Saturday, March 08, 2014

CNN "Death Row Stories": How Bad Can A Network Be?

CNN "Death Row Stories": How Bad Can A Network Be?
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom


CNN is presenting a series of death row stories, beginning March 9th, 2014.

Based upon a review of CNN's work, introducing the series, as well as some previous death penalty articles, there are four questions for CNN.

Did CNN decide not to fact check? If so, why?

If CNN did fact check, why didn't you catch all your errors?

Will the series continue with those same standards?

All of this has been sent too many (16 at this time) CNN producers and reporters and, also, to Redford/Sundance & Jigsaw Productions, the two production companies for "Death Row Stories".

1) The intro video for the series tells us how bad the series could be (1): 

A dream team of anti-death penalty folks who can't seem to get anything right.

Kirk Bloodsworth, released from prison, not death row, by DNA exclusion, brings up the 143 "exonerated" from death row. He well knows that there are no 143 exonerated (2), as does Richard Dieter, who created this fraud. I presume that Jeffrey Toobin has fact checked and knows it's a fraud. But he doesn't speak up.

Ms. Banfied, the CNN anchor, chimes in with a -  isn't the number 130?

My guess is that the 143 "exonerated" fraud (2) will be repeated again and again, as it has been throughout CNN's intros.

Mr. Toobin states that Mr. Bloodsworth's story,  almost, singlehandedly got rid of the death penalty in Maryland. Nonsense.

Mr. Bloodsworth was on death row for two years and was never at risk of execution. The facts are that after 20 years on death row, no Maryland murderers are at any risk of facing the sanction given. Mr. Bloodsworth's sentence was commuted to life, whereby nearly 7 years later he was excluded by DNA and released.

What has gotten rid of the death penalty in the 5 state legislatures that have, recently, so voted, are that they had a Democratic Governor, with a Democratic majority legislature, in each case, voting against the will of the people, a majority of whom supported the death penalty. Illinois and New Jersey voted repeal during lame duck sessions.  New York's death penalty law was voided by a state court.

There are, currently, three states with an execution moratorium, established by one person in each of those states - the Democratic Governor.

Mr. Toobin, as CNN, are aware of all of those facts. Aren't they? Did you miss the pattern?

Mr. Toobin seems to think that this exoneration fraud has so infested the media that some jurors can't help but be affected by it and that such has contributed to the reduction in death sentences. 

There is little doubt that reinforced frauds can have an influence, but there is no evidence that the exoneration fraud has so affected jurors.

The facts are that there is a 99.6% accuracy rate in actually guilty findings in death penalty cases, with the 0.4% actually innocent going free (2). It may be the most accurate sanction in the US, with, no surprise, the greatest of due process protections (3). 

Wouldn't that give jurors more confidence in considering a death sentence?

Or is Mr. Toobin confident that this exoneration fraud will get more acceptance, as opposed to it being exposed and corrected? Mr. Toobin?

The lack of fact checking and balance by CNN is astounding.  Will it continue?

The fraud of these "exonerations" has been well known for over a decade, indicating that CNN may have willfully and blindly accepted story lines with an anti death penalty bias, a presumption supported by other statements in the intros and other reports, by CNN.  

2)  CNN:  Another Horrendous Intro (4) for "Death Row Stories".

Maybe CNN should fact check?  We have this jewel:

"Upwards of 10% of all death row prisoners are later exonerated for the crimes," writes author and historian Thomas Cahill (4).

That would be "upwards" of 840 "exonerated" inmates, since 1976.

The real number is somewhere between 24-44, or 0.4% (2)

Even the horrendous Death Penalty Information Center puts it at "just" 143, or 1.7% (2)

3) CNN states (5):

A) At sidebar

35 -- Percent of executed defendants who were white
56 -- Percent of executed defendants who were black
138 -- Death row exonerations since 1973

They reversed it. Terrible.

Reality. 35% of those executed were black, 56% white (6). Today, it's 34% black, 56% white.

CNN, most likely, doesn't know that white murders are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers (6).

The 138 (now 143) "exoneration" is a blatant fraud, well known for over a decade, if CNN cared to fact check. They didn't, we can hope.

The real number is somewhere between 24-44 (2).

B) In the body of the article (5), we have this:

"There's no denying most Americans are pro-death penalty. " " . . . according to Gallup, . . . Support reached as high as 80% in 1994 and declined to 61% in a poll this month -- the lowest since 1972."

