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,

http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/capital-punishment/documents/death-penalty-commission-final-report.pdf

======

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/ 

====== 

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 

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 

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-exoneratedinnocent-frauds.html 

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

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

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

 

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

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

Partial CV, Dudley Sharp

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

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

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/12/poll-death-penalty.html 

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

shttp://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

b. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.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

US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High

US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, April 2012, updated 9/2021

======

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.

======

Summary

For some time, including today, with different polls, about 80% of Americans support the death penalty, when the poll, properly, asks 

1) about specific "death penalty eligible" murders (1) , or
2) similarly, asks the question "Do you support the death penalty "sometimes", as opposed to a) asking a general question, about all murders, for which about 90% are not death penalty eligible and b) avoiding the "sometimes" response option.

As Gallup shows, death penalty opposition falls by 43%, with death penalty support rising 25%, when polls include a "sometimes" response option for death penalty support and/or asking about specific "death penalty eligible" murders, which, by reason, include the "sometimes" response option, with Gallup and some others excluding the first, but include the latter.

It is very likely that life without parole (LWOP) has support around 95%.

Support is overwhelming for what the US has, now, which is a death penalty option in some, very limited cases ( the "sometimes" response option) , whereby the other option in those cases is LWOP, the actual sentencing options that judges or juries consider in these cases.

Death penalty support remains high, throughout the world (1).

Those who have lost loved ones to death penalty eligible murders, if not all murders, support the death penalty above 95%, based upon the anecdotal evidence (2).

The Question Matters, Just as the Murders Do

When Gallup asked about truly "death penalty eligible" murders, as with Timothy McVeigh’s mass murders in the Oklahoma City bombing, his execution was supported by 81%, while 16% opposed (Gallup 5/02/01).

With nearly identical polling dates (Gallup, 6/10/01), Gallup found 65% general support for executions for all murders, with 28% opposed (1), when excluding the "sometimes" option.

Those Gallup polls found that death penalty opposition fell by 43% and support rose by 25% (1), when comparing polls of a specific death penalty eligible crime or those with a "sometimes" response option (more support. less opposition) to the category of all murders, excluding a "sometimes" answer  (less support, more opposition, still majority support), which is what Gallup does.

Qinnipiac polling duplicates those results, within the same poll, with 67% death penalty support, 28% opposition, to the general question, with similar results since 2007. (poll question/answer #41 and TREND within 41, Dec 2011) (3).

Within that same poll, only 16% agreed that no one should be executed, with 83% death penalty support, based upon 10% supporting executions for all murders and 73% saying it depends upon the crime, which provids the "sometimes" response option.

This has been the consistent response since 2000, as shown in #43 TREND, showing a 43% reduction in opposition and a 24% rise in support (3), almost identical to Gallup.

Many polls ask the general question, wrongly, about death penalty support for "all murders", and/or avoiding the "sometimes" response,  resulting in support ranging from 56-80% (1).

In 2010 and 2011 Angus-Reid polls found 83% and 81% death penalty support, respectively, to the "general" question (4, 5), because of the inclusion of the "sometimes" response option.

Which is more accurate? Clearly, the polls woth the specific death penalty eligible murders and/or the "sometimes" response option. Why?

The obvious reasons are that 1) the death penalty is only an option for truly "death penalty eligible" murders and that some 90% of all murders are not death penalty eligible and, in addition, 2) having a "sometimes" response option allows the respondents to reply "it depends upon the murder",  which is the overwhelming choice of respondants (avoided by Gallup) and avoiding an "all the murderers deserve death" response, which very few people support, which is an outcome of Gallup's general question,  showing the primary error with their general question, in avoiding a "sometimes" response option.

Support for the death penalty is based upon a person being supportive of the sanction for one or some crimes, the "sometimes" answer, 70-86% support,  and those much rarer, who support the death penalty for all murders, up to 22%.

To be opposed to the death penalty, you must be opposed to all death penalties, no matter how vile the crimes, showing about 9-15% support.

The April 29, 2013 Angus Reid Poll:

Support for Death Penalty in U.S. Surges After Boston Bombing

86% death penalty support, based upon:

"Which of these statements comes closest to your own point of view about the death penalty?"

22% the death penalty is "always" appropriate
64% the death penalty is "sometimes"  appropriate

9% the death penalty is "never" appropriate

An additional question,  with a negative biased inference  against the death penalty (2), found:

78% death penalty support

 16% opposed

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

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

======

Connecticut, arguably the most liberal state in the US, follows that example, showing 85% support for serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross' execution. with 82% death penalty support, on average, since 2000, with 16% opposition in those same polls (3) .

