisoners often remain on death row for decades, while they exhaust a constitutional appeals process that can tap taxpayers $10 million per case."

Sharp:  Non death penalty criminal cases can cost $15 million. Gerritt, which state has spent $10 million on a death penalty case and what was the case? I can't find it. Can Gerritt? Everything I have asked Gerritt for, prior, he has failed to respond. 

I, on the other hand, supplied all sources, without being asked.

The FEDERAL Timothy McVeigh/Oklahoma City bombing case is, very likely, the most expensive criminal, death penalty case, of all time, by a huge margin. I consider that it was an irresponsible waste of taxpayer money, on an open and shut case, whereby we could have spent $3 million and gotten the same result.

5) Gerritt: "A recent study in Colorado, published in the University of Denver Criminal Law review, found that capital proceedings require six times as many days in court as do life-without-parole cases. On average, death-penalty cases take almost four years longer to complete."

Sharp: Gerritt didn't consider how, completely, irresponsible Colorado judges are. Let's look:

John Allen Muhammad , the DC sniper, was arrested on October 24, 2002. His Virginia trial began on October 14, 2003, he was sentenced to death on November 24, 2003 and was executed in Virginia on November 10, 2009.

From arrest to sentence was, exactly, 13 months. The prosecution called more than 130 witnesses and introduced more than 400 pieces of evidence. It was 7 years from arrest to execution. (8,9). Gerritt?

Why didn't Gerritt cite Virginia? He only used anti-death penalty sources, so he was clueless.

Life without parole (LWOP) cases require 40-50 years of maximum security cells, with huge geriatric costs, with pre-trial, trial and appeals costs. We know that responsible death penalty pre-trial and trials can be completed within 1-2 years, on average, with death penalty appeals being completed within 7 years, on average (8,9), making the average death penalty case, likely, cheaper than the average LWOP case (10), with responsible management.

6) Gerritt: "In California, a 2008 report by the Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimated that the death penalty costs the state at least $137 million a year. Just confining a death-row inmate costs $90,000 a year more than holding a maximum-security prisoner. Another study, completed in 2011 and updated last 7year, concluded that the death penalty had cost California more than $4 billion since 1978, including $1.7 billion in legal expenses for state and federal appeals."

Sharp: Completely, utterly absurd, as basic fact checking establishes in both "studies" (9). Both studies are, obvious, frauds, as my fact checking found, within an hour of looking into it, as detailed (9). Gerritt . . . no fact checking, no vetting, of course.

7) Gerritt: "Small wonder a conservative Republican commentator in North Carolina called the death penalty 'the very epitome of a wasteful government program'.”

Sharp: Small wonder, not . . . the conservative Republican fact checked/vetted no better than Gerritt.  If you vet the North Carolina study, it, actually, finds that the death penalty is less expensive than a life sentence (11). Gerritt and the conservative Republican? Why vet?

8) Gerritt: "Wrongly convicting anyone constitutes a horrible injustice, but executing the wrong person eliminates any chance of reversing the error. Nationwide, more than 140 people awaiting execution have been exonerated. Mistakes are far more likely in cases involving poor defendants, who usually don’t have adequate legal counsel."

Sharp: It has been well known, since 2000, that the "exonerated" and "innocent" from death row, as stated by several anti-death penalty groups, inclusive of DPIC, has been a fraud/deception (12).

Who fact checked and found fraud/deception? US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, New York Times justice (now Supreme Court) reporter Adam Liptak, Democratic District Attorney Josh Marquis, The Florida Commission on Capital Cases and many more (12), all prior to Gerritt's article. Gerritt either didn't know - no research or he, intentionally, left these out. One or the other.

Depending upon study, using only cases from the modern death penalty protocol, post Gregg v Georgia, we would be looking at about 32 proven actually innocent cases, not 140, and all of those had been released (12), with some commuted to a lesser sanction, prior to their being found factually innocent.

Gerritt, how many death penalty cases, post Gregg v Georgia, have been overturned, within the final ruling, based upon ineffective assistance of counsel? Never entered Gerritt's mind to look?

9) Gerritt: "Even before DNA technology became prevalent, a study conducted by the Stanford Law Review documented two dozen cases in 1987 of persons sentenced to death that later had been released because of doubts concerning guilt."

Sharp: That "study's" data findings were 50%, 60% and 100% in error, depending upon section (13), as revealed in a 1988 review, also, in the Stanford Law Review (13), 25 years prior to Gerritt's article.

10) Gerritt: "Conservatives, especially, don’t trust government to do anything. Why 0would they want to give it power over life and death?"

