Thursday, August 02, 2012

Death Penalty Costs: California

updated 3/2022

Responses to

1) An Absurd California Death Penalty Cost Review: A Rebuttal to "Cut This: The Death Penalty"(1)

and

2) The Paula Mitchell/Judge Arthur L. Alarcón study: Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California

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

NOTE: As expected, the media refused to fact check or vet, either.

1) An Absurd California Death Penalty Cost Review: A Rebuttal to "Cut This: The Death Penalty"(1)

updated 3/2022

NOTE: Clark is a Calif. ACLU activist and The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice's (CCFAJ) is a Calif. government commission.

Clark's/CCFAJ's cost review is wildly inaccurate and misleading. I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than there is with their lifer cost evaluations.

Meaning - zero.

None of Clark/CCFAJ's numbers can be relied upon.

Clark/CCFAJ says: "In total, California's death penalty system costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment." (1, b)

For those 724 inmates, that is:

death penalty costs: $137 million per year or about $189,000//inmate/yr.  (1,b)

life imprisonment costs: $11 million/year or $15,000/inmate/yr. (1,b)

It is complete, utter nonsense.

Some reality:

The last full California audit (Sept 2009) found the average costs, 2007-2008, per adult inmate was $49,000/inmate/yr. (2) In 1997, it was $25,000/inmate/yr. (3).

NOTE: In 10 years (1997-2008) the cost/inmate rose nearly 100%. If that escalation of costs continued, the average cost would be an average of $65,000/inmate/yr by year end 2012,for the average adult inmate, not increased security cells and not including additional medical/geriatric care

In 2021, the average cell cost has gone up to $1o2,000/inmate/yr., with $112,000 projected for 2022  .  .  .  not $15,000.
https://presscalifornia.com/2021/06/04/state-prison-population-shrinks-but-spending-goes-up-to-112k-per-inmate
 
The $49,000/inmate/yr (in 2009) is the average for all inmates, not the level IV security of death row inmate like criminals that will cost more, if not much more.

For higher security inmates, which would include those transferred from death row, the costs range from $71,000 - $172,000/inmate/yr. (2009) (4)

Clark/CCFAJ is stating that these enhanced security prisoners will cost $15,000/inmate/yr., or $34,000/inmate/yr LESS than the average cost for all Ca inmates, in 2009.

Clark/CCFAJ's lack of credibility is at an astounding low level - zero.

Clark/CCFAJ's analysis is, laughably, absurd.

Former (Calif.) State Finance Director Says Prop 34’s Cost Savings Claims “Flawed & Incorrect”:

"It is even possible that (death penalty repeal Proposition) 34 will increase costs, in addition to endangering the public. It is not worth the gamble." (5)

 Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.

Without the death penalty, Clark/CCFAJ's select group of former death row murderers would likely be in level IV security and, as lifers, would die as geriatric prisoners or from earlier illness, likely costing on average $80,000-$100,000/inmate/yr., or more (2009), with a rare few costing a $1 million or more per year, with illness and/or geriatric stages.

Geriatric problems often begins at age 50, for inmates, because of lifestyle.

NOTE: The California Medical Facility for corrections averages $83,000/inmate/yr. (6). There, likely, would be additional costs when dealing with Level IV security prisoners.

But, for Clark/CCFAJ, former death row inmates, now lifers, cost $15,000/inmate/yr.

Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.

Clark/CCFAJ will admit, if prodded (7) that "the figure of $137 million estimates the entire cost of the death penalty system, not simply housing, but also inclusive of all post-conviction costs, including legal appeals."

In other words, Clark/CCFAJ is admitting escalating the death penalty costs over the alleged cost comparisons of incarceration between lifers and death row. Not at all surprising Clark/CCFAJ excludes such from the lifer costs.

The Clark/CCFAJ's cost comparisons/evaluations are a very bad joke. Instead of making an honest apples to apples cost comparison, Clark/CCFAJ brings us a bad apples to newest Rolls Royce cost comparison, as if it were apples to apples.

Because so many of these cost comparisons are so pathetically unreliable, California considered that an objective assessment by RAND should be considered (8). The basis for a proper evaluation was presented, but Ca rejected doing the study, because . . . it was too expensive!

CONCLUSION - Save even more money?

There is no need for California to have a death row. Current death row prisoners can be placed in Level IV security cells, or lower/higher levels, depending upon evaluations, just as Missouri and Kansas do.

California can make their death sentenced inmates cheaper than their lifers, if they properly manage their citizens money, as Virginia does. California must only have the will to be responsible stewards of their citizens resources - something that seems to elude California lawmakers, just as basic, accurate evaluations evade Clark/CCFAJ.

NOTE:  Virginia executes, on average, within 7.1 years and has executed 108 of those so sentenced, since 1976, or 72% of those so sentenced, a protocol that would, on average, be less expensive than comparable LWOP cases. 

Update: On 10/1/2015, Virginia executed a serial rapist/murderer. Through full appeals, it took 5 years from sentencing to execution.

With responsible judges, as in Virginia, California would have about 50 inmates on death row, not 750.

Today, there is no reason for Ca death row to cost more than level IV security and a proper evaluation would likely show death row cheaper or no more expensive than Level IV.

There may be no cost savings in getting rid of death row, with the exception that, if Calif had a responsible death penalty protocol, there would be many more executed murderers, thus reducing incarceration costs on death row, saving money on incarcerations costs over other level IV prisoners.