CNN missed better polls that showed 80% & 83% support (6), in the same year as the 61% poll. Support went to 86% in 2013 (7).

C) CNN writes:

"When asked to choose between the death penalty and life in prison, 50% of respondents in a recent CNN/ORC International Poll said they favored a life sentence, compared to 48% who preferred the death penalty."

What CNN doesn't comprehend is that this is a preference poll, not an exclusion poll. Neither death penalty nor life without parole support, all of a sudden, went down to such low levels, or at all. The individual support remains the same (6), likely 80% or so for the death penalty and greater than 90% for a life sentence, or does CNN wish to argue that support for life sentences, suddenly dropped to 50%?

D) From the same article. This is priceless:

"Thousands of people -- including entertainers, dignitaries, Amnesty International and the pope -- denounced the execution of Troy Davis. Some said they believed Davis was innocent in the slaying of a Georgia police officer. Others said there was too much doubt to execute him. (The officer's family, like the relatives of many victims, had no qualms about seeing the person convicted of their loved one's murder put to death.)"

"Entertainers"! "Dignitaries"! "Amnesty Intl"!  I think CNN is star struck.

Notice that CNN failed to say what the courts thought?  That is because the facts were that Davis was undeniably guilty (8). CNN, interesting exclusion.

E) The rest of this article is classic anti-death penalty material, easily rebutted (8). You would have thought the article was written by Sister Helen Prejean (10).

4) Ohio's agonizing execution of Dennis McGuire (11). Really?

Well, as CNN reports:

"Ohio inmate Dennis McGuire appeared to gasp and convulse for roughly 10 minutes before he died Thursday by lethal injection using a new combination of drugs, reporters who witnessed it said"

"McGuire's "children and daughter-in-law were crying and visibly upset,"

"Watch this video Witness: Inmate gasped during execution"

"He gasped deeply. It was kind of a rattling, guttural sound. There was kind of a snorting through his nose. A couple of times, he definitely appeared to be choking,"

". . . it is entirely premature to consider this execution protocol to be anything other than a failed, agonizing experiment,"

"CNN's Sonny Hostin said that McGuire's execution will likely spark debate over whether how inmates react to the use of the drugs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution." 

And we could debate reporting.

How bad is CNN?  What some other reporters revealed (12): 

"State prison records released Monday say McGuire told guards that (McGuire's counsel, Robert) Lowe counseled him to make a show of his death that would, perhaps, lead to abolition of the death penalty. But three accounts from prison officials indicate McGuire refused to put on a display."

"Amy Borror, a spokeswoman for the public defender's office, said all accounts from execution eyewitnesses - which did not include Lowe - indicate McGuire was unconscious at the time he struggled to breathe."

"Medical experts would not comment on Mr. McGuire’s execution or speculate about what he experienced. They agreed that used for surgery, the two drugs would not cause pain."

“By virtue of what they do, they cause unconsciousness, and they inhibit pain,” said Dr. Howard Nearman, professor of anesthesiology at Case Western Reserve University."

As there was no surgery, both drugs were given at overdose levels and both drugs would enhance the effects of the other, of course there was no pain.

Do folks wheeze, snore, move or cough etc. while sleeping? Do those with opiate overdoses wheeze, snore, move, cough, have spasms, etc.? Of course, which is all that happened with McGuire, as some predicted.

The Associate Press witness:

"McGuire was still for almost five minutes, then emitted a loud snort, as if snoring, and continued to make that sound over the next several minutes. He also soundlessly opened and shut his mouth several times as his stomach rose and fell." "A coughing sound was Dennis McGuire’s last apparent movement, at 10:43 a.m. He was pronounced dead 10 minutes later."

No evidence of consciousness or pain.

And the series hasn't even started, yet. 

We can hope that there may be some good news with the fact that "Death Row Stories" is not produced by CNN.

Stay tuned.