The polling questions which are most likely to provide those specifics are the ones dealing with the worst crimes.

The questions should be:

1) Do you support the death penalty for SOME crimes, such as the rape/torture/murders of children and families, serial and mass murderers, such as the 9/11 attacks, which murdered nearly 3000, John Wayne Gacy, who raped/tortured/murdered 33 young men and boys, Timothy McVeigh, whose bombing murdered 168, including 19 children under 6 and injured nearly 700, etc.?

This is the same as the "sometimes" reply option.

Or, simply: "Do you support the death penalty for murder? with response options

Always"
Sometimes"

2) Are you opposed to the death penalty in ALL murder cases, inclusive of the examples, above?

That produces a more accurate picture of who supports the death penalty and who is opposed to it,  70-86% support and 9-15% opposition.

Or, "Do you support the death penalty for murder? with a response option of "never"

Another Gallup Example

Gallup poll (2011 Oct 6-9), found 61% support and 35% opposition in response to the general question death penalty question (6).

Based upon the consistent examples, above, as with others (1), that equates to 76% support and 20% opposition, for 1) truly "death penalty eligible" crimes and/or 2) providing a "sometimes" response option, whereby death penalty opposition drops 43% and death penalty support rises by 24-25%.

From 2001-2011, the Gallup morally acceptable poll has averaged 70% support for the general question (6), suggesting the moral question, in the proper context of "death penalty eligible murders"and/or a "sometimes" response option, would also likely rise to the 80% level.

===

With rare exception, that being the  10-22% who support executions for all murderers, most folks are more selective with their death penalty support,  the "sometimes" response option, just as death penalty statutes restrict its application, with very few murders being subject to the death penalty.

Many folks who claim to be death penalty opponents are no such thing, as the polls show us, whereby there is a 24% jump in death penalty support and a 43% reduction in death penalty opposition, when the crimes are particularly heinous and/or the poll allows for a "sometimes" response option.

Such folks are not death penalty opponents but, instead they reflect moral considerations based upon the degree of suffering and/or the number of murder victims, provided by a "sometimes" reply option.

Police Support

92% of police chiefs support the death penalty, with only 4% opposition (7).

Polling Errors: LWOP vs The Death Penalty

Both Gallup and Quinnipiac have this poll (as others), with similar problems.

Let's look at the Quinnipiac question:

"42. Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder, the death penalty or life in prison with no chance of parole?" (1)

and the response:

48% prefer the death penalty, 43% prefer Life without parole (3)

First, the question has a problem.

There is no such sanction as life in prison "with no chance of parole." All sanctions can be changed, to the benefit of the inmate, by legislative action, in addition to the executive branch having the ability to commute, pardon or parole any inmate, regardless of sentence, as with Illinois, whereby death row was vacated by the arbitrary actions of Governor Ryan. This question error, obviously, may skew the results of the poll, by implying a benefit to a life sentence which does not exist.

It's as wrong headed as saying there is such a sentence as the "death penalty with no chance of not being executed".

Secondly, this is a PREFERENCE poll, not an EXCLUSION poll.

Representatives of Gallup and Quinnipiac (among others), wrongly, enter their personal opinions into the fray, have found that this poll reflects lower support for the death penalty. 

Clearly, both Gallup and Qinapiac are incorrect. Nor does it show lower support (43%) for LWOP, either, as is obvious.

The 48% who prefer the death penalty are not rejecting a life sentence and the 43% who prefer a life sentence are not rejecting a death sentence.

I use this clear example. Which do you prefer, vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

48% prefer vanilla ice cream, 43% prefer chocolate. No one wants to exclude either flavor. 100% wanting to retain both vanilla and chocolate. 9% have no preference of one over the other.

Just as 48% prefer the death penalty and 43% prefer a life sentence, with 83% wanting to retain both sanctions (2), with only 16% rejecting the death penalty in all cases . 9% can't make up their mind (1).

Put it another way, the 83% who support the death penalty still reside within the 48% who prefer the death penalty and within the 43% who prefer LWOP, just as the 16% who always oppose the death penalty reside within the 43% who prefer LWOP. Very obvious.

BIAS


I suggest that Gallup and Qinnapiac's clear misinterpreations may involve bias, because it shows no reason.

As 83% in Ct support the death penalty, it is likely those same 83% also support LWOP, as well. In other words, 83% in Ct support the system that Ct has now, the option of selecting either the death penalty or LWOP, in death penalty eligible trials.


It is interesting and may go to bias, that I have never heard either Gallup, Quinnipiac, or other, representatives suggest that this poll also shows reduced support for LWOP, as they have said it does for the death penalty.

Of course, to any neutral observer, it would be ridiculous to suggest that there was reduced support for LWOP, which 43% prefer, when, at the same time, death penalty support ranges from is 67-83%. Obviously, LWOP is going to be supported at rates above the 67-83% range and that same LWOP support stays the same within the preference poll.

Life Without Parole Plus Restitution

There have been a few polls showing a "preference" for life sentences with restitution to the victim's survivors, over the death penalty, but failing to offer the death penalty with restitution, again, reflecting a bias.

I am certain that the respondents to this poll have no idea how grotesque it is.

Let's say your daughter was raped and murdered. On what days would you like to receive that $30/month check from that rapist/murderer? Her birthday? Your birthday or wedding anniversary? The day she would have graduated from high school?

Is there any day you would want to open that letter and hold that check from the man who raped and murdered your daughter?

Think about it.


Innocence Issues: No Effect on Death Penalty Support?

Everyone wants to protect innocents.

A Nov. 2010 poll showed that a large majority, 81%, believes that innocents have been executed and, with that same group, responding to the "general" death penalty question, found 83% death penalty support and 13% opposition. (4).

That shows no evidence that the US population has turned away from executions based upon the, largely, misleading innocence claims by anti death penalty folks (8).

Depending upon review, possibly 25-40 actual innocents have been sentenced to death since 1973. Not 140 (7). That is a 99.6% accuracy rate in convictions, with all of those so identified as actually innocent being released. That seems like a very admirable record, which would fuel confidence.

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US. at least since the 1930s.

The facts tell us that the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents, than is LWOP (8), a reality which would result in even more support for the death penalty.

New death sentences were at 35 year low in 2010, primarily, because murders were at a 43 year low, murder rates at a 48 year low (9).

NOTE: I suspect that the high support for the death penalty, which survives even when respondents are certain of innocents executed, is because of their understanding that many innocents die with government oversight, such as 40,000-100,000/yr dying because of medical misadventure or from 40,000-200,000 innocents being murdered by those under the government supervision of parole or probation since 1973 (10).

Possibly, some are aware that the death penalty offers greater protection for innocents (8).

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

(1) "Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

(2) 95% Murder victims' survivors death penalty support

The terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in Oklahoma City, claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people, many with catastrophic injuries. Of the 1680 loved ones who lost family/friends in that bombing I am aware of only one who opposed the execution of bomber/murderer, Timothy McVeigh.

More than 84 would have to be opposed to his execution to take death penalty support below 95%.

There were 2977 murders in the 9/11 attacks. Additional victims are still being added. Of the 29,770 loved ones who lost family/friends in that terrorist attack, I am aware of none that opposed the killing of Bin Laden, or that opposes a death sentence for those who helped to plan the 9/11 attacks.

More than 1488 would have to oppose the death penalty in this case to take death penalty support below 95%.

NOTE: I used a factor of ten to calculate the number of closest family/friends to each victim.

(3) RELEASE, March 10, 2011 - "Death Penalty Support At New High In Connecticut, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters High On Medical Marijuana, Sunday Liquor Sales" http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=1566

Within poll number 43 and the TREND within poll 43,

NOTE: In 2011, the Quinnipiac Poll (2) finds 83% support the death penalty, that percentage is the combination of (a) death penalty support for all murderers (10%) and (b) (it depends upon the circumstances) crimes (73%). Only 16% oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, as per question and answer number 43, from the March 10, 2011 (1).

82% support and 16% opposition, is the average of polling since 2000, using those same combinations.

(4) "(83% of) Americans Support Punishing Murder with the Death Penalty", Angus Reid Poll, 11/09/10,
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43498/americans-support-punishing-murder-with-the-death-penalty/

(5) 80% US death penalty support, 12% opposed – 10/4/11 poll
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44070/most-americans-prefer-the-death-penalty-for-convicted-murderers/

(6) Gallup, Death Penalty (overview), November 30, 2011 Updated 04:00 AM ET
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

In that same Gallup 2011 Oct 6-9 "61% support poll" poll, the moral acceptance of the death penalty was at 70%, based upon "Morally acceptable" plus "depends on situation" answers, with 28% finding it "Morally wrong" and 67% support based upon the death penalty being imposed "About the right amount" plus "not enough" answers, with 25% finding it applied "Too often".

(7) On the Front Line: Law Enforcement Views on the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center, from a January, 1995 poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates of US police chiefs.

(8) a. The 130 (now 140) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

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

c. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

d. "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

e. "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D., http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

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

g. "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

(9) Crimes and Crime Rates, United States
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

(10)  Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

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

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