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

2) The Paula Mitchell/Judge Arthur L. Alarcón study: Death Penalty vs Life Costs in California (9)

Mitchell/Alarcón have made their study highly suspect by their refusal to share their database, which we can presume is unreliable, otherwise they would be happy to share it.

BUT . . . they confirm, up front, that it is unreliable.

"As the (CCFAJ) concluded in the Final Report, “[I]t is impossible to ascertain the precise costs of the administration of California’s death penalty law at this time. But the choices that California faces require some comparison of projected costs; for this purpose, rough estimates will have to do.” FINAL REPORT, supra note 4, at 144 (emphasis added)." (10)

It's absolutely certain that the CCFAJ is horrible, as detailed, above. Therefore, we know the Mitchell/Alarcon study is even worse.

REALITY:

Rough estimates find that life without parole may cost more in California than the death penalty.

If the Paula Mitchell/Judge Arthur L. Alarcón study is accurate (and they tell you it's not, above -- "impossible" "projected" "rough estimates") and the death penalty has cost California $4 billion since 1977 and there have been 2700 death penalty trials, that would mean, on average, the cases cost $1.5 million/case, for pre-trial, trial, appeals, incarceration and executions.

Approximately 900 have been sent to death row and about 2/3 of all death penalty trials end with a sentence less than death, therefore 2700 death penalty trials.

Credit death penalty

If we calculated the cost savings by having the death penalty, of a plea bargain to LWOP, only possible with the death penalty, such would be the cost of trial and appeals of a LWOP case, deducted as a cost credit  to the death penalty side of the ledger and such would result in a lesser net cost per death penalty case.

This would reduce the average cost of a death penalty case by approximately $100,000, which I consider a wildy low estimate.

Increasing costs - death penalty

The 2/3 of cases that do not receive the death penalty, in a death penalty trial, will still have appeals, but, most likely, not as extensive as cases receiving the death penalty. If these cases were given LWOP, then the appeals, incarceration and geriatric care costs will transferred to the LWOP side of the ledger.

Necessarily, that would increase the average cost of the remaining 900 cases that were sentenced to death, by approximately $600,000 added cost per death penalty case for additional appeals, likely a high estimate.

Combined, this would increase the average cost of a death penalty case by $500,000.

Including those two cost considerations, the average death penalty case might be around $2 million

(adding $600,000 in additional appellate costs and subtracting $100,000 for the LWOP plea, adding, on average, $500,000/case for the 900 cases that received the death penalty.)

LWOP costs:

It seems that the incarceration costs will be considerably higher than pro Prop 34 folks have told us, with costs spiraling, hugely, with geriatric care.

If California ends the death penalty, all death row prisoners who would become LWOP inmates, and based upon my review, above, it will cost around $75,000/yr/inmate, on average, or about $3,000,000 total/inmate, for 40 years, a figure which does not include pre-trial, trial, appeals, medical/geriatric care nor inflation.

Including those additional four cost considerations, the average LWOP case would be approximately $3.75 million.

As Prop 34 is stating that LWOP will replace the death penalty, there is no credit for plea bargains, because the Prop 34 folks are anticipating that those previously subject to the death penalty will receive LWOP.

Obviously, anything short of LWOP will negate many of claims from the pro Prop 34 folks.

It is hard to see where any cost savings may be if Ca ends the death penalty. As the former California Finance Director found, it may even increase cost - possibly by a considerable margin.

And of course, we do have a foundation of “It is impossible to ascertain the precise costs of the administration of California’s death penalty law at this time. But the choices that California faces require some comparison of projected costs; for this purpose, rough estimates will have to do.”

To be more precise, both the CCFAJ and The Paula Mitchell/Judge Arthur L. Alarcón studies are full of it, to be kind and gentle.
======================================

MANY ADDITIONAL STATE COST REVIEWS

DEATH PENALTY COST: SAVING MONEY

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

(1)   (a)  An article by James Clark, field organizer, ACLU of Southern California.

        (b) pg. 84 chart, "Estimating the Annual Costs of Four Alternatives", from CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN CALIFORNIA, JUNE 30, 2008

(2) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: It Fails to Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More Effectively Monitor and Manage Its Operations, September 2009 Report 2009-107.1, California State Auditor, pg 77, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf

(3) Ibid,

(4) Pelican Bay, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(5) Fiscal expert debunks cost savings argument of Prop 34

(6) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: It Fails to Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More Effectively Monitor and Manage Its Operations, September 2009 Report 2009-107.1, California State Auditor, page 80, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf

(7) Cut This: The Death Penalty, June 28, 2010

(8) "Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California: Insights for Future Data Collection in California, RAND Corp., 2/2008

(9) Executing the Will of the Voters?: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature’s Multi-Billion Dollar Death Penalty Debacle, 44 LOY. L.A. L. REV. S41 (2011),

(10) Ibid, footnote 38, page S62

======
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
Posted by at

Friday, July 20, 2012

RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS

update 1/2024

 RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

My comments entered as "Sharp:".

 Sharp:  if of interest, population
2012 Census: 63% white, 16.9% Hispanic, 13% black (a) 
1970 Census:  11.1% black, 87.7% white,  (b)
2020 Census: Hispanic 18.7%, white 61.6%, black 12.4%, (c)
c) https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-united-state-2010-and-2020-census.html 

 1)  Blume, John H.; Eisenberg, Theodore; and Wells, Martin T., "Explaining Death Row's Population and Racial Composition" (2004), Cornell Law Faculty Publications
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/231

 " . . . based on the number of murders, African Americans are sentenced to death at lower rates than whites."