Sharp: With those who fact check, vet and research, be they conservatives, liberals and any others, the answer is quite easy.  Since 1973:

a) Around 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that our government allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers (14)

b) Around 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those known criminals that our government allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals (14)

c) We are looking at about 99.5% of death penalty cases, with our government, getting it right (Scalia), on actual guilt findings, with 100% of the 0.5% actual innocents being released . . . possibly the most accurate of any government program. That is why. Gerritt?

Where are the innocents at risk? Gerritt? Obviously, sometimes you can trust government, sometimes, not at all.

11) Gerritt: "Mandatory life sentences — the alternative penalty in the 18 states that have abolished capital punishment — negate any public safety arguments for the death penalty. 

Sharp: Rebutted in paragraphs 3, 4, with items 1-15, therein, and in the BOLD section, after para 4, and para 11, and all their footnotes.

12) Gerritt: " . . . some people have argued against capital punishment solely because they believe life in prison inflicts more suffering."

Sharp: This is one of those absurd anti-death penalty arguments, that Gerritt could not resist. They can't believe such is true. It's just another lie to show that anti-death penalty folks are, really, tougher on crime.

Around 99.9% of all murderers, subject to the death penalty, do all they can to avoid the death penalty and execution - Gerritt and all are aware.  It is not in dispute. Obviously, murderers were not deterred, at least not for those murders, but it is undeniable that . . .

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

If, only, 5% of potential murders are deterred, by execution, as found in one study, that is 900 innocent lives, saved from murder, every year. (6,7)

13) Gerritt: "Finally, the death penalty is criminally inequitable, disproportionately affecting African-Americans and other people of color."

Sharp: White murderers are twice as likely to be executed, as are black murderers and are executed at a rate 41% higher than black death row inmates (14).

14) Gerritt: " In Ohio, for example, more than half of the death-sentenced defendants since 1981 have been African-Americans, even though African-Americans make up less than 13 percent of the population. Eighteen African-Americans have been executed in Ohio under the 1981 law — 35 percent of the total."

Sharp: Gerritt is unaware that people are put on death row because of committing capital murders, not based upon their general population counts. Women make up 50% of the general population, yet only 10% of the prison population. Gerritt would have us release a huge percentage of the criminal male prison population, down to 50%, from 90%, so that we could then add a lot of non-criminal women to increase their prison population to 50%, to match their general population, or some other solution, to make sure that the prison population matches the general population of gender, race and ethnicity.

Gerritt's "reasoning" is that bad. Very clear.

Gerritt is unaware that:

For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault. (14).

For the Hispanic- White comparison, the Hispanic level is 4.0 times greater than the White level for homicide, 3.8 times greater for robbery, 2.8 times greater for rape, and 2.3 times greater for aggravated assault. (14)

For the Hispanic–Black comparison, the Black level is 3.1 times greater than the Hispanic level for homicide, 4.1 times greater for robbery, 2.4 times greater for rape, and 1.9 times greater for aggravated assault. (14)

Robbery/murders and rape/murders are,by far, the greatest number of death eligible crimes.

Gerritt's position. . . let's make sure that we base death row and prison populations upon general population counts, instead of criminal activity. Historically, like genocide or today, as in China.

15) Gerritt: "Nationwide, African-Americans who kill whites are far more likely to get the death penalty than those who kill African-Americans."

Sharp: That is because black on white murders are much more likely to be capital, death penalty eligible murders than are black on black murders (14, 15).  Capital, death eligible murders are a unique, very small group, when compared to all murders. Only 0.9%, of all murders receive the death penalty, with robbery/murders and rape/murders making up the majority, as detailed, elsewhere, herein.

16) Gerritt: "Sentencing reforms cannot remedy deep-seated biases in the criminal justice system. They affect the quality of defendants’ legal counsel, police patrolling, arrest procedures, jury panels, and judges."

Sharp: Deep-seated biases, probably not. But most biases have been minimized within criminal justice, as detailed within para 14, 15 and 16, above, and their footnotes. 

No one doubts that biases exist. But bias is not the same as racism.  A bias against rapists, child molesters, robbers, mass, serial and most other murderers is the norm, showing no racist component.  As we all know, police patrolling is going to be at a much higher rate in black and brown minority areas, because of more crime, as detailed in para 15 and fn 14 and we all want more police and patrolling where violent crime is greater, as polling agrees Arrest procedures are the same for all peoples.

We know that some polls find that blacks oppose the death penalty at three times the rate of whites and potential jurors cannot serve, on any jury, when they oppose any section of the sentencing, in that case. Basic.

The quality of defense counsel is most related to money, not race. Yet it is hard to make a distinction, as 99.8% of poor murderers have escaped execution. 

Yet, as I have asked Gerritt, prior, what number of death penalty cases, upon final appellate review, had the case overturned because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Gerrit had no factual reply, nor sources, as is his mo.