======

Footnotes

1) CNN's "Death Row Stories" Promo, Added on February 11, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/03/07/sot-lv-death-row-stories-kirk-bloodsworth.cnn.html

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

3) One example

Texas Death Penalty Procedures
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/texas-death-penalty-procedures.html
 

4) Talk with us: America's death penalty under scrutiny
 Join the conversation, iReport CNN, By Thom Patterson, CNN, March 4, 2014


5) "Death Rows Unlikely Opponents", CNN, 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/23/justice/death-penalty-opponents/index.html 


6)  RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html 

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


8)  "Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds

Sister Helen Prejean: Does Truth Matter?:

11) "Controversial execution in Ohio uses new drug combination", By Dana Ford and Ashley Fantz, CNN, Fri January 17, 2014

12) "The (imagined) Horror of Dennis McGuire's Execution"
 http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-imagined-horror-of-dennis-mcguires.html


Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The play "The Exonerated" - are any actually innocent?

originally published 2006,
last updated 7/11/2017, primarily updated links

"The Exonerated", the play, anti-truth, anti-victim: Are any actually innocent?
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

This play is presented as a true story of six innocents sent to death row because of corruption within the system.

The Exonerated is a true story just as CATS and The Lion King are.

The "error rate" for anti-death penalty folks, in their nationwide claims of  "exonerated" or "innocent" released from death row is 71-83%, depending upon review (1), as with "The Exonerated".

Anti-death penalty folks have, simply, redefined "innocence" and "exonerated" as if they had redefined lie as truth (1).

Reviews of each of "The Exonerated" cases, with links and contacts for your own review, below:


Are audiences being duped to further a political/social agenda? Of course. 

And theater critics?  They simply don't bother to fact check and blindly accept and repeat whatever the producers tell them.

Only one theater critic, Tom Sime of the Dallas Morning News, bothered to see if the claims were true. His brief review resulted in this published comment: 

 "Maybe three are actually innocent and three actually aren't.  In any case, blind faith - in the criminal justice process or in the truth of crusading art- is best left at home."

"The Exonerated" is strictly a bit of anti-death penalty deception, which is not at all surprising.  It appears that the Soros Foundation, through their Open Society Institute (OSI) is the primary benefactor of "The Exonerated". The Soros Foundation finances anti-death penalty efforts, worldwide.

1) Robert Earl Hayes Nothing about Hayes’ retrial changes the appeals court’s original observation that evidence existed to establish Hayes’ guilt.  Hayes has now been convicted of a nearly identical murder in New York, which was committed prior to the murder in Florida.

In 2004, Robert Hayes pled guilty to manslaughter and arson in a 1987 rape and murder in New York. He is now serving 15 to 45 years. He is also the prime suspect in rapes in Delaware and New Jersey.

Go to
no. 74 at http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
and pages 45-48
2) Sunny Jacobs -- After the shooting, still at the scene of the murders, a trooper asked Jacobs: "Do you like shooting troopers?" Jacobs response:  "We had to."

The best review of the blatant dishonesty of this "Exonerated" case is "The Myth of Innocence", Josh Marquis, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v 95, No 2, Winter, 2005, Northwestern University School of Law.

Mr. Marquis can be reached at CoastDA@gmail.com, or  503-791-0012.

There is no evidence to support a claim of innocence for Jacobs in the murder of two police officers in Florida. She eventually pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and was released for time served, after 16 years. Hardly a finding of innocence.    

3) David Keaton -- Keaton's defense attorney stated that even without Keaton's numerous confessions, that the eyewitness testimony was likely sufficient to convict Keaton for the capital murder.

Through the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, Keaton's numerous confessions, as well as those of co-defendants, Keaton was sentenced to death. There is no credible claim for innocence in this case of robbery/murder. The case was overturned on appeal. The prosecution chose not to re prosecute for a number of good reasons -- 1. he was no longer subject to the death penalty, because of changes in the law 2. Keaton was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a robbery that he committed ten days prior to the robbery/murder for which he was sentenced to death and 3. illness of witnesses.

Keaton was sentenced to death in 1971, under the old death penalty law. He was on death row for 13 months when the US Supreme Court overturned all death penalty cases in Furman v Georgia. By law, he could not be re-sentenced to death.

4) Delbert Tibbs -- The Florida Supreme Court candidly conceded that it should not have reversed Tibbs' conviction since the evidence was legally sufficient.

The state prosecutor who chose not to retry Tibbs, recently, explained to the Florida Commission on Capital Crimes that Tibbs “was never an innocent man wrongfully accused. 

He was a lucky human being. He was guilty, he was lucky and now he is free." 

See no.10 at http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
and pages 131-135 at

5) Kerry Max Cook -- The judge, in accepting Cook's no contest plea, said that Cook was guilty of the crime and that the state was capable of proving its case.