 " . . . African Americans commit more than 50 percent of the country's murders yet they comprise 40 percent of death row. Furthermore, the excess of the African-American percentage of murderers over the African-American percentage of death row is greatest where the conventional wisdom would least expect it - in the South."

 "How can African-American under representation on death row be reconciled with the well-documented racial effects in capital cases? One racial effect, disproportionate presence of minorities on death row, is an artifact of using the general population, rather than the murderer population, as the basis for comparison. If the focus is on the operation of the capital punishment system, the population of murderers is an arguably more appropriate starting point."

 Sharp: It is the only starting point. Any claim of racism based upon a correlation of racial/ethnic population counts to death row population is a common and intended deception by death penalty opponents. Population of murderers, more correctly, capital murderers, is the only relevant count.

Population counts are just another deception, by anti-death penalty folks, for non-thinkers. Gee, you know women make up 50% of the general population, but only 10% of the prison population. Maybe we should even it out, you know, to be fair. It is that stupid.
"The white defendant-black victim category is too small a portion of murders to materially influence the size of death row." 

 "If, however, black defendant-white victim murders increase black representation on death row, and the bottom line is underrepresentation of blacks on death row, some race of defendant-race of victim combination must decrease it. The strongest candidate is the black defendant-black victim combination due to the evidence of prosecutorial reluctance to seek death in "black on black" cases."

 Sharp: Blume, et al, simply missed the data, here. Any death row population "imbalance" is based upon the fact that black on black murders are less likely to be a capital murder than are black on white murders. That is the explanation. It is not prosecutorial reluctance, but legal application.

 "Texas sentences murderers to death at a rate below the national mean."

 ======
From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively. (Table 12, Executions and other dispositions of inmates sentenced to death, by race and Hispanic origin, 1977–2012, Capital Punishment 2012, Bureau of Justice Statistics, last edited 11/3/14)
======

 2) "Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

 "After accounting for some of the many factors that may influence penalty decisions, neither race of the defendant nor race of the victim appreciably improved prediction of who was sentenced to death . . . ".

 " . . . legal variables, such as prior criminal history and the aggravated nature of the murder, are the proven basis for imposition of the death penalty. The black/white variation in sentencing has generally been reduced to zero when such legal variables are introduced as controls."

 "There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing."

 "There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than minority victim cases to result in imposition of the death penalty." 

 "As blacks represent 42% of murderers and whites 20% (1980-2008), we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are their black counterparts." (see 7, below, Race, ethnicity and crime statistics).

 3) "The Death Penalty and Racism The Times Have Changed", Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, The American Interest, Nov/Dec 2010,
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=901

 "It would be naïve to suggest that racism has been eliminated in the United States; but it would be equally mistaken to suggest that nothing has changed. To the extent that death penalty foes do the latter, they are misinterpreting the data and misleading public opinion."

 4) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
BY KENT SCHEIDEGGER

"After adjusting for relevant case characteristics, so as to compare apples to apples, there is no difference between the death sentence rates of black and white offenders, beyond the inevitable level of statistical “noise” inherent in such studies. “In sum, we have found no evidence that the race of the defendant matters in the processing of capital cases in the state."

 5) RACE, SENTENCING & THE DEATH PENALTY

 Race of the victim

 Could it be that whites are, overwhelmingly, the victims in death row cases because whites are, overwhelmingly, the victims in capital crimes?

 What is the ratio of white to black victims under the relevant, but non-homicide circumstances, which, when combined with homicide, become capital crimes? 

 (A) The most relevant economic violent crime is robbery with injury, which shows a 4:1 ratio of white victims to black victims (C.5);

 (B) By a 5:1 ratio, whites are more likely to be victims of rape/sexual assault than are blacks (BJS, 1977-1984);

 (C) For all property crimes (theft, burglary, auto theft), there is a 7:1 ratio of white to black victims ("Sourcebook, 1994," BJS 1995, tables 3.21,3.25);

 (D) A comparison of only black and white perpetrators and victims reveal that whites are five times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than are blacks, or 7.5 v 1.5 million, a 5:1 ratio ("Criminal Victimization, 1993" BJS 1995);

 and, for homicides, which by themselves, qualify for the death penalty:

 (E) In death penalty states, police victim murders are capital crimes. From 1985-1994, 87% of murdered officers were white, 12% black, or 7:1 (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, FBI:UCR, 1994);

 (F) Victims are, overwhelmingly white, in serial murder cases, thereby disproportionately and correctly raising the number of white victims in those death row/execution cases. In such death row cases, 87% of the victims are white, 13% black, or 7:1 (NAACP LDF data, 1996).  67% of serial murder victims are white, 24% black (What data on 3,000 murderers and 10,000 victims tells us about serial killers, Zachary Crockett, VOX, https://www.vox.com/2016/12/2/13803158/serial-killers-victims-data

 (G) Many death row cases involve stranger/victim murders. There is a 7:1 ratio of white to black strangers (US Census, avg. 1970-80-90); and

 (H) Research and appellate courts (through McCleskey) have confirmed that white victim murders are the most aggravated, thus, by statute, enhancing the likelihood of a death sentence in those cases (C. 1-5 & 9-12). These factors, and others within this section, are consistent with the 6:1 ratio of white to black victims in capital cases.

 But, wait, don’t blacks and whites represent about an equal number of murder victims? Yes, but, make no mistake, murder victims and capital murder victims are two very distinct groups. And only capital murders are relevant to death penalty cases.