17) Gerritt: "In truth, retribution is the only solid argument for capital punishment. It has driven the death penalty for more than 4,000 years, starting with stoning."

Sharp: Gerritt, finally, gets something right. 

Within the criminal justice system, just retribution is how we attempt to bring justice into each case, which means a sanction not too harsh and not too lenient, with justice being the primary reason for sanction, with saving innocent lives being an outcome of sanction, but not the reason for it. Justice, or just retribution, must be primary.

The earliest death penalty references are the biblical timeline, with Genesis 9:5-6, at about 4000 BC, and Sumerian law, 2700 BC - 2300 BC (https://faq-law.com/sumerian-laws-and-punishments/#4), without mention of the method of execution.

18) Gerritt: "No doubt, the thirst for vengeance is almost universal. Victims of a brutal crime may feel it most of all."

Sharp: The death penalty and all sanctions, within a system, such as that within the US, cannot be vengeance. Why?

1) Neither the victims nor their survivors can be fact finders in their cases, 2) the fact finders, in the case, judge or jury, can have no connections to the crimes, 3) all the applicable laws/sanctions are in place, prior to the crime being committed,  4) the fact finders are bound by that law and cannot go outside of it, 5) must presume the defendant to be innocent, 6) must find, beyond a reasonable doubt , to reach a finding of guilty and, in death penalty cases 7) the fact finders must find against the defendant within 4 separate sections of the charging instructions, unanimously, that being 48-0 (12 jurors times 4)  in order to give a sentence of death and 8) it is very well known that we provide the greatest of due process protection, for the defendant/convicted party, in death penalty cases, within investigations, pre trial, trial, appeals and executive considerations  . . . such is not in dispute, as Gerritt knows.  9) If only one of those jurors votes for the defendant /convicted party, 1 in 48, or 2%, they will get life . . . with the 1 vote ruling over the other 47 (98%), likely, the most undemocratic system in US law.

both systemically and individually, all of which are counter to vengeance, as is obvious.

19) Gerritt: "Reason and redemption are also part of the human condition. Society, and the laws that uphold it, shouldn’t codify and cultivate people’s most atavistic impulses."

Sharp: see para 11 & 19. Judges and jurors, as all of us, are aware of reason and redemption and we all know that people can stay the same, get worse or get better, which for murderers can mean very bad, indeed, even more horrendous, or from still quite bad to a saint, respectively.

20) Gerritt: "If anything, state-sponsored executions exacerbate violence and diminish respect for life. It’s as much about what it does to us as to the condemned."

Sharp:  The evidence is the opposite of  both "exacerbat(ing) violence" and " diminish(ed) respect for life ", as detailed, throughout, as here:

"The normal moral reason for upholding capital punishment is reverence for life itself. Indeed, this is the reason why scripture and Christian tradition have upheld it, a fact which suggests that, if anything, it may be the abolition of capital punishment which threatens to cheapen life, not its retention." J. Budziszewski, Pew Forum,"A Call for Reckoning: Religion and the Death Penalty". Much more fn 16.

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey: “. . . 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.” synopsis: “A Bible Study”, from Essays on the Death Penalty,  Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College (16).

"It is because humans are created in the image of God that capital punishment for premeditated murder was a perpetual obligation. The full range of biblical data weighs in its favor. This is the one crime in the Bible for which no restitution was possible (Numbers 35:31,33). The Noahic covenant recorded in Genesis 9 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. "Gen 9:6) antedates Israel and the Mosaic code; it transcends Old Testament Law, per se, and mirrors ethical legislation that is binding for all cultures and eras. The sanctity of human life is rooted in the universal creation ethic and thus retains its force in society. The Christian community is called upon to articulate standards of biblical justice, even when this may be unpopular. Capital justice is part of that non-negotiable standard. Society should execute capital offenders to balance the scales of moral judgement."  From "Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement", by Charles W. Colson., a former opponent. He is spiritual advisor and friend to numerous death row inmates and the Founder of Prison Fellowship, the largest Christian ministry serving incarcerated prisoners.

A sanction can, only, be a sanction if we take away that which is valued . . .  freedom with incarceration, money with fines, time and labor with community service and life with executions. The 4000 year old foundation for the death penalty is based within reverence for innocent life (16).

21) Gerritt: "Nationwide, capital punishment is becoming increasingly unusual, as defined by the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual standard. Last year, the nation carried out 43 executions — including three in Ohio — compared to 85 in 2000 and 98 in 1999, reports the Death Penalty Information Center."

Sharp:  The time between sentencing and executions has risen by 2,3 times, from 6.6 years, the average time from 1984-1988, when double digit executions began, to 15 years, the average time from 2009-2013 (17, 18), reflecting the 21013 of Gerritt's article.

Since 2006, executions have been affected by litigation related to the lethal injection method, as well as drug shortages, within that method, resulting in a "slowdown" of executions averaging 43 per year (2007-2013). It is very rare to have executions over 60 per year, which has only occurred 7 times (1997-2003), or 18% of execution years. Excluding those exceptions, the average is 27 executions per year (1977-1996, 2004-2013), 82% of execution years, and, if starting with double digit executions in 1984, the average is 36 executions per year. (17,18)

The "slowdown" period has averaged 43 executions/year and could get down to those 27-36 for those 9-20 year averages, if the actual execution problems are not corrected. (17,18)

It is, very, possible, that judicial irresponsibility has played an important role, as I have detailed in para 6 and fn 8, 17, 18

Gerritt? Clueless.

In addition, in 2013, the time of the article, murders were at, at least, at a 53 year low, rapes, a 40 year low and robberies , a 46 year low. My data check, only, goes back to 1960.

22) Gerritt: "Most of the U.S. death-penalty cases have come from only 2 percent of the nation’s counties, many of them in Texas and California, another sign that death sentences are inequitable and arbitrary."

Sharp: Did Gerrit consider the obvious . . .  that 2% of the counties may contain our most populous cities and that those have most of our crimes (18)? No.

In 2002, the 75 largest counties had 51% of murders and non-negligent manslaughters, 61% of robberies and 36% of forcible rapes, nationally, which is in the ballpark of 60-70% of what we know as capital, death penalty eligible murders, inclusive of robbery/murders, rape/murders, police murders, multiple and serial murders, in death penalty eligible counties (17,18).

75 is nearly 2.4% of all counties, both death penalty eligible and not. In other words, we should expect that 2% of US counties would account for 51% of the death penalties (17,18).

23) Gerritt: "Former death-penalty supporter Edwin J. Peterson, who served as chief justice of Oregon’s Supreme Court, called the death penalty “dysfunctional, expensive, unworkable, and unfair.”

Sharp:  Somehow, the judge and Gerritt are unaware that those are all the fault of management, not the death penalty. The judge may have learned something by observing states that had better management than Oregon, as I have, already detailed.  He could care less.

24) Gerritt: "Former President Jimmy Carter last week became another voice calling for the end of the death penalty, saying governments too often impose it on the poor, minorities, and those with diminished capacities."

Sharp: Carter is a wonderful guy, a horrible president and knows as much about the death penalty as Gerritt. 

25) Gerritt: "1972, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional".

Sharp: The death penalty has, never, been declared unconstitutional. It was the statutory framework, the laws, which guided death penalty cases, which were found unconstitutional - a huge difference.

26) Gerritt: "Now, a nationwide shortage of lethal drugs has triggered another national debate on the death penalty. The evidence points to one verdict: Capital punishment should die in Ohio."

Sharp: How fentanyl could be in short supply, in 2013 or 2021, is hard to fathom. It was not. Not obvious enough? 

Fortunately, some folks fact check, vet and research "evidence" to determine if it is nonsense or true. 

Gerritt did not.

FN

1) Media Disaster: Editor Jeff Gerritt Continues His Run of No Fact Checking     https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/12/media-disaster-editor-jeff-gerritt.html 

2)  a) "DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED" 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html 

 
c) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html 

 

3) a) DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE: Rebuttal to Donahue and Wolfers, http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-deterrence-rebuttal-to.html  

b) Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended & Advanced
 
c) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
 

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

b) 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 of Punishment, Robert Blecker, 2014
 
 
 
8) a) JUDGES AS JACKASSES: THE DEATH PENALTY
 
b) Judges Responsible For Grossly Uneven Executions
 
c) Courts, states put death penalty on life support
Death Penalty: HOW MEDIA MURDERS THE TRUTH
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/09/courts-states-put-death-penalty-on-life.html
 
9) a) Read California, Nevada and Texas, first
 
 
b)  Courts, states put death penalty on life support
Death Penalty: HOW MEDIA MURDERS THE TRUTH
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/09/courts-states-put-death-penalty-on-life.html
 
10) Death Penalty Costs vs Life Without Parole Costs: Study Protocol
 
11) Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study (1993): Let's be honest
 
12) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000
 
13)  See Para  A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT
 
read from
The Bedau-Radelet Study, "Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases," 40, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/87
 
to B&R END
 
within
DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION, In the United States, 10/1/97,
 
14)  RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
 
15)  C.  RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY , within
 
DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION, In the United States, 10/1/97
 
16)  New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html
 
17) WHY FEWER DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS?
Dudley Sharp, updated  12/2017
 
18)  a) Judges Responsible For Grossly Uneven Executions
 
b)  Courts, states put death penalty on life support
Death Penalty: HOW MEDIA MURDERS THE TRUTH
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/09/courts-states-put-death-penalty-on-life.html
 
======