This is not a DNA exoneration case.

Mr. Cook was convicted of the murder of Linda Jo Edwards, who was found in her apartment on June 10, 1977, beaten on the head with a plaster statue, stabbed in the throat, chest and back and sexually mutilated. Mr. Cook was arrested 2 months later where he worked as a bartender in Port Arthur. Officers said they found Mr. Cook's fingerprint on Ms. Edwards' apartment door. At first he denied knowing Ms. Edwards. Cook lied. He later said they met at the apartment complex's swimming pool and he went to her apartment. His original conviction resulting in a death sentence was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. 

A 1992 retrial ended in a hung jury. He was again convicted and sentenced to death in 1994. 

That verdict was overturned in 1996. Before a 4th trial, Mr. Cook pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of murder. He was sentenced to 20 years time served. Mr. Cook took the deal so he could avoid a possible return to death row. By taking the plea, both Cook and his attorneys conceded that this is hardly a case where there is no evidence for guilt and certainly not a case with confirmable actual innocence.

for more on this case, contact David Dobbs at david@davidedobbs.com

6) Gary Gauger -- Gauger confessed to the murder of his parents. That confession was thrown out based upon the lack of probable cause to arrest him. Gauger's ex-wife and children filed a wrongful death suit against Gauger in the murder of his parents. Gary's brother remains so convinced of Gary's guilt in the murders of their parents, that he has prepared a review of the case which claims to support Gary's guilt, even though there are now two other people jailed for the murders and who, confessed, in detail (Gang Member Details Slaying Of Couple, Carolyn Starks, Chicago Tribune, 3/9/1999, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03-09/news/9903090198_1_james-schneider-motorcycle-shop-outlaws)

The trial court erroneously imposed a death sentence. The court granted a motion for reconsideration and vacated the sentence less than ten months later in September 1994. The trial court found that it had not considered all the mitigating evidence and concluded that Gauger should not be sentenced to death. People v. Bull, 705 N.E.2d 824, 843 (Ill. 1999); Chicago Tribune (9/23/94). Gauger served a brief time on death row. He was not properly sentenced to death by the trial court. He should never have been sent to death row because the trial court did not finally sentence him to be executed. Gauger’s case is an example of how consideration of mitigating evidence under current law results in a sentence less than death.

see no. 69 at www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm 


Some additional articles:

"The Myth of Innocence", Josh Marquis, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v 95, No 2, Winter, 2005, Northwestern University School of Law.

"Cross-Examination for a Drama That Puts the Death Penalty on Trial",  Adam Liptak,  New York Times, January 27, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/theater/newsandfeatures/crossexamination-for-a-drama-that-puts-the-death.html

"Prosecutors take exception to Court TV film", Richard Willing, USA TODAY, 1/24/05,

"The Myth of Innocence don’t believe everything you see on CourtTV",  Joshua Marquis, National Review, 1/27/05 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213485/myth-innocence-joshua-marquis

Senate Report, Volume 2, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, Numbers 292-350, January 23- November 22, 2002,
AS THIS IS GOOGLE BOOKS, ONE MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ALL PAGES
a. DPIC List: False Claims of Innocents, p 65-69
1. Time Frame:  Relevance of DPIC List To Current Death Penalty Procedures, p 113-114
2. The Concept of "Actual Innocence", p 114-118
c. Cases on DPIC List: Actually Innocent or Falsely Exonerated, p 118-146.
" . . . the following 68 defendants should be stricken from the current DPIC List of 102 allegedly innocent defendants 'freed from Death Row'. " p 118




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





Monday, February 24, 2014

Gandhi "eye for an eye leaves everybody blind"

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind":
Zero evidence that Gandhi said it
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

The quote has never been sourced to Gandhi.

The quote should be attributed to Graham (below), with a correction against Gandhi's use

Fischer (below) suggested it as a philosophical principle of Gandhi, with zero attribution to Gandhi, which is where, I believe, this error started.

In the movie Gandhi, Briley, a screenwriter, put those words in Gandhi's mouth, for the fictional history.

Gandhi wouldn't have said it, because he wouldn't so pervert Christian text and its meaning. 

With zero evidence provided, Gandhi's family says (2006) that he did use it, confirming their belief that Gandhi misunderstood Christian scripture, something I think, highly, unlikely.