 Capital crimes are very unique, combining murder with specific circumstance, such as subsets A-H. IF homicide rates are statistically consistent within subsets A-D, as McCleskey and additional studies indicate (C. 1-5 & 9-12), then it is subsets A-H, with additional required factors such as the murderer’s criminal history, capital procedures (see F), capital statutes, crime statistics, aggravating factors and other specific facts of the case (hereinafter McCleskey et al), which result in the distribution of victims in these cases.

 (I) Why are black on white murders more numerous on death row than white on black murders?

 With the crimes of robbery with injury, blacks are 21 times more likely to be involved in such crimes as are whites. This 21:1 ratio represents 1.4 million black offender(s)/white victim vs. 68,000 white offender(s)/black victim for robbery with injury crimes (Sharp, using BJS, 1977-84 data).

 Statistically, there will be an equal ratio of those injured who will die, meaning the same ratio, 21:1, will represent the most common capital murder, robbery/murders.

 The more severe injuries will result in death, regardless of racial characteristics of offenders or victims. This is a huge data base, likely to be more accurate and representative. 

 "The white defendant-black victim category is too small a portion of murders to materially influence the size of death row." from section 1, above.

 ====== 

 HOW VILE ARE ANTI DEATH PENALTY ACTIVISTS?

 "The most vile strategy of death penalty opponents is their use of propaganda to nurture hatreds and mistrust between race and class."

 "Bryan Stevenson, a well known opposition spokesman and attorney with Equal Justice Initiative, claims that the death penalty reflects the middle class’ desire to strike out at the poor and racial minorities. Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) joins this hideous chorus, proclaiming that "(m)iddle-class and upper middle-class white people...are so much for the death penalty (to) ‘Keep those dangerous people (the poor and minorities) in their place.’ "

 Sharp: Simply foul claims with nothing to back them up. Folks support the death penalty for the same reasons they support all sanctions - justice, a sanction commensurate with the harm of the crime. Gallup polling showed 81% support for the execution of mass murderer Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. Support was consistent through all racial and economic groups.

 ======

 6) McCleskey v Kemp, the infamous race based death penalty case decided by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

Nearly, every academic and/or anti-death penalty groups/folks either lie about this case or are, willfully, ignorant, as are most in the media world.

 Sharp:  The US Supreme Court misunderstood the math involved. They ignorantly wrote: "defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks." (1,2)

 Totally inaccurate. It was by odds of 4.3 times, or an odds multiplier of 4.3, which can mean a difference as low as 2-4%, as opposed to the 330% difference represented by 4.3 times. (1,2)

SCOTUS blew it big time on this.

 Furthermore, the database, which, allegedly supported McCleskey's charge of racism, did no such thing and was, completely, unreliable. (3,4)

 "The best models which (David) Baldus was able to devise (within McCleskey v Georgia (Kemp)) which account to any significant degree for the major non-racial variables, including strength of the evidence, produce no statistically significant evidence that race plays a part in either [the prosecutor’s or the jury’s] decisions in the State of Georgia." (3,4)

 "After a thorough review, Judge Forrester concluded that “the (Baldus) data base has substantial flaws and . . . petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it is essentially trustworthy." (3,4)

 " ... Baldus et al. failed to prove (and the State’s experts succeeded in rebutting) the basic claims made in the Baldus study.45 They did not just fail; they failed dismally. The Baldus study lay in shreds when Judge Forrester got through with it." (3,4)

 "The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, commended the district court “for its outstanding endeavor” in analyzing the validity of the Baldus study, and there is little doubt that a review of the factual finding that the study was invalid would have been affirmed under the applicable “clearly erroneous” standard." (3,4)

 Read Federal District Court Judge Forrester's full rejection of Baldus' database for McCleskey.

 An even more thorough review is provided by Joseph Katz, who did the methodological review of the Baldus database, which was rife with errors and problems. I have it, if you care to research.

 Based upon experience, most, if not all law schools, wrongly confirm the Baldus database.

These articles, just below (1-4), give a good explanation of some core problem with David Baldus, in the McCleskey case and another of his reviews.

 I am unaware of Baldus making any efforts to correct these many misconceptions, over the many years that he should have. Despicable. I debated Baldus on these issues.

1) "The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics" 
By John Allen Paulos, Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1998 
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/12/opinion/op-2965

2) See “The Odds of Execution” within “How numbers are tricking you”, by Arnold Barnett, MIT Technology Review October, 1994
https://geocities.restorativland.org/CapitolHill/4834/barnett.htm 

(3)  Rebutting the Myths About Race and the Death Penalty, Kent Scheidegger, 10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 147 (2012).
sign in to SSRN and you can access it, here (it's free):
 and
(4) McCleskey v Kemp: SCOTUS ERROR & LEGAL DECEPTION

 7) Race, ethnicity and crime statistics.

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

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

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

 Sharp: As the most common capital murders, those which are death penalty eligible, are rape/murders and robbery/murders, the perceived "disparities" (aka expected multiples) may be even greater than the numbers, above, as reason could predict.

 "Recent studies suggest a decline in the relative Black effect on violent crime in recent decades and interpret this decline as resulting from greater upward mobility among African Americans during the past several decades."

 "However, other assessments of racial stratification in American society suggest at least as much durability as change in Black social mobility since the 1980s."

 When correcting for the Hispanic effect:

 "Results suggest that little overall change has occurred in the Black share of violent offending in both UCR and NCVS estimates during the last 30 years."

