The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponet,832-439-2113, CV at bottom

A. Innocence

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) "Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands", Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

3) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/11/03/a-death-penalty-red-herring-the-inanity-and-hypocrisy-of-perfection.aspx

B. The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are many, blatant and legendary

Some examples:

4) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

5) The 130 (now 164) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

6) "Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby",
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2011/11/troy-davis-innocent-frauds-of-anti.html

7) "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

8)  "Carlos DeLuna: Another False Innocence Claim?"

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/05/carlos-deluna-another-false-innocence.html

9) "(Carlos DeLuna) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

10) "Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. March", by Ward Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, p 49, The Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, Issue 2, Summer 2008
http://www.cjlf.org/files/CampbellExonerationInflation2008.pdf

11) "The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation", reports By United States Congress, Senate, 107th Congress, 2d Session, Calender no 731, Report 107-315. The Innocence Protection Act of 2002, (iv) The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation, p 65-69
http://alturl.com/6j7oc

12) "The Innocent and the Shammed", Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
http://coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html

13) "The Myth Of Innocence"­, Joshua Marquis, pu­blished in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminolog­y - 3/31/2005, Northweste­rn University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
http://coastda.blogspot.com/2005/03/myth-of-innocence.html

14) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

15.  The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

C. Deterrence

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 24 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrencefull.htm

2) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

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

4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence."Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

5) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx


D. Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate

Reason, common sense, history and the facts support that the death penalty deters and deters more than lesser sanctions.

1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot. NO DETERRENCE STUDY FINDS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS NONE. THEY CANNOT.

2) There have been 24 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.

3) Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penalty deters none." "Will someone bent on murder turn from the crime when he contemplates the fact that he may be executed for it? Obviously that will happen."(1). More precisely, it "does" happen and always has. Yes, some do argue, beyond reason, that the death penalty deters none. But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degree. Therefore, anti death penalty efforts must contend with the reality that sparing murderers does sacrifice more innocent lives , by reduced deterrence, lesser incapacitation and lesser due process, and executing murderers does save more innocent lives, by enhanced incapacitation, enhanced deterrence and enhanced due process.

4) The evidence is expressly clear and overwhelming that death is feared more than life and life is preferred over death, not just for murderers facing death, but by a majority of all of us.

When 99.7% of murderers, who are subject to the death penalty, tell us they fear death more than life (2) and when about 99.9% of the rest of us (excluding the terribly ill) tell us they prefer life over death, it is a certainty that potential murderers, overwhelmingly feel the same, and thus fear execution more than life.

What we fear the most deters the most.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course - just as we all do.

5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.

6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.

7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence (3). Number 4, specifically, and Nos. 5, 6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Bedau has not and cannot rebut that. In addition, the 28 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over other sentences.

8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared even more additional innocent lives via deterrence. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, via the loss of a greater deterrent, as well as by lesser incapacitation.

10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

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

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

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

(1) "Death penalty and deterrence -- the argument from anecdote", Eric Zorn, Change of Subject page, Chicago Tribune,4/23/2011,
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/04/deter.html

(2) About 99.7% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Only about 1/3 of all murderers who have a death penalty trial receive that sanction, meaning 2/3 receive a sentence less than life, as they had hoped and even more murderers plea bargained to a sentence less than death, pre trial. Only 1.7% of those sentenced to death "volunteer" for executions by waiving appeals - 98.3% do not.  "LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION", http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

(3) "An Abolitionist's Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today", Hugo Adam Bedau, Chapter 2, within Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment? : the experts on both sides make their case, editors Hugo Adam Bedau, Paul G. Cassell, Oxford University Press, 2004. SHARP REVIEW: AN EXCELLENT BOOK PRESENTING BOTH SIDES.

Related Issues:

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.htm

LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

 See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

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

DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

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

======

Partial CV, Dudley Sharp

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html  

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

INNOCENTS MORE AT RISK WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY

Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

updated 2021

Are death penalty opponents really concerned about innocents at risk? Of course.

However, as innocents are more at risk without the death penalty, it is appropriate to challenge their understanding of that easily accessible fact.

1) There is no known actual innocent executed in the US, at least, possibly, since 1915.