The actual meaning of the biblical text is that sanctions for crimes/sins shall be just and proportional to the wrongful act, as opposed to the wildly disproportionate and harsh sanctions of the past.

It was a call for more merciful and proportional sanctions.

There seems no chance that Gandhi would so misinterpret or pervert Christian scripture. 

It's a unfortunate reflection on Gandhi that many believe that he could make such an error and that, even worse, they do so with no evidence that Gandhi said it and, furthermore, to take it from the rightful author, George Graham, a politician, much more likely to make that error.

This, below, giving a timeline and attribution. from Wikileaks, all of which I have confirmed.


1914: "If…we were to go back to…'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' there would be very few [Honourable] Gentlemen in this House who would not…be blind and toothless." — George Perry Graham, during a debate on capital punishment before the Canadian House of Commons. Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Third Session-Twelfth Parliament, Vol CXIII, p. 496, February 5, 1914.

1950: "An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind" in The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer (1950), though Fischer did not attribute it to Gandhi and seemed to be giving his own description of Gandhi's philosophy.


Sharp note: I think this is were the error started.

1958: "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind" in Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story by Martin Luther King, Jr., 1958.

1982: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" in the 1982 film, Gandhi. In a 1993 biographical article about screenwriter John Briley, Jon Krampner wrote, "…Gandhi never said it. Michigan graduate John Briley put those pithy words in his mouth." From "John Briley '51 - Epic Screenwriter", Michigan Today, March 1993, p. 12.


Sharp note: And that is where the error became more well distributed.

2006: There is a quaternary source in Yale Book of Quotations (2006), in which editor Fred R. Shapiro states that the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence stated that Gandhi's family believes it authentic,but did not provide any further reference and provided no year, place or body of work.

2006: Discussed in The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When, by Ralph Keyes (2006), 1st ed., p. 74.

2010: Research detailed by Garson O'Toole in "An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind" in Quote Investigator.


The quote has never been sourced to Gandhi.
 

Judaism & the Death Penalty

Judaism & the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

A reply within the Jerusalem Post.

Another, of so many examples, whereby anti-death penalty folks are wrong, on everything.


FOOTNOTES WERE ADDED LATER 


Additional Death Penalty Support, Judaism (5) 

Another view of the death penalty, 

by Dudley Sharp, Jerusalem Post, published 03/19/2009

Innocents are better protected with capital punishment (1).


There are some clear problems with "Fabulously Observant: Jews and the death penalty," by David Benkof (JP, March 12, 2009).


Rabbi Avi Shafran gave a common answer as to why a great many Jewish faith groups oppose the death penalty:


"Jews have all too often found themselves on the wrong side of the administration of capital punishment - often for the sole 'crime' of being Jewish."


Sadly, true.


However, the fact that Jews have been wrongly executed doesn't mean that Jews cannot morally and rightly execute wrongdoers. An obvious example: Jews have been wrongly incarcerated, in just the same shameful manner, yet, Jews are not opposed to justly incarcerating those who violate the law.


Jewish talk show host Dennis Prager is correct, "capital punishment for murder is the only law that exists in all five books of the Torah."


In other words, to God, implementing the death penalty for murder is a very big deal. If that is the case, why do so many Jewish faith groups oppose it?


Rabbi Shafran ended, "That many a convicted criminal in the United States has later been exonerated by evidence or testimony only adds to the reluctance."


Reconsider.


In the US, of those sentenced to death since 1973 or later, possibly 25 actual innocents have been identified and released from death row.  (2) That is 0.3% of those so sentenced. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900. Of all the government programs in the world that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty? Unlikely.


In fact, innocents are better protected with the death penalty (1).


BENKOF ADDS, "... two individuals had to witness the capital crime (3), and there had to be a 'kosher' warning before the act took place."(3).


That was only for Jews. For all others, one witness would suffice and no warning was necessary.


====== 

added later

Today, we have many more methods of identification, which far surpass the accuracy of eyewitnesses.

There are the translation variables, whereby a witness and to bear witness may both be included, meaning no eyewitnesses may be required, but other evidence may be sufficient, such as private or public confessions, ear witnesses, physical evidence of guilt, inclusive of today's DNA, videotape, fingerprints, tire patterns, footprints, ballistics, etc., some of which can be or are more accurate than eyewitness testimony (3). As biblical linguistic expert Prof. Archer observed: "Did God want nearly all criminals, including murderers, to get off, scot-free, if " . . . (they) had not taken the prudent measure of committing (their) crime where two people did not happen to be watching him?" (3)

======

Benkof continues, "The Talmud says that any court that imposed death on a convict once in seven years - or even once in 70 - was considered a 'bloody' court."


This is a common and unfortunate recitation since it excludes the response of a later Talmudic sage, Rabbi Simon ben Gamliel: "Such an attitude (allowing murderers to live) would increase bloodshed in Israel."(1)


In other words, by letting murderers live, you only embolden more murderers - an important omission by Benkof.


Benkof continues: "Finally, there is the issue of the humaneness of the death penalty. Under Jewish law, capital convicts would be given alcohol until they were intoxicated, so they would suffer less."


Suffer less? There were four methods of execution. If Jewish law were concerned with less suffering, why not pick only the least painful method? Why four, when three will always be worse than the fourth?


In fact, all four were horrendous. (added, later. stoning, burning, slaying (by sword), and strangling).


Benkof continues: "In the American system, convicts are first given a paralytic, so if they do suffer under the consequent two lethal drugs, they cannot express their pain. And there is significant evidence that they do suffer."


Benkof is factually in error. The paralytic is given second. The first drug given is a massive dose of barbiturate or other anesthesia, leaving the inmate in a coma state. Almost exclusively, the "evidence" of suffering with lethal injection is of the "maybe," "might," "could be" variety (4).


Benkof concludes: "But ultimately, it seems to me that life in prison without parole is a better option than the death penalty - in Israel, North America and throughout the world."


It would be helpful if (Benkof) would give a good reason why.


End of article. 


Judaism & Death Penalty support (5)


Footnotes, added later


1)  
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives


30 Examples:
How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers 
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments

2) 
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000 

3)  Is There a Biblical Requirement for Two Eyewitnesses for Criminal Prosecution?

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/01/rebuttal-botched-executions.html

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


b) The (Imagined) Horror of Dennis McGuire's Execution - updated 2/12/2014


a) " . . capital punishment is regarded in Judaism as A FAVOR FOR THE CAPITAL SINNER, A FORM OF ATONEMENT AND REDEMPTION. ORDINARY MURDERERS ARE ALLOWED TO ACHIEVE ATONEMENT FOR THEIR SOULS IN THEIR EXECUTION (my emphasis)

"Only especially vile murderers - such as false witness whose lies are discovered after the person who was framed has been executed, or a man who sacrifices both his son and his daughter to the pagan god Molokh - are denied execution because they are regarded as beyond redemption through capital punishment."


"Again, execution preserves human dignity, it does not defile it."


"...[T]he preservation of human dignity requires capital punishment of convicted murderers. The position of Judaism is opposite of the position espoused by liberals."


"It is precisely because of man's creation in God's image that capital punishment is declared justified and necessary. Human dignity requires execution of murderers, not compassion for their souls."


"Judaism's Pro-Death Penalty Tradition", Steven Plaut, PhD, Haifa University, Apr. 23, 2004 article for JewishPress.com
found here
https://victimsfamiliesforthedeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2014/11/judaisms-pro-death-penalty-tradition.html

b)   " (B)ecause murder is a grievous offense, both against God and against society." And when you punish a murderer through the death penalty, you are not only affording that person penance for his or her crime, in all of the contexts of death penalty transgressions or other penalties that are imposed upon criminals in traditional Jewish law, the punishment is viewed as a component of the transgressor's penance. (my emphaisis)."


"But in the context of murder, because it's also a crime against society, it's critical for the welfare of society. This is a traditional Jewish understanding of why it is imposed...".


"We're not about to take the position of abolition [of the death penalty], because the teaching that, again, the need for implementing justice, particularly with regard to crimes of murder, for society, is a critical component of Jewish teaching as well."


"Murder, is actually singled out in rabbinic teaching from all those other scores of transgressions and sins where the death penalty is proscribed...".