 From

 REASSESSING TRENDS IN BLACK VIOLENT CRIME, 1980.2008: SORTING OUT THE "HISPANIC EFFECT" IN UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS ARRESTS, NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY OFFENDER ESTIMATES, AND U.S. PRISONER COUNTS, See pages 208-209, FN 5,  DARRELL STEFFENSMEIER, BEN FELDMEYER, CASEY T. HARRIS, JEFFERY T. ULMER, Criminology, Volume 49, Issue 1, Article first published online: 24 FEB 2011  
https://www.academia.edu/8359043/Reassessing_Trends_in_Black_Violent_Crime_1980-2008_Sorting_out_the_Hispanic_Effect_in_UCR_Arrests_NCVS_Offenders_Estimates_and_U.S._Prisoner_Counts 

 8) "Black on white" crime vs "white on black" crime, gathered from a Google search, for the previous 12 months, from 8/30/13:

 a) Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

 This was the original link, which is bad

http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas

 This appears to be the same data:

http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/16241316/Federal_Statistics_of_black_on_white_violence_with_links_and_mathematical_extrapolation_formulas

 b) Blacks who commit homicide do so at a rate about 7.5 times larger than whites who commit homicide. The trend in black homicide correlates well with the change in overall homicide. This disparity also exists for other crimes: blacks commit them at about 7-10 times the rates of whites.

 There are many different graphs of crime comparisons at this site.
Black And White Homicide Rates: Who’s Killing Whom?     http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7168

 c) In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.

 New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms MacDonald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/19/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism/

 d) The bottom line: While a white person is far more likely to be victimized by a black than the other way around (21% vs. 7%), the chances are three times as great that a white person will be victimized by another white than by a black.

 The exception here is robbery. Whites are held up by blacks 49% of the time and by whites only 37%. Still, though violent crime is predominantly white on white or black on black, it is also true that black criminals commit more crimes against white victims (nearly 1.1 million in 1992) than they do against blacks (just under 1 million).

 THE FACTS: Blacks, who represent just 12.5% of the U.S. population, account for a disproportionate share of violent crime. Still, the fact remains that whites commit more such crimes -- 54% vs. 45% for blacks, (even though blacks are 12.5% of the population) according to FBI arrest statistics. The numbers also vary widely depending on the crime, with blacks responsible for more murders and robberies (55% and 61% of these crimes, respectively) and whites committing more rapes and aggravated assaults (56% and 60%).     http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2092547/pg1

 From previous research

 With the crimes of robbery with injury, blacks are 21 times more likely to be involved in such crimes as are whites. This 21:1 ratio represents 1.4 million black offender(s)/white victim vs. 68,000 white offender(s)/black victim for robbery with injury crimes (Sharp, using BJS, 1977-84 data).

 Likely, this also represents the same ratio that will exist with robbery/murders, the most common capital murders, those eligible for the death penalty. The more severe injuries will result in death, regardless of racial characteristics of offenders or victims. This is a huge data base, likely to be more accurate and representative.

 "The white defendant-black victim category is too small a portion of murders to materially influence the size of death row." From section 1, at top.

======
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
Posted by at

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Death Penalty Costs: Maryland

"Maryland Cost Study Problems: Urban Institute"
Dudley Sharp, 2/2009

To: Maryland Legislature, Prosecutors and media throughout the region

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

 SUMMARY: The cost errors, within the Majority Report, are so substantial that they cannot be considered reliable. Is it likely that a properly managed death penalty system would be less expensive than a true life sentence? Read on.

 Some observations on the Urban Institute (UI) Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland (1) as well as on the Majority Report.

 The UI conclusion was that the lifetime case cost for the 56 death penalty cases will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million, or $106 million more than if death wasn't pursued in those cases or about $47,000 per year per inmate, more.

The study found that the average cost of a case where a death notice was not sought was $1.1 million/case, that being $250,000 for adjudication and $860,000 for confinement/prison costs.

 Unfortunately, many more cases were used than just those which make up life without parole (LWOP). This, wrongly and totally, skewed the results.

 That was inappropriate from a public policy standpoint and the majority and UI should have known it.

 The only public policy cost discussion regarding the death penalty, nationwide, is the cost differential between LWOP cases and death penalty cases. This is very well known, If anyone doesn't know it, it would take 10 minutes online to figure it out.

 It begs the question, why did the UI muddy the waters with a bunch of cases that didn't get LWOP?

 Regardless of UI's reasons, the answer is, they shouldn't have.

 Here's why.

 1) The public policy debate is concentrated on LWOP as a considered replacement for the death penalty. Sentences less than LWOP are not under consideration in this current debate.

 2) By including cases of less than LWOP, within the non death category, UI and the majority have lowered the costs of that category, perhaps substantially, and has misled or confused the public as to the real cost disparities, if any, which may exist between the death penalty and LWOP in Maryland.

 3) Had UI only included LWOP cases in that category, the cost disparity would be reduced, perhaps substantially.

 Using current data, scenarios exist that could result in a finding that the death penalty may actually be less expensive than LWOP. See below.

 What wasn't calculated

 4) a) Each case, whereby a plea bargain to a sanction less than death was rendered, the state saves about $250, 000/case for legal expenses, based upon UI estimates.

 b) The number is, likely, far above that $250,000/case evaluation, because 1) UI wrongly included non LWOP cases, thus reducing the overall costs, and 2) wrongly credited the cost reduction of those pleas, within the LWOP category, when, instead, 3) a credit of $250,000/case, but likely much larger, should have been placed in the death case data calculations, resulting in an additional increase per case cost within the true LWOP category and a greater reduction in the death case cost category. Why? Because the LWOP plea bargain ONLY exists because of the presence of the death penalty, therefore the plea cost benefits must be counted as a net cost savings in the death penalty ledger, the opposite of what UI did.

 Properly, this credit can happen only when LWOP plea cases are isolated. This is public policy 101. The majority and UI wrongly discounted plea bargains to LWOP, when the discount belonged to the death penalty.

If the plea credit is $250,000, then the UI misapplication creates a $500,000 error, as the UI wrongly credited LWOP with that discount, which, correctly, should have been applied to the death penalty.

 5) For example:

 a) Presume the average death penalty eligible LWOP case, resulting in LWOP, has adjudication costs of $500, 000, from pre trial to conviction and throughout appeals. If a LWOP sentence was given as part of a plea bargain, prior to a death notice being filed, UI shows that cost as $0 for adjudication, thus lowering the average cost of all cases where death wasn't pursued in potentially capital cases.

That would be improper, from any standpoint.

 b) A LWOP plea bargain can only occur because the state has the death penalty. So, instead of lowering the average cost of all LWOP cases, all LWOP plea cases would be removed from the LWOP database and a cost credit of $500,000 would be applied as a cost benefit within death penalty category, because it was solely the presence of the death penalty which allows for a plea bargain to LWOP.

Because of that proper transfer of credit, death penalty costs would drop substantially and the average costs of LWOP would rise, substantially.

 c) That results in two changes:

 1) The average cost of LWOP cases will rise, possibly substantially, because a $0 adjudication cost entry will be removed from the LWOP cases, thus increasing the costs of the average LWOP case; and

2) The average cost of death penalty cases will be lower, possibly substantially, because a $500, 000 cost reduction will be made to the death penalty cost basis, for each such LWOP plea.

 To state the obvious, UI made an error in reversing the credit in pleas.

 6) For an accurate public policy review of death penalty costs vs LWOP costs, Maryland Legislators should:

 a) Compare the costs of only the death penalty cases which were pursued and a death penalty resulted and only death penalty eligible LWOP cases that were pursued, resulting in a LWOP sentence; and

 b) include the proper calculations for credit of LWOP pleas bargains, which are solely the result of the presence of the death penalty.

 c) Why exclude the death penalty cases which were pursued, resulting in sentences less than the death penalty? For the same reason we exclude LWOP cases which result in sentences of less than LWOP.

 You should be looking , only, at true death cases costs vs true LWOP costs. If UI wants to add a bunch of other cost categories, fine, but these are the two that must be done.

 They weren't.

 COST SAVINGS - Death Row incarceration

 1) The extra $350,000 per case for additional cost for death row incarceration is an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. Missouri and Kansas don't have a death row for their death sentenced prisoners.

 2) There is no reason that death penalty appeals should take longer than 7-10 years. Since 1977, Virginia has executed 113 murderers, within 7 years of full appeals, on average. Good management matters.
a) Both appellate paths, direct appeal and writ, should travel through the appellate process, at the same time.

 b) The legislature, trial and appellate courts should work together to establish reasonable time frames for appeals and responses to them.

GERIATRIC CARE - Prisoner geriatric care has recently been found to be about $70,000/inmate/year, on average. Has that been calculated in Maryland?

See   INCREDIBLE COSTS: LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/incredible-costs-life-without-parole.html 

REQUIREMENT

 Maryland must redo their calculations to compare costs of true death penalty eligible LWOP cases to death penalty cases, for two reasons.

First, it is the only public policy cost issue which exists, with regard to the death penalty in Maryland

 Secondly, what you have, now, cannot be relied upon.

The Minority Report

"The Urban Institute study that puts the cost of the death penalty at $186 million over twenty years is, at best, inflated and at worse, ridiculous."(2)
 "The simple fact is that if the death penalty is repealed, no prosecutor, judge, clerk or public defender will lose their job." (2)
 "Not one actual dime will be saved.(2)" if the death penalty is abolished.

UI: Additional Errors in Judgement

UI's reliance on Donahue and Wolfers (2006), who have been highly critical of some of the recent studies finding for deterrence, was unwarranted and inappropriate.

 UI's authors failed to note that Donahue and Wolfers criticisms have been dissected and trashed by those authors whose studies found for deterrence.

I believe all of those replies, heavily critical of Donahue and Wolfers, were published prior to the UI report.

 Furthermore, UI failed to mention that Donahue and Wolfers' work was not peer reviewed, but many and most of the studies finding for deterrence were. Had Donahue and Wolfers work been peer reviewed, it is a question if it ever would have been published in a peer reviewed publication.

 Both of these points are important and inexcusable omissions by UI.

 Instead of mentioning the rebuttals, UI, instead, deferred to Donahue and Wolfers, as a way of neutralizing the importance of the studies finding for deterrence, and then mentioned a study which found against deterrence.

 UI wrongly states that studies go either way so we shouldn't bother with them.

 Total nonsense. 16 (now 24, as of 2012) recent studies, including strong rebuttals to criticism, find for death penalty deterrence.

 In one reply to Donahue and Wolfers, after their data had been re-run, based upon Donahue and Wolfers criticism:

 "I oppose the death penalty. " " But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?" "Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it." "The results are robust, they don't really go away" "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.".

Prof. Naci Mocan, Economics Chairman, University of Colorado at Denver, "Studies say death penalty deters crime", ROBERT TANNER, Associated Press, June 10, 2007, 2:01 PM ET

 Furthermore, one of the deterrence studies found a $70 million cost benefit, per execution, because of the number of lives saved per execution.

 Obviously, that would render the death penalty a huge cost benefit in Maryland.

 Many other important conclusions of the deterrence studies were omitted from the UI report. If UI didn't wish to give a proper, accurate review of deterrence, stay away from it. Why wrongly muddy the waters?

 Public policy makers take note.

 UI's Misleading Conclusion

 The UI authors stated that:

"Prior research on the costs of capital punishment in other states unambiguously finds that capital cases are more expensive to prosecute than non-capital cases. "

 To "prosecute", generally yes, but not always.

And when did the studies ONLY look at prosecution?

 In one of UI's included studies, Cook, North Carolina Cost Study (1993), the UI authors seemed to have missed a very important and obvious point.

 The study finds that, for two different calculations, that the death penalty costs $163, 000 and $213,000/case more than a life sentence.

But, the calculation for a life sentence is only to 20 years.

For a true life sentence, you would be adding $300, 000 or more to each life case, meaning that a life sentence costs more than the death penalty.

Furthermore, the authors conceded not including geriatric care, recently found to be $69, 000/inmate/yr. meaning lifers cost a lot more than death sentenced prisoners, possibly adding an additional $300,000/case, or more, for a true LWOP sentence.

 That could render life cases $600, ooo or more, more expensive than death sentences in North Carolina.

 Furthermore, the calculations didn't include the benefit of plea bargains to life, possible only because of the death penalty.

Unambiguous, UI? Not close.

 Based upon the UI authors not seeing these very obvious and important facts, or deciding not to share them within their report, one may conclude that UI authors may have made similar errors or omissions in their review of the other included studies.

 Reviewers should keep that in mind.

 CONCLUSION

 UI, a public policy institution, avoided the only public policy issue which exists in the death penalty cost debate:

"What is the difference in cost between the death penalty and a true LWOP?"

 Depending upon the number of plea bargains to LWOP, there may be very little cost difference between the death penalty and LWOP.

 Furthermore, if both the presence of the death penalty, as well as executions, saves many innocent lives, as 16 (now 28) of the recent deterrence studies (1) suggest, then the benefit of the death penalty far surpasses any alleged cost deficit, if any, or is a huge added benefit to any cost benefit of the death penalty, if there is one.

 ======

 MANY ADDITIONAL STATE COST REVIEWS

 DEATH PENALTY COST: SAVING MONEY
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

 ======


(1) http://www.urban.org/publications/411625.html
(2) Page 13-15, withinThe Minority Report of The Maryland Commission on Capital Cases, which is hidden, between pages 128-129, within the Majority report. The Minority Report is not even listed within the table of contents, yet is 22 pages long, longer than all but one of the sections in the Majority Report.
MARYLANDCOMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FINAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
December 12, 2008,

 RELATED ISSUES

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

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

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

 DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATEShttp://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 
 
======
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
Posted by at

Carlos DeLuna: Another False Innocence Claim?

Carlos DeLuna: Another False Innocence Claim?
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

No one can, responsibly, accept what the Liebman/DeLuna report,”Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution,” says, without fully fact checking it, as well as evaluating bias.

It is unwise to, blindly, accept any study.

Downright foolish it would be to blindly accept a study from within a hotly contested public policy debate, when the study was conducted by an active partisan within that debate.

James Liebman is an active anti-death penalty defense attorney.

When reviewing the previous record of both Liebman and the anti-death penalty movement, a healthy skepticism is required and wise.

What happened when folks took the time to fact check Liebman's prior opus, "A Broken System"?

Take a look.

"A Broken Study: A Review of 'A Broken System"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/broken-study-review-of-broken-system.html

This should be a major issue with Liebman's credibility, today, but I think many in the media have made it clear that it will not matter, as few are going to fact check this latest tome, either, or bring up that last one's problems, instead just accepting both on blind faith, as is common with media and anti-death penalty claims.

Regarding credibility, it is astounding that Liebman would allow any references to Rev. Pickett, in connection to supporting an innocent claim for DeLuna. Pickett has zero credibility, based upon "The DeLuna Deception: At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?", below.

Liebman either didn't fact check Pickett or he didn't care - or some other excuse? Regardless, it goes to lack of credibility.

But, again, if the media won't fact check, what does Liebman have to lose by putting Pickett forward?

Any good anti-death penalty defense counsel, as Liebman, or any crusading anti -death penalty journalist, as David Grann, can make a convincing case, absent the prosecution's case and rebuttal and absent any fact checking/vetting by media.

For example:

"Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?",
by David Grann, The New Yorker, 9/7/2009:
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media meltdown & the death penalty
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown.html 

Cameron Todd Willingham: Guilty By Forensic Science
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/cameron-todd-willingham-guilty-by.html 

Possibly, at some point, Liebman's report will be fact checked, as these "innocent" claims were:

updated:  
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000 

The Perfect Storm

The DeLuna case is the perfect storm for anti-death penalty folks. Both the "innocent" and "guilty" parties are dead and an, often, way too eager press plays defense mouthpiece for an anti-death penalty report.

Am I saying that this newest Liebman report is just another anti-death penalty tome whereby the conclusions can either be easily rebutted or that stronger positions can be made for guilt, with a thorough review, as was the case with many prior such cases?

No. But anyone would be a fool not to consider that possibility, which is why media fact checking is required and is also the reason why media fact checking may be unlikely.

Time will tell, as it has in the past. Maybe fact checking, too?!

