To: All at Yakima Herald-Republic, The Lewiston Tribune, Wenatchee World , Walla Walla Union Bulletin, etc
BCC: The Society of Professional Journalists Western Washington Chapter, Washington Journalism Education Association, Washington State Association of Broadcasters (WSAB), Seattle Association of Black Journalists, Journalism schools in Washington State and more
Subject: Is death penalty "reporting" the end of journalism?
Re: "(Finally) Laying Washington’s death penalty to rest", by The Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board, Sept 28, 2024, reprinted in The Lewiston Tribune, Oct 3, 2024, Wenatchee World Oct 2, 2024, Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, etc.
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Preface
In a published, fact-based op/ed or news story, can a journalist not fact check, not vet and not use critical thinking, accidently? Of course not.
That describes way too much of news and opinion writings on the death penalty, wherein "journalists" use anti-death penalty sources and research, refuse to fact check and vet it (1) and refuse to use pro-death penalty sources and research (1), as with the referenced and for about 30 years, across the industry (1)
Easily proven, with basic fact checking and vetting (1,2), most of which YHR will, very likely, be unaware of, as is the norm, from my vast experience.
Will they care? My experience is yes . . . they care very much to keep this from their readers. We'll see.
Examples
Examples of these media disasters are everyday and countless. Here are 20 or so, many by "investigative" journalists (2). Look at NPR, C-Span and USA Today, first. Horrendous.
I dissect YHR's article, here:
METHOD: I quote the op/ed (YHR), then rebut (Sharp) or provide balance when there was none.
1) YHR: “It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man,” Clint Eastwood’s grizzled, gunslinging character mused in the 1992 western classic “Unforgiven.” “Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.”
Sharp: True and, as expected, YHR left out the rest of the movie, whereby death was found to be just and appropriate, although illegal, for some specific, despicable acts, the same foundation for all LEGAL sanctions, of community service, probation, fines, incarcerations and executions. Even when Eastwood's character said "deserves got nothing to do with it", to the film's most evil character, right before Eastwood's character killed him, with the film demanding his death, because it was deserved, but illegal.
Why did YHR leave all that out? It didn't fit their narrative, so, hide it, as duplicated, in the rest of the article. Is there another reason?
. . . leaving movie fiction - excellent film.
2) YHR: "(killing a man is) not an action that any society should condone, let alone conduct. But since 1904, our state has executed, by hanging or injection, 78 men as punishment for a range of horrific crimes."
Sharp: Killing in self-defense, in defense of others and in a just war, all against unjust aggressors, has been deemed moral, just, condoned and necessary, by all societies, since the beginning of law.
Laws, law enforcement and sanctions are society's self-defense, within which, 4,500 years of history has found the death penalty just and appropriate for some crimes, if one starts at the beginning of biblical history, Genesis 9:5-6 (3), or 700 years later, by human law, within the Code of Hammurabi, through today.
Nearly 90 countries have the death penalty and, those governments most opposed to the death penalty are within the European Union, whereby 69% in Great Britain, 58% in France, 53% in Germany, 51% in Spain and 46% in Italy supported the execution of mass murderer, dictator Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (4), whereby the European Union shows the same anti-democratic stance, as in the US, whereby individual states have ended the death penalty, by legislative action, overwhelmingly, by Democratic governors and Democratic majority legislatures, even though contrary to polling in those states.
Support for Hussein's execution was 82% in the US (4), which reflects how much death penalty support rises, dramatically, when using specific death penalty cases and/or providing a "sometimes" answer for death penalty support which is how we, actually use it, "sometimes and rarely" . . . with support of 80-86% (5).
It is likely that the majority populations of nearly all countries, would support the death penalty, for some specific crimes (5).
3) YHR: "Gov. Jay Inslee ordered a moratorium on (executions) in 2014",
Sharp: a) 3,200 inmates mistakenly released early in Washington state, hidden for 13 years, with no effort to fix, first reported in 2015, started in 2002.
b) Islee announces release of 950 prisoners (2020). Media incurious as to how many were arrested for violent offenses, but pled down to non-violent and/or those who had prior violent records, with prisoner advocates disappointed that the number was not 10,000, with those three not noting the high percentage of recidivism, with only 25% of crimes solved, meaning recidivism is much higher.
4) YHR: "four years later (2018), the Washington Supreme Court negated the (death penalty) law altogether."
Sharp: Did YHR, any media or government authority, in Washington, fact check and vet the reasons the court gave for declaring the death penalty law unconstitutional? Nope or not that I saw. YHR?
Why journalism should matter.
The US Supreme Court got the famous McCleskey v Kemp case, completely wrong (6), as do many law schools, and SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer bought into anti-death penalty nonsense, hook, line and sinker, with no fact checking nor vetting (7).
YHR, clearly, you liked the reasoning of the Washington Supreme Court. Do you think journalism should have prevailed, knowing that judges can be in error? Do you?
5) YHR: The feelings about ending the death penalty are mixed. It is understandable how vengeful thoughts would creep into your mind if you’d lost someone you loved to the incomprehensible violence of a criminal act.
Sharp: Which is why we have taken hatred and vengeance out of the due process of law and have used our best efforts to replace those with justice, a sanction not too harsh and not too lenient, based upon all elements of the crime, with judges and jurors having no connection to the crimes.
It is common for anti-death penalty advocates, as similar here, to call those who support the death penalty, especially survivors, hateful vengeance seekers, not noting that the overwhelming death penalty support is not just from victim survivors, but from the public, at large, with reasoning and support by many of the greatest thinkers in history, as detailed (1a).
6) YHR: "But would (the death penalty) really help? The practical answer is no."
Sharp: The factual and practical answers are yes. Let's review:
a) YHR: "No matter what your moral stance is, capital punishment isn’t particularly effective or efficient."
Sharp: YHR overlooks the most important aspect of all sanctions - Justice, arguably the most important of all human endeavors (1a). Both efficiency and effectiveness, reviewed below, are a matter of management responsibility and should be improved, if lacking, as with any government or private endeavors and as not considered by YHR, as it seems they have allowed their anti-death penalty bias to overwhelm their journalism ethics and critical thinking, as detailed throughout.
b) YHR: "sure execution inarguably ends the threat of further crimes by the condemned person."
Sharp: 1) YHR confirms the obvious. Living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed ones do not, YHR thus confirming the obvious, again - the anti-death penalty norm, saving the lives of all murderers, knowing that it will cause more harm to innocents (8, 8a), caring more for murderers than for the innocent (9), the anti-death penalty foundation (9). They often say it out loud (8,8a,9), as YHR just did.
Since 1973,
.... 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers; (8)
... 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again- recidivist criminals; (8)
... as other violent crimes, rapes, robberies and other assaults are committed 7 times more than murders, we have this . . .
...3.5 million ADDITIONAL innocents raped, robbed or, otherwise, assaulted by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again (8).
How often have you heard death penalty opponents say "Just the possibility of one innocent death, by execution, means we cannot have the death penalty"? But, all the above?, Not a word.
Do they care about innocents or guilty murderers (9)? Take a guess.
Possibly, we MIGHT have proof of innocents executed, as recently as 1915.
2) Death penalty/executions protect and save innocent lives in five ways better than does a life sentence (8, 8a), meaning that anti-death penalty folks, media, academics and others, knowingly chose to save murderers lives, knowing that such will sacrifice more innocents, the position of the more "merciful" folks, as revealed by YHR and by fact and reason (8,8a,9).
c) YHR: "for some victims’ loved ones, that might bring a certain amount of satisfaction or peace of mind."
Sharp: 1) For some? Non-scientific polling finds that victim survivors, in capital, death penalty eligible murder cases, support the death penalty 95-99% (5), highly probable, as scientific polling has found 80-86% support, by the general public (5).
Likely, YHR doesn't know those polls, as anti-death penalty sites don't show them.
2) There are, at least, three types of closure, for the survivors in such cases: "Is execution closure? Of course"(10).
3) As YHR has shown no interest in any of those, possibly YHR will review these 600 views from such survivors (1a).
The norm would be continued no interest, which is why your readers are so uninformed/misinformed.
d) YHR: "(The death penalty) can’t bring back the victim. It won’t restore a shattered family."
Sharp: Anti-death penalty folks are, constantly, so insulting. They have used this nonsense, forever, when no pro -death penalty persons nor shattered family members have proclaimed any of that nonsense.
Who knew the innocents murdered were not resurrected by the execution of their murderers and that the execution of the unjust murderer did not fully restore the lives and happiness of the loved ones of the murdered innocents?
Alert the media! Oh, right. Media has abandoned any critical thinking.
YHR, how bad do you have to get before you realize it?
Should be about here.
e) YHR: "Just ask the family of Lisha Gayle, who died in a 1998 stabbing in her St. Louis home. Over the objections of her relatives — and even the prosecutor — Missouri executed 55-year-old Marcellus Williams on Sept. 24." "His death certainly wasn’t much consolation to the victim’s relatives. “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” their attorneys stated in a futile court petition. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.”
Sharp: Which might account for 1-5% of victim survivors in death penalty cases (5). I am, just, now, researching that case. It seems plausible that the family did, at some point, approve of the death penalty, but that the pain of the 23 year wait was too much and they just wanted to end it. Maybe. Maybe not.
That is one of the anti-death penalty strategies, to make the death penalty so hurtful to the murder victims' survivors, that they will just give up. It has been very cruel, as intended.
Virginia has executed 113 murderers, within 7 years of appeals, on average, since 1976. How? Responsible judges.
Possibly, YHR might consider that. Likely, no, as they have not.
The prosecutor is, strictly, anti-death penalty. YHR, somehow, missed that. Journalism. 2
f) YHR: "(Williams) was one of five U.S. prisoners scheduled to die just last week.
Sharp: Lisha Gayle is one of 900,000 murder victims, just since1973.
g) YHR: "Numerous studies show it’s also far more expensive to try to execute someone than to incarcerate them."
Sharp: Did YHR fact check and vet any of those? I did (11). Read it.
h) YHR: "Capital cases routinely involve years of legal wrangling — on average, condemned inmates spend 19 years on death row, the Pew Research Center reports."
Sharp: 1) When YHR knows that a solid appeals protocol should last, on average, 7 years, prior to execution, would YHR have any curiosity as to why it takes 19 years? Of course not, as it would not benefit the anti-death penalty movement.
2) If Washington state took 3 days, on average, to clear a non- lethal car wreck, when it only takes 3 hours, on average, in other states, would YHR investigate and determine improvements, with experts? Hopefully, yes. Why not with the death penalty? Maybe because YHR has a bias against it, which is stronger than journalism ethics?
i) YHR: "All those hours in court might be profitable for lawyers, but they’re potentially devastating to state budgets and family savings accounts."
Sharp: Which should cause investigative reporters to inquire about responsibility and efficiency, in other states, as Virginia and how such would benefit Washington.
As YHR has no interest in a more efficient pre trial, trial and appeals, in death penalty cases, they will not investigate. Today's "journalism".
Is there anything smaller, in state budgets, than the death penalty? Curious?
j) YHR: "Worse yet, (YHR's non-fact checked, non-vetted) statistics tell us that the death penalty isn't applied equally. Among other factors, race, income and gender often play a key role in determining whether people convicted of certain crimes end up facing execution."
Sharp: 1) Race: White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively. "There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." 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. As robbery/murder and rape/murder are, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murders, the multiples will be even greater, as one would expect. (12).
2) Income: "99.8% of poor murderers have avoided execution. It is, solely, dependent upon one's definitions of "wealthy" and "poor", as to whether "wealthy" murderers are any more or less likely than 0.2% to be executed, than are the "poor", based upon the vast minority of capital murders committed by the "wealthy", as compared to the vast majority committed by the "poor".
By far, the greatest number of capital murder cases are robbery/murders, with nearly 0% of those committed by the "wealthy", based upon any reasonable definition of wealthy. Obvious. (13)
3) Gender: "The 53:1 ratio indicates that women may be on death row in greater numbers than we would expect or similar to what we would predict." (14)
k) YHR: "In the long run, it isn’t even reliable as a deterrent. People who commit violent acts aren’t necessarily considering consequences in that moment. Other elements can be in play, too, according to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Death Penalty Information Center — lower unemployment means lower crime rates as does greater police presence."
Sharp: 1) DPIC is, completely, partisan and, absolutely, anti-death penalty (15). Very, very obvious IF ONE RESEARCHES, FACT CHECKS AND VETS THAT RESEARCH, COMBINED WITH CRITICAL THINKING (15). Try it.
How obvious? Blatant, for 30 years. Why does YHR not know it? They haven't done any of the basic journalism, on purpose, as is obvious, by my replies, herein. Simple.
2) Deterrence: Likely, YHR has done no fact checking nor vetting nor critical thinking on this sub-topic, either.
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) (8,8a)
The recent (at least) 24 US based studies finding for death penalty/execution deterrence (8, 8a) had something to do with his evaluation . . . studies that were much more credible than their critics (8,8a).
Never has the deterrent effect of any serious sanction nor any severe negative incentive been negated. They cannot be (8,8a).
L) YHR: "Add in the unsettling reality of erroneous court conclusions from false testimonies, mistaken identities or inadequate legal representation, and the risks and drawbacks outweigh the benefits."
Sharp: Within more than 50 years, 1973-2024, of the most thorough pre-trail, trial, appeals and executive branch consideration of clemency, commutation or pardon, the death penalty has a 99.6% factually guilty accuracy rate, with the 0.4% factually innocent released (one died on death row, from cancer, just as he would have serving life) (16), very likely the most accurate of all sanctions, as we would expect of the only sanction with "super due process" (17).
In Closing
m) YHR: Gov. Inslee “When the ultimate decision is death, there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system.”
Sharp: To repeat 6b1
Living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed ones do not, YHR thus confirming the obvious - the anti-death penalty norm, sav Gov. Inslee saving the lives of all murderers, knowing that it will cause more harm to innocents (8,9), caring more for murderers than for the innocent (9), as undeniable and confirmed (9).
Since 1973,
.... 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers;
... 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again- recidivist criminals;
... as other violent crimes, rapes, robberies and other assaults are committed 7 times more than murders, we have this . . .
...3.5 million ADDITIONAL innocents have been raped, robbed or, otherwise, assaulted by those known criminals that we have allowed to harm, again
How often have you heard "Just one innocent death, by execution, means we cannot have the death penalty"? But, all the above?, Not a word.
Do they care more about innocents or about guilty murderers (7)?
Possibly, we MIGHT have proof of innocents executed, as recently as 1915.
Governor, YHR, where are the huge imperfections? Do you care? Likely, very much, not to share this with your readers. Today's journalists.
Is death penalty "reporting" the end of journalism or just the beginning of the end?
Will any journalists even care? My experience? 99% care enough not to inform their readers.
FN
1) Research, with sources, fact checking, vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone one within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and , then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts, for decades. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)
1a) 600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victims' families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
3) Religion and The Death Penalty
4) "Novatris/Harris poll, Le Mond, 12/2006
I cannot get to the original link, but this article references the same poll
5) more within fn 1
Death Penalty Polling
15) What a mess - C-Span & The Death Penalty Information Center - A Media Disaster
86% Death Penalty Support, Depending Upon Crime Committed
95-99% Support From Victim Survivors in Death Penalty Cases
6) McCleskey v Kemp: SCOTUS ERROR & LEGAL DECEPTION
7) Justice Breyer's Errors in Death Penalty Assessment
8) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORAE INNOCENT LIVES
DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORAE INNOCENT LIVES
8a) Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
9) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
10) Is Execution Closure? Of course.
11) Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
12) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
13) Is There Class Disparity with Executions?
14) WOMEN & THE DEATH PENALTY:
ARE WOMEN OVER REPRESENTED ON DEATH ROW?
WOMEN & THE DEATH PENALTY
ARE WOMEN OVER REPRESENTED ON DEATH ROW?
WOMEN & THE DEATH PENALTY
16) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
17) Texas Death Penalty Procedures
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: LEAST ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS SANCTION
======
Partial CV