"Religious Reflections on the Death Penalty", Nathan Diament, JD, Director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, June 5, 2001 appearance at the Pew Forum's event

NOTE: There are similar teachings, as a and b, within Christianity:

 The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

c) Rabbi Azriel Rosenfeld at RMD@JewishAnswers.org


68. Murderer and Protection of Life - Rotze'ach u-Shemiras Nefesh


It is forbidden to murder, as it says "You shall not murder".1 


A murderer must be put to death, as it says "He shall be avenged"2;


it is forbidden to accept compensation from him instead, as it says "You shall not take redemption for the life of a murderer...; and there shall be no atonement for the blood that was spilled... except the blood of him that spilled it".3


It is forbidden to execute a murderer before he has stood trial, as it says "And the murderer shall not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment".4 


However, we are commanded to prevent an attempted murder by killing the would-be murderer if necessary, and it is forbidden to refrain from doing so, as it says "And you shall cut off her hand; you shall not be merciful"5;  (my emphasis)


and similarly for attempted fornication, as it says "[If the man seizes her and lies with her...] just as a man rises up against his friend and murders him, so is this thing."6 


It is forbidden to refrain from saving life when it is in one's power to do so, as it says "You shall not stand on your friend's blood."7, a


1. Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17 
2. Ex. 21:20; see Lev. 24:17,21
3. Num. 35:31,33
4. Num. 35:12 d.
5. Deut. 25:12
6. Deut. 22:26
7. Lev. 19:16 a. 1:1,4-11,14 


From Halacha Overview,
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter68.html


d)  "Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Rabbi Joseph Bekhor-Shor, explained at great length that the Hebrew text refers only to unlawful killing. Both scholars stressed the differences between the Hebrew words for killing and murdering."


"There are several strong arguments for the case that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." First, the verb used in the Torah commandment is "ratsah," which generally is translated as murder and refers only to criminal acts of killing a human being. The word "kill" generally refers to the taking of life for all classes of victims and for all reasons. This generalization is expressed through a different Hebrew verb "harag."


Sharp: The command could never refer to all killing, because God permits, condones or commands killing in self defense, defense of others, in a just war and with capital punishment for up to 36 sins/crimes.


Is the Sixth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” or “Thou Shalt Not Murder”?, The Times Of Israel, 12/1/2017

======


Some Christian context


As, virtually, all biblical scholars know, a number of bible translations already have, correctly, changed to "thou shalt not murder" and more are to follow (1).


Anyone, with just a casual knowledge of the bible is aware that killing is prescribed and sometimes commanded in certain circumstances, so the translation or the meaning cannot be understood as prohibiting all killings.


It is well known to all biblical scholars that the meaning, as well as many proper translations, is "thou shalt not murder", as with the context, soon after that command, God introduces 33-36 crimes/sins for which the death penalty is appropriate.

In addition, all major Christian and Jewish denominations find that killing in 
self-defense, in defense of others, in a just war are all defensible, under morally defined circumstances, as when killing an unjust aggressor, with similar moral support for executions.

For more than 2000 years, there has been Catholic/Christian New Testament support for the death penalty, from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians that, in breadth and depth, overwhelms any teachings to the contrary (2).


1) Many different examples of the translation, as well as the context
http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm

2) Hundreds of New Testament Christian teachings in support of the death penalty, here:


New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html

Religion and The Death Penalty

Catholics & The Death Penalty:
Critical Dismay:  The Catholic Church's Latest (2018-19)
Death Penalty Catechism Amendment

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/02/critical-dismay-catholic-churchs-latest.html 

 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
====== 
======
 
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


Wednesday, February 05, 2014

HANK SKINNER GUILTY, AS ALWAYS

HANK SKINNER GUILTY, AS ALWAYS
Dudley Sharp

13 years or so, ago, when Skinner first proclaimed "Test the additional DNA, it will prove my innocence", any thinking person knew he was guilty of slaughtering 3 innocents.

This is one of those very common guilty murderer cases, whereby a bunch of anti death penalty folks and their patsies in the media, join the worldwide drumbeat chorus: 

"Texas is going to murder another innocent person".

Of course, these frauds have become so common that they seem an everyday occurrence (1).

Now, with the 2012 DNA results  and June, 2014 hearing, the long known truth is not revealed, just re-asserted:

Skinner is an always confirmed triple murderer.

My 2011 op/ed, with the 2012 & 2014 DNA results inserted:

Skinner previously rejected DNA testing
Dudley Sharp, Special Contributor
Austin American Statesman, published Nov. 3, 2011

Make no mistake: It was Hank Skinner's decision not to test additional DNA, pre-trial.

Had Skinner known that additional pre-trial DNA testing would have cleared him, he would have ordered it.