MORE ON DELUNA

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

"Those closest to Carlos DeLuna case say Columbia Human Rights study doesn't raise new questions",
http://www.caller.com/news/2012/may/16/those-closest-to-carlos-deluna-case-say-columbia/

"Report questioning execution doesn't sway lawyers", MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press, May 16, 2012
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Report-questioning-execution-doesn-t-sway-lawyers-3564112.php

======

An ongoing review:

FALSE CLAIMS BY ANTI-DEATH PENALTY FOLKS:
Common and Blatant

Posted by at

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

MURDER VICTIMS' FAMILIES AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY: MORE HURT FOR VICTIMS

updated 9/2021
Murder Victims' Families Against the Death Penalty:
More Hurt for Victims' Families
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, Houston, Texas, CV at bottom

Murder Victim's Families Against the Death Penalty (hereafter "MVFADP") are family members of murder victims who actively oppose the death penalty and are seeking its repeal (1).

I oppose their efforts, which are, intentionally, divisive and hurtful for murder victim survivors who believe differently.

My contention is that all anti-death penalty arguments are either false or that the pro death penalty arguments are stronger (2). So far, MVFADP confirms those findings.

Based upon polling, about 86% of the general population supports the death penalty for truly death penalty eligible murders. Anecdotally (scientific polls are not possible), it appears 95%-99% of those who have lost loved ones to capital murder support the death penalty as a just sanction (3).

======'
Death Penalty Support 72-86% depending upon question (8/2021)
New Evidence of Broad Support for Death Penalty | RealClearPolicy
Joseph M. Bessette & J. Andrew Sinclair, RealClearPolicy August 16, 2021 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.
======

For example, of the 2000 or so folks who lost loved ones in the Oklahoma City bombing case, I am aware of only one that opposes and actively fights the death penalty. How many of the 30,000 or so of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 spoke out against the death of Osama Bin Laden or against a death penalty for any surviving planners of it (2)?

The MVFADP, a vast minority, are attempting to stop justice for the vast majority. I suspect the majority of MVFADP members are not survivors of crimes which are death penalty eligible (1).

Instead of being divisive and hurtful, why can't MVFADP just say, "we oppose the death penalty, but respect your right to support the death penalty in your case."? MVFADP won't support other victims in that fashion because their sole goal is to get rid of the death penalty, not helping any victims who feel differently but, in fact, working against them.

Instead, the MVFADP are, actively, seeking to deny that right to those who find the death penalty just. Thus, the MVFADP are, intentionally hurtful and divisive, when they need not be.

The MVFADP claims that the death penalty makes some murder victims more or less valuable than others, by the degree of punishment.

As with all states, there are many different legal levels of criminal homicide (non negligent, involuntary, etc. . . . all the way to felony or capital murders) with sanctions ranging from probation to the death penalty.

The MVFADP has had no discussions about consolidating all criminal homicides into one category with one sanction. 

That, by itself, shows how cynical and dishonest this MVFADP claim is.

Obviously, without the death penalty, those who would have, otherwise, received the death penalty, would, now, receive LWOP. Are these MVFADP then going to argue against LWOP, based upon that same foundation?

Of course not. They are just misusing their "some murder victims more or less valuable than others" talking point, utilizing their victim status in a cynical and dishonest manner.

Sanctions are based upon the degree of harm and the available evidence.

The MVFADP complains about the length and cost of death penalty appeals and how that injures, even more.

Such delay and cost are the result of anti-death penalty legislators and other activists, who have prevented reasonable reforms. Again, the MVFADP, now, joins those causing additional pain and cost.

The Virginia protocol allows for executions in 7.1 years, on average, with 72% of those so sentenced being executed. Such a protocol would cost less than LWOP.

As this protocol will result in both less pain and less cost, why doesn't MVFADP support such reforms.

Solely because the MVFADP is involved in a dishonest effort. It is neither costs nor pain they are trying to relieve, but the goal of making sure that all murderers live, no matter the cost. As we see, both above and below, their efforts are causing more pain and cost.

The MVFADP complain that murderers become celebrities. Who makes them celebrities? Anti-death penalty activists. Many murderers become celebrities without the death penalty being present. Stop doing it.

The death penalty allows for a plea bargain to a life sentence, preventing a trial, saving money, saving some such family members a trial and giving the option of such plea bargains having a sentence without parole - a plea option which goes away when there is no death penalty. Such a plea also saves huge amounts of money over having a LWOP trial.

Thus, the MVFADP efforts, if successful, will increase both costs and pain.

The MVFADP states the death penalty is not a deterrent. Anyone who has considered deterrence is aware that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. It is impossible, by truth and reason, to say "The death penalty deters none." The only question is "How much does it deter?" There are 28 studies finding for deterrence since 2000 (3), all of which disagree as to the degree of deterrence.

The death penalty is a greater protector of innocent lives, in at least three ways (3).

Therefore, the MVFADP is asking to spare all murderers lives at the cost of sacrificing more innocents.

The strongest argument for the death penalty? Justice, the foundation of support for all sanctions.

Let's direct our attention where it belongs, against those anti death penalty obstructionists, and create a just, responsible death penalty system that honors justice and stops the additional and preventable re victimization, caused by death penalty opponents, now joined by MVFADP.

1) Some of these anti-death penalty victim groups cannot tell the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty murderer and innocent victims and, therefore, their memberships have included and may still include family members whose loved ones were executed, calling them murder victim survivors - they equate innocent murder victims with guilty murderers who have been executed. Appalling.

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

3) Poll: Death Penalty
updated 9/29/2021

4)    a. The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Live


======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)