Thursday, November 07, 2013

86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013

update 3/2023

86% US Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever? April 2013
(update 86% in 2019, as well)
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

RE: April 29, 2013 Angus Reid Poll (1) - THE POLL YOU NEVER HEARD OF:

 86% death penalty support (1), the highest I have ever located (2)

22% of the 86% finding the death penalty "always appropriate" (1), the highest I have ever located (2)
64% of the 86% finding the death penalty "sometimes appropriate" (1)
9% finding the death penalty "never appropriate" (1), the lowest I have ever located (2)

 78% death penalty support was found from another Angus Reid question, within the same poll (5).

 Yet, October 29, 2013, just 6 months later,  Gallup finds:

 60% death penalty support, their lowest in 40 years (3).

 70% death penalty support was found from another Gallup question, within the same poll (4).  

 The media, rarely, if ever, reports the higher death penalty support, which is found within all Gallup annual death penalty polling, but, only, reports the lowest percentage support poll.

======
Death Penalty Support 72-86% depending upon question (2019-2020)
New Evidence of Broad Support for Death Penalty | RealClearPolicy
Joseph M. Bessette & J. Andrew Sinclair, RealClearPolicy August 16, 2021 
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/2021/08/16/new_evidence_of_broad_support_for_death_penalty_790059.html#! 
 
This study reflects well known polls, for the last 15 years, proving much higher  death penalty support than by the oft quoted, much less accurate Gallup.
======

 THE POLL YOU NEVER HEARD OF (6)

 Gallup had 371  Google search hits within three days of their news release (6)

Angus Reid had 0 - no one carried it - Zero (6)

You never heard of the 86% (or 78%) from Angus Reid, because the media didn't want you to (6).

 Everyone heard about the 60% Gallup poll, because the media wanted you to (6).

 POLLING ACCURACY

 Angus Reid was #1, Gallup #26, with the most recent polling company comparisons (7).

The Angus Reid Poll provides an accurate measure of death penalty support, with an answer of "sometimes appropriate", which Gallup  does not (1&3).

When Gallup does allow for the "sometimes appropriate" response, as with their death penalty support poll for mass murderer/bomber Timothy McVeigh, support goes to 81%, showing how consistent support is - 80-86% - when, properly using the "sometimes appropriate" response.

 In that Gallup poll, 58% of those who said they opposed the death penalty, supported execution for McVeigh.

 ======

 A separate question (5), within the Angus Reid poll, with a negative inference bias, against the death penalty, had these results:

 78% death penalty support
16% death penalty opposition

Preference Poll from same Angus Reid poll:

 LWOP vs the Death Penalty

 59% prefer the death penalty over a life sentence, which is preferred by 25% --  the death penalty preferred 240% more.

A preference poll, not an exclusion poll. 

 For example, 84% may support the death penalty, and wish to retain it, with 25% of the 84% having a life sentence preference, and 59% of the 84% having a preference for the death penalty, with both groups, still supporting the death penalty at 84%, with the same respondents.

Although both Quinnipiac and Gallup imply that preference polls show lower support for the death penalty, support dropping from 84% to 59%, there is zero evidence to support their claim (2). 

 Why would death penalty support, suddenly drop 25 points, from the same respondents, at the same time? It wouldn't, of course.

If 95% support LWOP and if the preference poll shows that 25% prefer LWOP, does that mean that LWOP support suddenly dropped 70%, with the same respondents, at the same time?

 Of course not, it's absurd.

Would Gallup and Quinnpiac even imply such with LWOP? Of course not. 

They appear to have an observable bias against the death penalty, which is why they may speculate lower death penalty support with a preference poll, but won't so speculated such with LWOP, as detailed.

 Additional evidence:

Gallup speculates "The current era of lower support may be tied to death penalty moratoriums in several states beginning around 2000 after several death-row inmates were later proven innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted. More recently, since 2006, six states have repealed death penalty laws outright, including Maryland this year." (3)

With no proof, Gallup parrots and speculates the exact line that anti-death penalty folks use, in contradiction to both the truth and the polls.

 There is a 70-83% error rate in the anti-death penalty claims of "innocence" or "exonerated" (8).

 Let's see what the polls say:

"A Nov. 2010 poll showed that a large majority, 81%, believes that innocents have been executed and, with that same group, at the same time, responding to the "general" death penalty question, found 83% death penalty support and 13% opposition." (2). 

"That shows no evidence that the US population has turned away from executions based upon the, largely, misleading innocence claims by anti-death penalty folks (2)."

 I would be surprised if Gallup was unaware of those results.

 Gallup even parrots another standard anti death penalty error, that "six states have repealed the death penalty outright . . .". New York State did not repeal their statute, at all. The New York Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional.

 Gallup didn't even fact check this well known anti-death penalty error. The just bought it and used it.

 The reason those 5 states were capable of repeal, had nothing to do with the false anti-death penalty claims, parroted by Gallup,  but was because those 5 states had an anti-death penalty Democratic Governor, with an anti-death penalty Democratic majority in the legislature, at the same time the majority of their citizens supported the death penalty.

 Gallup, reality is better than biased speculation. Gallup simply bought into standard anti-death penalty deceptions, chose not to fact check nor vet any of them, but instead, just passed them along - an anti-death penalty norm.

Very media-like.

 ======

95% death penalty support, by loved ones of capital murder victims (9)
(March 2015) Poll by Pennsylvania Office of the Victim Advocate found:

 90% of victims' family members support the death penalty. 94% said the imposed death sentence should be carried out. (9)

 Any state could, easily, do the same poll. I hope they do.

 Oklahoma City Bombing case and the 9/11 terrorism attacks:

 Oklahoma City Bombing case:

 I am aware of 4 murder victim survivors who opposed Timothy McVeigh's execution.

 That is 4 out of 1680 (10 times 168 murder victims) (9), or 0.2% opposed to execution.

 Way under 5%, which would require 84 death penalty opponents, using my method (9).

 9/11 terrorism attacks:

 I am aware of 3 of the nearly 30,000 9/11 murder victim's loved ones who opposed either Bin Laden's death or those killed in drone strikes who were connected to 9/11 or who have voiced any opposition to a death penalty for any other 9/11 conspirators.

 That is 0.01% opposed to the death penalty.
5% would be 1500.  I have only found 3.

 Sadly, these mass murders were so huge, it presented this opportunity to see what developed with a media that is very interested to find such cases.

Boston Marathon Bombing

 Note that the opposition to the death penalty, by survivors, in the Boston Marathon case is based upon having to suffer through an eternity of appeals, which should be only about 4-6 years, in a federal death penalty case, because there are only federal courts, no state courts.

It is not moral opposition, but based upon the incompetence of the management, not the death penalty's fault.
 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 

Footnotes

 1) Support for Death Penalty in U.S. Surges After Boston Bombing, Angus-Reid Global, April 29, 2013, 
www.angusreidglobal.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/2013.04.29_Death_USA.pdf

 Based upon the question: "Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view about the death penalty?" Angus Reid

 86% death penalty support, totaled from
22% the death penalty is "always appropriate"   plus
64% the death penalty is "sometimes appropriate"

9% the death penalty is "never appropriate"

 Benefit: The question allows reality based replies for those who 1) sometimes support the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crimes,  (2) those who always support the death penalty and (3) those who never support the death penalty, no matter the crimes - the true for and against positions.

 These should be the death penalty answers we are looking for, from the question:

Do you support the death penalty for murder/capital murders?:

 Always
Sometimes
Never

 2) US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html

 3)  U.S. Death Penalty Support Lowest in More Than 40 Years: Sixty percent of Americans favor death penalty for convicted murderers, by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup, October 29, 2013, http://www.gallup.com/poll/165626/death-penalty-support-lowest-years.aspx

 based upon the question:  "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?". 

 Yes 60%
No   35%

 Problems: For most, the answer would not be a "yes or no", but a "yes and no".  Most individuals support the death penalty "sometimes", as Angus Reid measures, but Gallup does not. Gallup fails to give a "sometimes" option, which suppresses the support percentage and expands the against percentage, because their question doesn't allow for that consideration. 

 As a rule, established with all other polls,  if you avoid the sometimes and never answers, you won't receive the answers that reflect true death penalty support or opposition, because the vast majority of folks "sometimes" support the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the murder, just as we do with all sanctions, the true support position, and a minority never supports the death penalty, regardless of how cruel the murders and/or the number of victims, the true opposition position, both of which are measured in the Angus Reid poll and neither of which are measured in the Gallup poll.

 Reality also conflicts with the Gallup poll, because about 90% of murders are not death penalty eligible, reflecting why the "sometimes" answer provides more accuracy, with the advantage of also reflecting reality, with the Gallup question producing less accurate answers, in conflict with reality.

 Gallup is aware of this (2).

 Gallup confirms this, when they polled for a specific, horrendous, capital  crime, allowing for the "sometimes" and "never" answers, within their poll about death penalty support for mass murderer, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, showing 81% support (2), reflecting the "sometimes" answer , with 16% opposition, reflecting the "never" answer.

Not surprisingly, this mirrors, almost exactly, poll results from Angus Reid and  Quinnipiac:

82% support and 16% opposition  is the average of Qinnipiac polling since 2000 (2) , using those same combinations with always, sometimes and never responses

as with Angus Reid

 83%  support, 13% opposed (11/09/10)  (2)

 80%  support, 12% opposed (10/4/11)  (2)

All of which support that the sometimes and never responses provide for a more accurate poll.

The best way to get clear answers, is to ask clear questions,  which for the death penalty are:

 Do you support the death penalty for murder?
Always
Sometimes
Never

 "Always" could be left out, as they will be found in the sometimes response, but is of interest, in contrast to the "never" answer. 
4)  Gallup: "In your opinion, is the death penalty imposed too often, about the right amount, or not often enough."

"Not often enough" (44%) and "about the right amount" (26%) totaled 70%.

Sharp: This rise in support is based upon a consideration of circumstance: "sometimes".

5)  Angus Reid "As you may know, many countries around the world have abolished the death penalty, but not the United States. All things considered, do you support or oppose the possibility of prosecutors relying on the death penalty for murder cases in the United States?"

 Sharp: This provides for the respondent to consider circumstances "possibility", providing the "sometimes" answer. With the negative bias, I am surprised at the 78% support.

Angus could have asked: Alternate question, with a positive bias, instead: "As you know, the majority of countries around the world still have the death penalty, as does the US. All things considered, do you support or oppose the possibility of prosecutors relying on the death penalty for murder cases in the United States?"

 6) Gallup had 371  Google search hits within the first three days of their news release (a), Angus Reid had 0 (b).

 a)  I did 1 search using Google, for the  first three days of the Gallup News Release
I got 371 hits within the three day search period of   10/29-31/2013, for the search, which was: 
poll "death penalty" gallup 60%
search conducted 6:10 am CST 11/01/2013

 b) I did 1 search using Google, for the first 3 days of the Angus Reid News Release
I got 0 hits within the three day period of 4 /29 -  5/1/2013, for the search, which was: 
poll "death penalty" angus reid 78%

GOOGLE suggested and presented 20 hits, none of which referred to the death penalty poll.
search conducted 6:41 am CST 11/01/2013

 I didn't present an 86% poll result search, because Angus Reid, oddly, never used the 86%, in either their News Release or report, but broke down the numbers, as I reported, which showed 86% support.

 My informed speculation is that AR was afraid of the 86% support result, as the media is abandoning use of AR death penalty polls, as detailed, because the anti death penalty media doesn't like the AR results, which in AR's previous polls were similar - 81 and 83%, which AR highlighted, as opposed to repressing, as they did with the 86%, even though they are the same polling methods - equals with the 81-83% support polls -  as opposed to the 78%, highlighted in the April 2013 poll, with that different question and response, secondary, in those two prior AR polls.

 7)   11/10/2012    A Daily Kos blogger reworked the Fordham study (below), using updated data, and found.
Angus-Reid #1
Gallup #26
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1160222/-Updated-most-accurate-pollster-list-Angus-Reid-1

 The final tallies from the 2012 presidential election proved the Daily Kos blogger correct.

11/7/2012 The Fordham review found
Angus-Reid #11
Gallup #24
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fordham-study-public-policy-polling-deemed-most-accurate-national-pollster-in-2012

 8) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

9) 95% Death Penalty Support by Loved Ones of Capital Murder Victims
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2016/03/95-death-penalty-support-by-capital.html

======
Additional research,w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.
Posted by at

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Moral Hypocrisy: European Union & The US Death Penalty

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

Human Rights & The  Europena Union's Hypocrisy

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

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

Why? Justice (2).

MORAL COMPASS

EU governments/politicians whine about the US using propofol (and other drugs) for the execution of guilty murderers (3), as Syria wipes out thousands of innocents with sarin gas, thanks to Germany (4).  

EU politicians and world sanctions against Germany? Zero.  

 Compassion

 Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon decided to suspend the execution of multiple murderer Allen Nicklasson because Missouri's use of propofol for executions, prompted an EU threat to withhold propofol, thereby putting millions of innocent patients at risk -  propofol use is " . . .  about four-fifths of all anesthetic procedures (in the US). . . ". (5)

 see crimes of Allen Nicklasson (6)

Pro death penalty Gov. Nixon was compassionate for all of the innocent patients who would be harmed had propofol been withheld as Gov. Nixon was certain that the EU and those drug companies would harm innocent patients, by withholding that drug, had Nixon allowed the execution to go forward.

 Save murderers, at any cost

 Anti-death penalty EU governments/politicians are much more concerned that all guilty murderers must live, than they are for innocent patients or innocent murder victims. They made their choice. 

The EU and drug companies moral calculus being that it is preferable to harm millions of innocent patients in protest of those drugs being used in the executions of known guilty murderers.

Nor do they prohibit the use of drugs in the use of innocents' deaths with abortion or euthanasia, both of which are banned by the Hypocratic Oath (7) - the death penalty is not (7).

 As Washington Post columnist Charles Lane observes:   " . . . just when I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, some Europeans (EU governments/politicians) go and do something irresponsible like restricting the export of sodium thiopental, an anesthetic, to the United States -- because some death penalty states use it in lethal injections. Not only is this gesture unlikely to prevent any executions -- it actually could put the lives and health of innocent Americans at risk." (8)  

"After Hospira announced its decision, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a strongly worded statement saying it was "extremely troubled" by Hospira's forced exit from the market and criticizing the anti-death-penalty movement for "using" thiopental supplies to make a point. The doctors noted the "unfortunate irony that many more lives will be lost or put in jeopardy as a result of not having the drug available for its legitimate medical use." (8)

 6.3 million murdered innocents preferred over 1300 guilty murderers executed

 EU governments/politicians know that they are putting innocents at risk, in order to benefit guilty murderers. That's been an anti-death penalty staple forever - save all murderers, no matter the cost (9).

 It seems that anti-death penalty EU politicians have a moral preference for guilty murderers over innocent patients or innocent murder victims, very similar to that of anti-death penalty activists in the US, whose moral/scholarly leadership has stated that if the deterrent effect of the death penalty/executions was proven that they would choose sacrificing an additional 6.3 million innocent murder victims rather than executing 1300 murderers (9).

 Astounding, but true.

A human rights violation?

 The EU and some others claim that the death penalty is a human rights violation. They have never proven it, nor can they.  

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

Why is it that the human right to life, freedom, property and happiness can be taken away, but not life taken by execution? Anti-death penalty folks have no rational argument for that. Why? Because there isn't one (9).

 Anti-death penalty folks have an irrational belief that all murderers have the absolute right to life, no matter their crimes and no matter the cost. They're wrong.

 Money well spent?

 In 2009, the EU spent $3.6 million (US) to lobby on behalf of US murderers (11). The EU motto appears to be "Save murderers at any cost", just as it is with US based death penalty opponents (10).  Should the EU spend that $3.6 million as compensation for EU murder victims' families, rather than lobbying for US murderers?  Do a EU poll.  

Harming Children

 How bad can it get? 5 year olds are more mature than 17 year olds? Of course, says the EU.

 As a matter of law, Belgium has agreed that children of any age can commit suicide (12), if they possess "the capacity of discernment" --   undoubtedly, a human rights movement that will sweep throughout the EU.

 I'll take a chance, here, and say that Belgium and the EU may end up drawing the line at 5 year olds, unless they find that would violate the human rights of those children 0-4.

 EU politicians were aghast that the US would allow 16-17 year old murderers to be executed, even with thorough reviews of their mental and psychological capacities.  

Why? Well, because they said, no matter what, 16-17 year olds are not mature enough to be subject to such a punishment because they can't possibly discern either murder or execution - although, somehow, 16-17 year olds do discern both murder and incarceration for that murder? Really? 

Now that Belgium and, soon, the EU, are to agree that some children, of any age, are mature enough to off themselves, I guess the EU and those US Supreme Court Judges will have to change their opinions on the 16-17 year old murderers. Right? Well, no. Hypocrisy will rule the day.

All of a sudden, 5-17 year olds are more than capable of offing themselves, because they are mature enough. I guess mental and psychological maturity is dependent on the type of killing - or, at least, that is the only "rational" for their illogic.

 But, of course, the EU finds that 5 year olds have the discernment to decide their own suicide.

EU politicians could not see that some 16-17 year old murderers may be more mature than many 18 year olds, just as many non-murderous 16 and 17 years are, as the rest of us know.

 But, 5 year olds? Of course. 

 Some idiotic US Supreme Court judges used that same illogic in Roper v Simmons, based upon EU sensibilities, to outlaw the execution of any 16-17 year old murderers, regardless of how mature they are and regardless that the rest of us, with some sense, know than many 16-17 year olds are more mature, in every way, than are many 18 year olds. 

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

 Prof. Kontorovich writes: " . . . a system that permits the euthanasia of innocent 12 year-olds but not the punishment of guilty 17-year-olds is one that exalts autonomy without culpability." So it comes out that the juveniles cannot really make accountable decisions when it comes to killing people, unless it is themselves. Or to put it differently, Belgium will not hold children responsible when they hurt others, but gives them free license to hurt themselves." (12)

Undoubtedly, the EU will, someday, make child suicide a human right.

 Complete moral bankruptcy. Nothing new.

 1)  86% US Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members 

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

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

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

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

6) Crimes of Allen Nicklasson: His many (known) murders:  On a drive to buy drugs, Allen Nicklasson's car broke down.   Richard Drummond stopped to help, was kidnapping, robbed and murdered by Nicklasson.  In a later incident,  both Joseph Babcock, 47, and his wife, Charlene, 38  also tried to assist Nicklasson, who robbed and  murdered them both.  During a string of additional robberies, Nicklasson murdered an unnamed waitress in Mexico (7).  These are the murders we know of.
Murderpedia, Allen Nicklasson, http://murderpedia.org/male.N/n/nicklasson-allen.htm      

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

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

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

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

11) "The European Union gives millions in taxpayers’ money to anti-death penalty groups in America", By Nile Gardiner, World, THE TELEGRAPH,  Last updated: March 2nd, 2011
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100078360/the-european-union-gives-millions-in-taxpayers%E2%80%99-money-to-anti-death-penalty-groups-in-america/  

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The response was all PR, not ethics. Obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quakers & The Death Penalty

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

1) Genesis 9:5-6, from the 1764 Quaker Bible, the only Quaker bible.

5 And I will certainly require the Blood of your Lives, and that from the Paw of any Beast: from the Hand likewise of Man, even of any one’s Brother, will I require the Life of a Man.

6 He that sheds Man’s Blood, shall have his own shed by Man; because in the Likeness of God he made Mankind.

Of all the versions/translations, this may be the most unequivocal.


 2) Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey

” . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect.” (p. 111-113) “A Bible Study”, within Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Carey was a Professor of Bible and Past President of George Fox College.


 3) Quaker leadership

Quaker founder George Fox was only opposed the death penalty for lesser crimes, such as stealing, but not for murder. I have found no evidence that he opposed capital punishment for all crimes.

The other major figure in Quaker history was William Penn who, ” . . . in the preface to the “First Frame of Government”, argued for the divine right of government to “terrify evildoers” . . .”

In the Pennsylvania Holy Experiment of Quaker government ” . . . capital punishment was only allowed for treason and murder.” “However, in 1700 mutilation and branding were added, and in 1718 the provincial (Quaker) assembly extended the death penalty to twelve more felonies.”

” . . . Quakers in the assembly said that killing a soldier, whose sole crime was obeying his sovereign, was vastly different from executing a murderer or a burglar for violating laws, (which was proper).” “Quakers: Fox and Penn’s Holy Experiment”, Guides to Peace and Justice from Ancient Sages to the Suffragettes, HISTORY OF PEACE – Volume 1, by Sanderson Beck, World Peace
4) Rebuttal:  The American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee’s (AFSC) statement against the death penalty

Today, the AFSC statement against the death penalty is error filled, as many of the religious statements, now, are. All but one of the AFSC statements is secular, a common problem with many "religious" denunciations of the death penalty.

My replies as “Reply”.

AFSC: “We base our stand on the Quaker belief that every person has a value in the eyes of God and on Quaker testimonies against the taking of human life.”

Reply: This contradicts the biblical instruction of Genesis 9:5-6, as reviewed by many, see 1764 Quaker Bible, the only Quaker bible. whereby it is in the value of human life, as based in God’s image, which demands the death penalty. The Noahic covenant is for all times and all peoples.  It is the value of innocent life which supports the death penalty.

AFSC: “The Supreme Court agrees that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime. It recognized that the continuing demand for capital punishment is in part a manifestation of a desire for retribution. We find it particularly shocking that the Supreme Court would give credence to retribution as a basis for law.”

Reply: Retributive justice has its foundation in justice, in that we find that with all criminal sanctions, the support is based upon the sanction being just, proportional and appropriate for the crime committed. If the proper foundation for sanction is not justice, what does AFSC think it should be? All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism (1) No credible source can say the death penalty deters none (1). Therefore, the discussion is only about how much the death penalty does deter (1).

AFSC: “The grossly disproportionate number of nonwhites sentenced to be executed and the continuing demand for the death penalty indicate that the death penalty may constitute an outlet for acknowledged racist attitudes. This outlet is now legally sanctioned, but is nonetheless morally unacceptable.” “Punishment by death is inflicted most often upon the poor, and particularly upon racial minorities, who do not have the means to defend themselves that are available to wealthier offenders. A minority person convicted of a capital offense is much more likely to pay the extreme penalty than a white person convicted of the same crime. Discretion as to whether to execute continues under the Supreme Courts guidelines, and minority persons will continue to be victims of this discretion. The Supreme Court in its 1976 decision ignores this reality.”

Reply: There is no disproportionate application, gross or otherwise, based upon the only thing that matters - those that commit murder. If the AFSC wishes to complain, possibly they would address that white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers (2) with 56% of those executed whites, 37% black. (1973-2009) (2) .

The poor most often commit capital murders, therefore they are most likely to receive the death penalty (3).

The AFSC’s statement that “the death penalty may constitute an outlet for acknowledged racist attitudes.” appears to have only one purpose,  slander and insult, reflecting AFSC’s ignorant contempt of those who believe differently than they do.

I suspect the AFSC just, irresponsibly,  adopts anti death penalty claims without fact checking them, as revealed.

AFSC: “The death penalty is especially abhorrent because it assumes an infallibility in the process of determining guilt. Persons later found to have been innocent have been executed. This will happen again when killing by the state begins anew.”

Reply: I have never heard anyone claim the death penalty infallible. Has the AFSC? Of course not. It appears that the AFSC just made it up. Hardly wise. Innocents are more protected with the death penalty than without it. (1).

AFSC: ” . . . the death penalty restores no victim to life and only compounds the wrong committed in the first place.”

Reply: No one has every stated that execution resurrects the innocent murder victim. Why anti death penalty groups continuously proclaim this idiocy is a mystery. The death penalty does, however, help to spare more innocent lives (1). It is a wonder why some of the religious fight to spare the lives of guilty murderers lives, at the cost of more innocents sacrificed (1). The AFSC claim that the justice of the death penalty is “wrong” is most unpersuasive, has no cogent argument to support the claim and contradicts the teachings in Scripture.

AFSC: “We affirm that there is no justification for taking the life of any man or woman for any reason.”

Reply: Many, rightly, disagree. Both sparing innocent lives and justice through self defense and defense of others, a just war, as well as the just imposition of the death penalty are justifiable reasons for taking lives, a position accepted by many well known Quakers, inclusive of George Fox.


 5) Biblical death penalty support

There is much support for the death penalty by God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, which conflicts with the common anti death penalty position taken by AFSC.

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references and upholds many of the same from the OT.

There is the Noahic covenant, which is for all peoples and all times, as per Carey and others.:

Genesis 9:5-6 – “For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made.” (NAB)

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For some crimes, God commands there is no mitigation from a death sentence for murder.

Much more support, here (4).


 6) Improvement/Rehabilitation/Redemption

Murderers can morally/criminally/spiritually:

(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.

Execution could be the best outcome, as it represents a just sanction for the crimes committed and, therefore, a lesson in justice for all of us, as well as guaranteeing that the murderer will never harm again, as opposed to the hope that some murderers might, possibly, improve.

Please weigh justice and the guarantee of no more innocents harmed against the possibility of murderers becoming a positive role model.


 7) Forgiveness is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged.

The directly harmed innocent murder victims are dead and cannot offer their forgiveness.

One can forgive and fully understand that justice for the crimes are both desirable and beneficial.

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer:

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (p. 116). “A Bible Study”, within Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

“The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Saint Augustine confirms that:

” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

St. Thomas Aquinas:

“If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6

FOOTNOTES:

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

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



Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)