Look at what the cabal of "test the DNAers" want us to believe:

That Skinner refused additional pre-trial DNA testing, thereby taking the risk of receiving the death penalty, intentionally, and making that choice over taking the risk that he would be freed, instead.

Does anyone believe that nonsense?

The allegation that Skinner bowed to his original defense counsel's demands not to test additional DNA, pre-trial, is absurd.

There is the minor problem of Skinner responding to his counsel, "OK, good call, I'll risk death over freedom."

All Skinner had to do was order his attorneys to test the additional DNA, which they would have to do or go to the judge and say, "My idiot attorney will not allow additional DNA testing that will clear me." At which point the court would insist on defense counsel following their clients' orders; or appoint new counsel who would.

That is precisely what would have happened if Skinner had known additional DNA testing would have helped him.

As Skinner knew the opposite was the case, he declined additional testing. It is the only possible reason Skinner denied additional pre-trial DNA testing.


That is a "duh" moment.

Now comes Skinner, et al, meaning defense counsel, a bunch of "well meaning" anti-death penalty folks, and a smattering of the blindly ignorant crying, "Test the DNA. What have you got to lose, except revealing you are about to execute another innocent?"

Enter reality.

We already have DNA that implicates Skinner, as well as much additional evidence that sent Skinner to death row for the murder of Twila Busby, his live-in girlfriend, and her two mentally impaired sons, Elwin Caler and Randy Busby.

Skinner's "own" experts said the DNA evidence against him was solid and that the blood splatter evidence contradicted Skinner's description of events.

First and foremost, Skinner wishes to live longer, just as Busby and her two sons did. That is the main reason for the appeals. What Texas is attempting to prevent now in testing the DNA that Skinner refused to test pre-trial is a very bad precedent, to wit:

In a successful effort to delay his execution, Skinner files motions to test the DNA material he had previously rejected for pre-trial testing.

If Skinner succeeds, future defendants will be able to demand do-overs because their trial strategy failed. It is a horrible precedent, which the state must fight, and for which all criminals and defense counsel are drooling over, both for very good and obvious reasons.

(NOTE  2/3/14  this is the reason the state agreed to the DNA testing instead of having a court order it)

Some in the media, inexcusably, are not presenting those facts to their readers.

It is the important and only reason the state is fighting this fight: to stop criminals, their attorneys and their supporters from gaming the system, even more.

The state will prevail, as it should.  And a triple murderer's life will be justly taken.

======

Added  2/4/14

 "  'Forensic tests on the knife blade proved the presence of blood on the weapon, and the material found on the knife contained DNA traces from Skinner, Caler and Busby.'  "

“  'We do not say it was that person’s DNA,” Hester said of how DPS interprets DNA results recovered from a crime scene. “They are not consistent solely with him, but they are consistent with him being a possible contributor.'  ”

"Hester also testified that some DNA recovered from the crime scene was contaminated with (Skinner's)  DNA . . . The longtime forensic scientist also testified that some genetic material recovered from a carpet stain, door handles in the home and a door frame could be tied to Skinner." ("Testimony ends in Hank Skinner's DNA hearing",  Jim McBride, Amarillo Globe-News, February 4, 2014 - 3:05pm)

added June 7, 2014:  

"The DNA tests that produced results allowed the state to identify Skinner's DNA at 19 new locations at the crime scene, including on a knife blade used in the crime and in blood smears on the walls. But, state lawyers emphasized, the DNA testing revealed no evidence that Busby's uncle was at the crime scene." ("AG, Lawyers for Hank Skinner Argue Over DNA in Death Penalty Case", Texas Tribune, 6/6/2014)

This is ending, exactly, as Skinner knew it would. A guilty triple murderer executed.

added July 17, 2014:

No surprise. The judge ruled against Skinner.


"Tuesday’s brief ruling . . .  validated prosecutors, who had emphasized that the testing identified Skinner’s DNA at 19 additional spots in the crime scene — among them a knife used in the murders — and did not provide new confirmation that Busby’s uncle had been there."   Ruling Goes Against Death Row Inmate Skinner, Eli Okun, Texas Tribune, July 16, 2014.

A bunch of time and money wasted on a vile triple murderer, who everyone knew was guilty, the very second he said that additional DNA testing would prove him innocent.

All of Skinner's remaining appeals will be denied. 

Sharp, a Houston resident, is an author who has written extensively about the death penalty

1) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy