First sent, March 4 2025, updated for clarity, only, March 6
To: Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards
bcc: Parents of Murdered Children, National & Fla Chapters (Miami/Dade County Chapter, Southwest Florida Chapter, Tri County Chapter, The Fort Myers Florida-Lee County Chapter)
Governor Ron DeSantis and staff
Attorney General Ashley Moody and staff
Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association
Florida Law Enforcement
Florida Legislature
Florida Media, Florida Press Assoc, Journalism Schools and Organizations
Subject: Death Penalty: Why Media Must Deceive
Re: Editorial: Biden strikes a blow against flawed death penalty, By Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards (collectively Sentinel) , January 11, 2025 at 5:30 AM EST
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Preface
The rule: Many, if not most, journalists, only use anti-death penalty research, refuse to fact check and vet that research, nor use critical thinking, and refuse to use pro-death penalty research and experts and/or they are lying (1,2), either of which appear a conscious decision to violate ethics, in favor of being anti-death penalty activists. It's the same with opinion or news product (1,2).
The Sentinel's, standard.
The evidence appears overwhelming, as detailed, below and here (1,2).
At what point and after how many years of doing that, would journalists call themselves liars?
How many times have I corrected the Sentinel?
Trust in media is at a 50 year low (Gallup, 2025).
I am a former death penalty opponent, who fact checked and vetted this debate for two years, prior to switching positions, who has forwarded that research, constantly, updated (1,3), to media, as others, worldwide, for nearly 30 years (3).
=======
Method: In order, I quote the Sentinel and rebut or state as Sharp. I correct the Sentinel's facts with "fact issues" and present the pro-victim and/or the pro-death penalty perspective, where the Sentinel does not, with "both sides".
======
1) the Sentinel: " . . . Joe Biden promised to repeal the federal death penalty but didn’t have the votes in Congress. Preparing to leave the White House with the pledge unkept, he did the next best thing by commuting the sentences of 37 of 40 men on federal death row. Biden drew a line at perpetrators of “terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.”
Sharp: Both sides. Never did the Sentinel mention the horror of the murders of the innocent victims (detailed below) nor the life long trauma of their loved ones nor that the jurors decided that the death penalty was the most just sanction for the crimes committed, all common omissions, showing how much death penalty opponents value violent murderers over their innocent victims (4).
2) The Sentinel: "Biden's exceptions will not appease people who resolutely oppose executions on religious, ethical or practical grounds."
Sharp: Both sides.. Never mentioned by the Sentinel: Many of the loved ones of those innocents murdered were very traumatized, even more, by Biden's commutations, as Biden, his surrogates, and the Sentinel knew they would be, showing how much more they value guilty murderers over their innocent victims and their loved ones (4).
3) the Sentinel: "(Biden's) decision is a nudge toward a more rational death penalty and perhaps its eventual abolition."
Sharp: Fact issues.
a) There is no reason to believe that Biden's commutations will help bring about death penalty abolition, as he supports executions for some crimes, as 86% of Americans do (5) and as 95-99% of the loved ones of those murdered in a death penalty crimes, also do (5).
b) Nor did Biden make suggestions for a more rational death penalty.
c) If the Sentinel is interested in a rational death penalty, it is right in front of you (1,2), as you should have known, for decades, but for the Preface.
d) One. major, rational error, is that those who say that the death penalty is irreparably broken, seem, unaware, that such is not the death penalty's fault, but that of management. In addition, the irreparably broken is, total, nonsense, if one fact checks and vets (1).
4) the Sentinel: "America as an outlier. Ours is one of the few developed nations that still professes a necessity to execute people. The only nations that carried out more state killings last year are the authoritarian states of China, Iran, Somalia and Saudi Arabia, places we should never emulate."
Sharp: Fact issues: The Sentinel's is a very standard bit of anti-death penalty nonsense, which has nothing to do with "developed" nations. Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan and Singapore are all "developed" nations, with the death penalty. So what?
The Sentinel is, somehow, clueless that it is a moral and ethical choice (1-8) and has nothing to do with industrialized and/or "developed" nations. How? Because the Sentinel just parroted anti-death penalty nonsense, with no thinking. Standard. See Preface.
All countries have governments, military, doctors, hospitals, law, prisons, restaurants, schools, playgrounds, language, and on and on and on. Meaning all countries emulate all other countries, in nearly all respects, which does not mean, culturally, that they are, remotely, the same, as is obvious with China and the US. Sentinel? Think.
No one with knowledge, believes that the US has a death penalty which, remotely, "emulates" the countries mentioned by the Sentinel. Obvious. But, it is standard anti-death penalty nonsense.
Of much greater importance is that most people are good people and that it may be that the majority of people, in all countries, support the death penalty for some crimes (5), just as in Western Europe, with the most active anti-death penalty governments, with a majority population supporting the execution of Iraq's dictator, mass murderer Saddam Hussein.
Why? Justice.
5) the Sentinel: "The reality of capital punishment defies logic, morality and common sense".
Sharp: Fact and both sides issues:
By logic, morality and common sense, the death penalty has been supported for 4,000 years (6), by many of the greatest minds in history, as is very well known (1c). How could the Sentinel be unaware? They could not be, unless, monumentally, ignorant. Enter the Preface.
6) the Sentinel: "Death penalty advocates scarcely argue any longer that it is a deterrent, because it isn’t."
Sharp: Fact issue.
The Sentinel confirms they speak, only, to ignorant death penalty advocates, if any, at all. No surprise. 7 pro-death penalty experts, listed in (1). Will the Sentinel care? Likely not.
No rational and honest death penalty opponent or advocate can think or say executions deter none. Many say "of course it deters some", with the only remaining question being "does it deter more than a life sentence?", answered below.
The evidence for deterrence far outweighs no deterrence, for which no evidence exists (7,8).
By definition, the most feared sanctions, the most feared outcomes and the most negative incentives all deter some, as has been known, forever and, never, rationally nor factually rebutted (7,8). It cannot be.
Most 28 year olds fear death more than life and prefer life over death. What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more, deters more, Unchallenged.
Why can't all death penalty opponents agree on those? The obvious:
a) With deterrence, anti-death penalty folks are saving murderers lives, knowing that it will cause more innocents to be murdered, as a result of no death penalty (7,8).
The Sentinel, as all other death penalty opponents, don't want to be thought of as being so monstrous.
Understandable but unavoidable, as detailed:
b) 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 (8,4).
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 (8,4).
c) 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 (8).
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 innocents (8,4).
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 innocents (8,4).
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 some prefer (8,4).
Anti-death penalty experts make that argument.
Anti-death penalty experts make that argument.
The pro-death penalty position is that it represents justice, in some cases, and that it saves and protects additional innocents, as . . .
d) In fact, the death penalty/executions save and protect innocent lives, in six ways, better than life without parole (LWOP) (7.8).
e) Since 1996, there have been 24 US based studies, finding for death penalty/execution deterrence, with those studies more credible than there critics, as detailed (7,8);
which contributed to this:
f) 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)
Sentinel (4)?
7) the Sentinel: "In practice it is arbitrary, capricious, irrationally selective, up to five times more expensive than non-capital incarcerations, poisoned by racial bias and prone to the only miscarriage of justice for which no possible atonement exists."
Sharp: Fact issue: Sentinel, utterly clueless.
The Sentinel parrots, again, anti-death penalty nonsense, with no fact checking nor vetting nor critical thinking, while avoiding pro-death penalty research and experts, On purpose? How could it be otherwise? Sentinel? See Preface.
Let's review:
a) The death penalty is, well known, to be the least arbitrary and capricious of all sanctions, as well as, very, rationally, selected. (9, 10).
b) Cost. It is, very, unlikely, that the Sentinel fact check or vetted any of the cost studies. I have. Many, here (11). All of which contradict the Sentinel's claims. It just confirms my Preface. If the Sentinel did fact check and vet, please send your reviews.
In addition, I have yet to find one thorough study, which did an apples to apples comparison of all costs and savings within both the death penalty and LWOP, as I have detailed, here (11a).
The Sentinel uses one of the normal deceptions in the anti-death penalty cost reviews, which is comparing the cost of the death penalty to "non-capital incarcerations". Non-capital incarcerations include a 2 hour stay in the local jail up to LWOP, in prison, when, only, LWOP is the alleged replacement for the death penalty and is the, only, relevant, cost comparison.
A number of deceptive cost studies do not use LWOP, as I detailed (11, 11a).
c) Racial bias: White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers (all from fn 12).
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.
As robbery/murders and rape/murders are, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murders, the multiples will be even greater, as one would expect.
d) the Sentinel: "(Execution is) the only miscarriage of justice for which no possible atonement exists."
Sharp: Fact Issues. Not even close, by a huge margin.
a) 4000--5000 in legal custody persons die, every year, with only 30 on average, executed/yr. By math, and more, considering the super due process of the death penalty, innocents are, by a huge margin, much more likely to die within non-death row custody than by execution. Unchallenged.
b) within criminal justice, we have these, since 1973 (all in fn 8):
1) 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers;
2) 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals:
3) 3.5 illion ADDITIONAL innocents have been raped, robbed or, otherwise assaulted by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals;
4) How could the Sentinel not see the obvious? See Preface. Obvious.
Only 25% of crimes are solved.
4) the death penalty/executions protect and save innocents, in six ways, better than LWOP (7,8).
5) In the modern, death penalty era, 1973 forward, there is no proof of one executed innocent (13). We might, HUGE MIGHT, have proof of innocents executed, as recently as 1915.
How did the Sentinel miss all of that? Easily. Their concern is for guilty murderers not innocent victims (4). How else does that happen?
At some point, media and other death penalty opponents must confess where all the innocents are, truly, at risk and what we should do to fix it, as opposed to their fictional innocence hysteria nonsense, with regard to the death penalty. HINT: In 2014, after 40 years of quadrupling the prison population, the violent crime rates were at 40-60 year lows, depending upon crime.
The Sentinel, no shame.
8) the Sentinel: "According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) , 200 current or former death row inmates have been exonerated of all charges since record-keeping began in 1973. Florida leads all states with 30."
Sharp: Fact issue. Complete utter nonsense, as "well known"
since 1998, if one fact checks and vets (13).
How could the Sentinel be unaware of
a) the 83% error rate in such claims, as detailed by the Florida Commission on Capital Cases, 2002 and 2011 (14)?; and
b) DPIC's known 71-83% fraud rate in such claims (13)?
c) as so many other anti-death penalty deceptions (13,1).
How? Really. Tell us. Sentinel? See Preface.
9) the Sentinel: "That many miscarriages of justice strongly suggests that other innocent people were put to death."
Sharp: Fact issue: After 51 years (1973-2025) of the most thorough and critical reviews, reality finds a 99.6% accuracy rate in death penalty guilty findings, with the 0.4% proven factually innocent released (13) , likely the most accurate of all sanctions, no surprise. as we should expect, with the only sanction with super due process (10).
The non-stop. many errors, in fact, reason, and omissions, by the Sentinel, among many others, cries out for journalism reform. Likely, of no interest, to journalists, as detailed for nearly 30 years.
10) the Sentinel: "A former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Gerald Kogan, said he believed there had been three (innocents executed). He did not identify them."
Sharp: Fact and both sides issues. Of course he didn't. He cannot be fact checked and vetted. So the Sentinel? All in. No need for the Sentinel to question further. Just gawd awful.
I debated Kogan, he confused innocents released with innocents executed (15).
11) the Sentinel: "Capital punishment has no rightful place in a modern society, especially not when used so inconsistently. Fewer than 2% of all murderers are sentenced to death."
Sharp: Fact issue. The Sentinel is, again, somehow, unaware: a) the death penalty protocols make it, very, limited, as began with Gregg v Georgia, with death penalty eligible crimes much different than and a small percentage of "all murders", with b) appeals being extended from 6 years, on average (mid 80s), to 20 years, today, with c) state and federal death penalty statutes and court decisions limiting application, even more, with d) only 1 vote, out of 48 (2%), by the jury and for the defendant/convicted party in order for them to not give the death penalty, with e) 100%, 48 out of 48 votes, necessary, against the convicted murderer, in order to get the death penalty (10), all of which is known by prosecutors, which has curtailed death penalty cases, even more.
The 1 vote (2%) overwhelming the 47 votes (98%) may be the most harsh, undemocratic vote in a constitutional republic. DeSantis should be praised for making it a bit more democratic.
Judges within California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Kansas and others have made it, nearly, impossible to carry out a death sentence, to the point of suggesting that some judges are, unethically, trying to kill it (16).
"Modern" has, nothing, to do with it. Modern society is no more nor less moral or ethical than it has been for millennia.
12) the Sentinel: "Presidential power to commute sentences is absolute. The immediate effect is to block Donald Trump from carrying out another flurry of executions like the 13 he ordered before the 2020 election."
Sharp: Both sides. Those 13 murderers had long completed their appeals and unanimous jurors found the death penalty the most just sanction available for those crimes. If law and justice are of any concern, their executions were overdue.
13) the Sentinel: “I refuse to wish a Merry Christmas to those (37 murderer's commuted by Biden) lucky ‘souls but instead, will say GO TO HELL!”, said Trump. "That’s consistent with what Trump often voices in other contexts, such as encouraging police brutality and urging the Jan. 6 rioters to “fight like hell."
Sharp: Both sides: a) Based upon the gruesome murders, Trumps comments are, justified. With no thinking, the Sentinel made it political. How and why?
Politics were more important to the Sentinel than were the innocent murder victims. Repulsive (4).
Examples: Some of the commuted and their crimes, not included by the Sentinel (4):
- He sexually assaulted and stabbed to death two girls — Laura Hobbs, 8, and Krystal Tobias, 9 — who had been riding their bicycles in their neighborhood, in a suburb north of Chicago in 2005, then he strangled naval officer Amanda Snell, 20, inside her barrack, in Va."
- Another one murdered five Russian and Georgian immigrants after kidnapping them for ransom, which in some cases was paid before he killed them anyway.
- Savage, a Philadelphia drug dealer ordered the murders of 12 people, including four children. While awaiting trial in prison in isolation, he ordered the firebombing of the home of the family of a drug-dealing associate who was cooperating with the FBI. Two full cans of gasoline with a lit cloth fuse, were thrown into the home around 5 a.m. on Oct. 9, 2004. Burned alive were the mother of the FBI’s witness; her 15-month-old son; three other children ages 10, 12 and 15; and the mother of the 10-year-old girl. When authorities allowed the cooperating witness out of jail to attend the funeral of his family members, Savage uttered a “joke” that the FBI caught on tape: “They should stop off and get him some barbecue sauce … pour it on them burnt bitches,” Savage said.
- One kidnapped and shot 12-year-old Lexis Roberts in Louisiana. He shot her four times, cut her throat and left her body in the woods. All this after she watched him shoot her mother in the head
- A Virginia drug dealer murdered 11 people.
and on and on and on . . . Read them all.
Biden did not and could not make any moral or ethical case why they should not have been executed, as the three he left on death row.
The Sentinel made it political, of course. Repulsive (4).
b) Biden, or surrogates, commuted the death sentences of those 37 vile murderers on Dec 23, two days, prior to Christmas, when he (they) could have done it on Jan 19th. It, thoughtlessly, piled cruelty upon cruelty, as is the pattern (4), showing no compassion for the surviving loved ones of those murdered. It, likely, never crossed their mind (4). Thoughtless.
14) the Sentinel: "They (Biden's 37 commuted federal death row inmates) will spend the rest of their lives in harsh prisons — where they belong, with no chance of parole."
Sharp: Fact and both sides issues: Biden, or his surrogates, thought they were more moral than the 444 jurors who sat through those 37 trials, with extensive deliberations, prior to finding the death penalty the most just sanction. Biden, or they, were not.
Living murderers are, infinitely, more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers, showing how much Biden and the Sentinel value guilty murderers more than the innocent (4).
15) The Sentinel: Pres. Biden: “But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.”
Sharp: Fact issues: Of course, Biden never told us why. The Sentinel was not curious. Likely, the very same nonsense that we got from the Sentinel.
16) the Sentinel: "The death penalty persists because it’s a tough-on-crime weapon for politicians and a tool for prosecutors to extract confessions and make criminals rat on co-defendants."
Sharp: Fact issue.
a) It has persistent for 4000 years, at least. Why? Justice. and saving more innocents (1c,7, 8)
b) Judges or jurors award the death penalty and do so for, only, one reason and it is the same for all other sanctions - It is the most just sanction available for the crime. The Sentinel, not once, voiced that. They cannot.
The Sentinel must, inaccurately, blame politicians, for giving the death penalty. They cannot use justice, even though it is the, only, reason it is given.
b) To solve additional crimes and to convict additional criminals makes communities safer, which can be and is, often, the result of the leverage with plea bargaining, which occurs, with or without the death penalty, every day. Of course, is it even more important, in death penalty cases, as the crimes are much more horrendous and the Sentinel wants to throw those advantages away, making communities less safe (4).
How could the Sentinel miss that? They could not have. The pattern (4).
17) the Sentinel: "There were 24 executions nationwide last year, compared to 98 at the modern height in 1999."
Sharp: Fact issues: The average number of executions per year is 30, 1973-2025, with the 24, 20% separated from the average, and the 98, 227% separated.
Since 1973, Virginia has executed 113 murderers, within 7 years of appeals, on average. How? Responsible protocols and responsible judges. All states could do it, if more responsible, by averaging 33 months at the state supreme court, 18 months at the federal district court and 33 months at the federal circuit court, or similar. Cases, rarely, are heard by SCOTUS.
Sentinel?
18) the Sentinel: ". . . Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new law, the nation’s harshest, allowing as few as eight of 12 jurors to recommend execution instead of a unanimous verdict."
Sharp: Fact and both sides issues.
a) A guilty verdict is, still, required to be unanimous. It is the penalty phase, which, now requires, at least, a 67% majority (8/12) to give a death sentence.
Thank goodness for DeSantis making the vote, slightly, more democratic, which makes sense, if you read the statute, with guilt a fact issue and the sentence, much more of an opinion issue, IF YOU READ THE STATUTE.
b) It is harsh if considering the murderers, only, and forgetting the innocent murder victims and their loved ones (4), the anti-death penalty pattern (4).
In Closing
Please, fact check and vet, add pro-death penalty research and experts to your list, use critical thinking, without parroting pro or anti-death penalty nonsense, all, all the time.
Based upon history, sadly, I have no such expectation.
Trust in media is at a 50 year low (Gallup, 2025), 7% of adults have a "great deal’ of trust in news media" (Gallup 2023), with the 7% never verifying the reporting (Sharp , anytime, as demonstrated).
FN
1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
a) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
c) 600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
2) Media Disasters
Possibly, the four most egregious, in order:
a) What a mess - C-Span & The Death Penalty Information Center:
A Media Disaster
b) Media Disaster: Death Penalty & Journalists Murdering Journalism: A Pulitzer Prize Winner
c) The Death Penalty: A Repudiation of Journalism,
by Journalists?:
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award
d) Media Disaster: The Death Penalty
HOW MEDIA MURDERS THE TRUTH
USA Today
e) The Sentinel's is pretty basic.
many more here, just enter Media Disaster in the search box, at that site
3) Sharp: Partial CV
4) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
5) Death Penalty Support 72-86% depending upon question (8/2021)
New Evidence of Broad Support for Death Penalty | RealClearPolicy
Joseph M. Bessette & J. Andrew Sinclair, RealClearPolicy August 16, 2021
and
86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013/August 2021
and
95-99% Death Penalty Support by Loved Ones of Capital Murder Victims
NOTE: That 95-99% not by scientific polling, yet is credible, knowing the 86% death penalty support, within scientific polling.
6) First mention, biblical timeline, Genesis 9:5-6, 2000-2500 BC
Religion and The Death Penalty
and
The earliest known death penalty, that was codified, by government, was within The Code of Hammurabi, written,1755–1750 BC.by Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, in what is now Iran.
7) Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
8) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
9) THE DEATH PENALTY: LEAST ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS SANCTION
Both the guilty & the innocent have the greatest of protections
Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions
10) Super Due Process
Texas Death Penalty Procedures
11) Read California, Nevada, Nebraska, North Carolina, Texas and Maryland, first, then move on
Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
11a) Death Penalty Costs vs Life Without Parole Costs: Study Protocol
12) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
13) Notice the date
Read para 7, first
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death4Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
14) Notice the date
TRULY INNOCENT? A Review of 23 Case Histories of Inmates Released from Florida‘s Death Row Since 1973, Florida Commission on Capital Cases, May 13, 2011 updated from 2002
http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Documents/Publications/casehistory05-13-11 Report.pdf
15) Interesting discussion with former Florida Supreme Court Justice Kogan, who, somehow, confused alleged innocent death row inmates released on appeal with innocent death row inmates executed.
"Rethinking the Death Penalty", Nightline, ABCNews, 6/22/00
16) Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions
JUDGES AS JACKASSES: THE DEATH PENALTY
Justice Breyer's Errors in Death Penalty Assessment
Death Penalty: Judge Tom Price - Dead Wrong Edited version published, Dallas Morning News, 12/3/2014
Justice Elsa Alcala's Death Penalty Errors
======
Victim Services
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
a) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======
Partial CV