Possibly, 0.4% of all those sentenced to death since 1973 may have been actually innocent. All were released. An incredible record of accuracy - 99.6% accuracy in proper actual guilt convictions, with the 0.4% released (1).

2) Anti death penalty folks say taking the death penalty away eliminates actual innocents dying prior to their exoneration. Nonsense.

While we have executed over 1500 murderers in the US (1973-2021) about 5,000 inmates per year die while in custody (2). We cannot bring back any of those that may have been innocent, either.

3) Murderers that we have allowed to murder again, recidivist murderers, MIGHT number around 20000 since 1973 , based upon existing studies (3).

4)  Since 1973, the same year several states re instated the death penalty, post Furman, some 500, 000 innocents have been murdered by known recidivist criminals. (4).

5) 24 studies, beginning in 1996, find for a deterrent effect, ranging from 1-28 innocent lives spared per execution, or totals from 1,500 - 42,000 innocent lives saved, from 1973-2021 (4).

Based upon an estimated 800,000 murders in the US (1973-2021), that represents a range from 0.18% to 5% of potential murderers who were deterred from committing murder - a huge savings in innocent lives spared.

6) The death penalty spares more innocent lives than does a life sentence, in two additional ways, as well:

Enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation.

No one questions that the death penalty has greater due process protections than a life sentence, thereby the death penalty protects actual innocents to a higher degree than any lesser sanction.

Neither does anyone question that living murderers harm and murder, again and that executed ones do not.

6) REALITY: ARE DEATH PENALTY OPPONENTS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT INNOCENT LIVES AT RISK?

Of course, but . . . The reality is that we can spare murderers lives and thus sacrifice more innocents or we can spare more innocent lives by executing more murderers.

Look at Ernest van den Haag's interview of well known anti death penalty activists. He asked 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 (5).

Based upon our 1500 executions (1973-2021), those anti death penalty folks would chose sparing the lives of 1500 murderers over saving the lives of 150,000 innocents.

Think about that.

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." (5).

For them, they would chose sparing the lives of 1500 murderers (from 1973-2021) over saving an additional 7.3 million innocent lives, taken by murder.

Astounding.

For some very well known leaders of the anti death penalty movement, their motivation is not protecting innocents, but protecting the lives of all murderers, no matter the cost in innocent lives. That's their moral choice.

They, and all death penalty opponents, need to face that.

NOTE: I am making two points with this information. If anti death penalty folks were concerned about innocents, their efforts would be to fix the huge problems in the criminal justice system which really sacrifice innocents lives, as opposed to trying to end the death penalty, a penalty which assists in sparing additional innocent lives.

I think many of those opposed to capital punishment would change their minds if they knew that sparing murderers sacrificed more innocent lives.

Dudley Sharp
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491, Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

======

Victims' Voices

https://murdervictims.com/voices/voices.htm

1) A  Review: The "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds

 

a)   Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List

(see fact checking/vetting model-use it)

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/09/deception-dpic-exoneratedinnocence-list.html 

 

b)  Death Row, "Exonerations", Media  & Intentional Fraud  
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/06/death-row-exonerations-intentional-fraud.html

 

c)  The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Deception

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

 

d)  How many DNA "exonerations" are guilty?

Section (3) within

Death Row, "Exonerations", Media  & Intentional Fraud  
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/06/death-row-exonerations-intentional-fraud.html

 

e)  The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-41-innocent-on-death-row.html

f) "The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation", reports By United States Congress, Senate, 107th Congress, 2d Session, Calender no 731, Report 107-315. The Innocence Protection Act of 2002, (iv) The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation, p 65-69
http://alturl.com/6j7oc

g) "The Innocent and the Shammed", Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
http://coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html

h) f) Not a death penalty case but a great example of folks refusing to fact check/vet/research, as well as intentional deception.

 

The Absurdity of the "Exonerated Five"

The very obvious frauds of the Central Park Five

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/08/central-park-five-some-reality.html

(2) Deaths in Custody Statistical Tables, Bureau of Justice Statistics, SEE 7 links on right side of page. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcrp/dictabs.cfm

(3) "Recidivism of Prisoners Released", Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=44

See both studies, of 1983 and 1994 data

6.6% recidivism rate, 1989 study of 1983 data
1.2% recidivism rate, 2002 study of 1994 data

The combined recidivism rate for the two studies is 3.9%. These rates are based upon re-arrest, not re-conviction.

I suspect the real recidivism rate, looking at 1973-2012, will be closer to half that, at 2%.

Why the recidivism rates should be higher:

Both of these studies only looked at recidivism for 3 years after release. We are concerned with recidivism for 40 years and less, years 1973-2012, as the modern era of new death penalty statutes began in 1973. Recidivism rates will be higher if released prisoners were tracked for the additonal 4 years to 40 years, as opposed to only 3 years. In addition, rates from 1973-1983, will likely be about the same as the 6.6%, if not higher, because we had barely started the period of longer sentences and increased incarcerations rates.

Why the recidivism rates should be lower:

The dramatic reduction in recidivism between the two studies reflects a dramatic increase in sentencing terms and incarceration rates, which amounted to lower rates of early release and thus recidivism.

EXACT NUMBERS: Based upon convictions, 8.4% of those on death row had murdered, at least one person, prior to committing additional murder or murders which put them on death row --an estimated 600-1000 additional innocents murdered, by those who had murdered before, just for that small set that have made it to death row.

Table 8. Criminal history profile of prisoners under sentence of death by race and Hispanic origin, 2005", p 6, Capital Punishment, 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp05.pdf
2005 was the last year of this analysis

(4) See Footnote:

"Dudley Sharp: Far more innocents would die without the death penalty", Dallas Morning News,Texas Death Penalty Blog, December 15, 2010

http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/2010/12/dudley-sharp-far-more-innocent.html/

(5) Louis P. Pojman. "The Wisdom of Capital Punishment." p 281, Excerpted from The Death Penalty by Louis P. Pojman and J. Reiman. Copyright 1998. taken from http://faculty.msmary.edu/conway/PHIL%20400x/Pojman%20Wisdom%20of%20CP.pdf

Related Issues:

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html'

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

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

DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

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

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

Veterinary Claims a Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection

Veterinary Claims a Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection

Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   

Just More Anti-death Penalty Lies

These Veterinary Deceptions were, also, used, within nitrogen hypoxia

 

Within the death penalty debate, there is an allegation that veterinarians are prohibited from using pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the relaxant agent used in human lethal injection, because it may cause and/or mask pain to the animals, within the euthanasia process.

It is also stated that vets are prohibited from using potassium chloride, the heart stooping drug, used thirdly, in the three drug human lethal injection protocol.

In turn, this is used as a new anti-death penalty sound bite - "It is too cruel for animals, but we use it on people."

First, the The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommendations of 2000 (1), inadvertently, support the human lethal injection protocol -- the opposite of what the detractors have been claiming.

AVMA: "When used alone, these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized." (2)

Obviously, no state, which practices human lethal injection, uses a paralytic without an anaesthetic -- EVER. The anesthesia is always used first.

These absurd claims, falsely attributed to veterinary literature, have been a bald faced lie by anti-death penalty activists.

To claim that paralytics are condemned in veterinary euthanasia, without mentioning the specific context, is an intentional deception. (The AVMA does not mention the specific paralytic used in lethal injection for humans).

Secondly, if properly anesthetized, as in human lethal injection, there would be no pain experienced when using Pavulon. That is also well known.

Thirdly, the AVMA, similarly, prohibits the use of potassium chloride, "WHEN USED ALONE". (3) (my capitalization for emphasis).

Of course, human lethal injection uses the two previously mentioned drugs, prior to injection of the potassium chloride. This is well known, as well, thereby revealing more deceptions by the anti death penalty cabal.

Fourth,, the AVMA, specifically, cautions (4):"1. The guidelines in this report are in no way intended to be used for human lethal injection.2. The application of a barbiturate, paralyzing agent, and potassium chloride delivered in separate syringes or stages (the common method used for human lethal injection) is not cited in the report.3.

The report never mentions pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the paralyzing agent used in human lethal injection."

Obviously, the AVMA is saying DON'T use our report to draw any inferences with regard to the human lethal injection protocol. Of course, death penalty opponents decided to ignore that responsible request.The AVMA continues:

"Before referring to the 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, please contact the AVMA to ensure the association's position is stated correctly. Please contact Michael San Filippo, media relations assistant at the AVMA, at 847-285-6687 (office), 847-732-6194 (cell) or msanfilippo(at)avma.org for more information or to set up an interview with a veterinary expert." (4)

Death penalty opponents ignored that request, as well.

Based upon this literature, it is clear that this veterinary nonsense was another anti- death penalty fraud, which, sadly and often, escaped media fact checking, but not media repetition.

The AVMA approves of "potassium chloride in conjunction with prior general anesthesia" (5) for animals -- this is the drug protocol used within most lethal injection protocols, with the exception of the paralytic used in between.

This actually shows support for the human lethal injection protocol, however unintended.

First, this two drug protocol is approved by AVMA, for animals.

Secondly, a disadvantage listed by AVMA for potassium chloride is "clonic spams" (6) -- rapid and violent jerking of muscles soon after injection of the potassium. The paralytic drug, used second, within the human lethal injection protocol, helps to reduce, or eliminate, this effect.

In other words, a review of the AVMA literature finds much support, however inadvertent, for the human lethal injection protocol and nothing that conflicts with or condemns it.

Hopefully, this newest, blatant distortion by the anti-death penalty crowd will soon fade.

Veterinary use of sodium pentobarbital

"Pentobarbital is a barbiturate that is available as both a free acid and a sodium salt, the former of which is only slightly soluble in water and ethanol." (7) (NOTE -- I don't believe this is used for human lethal injection).

In veterinary medicine sodium pentobarbital--traded under names such as Sagatal--is used as ananaesthetic.UBC Committee on Animal Care (2005). Euthanasia. SOP 009E1 - euthanasia - overdose with pentobarbital. The University of British Columbia. URL accessed on 4 October, 2005. Pentobarbital is an ingredient in Equithesin." (7)

It is used by itself, or more often in combination with complementary agents such as phenytoin, in commercial animal euthanasia (2003).

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA. Animal Use Protocols. University of Virginia. URL accessed on 4 October, 2005. injectable solutions. Trade names include Euthasol, Euthatal, Beuthanasia-D and Fatal Plus. "(7)

RELATED TOPICS

Nitrogen Gas; Flawless, peaceful, unrestricted method of execution 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/09/nitrogen-gas-flawless-peaceful.html

Lethal Injection & Nitrogen Hypoxia: 

ProDPinNC: Lethal Injection & Nitrogen Hypoxia: Controversies Resolved

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

======

NOTE ON FOOTNOTES:

The AVMA has re-written parts of the referenced articles (footnotes 1-6, below).

Now located at https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf

Please note their CAUTION, just below the title page, miroirs my complaints, herein,  against the anti death penalty folks,

I haven't redone my footnotes to match up with the changes. Why bother? The anti death penalty folks and the non fact checkers in the media haven't cared about reality for those years, since 2004.

Why would they start, now?

1) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Appendix 1, page 693

2) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Appendix 4, page 696

3) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Page 681

4) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Cover Page

5) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Page 680

6) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Page 681

7) http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Pentobarbital

======

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &

3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history

http://prodpquotes.info/ 

====== 

Victim Services

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/victim-services.html  

 

Victims' Voices

https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices 

======

 

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

 

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html

and

Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html

======

 

Partial CV

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html 

GOV. KITZHABER'S DEATH PENALTY NONSENSE

GOV. KITZHABER'S DEATH PENALTY NONSENSE

From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   

When Gov. Kitzhaber decided to stop executions, his leadership involved presenting 11 points, none of which explained his reasoning for his action.

Gov. Kitzhaber failed to tell us why the death penalty was "morally wrong" and "unjust", the only claims from his statement (1) that might explain his personal decision to quash his official responsibility and his violation of the a public trust, whereby he committed "to uphold the law and could not and would not intervene" in executions.

None of his other "reasons" justify his moratorium on executions, either (1).

After wading through the chaff, the governor's statement is, really, just this:

"I don't like the death penalty. I don't care what the victim survivors or the courts say. I am stopping executions because I think it morally wrong, although I won't tell you why."

To review, point by point:

1) Gov. Kitzhaber: " I do not believe that those (two prior) executions made us safer; . . .".

Reply: Governor, living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. This is an unchallenged truism, with the obvious example of Gary Haugen, who was sent to Oregon prison for one murder and then murdered, again, in prison. Astounding that the governor did not see both the irony and the fallacy of his position, with that one example, staring the governor in the face - this spared repeat murderer, now spared, again.

In, at least three ways, the death penalty and executions protect innocents to a higher degree than life imprisonment; Enhanced incapacitation, as discussed above; enhanced due process, which provides greater protections for actually innocent defendants and enhanced deterrence, as all prospects of sanction deter some and life is much preferred over death, not only by criminals and potential criminals, but by all of us (2).

2) Gov. Kitzhaber: " . . . certainly (executions) did not make us nobler as a society."

Reply: Support for the death penalty is based in justice, the same foundation of support for all legal sanctions. Is there a more noble goal than justice? Unlikely.

3) Gov. Kitzhaber: ".. . I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong."

Reply: The governor never tells us why execution is morally wrong, when that is the sole reason he gives for his decision. Everything else is just claptrap. He did not have enough respect for the murder victims, their survivors, all of those who worked so hard on the cases or for the citizens of Oregon, to explain his moral reasoning. This blatant omission reeks of both contempt and self importance.

Nobility?

4) Gov. Kitzhaber: "The families and friends of victims deserve certainty that justice will be carried out on behalf of the loved ones who have been taken from them in such a cruel fashion."

Reply: The governor's decision improves neither justice nor certainty, but does enhance the cruelty to the victim survivors, who have already suffered way too much.

5) Gov. Kitzhaber: "But the nature of their crimes was not different from other murderers, some of whom are sentenced to death but never executed and others who are sentenced to life in prison." "It is not applied equally to all."

Reply: Governor, that is the case with all crimes and all punishments, as you and all Oregon citizens know. Rape can bring probation or a life sentence, just as all similar crimes may result in vastly different sanctions.

6) Gov. Kitzhaber: "Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain."

Reply: The governor offers no reason why the death penalty is unjust and by his decision, he knowingly made justice less swift and less certain in death penalty cases. His position is that because we cannot have justice in every case, we must do away with justice in all cases. Almost every argument that the governor uses against the death penalty he could just as easily have used against life imprisonment or other sanctions.

7) Gov. Kitzhaber: "The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer. The hard truth is that in the 27 years since Oregonians reinstated the death penalty, it has only been carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights to appeal."

Reply: All criminals have the opportunity to waive their appeals and to serve their sentence without further legal challenge. This is to the common good of both Oregon citizens and of justice. It saves time and financial resources, a benefit to all jurisdictions, and represents an acceptance of a just sanction by the criminal. Will the governor seek a law prohibiting all convicted criminals from waiving their appeals? It's another ridiculous lack of reasoning by the governor.

With Oregon's death penalty, as the governor well knows, the non stop appeals process is the fault of leadership, the legislators, the governor and the judges that allow perversions of the law for never ending appeals.

Instead of supporting that perversion, even more, as the governor, now , does, he could have stated that the will of the people and the jurors should be carried out and that in the next session those perversions will be ended.

8) Gov. Kitzhaber states, along with many others, that the Oregon death penalty protocol is broken.

Reply: Obviously, an execution moratorium will not help that, but only enhances what is already broken. Virginia executes in 7.1 years and has executed nearly 72% of those sentenced to death row (3).

Does the governor care? Of course not. It doesn't matter what real or imagined problems may exist or are remedied, because the governor would oppose execution, under any circumstance, because he is morally opposed. As the governor couldn't or wouldn't explain his moral opposition, he uses a lot of filler, to support his decision, even though non of it was the reason for his decision - a crass political speech, which simply makes things worse, with added insult to victims and their survivors.

9) The governor is dead wrong on why other states got rid of the death penalty.

Illinois' repeal occurred, only, because anti death penalty politicians snuck in quick legislation, during the lame duck session, so that those politicians, voted out of office, could stick a finger in the eyes of the constituents who had rejected them. It was known that the newly elected legislators would have made a death penalty repeal impossible. The majority of Illinois citizens still supported the death penalty.

New Mexico only repealed the death penalty because of the larger number of anti death penalty legislators voted in, on the coattails of Obama, as connfirmed by the main sponsor of the legislation.

None of the arguments against the death penalty, all of which were rebutted, caused the repeal. The majority of New Mexican's still support the death penalty.

New Jersey's death penalty commission, appointed by the anti death penalty governor, was stacked with 13 anti death penalty folks and, maybe, two proponents. Cost had nothing to do with their decision, as they stated in their report. It was only the presence of an anti death penalty governor and an anti death penalty legislature that made the repeal succeed, at a time when death penalty support was 78%.

10) Gov. Kitzhaber: " . . . the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine alone to decide. It is a matter for all Oregonians to decide."

Reply: Exactly. Oregonians have decided on this and the governor simply made an individual, personal decisions, as opposed to his leadership commitment. No US citizen knowingly votes for leadership who make decisions based only upon personal feelings - feelings which contradict democratic process, as well as the promise of the governor, himself.

Yet, that is what Gov. Kitzhaber has, nobly, provided? - Even though Gov. Kitzhaber stated: I was "' 'sworn to uphold the law and could not and would not intervene.', when it came to the execution of Douglas Franklin Wright in 1996." (4).

11) At his news conference, the Governor cited his physicians requirement "to do not harm".

Reply: There is no such requirement, in regard to the death penalty.  Please review:

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

(1) Gov. Kitzhaber's 11/22/2011 "Statement on Capital Punishment"
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Final%20Final%20JK%20Statement%20on%20the%20Death%20Penalty.pdf

(2)   a)  The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

        b) OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

       c) LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION
           99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

(3) "Path to execution swifter, more certain in Va", 12/4/2011, Richmond-Times Dispatch
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/04/tdmain01-path-to-execution-swifter-more-certain-in-ar-1512219/

(4) "Death penalty: Respecting the will of voters ", 12/3/2011, The Oregonian, http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/12/death_penality_respecting_the.html

 

======

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &

3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history

http://prodpquotes.info/ 

====== 

Victim Services

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/victim-services.html  

 

Victims' Voices

https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices 

======

 

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

 

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html

and

Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research

(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html

======

 

Partial CV

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html 

Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby

Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, pro-death penalty expert, former opponent 832-439-2113, CV below

The Troy Davis campaign (1), like so many before it (2), is a simple, blatant fraud, easily uncovered by the most basic of fact checking (1).

The case for Davis' guilt is overwhelming, just as were his due process protections, which may have surpassed that of all but a few death row inmates.

The 2010 federal court innocence hearing found:

" . . . Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis's claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989." (3)

"Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors." (3)

"As a body, this evidence does not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr. Davis's trial."(3)

"The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value." (3)

None of this came as a surprise to anyone who actually followed the case, in contrast to the Save Troy Davis folks who were, willingly, duped or part of the deception  . . .

as, also, reviewed here:

Troy Davis: guilty as charged, By Charles Lane, Washington Post,

September 22, 2011,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/troy-davis-guilty-as-charged/2011/03/04/gIQAh23BoK_blog.html

 

======

Victims' Voices

https://murdervictims.com/voices/voices.htm


1)   a) "Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions, rightly, failed",

http://homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2011/09/25/troy-davis-worldwide-anti-death-penalty-deceptions-rightly-failed/

b) "Troy Davis fairly convicted, not 'railroaded' " 
https://www.savannahnow.com/opinion-column-latest-news/2011-10-06/column-spencer-lawton-troy-davis-fairly-convicted-not

2) Death Row, "Exonerations", Media  & Intentional Fraud  
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/06/death-row-exonerations-intentional-fraud.html 

Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/09/deception-dpic-exoneratedinnocence-list.html

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

3) "Innocence Hearing", ordered by the US Supreme Court, US DISTRICT COURT, in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIV.,RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS, CASE NO. CV409-130
http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf

======

RELATED INFORMATION

The Death Penalty: Fair and Just
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/12/is-death-peanalty-fairjust.html

The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

======

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &

3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history

http://prodpquotes.info/ 

====== 

Victim Services

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/victim-services.html  

 

Victims' Voices

https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices 

======

 

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

 

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html

and

Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html

======

 

Partial CV

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html 

PHYSICIANS, EXECUTIONS & DO NO HARM

Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Medical Ethics Dilemma

Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

 

The Hippocratic Oath and “Do No Harm” have nothing to do with executions.

Some in the medical community have attempted to create an ethical prohibition against medical professionals' involvement in state executions by invoking the famous “do no harm” credo and the Hippocratic Oath.

It is a dishonest effort.

======
The Death Penalty & Medical Ethics Revisited
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-death-penalty-medical-ethics.html 
======

Neither reference is in the context of the state execution of murderers. I find the effort to ban medical professionals' participation in executions an unethical effort to fabricate professional ethical standards, based upon personal anti-death penalty feelings. 


The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version

The select Hippocratic Oath quote, in its original (translated) form, is

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” (1)

This is a prohibition against euthanasia and abortion and has nothing to do with the fabricated medical prohibition of participation in state sanctioned executions.

I am unaware of any other ancient texts or translations which indicate a historical context, with that quote, that prohibits physicians from participation in executions.

In 2004, Dr. Markel, a medical historian, writes, “There are two highly controversial vows in the original Hippocratic Oath that we continue to ponder and struggle with as a profession: the pledges never to participate in euthanasia and abortion.” (2)

In reality, these are, barely, controversial, now. They are, however, inconvenient. Dr. Markel’s article never mentions a context of state execution of murderers, because the oath has nothing to do with it.

Dr. Markel continues: “The Hippocratic reasons for refusing to participate in euthanasia may have been based on a philosophical or moral belief in preserving the sanctity of life or simply on their wish to avoid involvement in any act of assisted suicide, murder, or manslaughter.” (2)

Dr. Markel is speculating. What we do know is that it was a reference to euthanasia and abortion, specifically. There is not even speculation, by Dr. Markel, that the reference had anything to do with the state execution of murderers.

The following are ". . .the results of a study . . . in which 157 deans of allopathic and osteopathic schools of medicine in Canada and the United States were surveyed regarding the use of the Hippocratic Oath”: (3)

1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
3. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.
4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.
5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.
6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.
7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.
8. Only 11% invoke a diety.
9. 8% prohibit abortion.
10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.

There is no mention of the state execution of murderers, because the Hippocratic Oath has nothing to do with it.

Although there is no prohibition on the death penalty, there is one against both euthanasia and abortion.

Yet, various medical associations have fabricated an imagined ethical problem with the death penalty and have, nearly, fully accepted both abortion and euthanasia, in contradiction of that oath.

Now, only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients, but the original Hippocratic Oath states:

“Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.”

100% pledge a commitment to their patients, but only 43% vow being accountable for their medical actions. Some commitment. Ethics?

With these survey results and with medical professionals bringing up the Hippocratic Oath, as if it has something to say in the death penalty debate, possibly we should, now, in the true context of euthanasia and abortion, and other issues, call it what it has become, the 

Hypocrisy Oath.

Many doctors could care less about it or about being honest about it.

For example, In January 2007, The North Carolina Medical Board adopted a policy that physicians participating in executions may lose their license.

In 2009, The North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the Board’s policy, finding that they had exceeded their authority.

Did the Board attempt to prevent physicians from performing abortions or have they issued a statement condemning physicians’ participation in euthanasia? Of course not.

The Lasanga Oath: The (NON) Oath of Hippocrates – Modern Version

The modern version is, most often, identified as that penned by Louis Lasagna in 1964.

It states: “it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.” (4)

This is in the context of killing innocent lives through either abortion or euthanasia.

Quite the about face.

This is the Lasanga oath, the only purpose of which is a transparent denial of the original Oath.

The Lasanga oath shows physicians’ medical ethical/moral acceptance of taking innocent lives, within their medical practice.

But, horror forbid, that physicians participate in taking the lives of guilty murderers, outside of their medical practice.

The blatant hypocrisy of it is clear.

Do No Harm

The famous physician credo “First, do no harm” (a phrase translated into Latin as “Primum nonnocere”) is often mistakenly ascribed to the (Hippocratic) oath, although it appears nowhere in that venerable pledge.” (2)

“Hippocrates came closest to issuing this directive in his treatise Epidemics, in an axiom that reads, “As to disease, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least, to do no harm.” (2)

“As to disease”. Nothing else. There is no relevance outside medicine and, most certainly, no prohibition against medical professionals participation in the state execution of murderers.

Reason & Reality

Those ethical codes pertain to the medical profession, only, and to patients, only.

Judicial execution is not part of the medical profession and executions do not make death row inmates patients. Is that news?

The editors of The Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine agree. They write:

“Execution by lethal injection, even if it uses tools of intensive care such as intravenous tubing and beeping heart monitors, has the same relationship to medicine that an executioner’s axe has to surgery.” (”Lethal Injection Is Not Humane”, PLoS, 4/24/07).

So to, The American Society of Anesthesiologists:

“Although lethal injection mimics certain technical aspects of the practice of anesthesia, capital punishment in any form is not the practice of medicine. ("Statement on Physician Nonparticipation in Legally Authorized Executions,” 10/18/06).

Both confirm the obvious point: The state execution of murderers is not equivalent or connected to the medical treatment of patients. There is no ethical or moral connection. 

Hardly a mystery.

Any rational person can see that the state execution of murderers is not a medical treatment, but a criminal justice sanction. The basis for medical treatment is to improve the plight of the patient, for which the medical profession provides obvious and daily exceptions. 

The basis for execution is to carry out a criminal justice sentence where death is the sanction.

Doctors and nurses can be police and soldiers and can kill, when deemed appropriate, within those lines of duty and without violating the ethical codes of their medical profession, because there is no ethical connection. Similarly, medical professionals do not violate medical codes of ethics, when participating in the state execution of murderers.

Physicians are often part of double or triple blind studies where there is hope that the tested drugs may, someday, prove beneficial. The physicians and other researchers know that many patients, taking placebos or less effective drugs, will suffer more additional harm or death because they are not taking the subject drug or that the subject drug will actually harm or kill more patients than the placebo of other drugs used in the study.

Physicians knowingly harm individual patients, in direct contradiction to their “do no harm” oath.

For the greater good, those physicians sacrifice innocent, willing and brave patients. Of course, there have been medical experiments without consent and, even, today, they continue ("Critical Care Without Consent”, Washington Post, May 27, 2007; Page A01).

Physicians knowingly make exceptions to their “do no harm” requirement, every day, within their profession, where that code actually does apply. In many cases, they should. There are obvious ethical nuances and we should consider and pay attention to them, as is done within the medical profession.

SEE DO NO HARM: Additional Notes, at bottom.

Physicians and medical institutions should chose ethical guidelines which are truly relevant to their profession.

Many medical professionals need to stop the ridiculous ethical posturing and tell the truth – they don’t like the death penalty. In medical writings, against executions, you can easily find a strong bias, evidenced by use of the common and inaccurate anti-death penalty claims, with no apparent effort at fact checking or balance (5)  -- typical ant- death penalty nonsense.

Any participation in executions by medical professionals should be a matter for their own personal conscience.

Had this been an honest effort to discuss long standing medical ethics, based upon 
Hippocrates or “do no harm”, then there would have been an effort to stop medical professionals from participating in euthanasia and abortion. In fact, the opposite has occurred.

Instead, irresponsible medical professionals have turned those obvious, historical, ethical standards upside down and have fabricated, out of thin air, a prohibition against the death penalty.

Why? For personal reasons, some have decided the formerly unethical medical practices of abortion and euthanasia are, now, just fine and that the ethical death penalty is, now, prohibited by a fabricated medical ethic.

There is no foundation for an ethical prohibition against medical professionals participating in executions. Stop using personal bias to fabricate one.

It’s unethical.

======

Of the physicians that responded to a survey: