Friday, October 02, 2009

Liebman's "A Broken System" - A Broken Study

James Liebman's "A Broken System" Is A Broken Study
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, Houston, Texas, CV at bottom

"A Broken System", by James Liebman, published in 2000, found a 68% error rate in US death penalty cases, from 1973-1995 (1).

NOTE: "Error" rate is in regard to legal issues, not the error of conviciting actually innocent people to death row.

Based upon a neutral source, the overturning error rate, for that period, is 30% and, likely, lower (2).

Of the 5555 sentenced to death, from 1973-1995, the period of the study, 1648 cases, or less than 30%, were overturned because of some error in conviction or sentence (2).

Even the 30% is too high, based upon the Reviews, below, as some of those "error" cases (1) were overturned because of either new legislative or case law that didn't exist at the time of the trial or (2) were reversed upon final appeal and had their death sentence reinstated or (3) were improperly included as reversed by error, all of which should have exclude them from being listed as reversed by error within James Liebman's study.

With all those cases excluded, it would be surprising if the error rate was more than 25%.

How could the author have made such blatant errors? He is an anti death penalty defense attorney/law professor.

I looked at the 2005 BJS Capital Punishment database (3) of all death penalty cases, from 1981-1985, which all had 20-25 years of appeals. Of the 1288 sentenced to death, 560 were overturned because of conviction or sentencing errors, or 43%, minus any "new law" and any reinstated death penalty cases. (3)

Still, very high, indeed, but, likely, still 40-50% lower than the 68% claimed in "A Broken System", maybe lower, when removing all the improper "error" cases

In addition, sentences are overturned at twice the rate of convictions, 20% vs 10% (4) , which, in context, likely, tell us more about the bias of many judges against the death penalty (5) , more than it does about errors in sentencing. The judicial bias against the death penalty in states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey is, or was, respectively, blatant.

Some examples of the criticism of James Liebman's "A Broken System".

Pennsylvania review:

"(A Broken System") counts cases thrown out when the United States Supreme Court overturned all existing death penalties in the 1970's. He also counts cases that were reversed on appeal, even if that reversal was itself reversed on further appeal, reinstating the original conviction. Obviously, none of these reversals says anything about the fairness of the current administration of capital punishment." (6)

NOTE:  629 cases were "thrown out when the United States Supreme Court overturned all existing death penalties in the 1970's", none of which can be counted as error within Liebman's report.  During the 1973-1995 period, 489 death row cases were overtuned because of statute problems, not errors in conviction or sentencing (4)

Florida Review:

"Using the authors' misleading definition, the "study" does, however, conclude that 64 Florida post-conviction cases were rife with "error" - even though none of these Florida cases was ultimately resolved by a "not guilty" verdict, a pardon or a dismissal of murder charges." " Indeed, in more than a third of the 64 cases cited by the "study," the death sentence was reimposed, while in other cases the State agreed to accept a plea of life to spare the families of victims the trauma of additional court proceedings. These cases should not be included in a true "error rate" analysis, and if factored out, would show far less "error" in post-conviction cases than the "study" suggests." "(The study) may leave readers with the false impression that Florida put the wrong individual away for an offense, when no such claim is supported by competent evidence." (7)

Note: In Florida, it appears, "A Broken System" may have made errors in excess of 40%.

Nevada review:

"Death penalty records are kept by the Nevada Supreme Court, Attorney General, Department of Prisons, 17 district attorneys and 17 court clerks, yet Liebman got his from criminal defense attorneys (who apparently reported their wins, but not their losses) and the NAACP Capital Punishment Project (whose agenda is the abolition of the death penalty)." "Second, it appears Liebman picked and chose his cases, tailoring the study to get certain results. He took cases from 1973-1995 for some results; 1993-1995 for other results; and 1973-April, 2000 for others. He used only published opinions for some results, but used unpublished opinions for others. He used only Nevada Supreme Court or federal appeal cases for some results, but added lower state court cases to increase reversals. Liebman didn't count all Nevada cases. He excluded killers who discontinued their appeals. (He presumed they did so due to frustration with the system, not because they were proved guilty and accepted it.) Incredibly, he didn't even count the eight men executed in Nevada since 1977!" (8)

NOTE: Could "A Broken System" be that misleading?

Philadelphia Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg;

"The refusal to share underlying data with researchers is particularly troubling in light of the media misrepresentation of Liebman as a neutral professor heading a Columbia University study. In truth, Liebman maintains an active criminal defense practice, and has been litigating against the death penalty since long before he became a professor. His study was funded in large part by a grant from the anti-capital punishment Soros Foundation, with the stated purpose of "find[ing] effective ways to curb the [death] penalty's use." (Preface to Latzer and Cauthen article) (9)

"Upon our request, Prof. Liebman (the primary author) declined to release his data to us. We therefore could not examine the cases or verify the decisions in the "Broken System". (10)

To decline releasing such data should be viewed as the final nail in the coffin of no credibility for "A Broken System".

======
FOOTNOTES

(1) A Broken System: The Persistent Patterns of Reversals of Death Sentences in the United States, (2000), James Liebman, http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/
with updates at http://www2.law.columbia.edu/brokensystem2/index2.html

(2) 1973-1995 data taken from Appendix table 1. Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973-98, "Capital Punishment, 1998", Tracy Snell, Bureau Of Justice Statistics, originally published December, 1999, last updated 1/6/00
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp98.pdf    last viewed and re-confirmed 3/28/2013
Based upon the publication date of "A Broken System", 2000, this appears to be the most relevant data base..

(3) Appendix table 2., Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973-2005, page 14, "Capital Punishment, 2005", Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec, 2006, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp05.pdf

(4) Table 14 Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973–2010, p 18, Capital Punishment, 2010 –Statistical Tables, Tracy Snell, Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 2011, NCJ 236510, http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp10st.pdf last viewed and re-confirmed 3/28/2013

(5) Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/judges-responsible-for-grossly-uneven.html

(6) http://prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/Pennsylvania.htm

(7) http://prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/Florida.htm

(8) http://prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/Nevada.htm

(9) http://prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/LCPreface.htm

(10) endnote 11, page 28. "Another Recount: Appeals in Capital Cases", Latzer and Cauthern, The Prosecutor, January/February 2001. http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/docs/prosecutor.pdf
 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
======
 
Additional research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.  
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
======
 
Partial CV
Posted by at

Monday, July 20, 2009

Media Disaster: Is The News & Observer beyond repair? The Death Penalty

To: Governor Perdue , The State Legislature and media throughout the state

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

The News and Observer (NO) says the death penalty is "Beyond fixing" (7/19/09). Based upon their op/ed, it is the N&O that is beyond repair.

N&O says the list of the exonerated from death row tells the tail of how inaccurate the death penalty is. Well, no. More likely, it tells us the poor state of fact checking in the media.

The term "exonerated", as the N&O knows, has been, highly misused by both the media and anti-death penalty folks (often the same).

The national death row "exonerated" list has grown to 135, but it has nothing to do with the actually innocent sent to and released from death row. Even the New York Times did an article on this obvious anti-death penalty deception. (1) Did N&O not get the memo?

The number is very likely much closer to 25, or about 0.3% of those so sentenced - meaning the actually guilty sent to death row is about 99.7%. The 25 (as well as the 135) have all been released. (2)

Maybe the N&O can do an article on what the difference is between 1) the alleged "exonerated" from North Carolina's death row and 2) for how many of those cases is there proof of actual innocence. It is the only relevant issue in the innocence debate. Why? First, to be clear and honest. Secondly, we can't execute the legally innocent- that is impossible. Therefore, only the actual innocent are the relevant issue.

Is the N&O aware of a more accurate criminal sanction than the death penalty?

The N&O only mentions that African Americans "are too often caught up in the wheels of the court system, and the chance that they will pay a price for flaws in that system is high."

Why the race baiting? It's unseemly.

In the modern era of the US death penalty, since 1973, whites represent, nationally, 57% of those executed, blacks 34%. In North Carolina, whites represent 28 (65%) of those executed, blacks 13 (30%). It is clear that whites are more likely to suffer the worst flaw- an innocent executed -the number one alleged concern of anti-death penalty folks, such as N&O. In reality, it is everyone's chief concern.

Why didn't NO point that out? However, let's try to agree that no one wants any innocent human beings convicted of a crime they didn't commit.

In a serious debate, it is ludicrous to imply discrimination because census data on population counts, for different races and ethnicities, is not consistent with the percentage counts of those races/ethnicities on death row. Instead of populations counts, try looking at who is committing capital, death penalty eligible murders, instead. It's a much better barometer.

The N&O completely blows it on their concern that the death penalty system can't catch ever mistake. We all know that no system can catch every mistake. The N&O overlooked the crucial, relevant issue - the death penalty is more likely to catch a mistake than is any lesser sanction. Put another way, innocents are more protected with the death penalty. (3)

Even N&O knows that the death penalty system has, by far, the most extensive due process protections in US law. That means that the actually innocent convicted are more likely in non-death penalty life cases and are more likely to die in prison, serving under that sentence, than it is that an actual innocent will be executed. (3)

The N&O gets really silly. The N&O states: "The (Racial Justice Act's) House champions know better than to swallow that kind of poison pill." For N&O, the "poison pill" is the Senate language to resume executions. Why is it a poison pill to implement the death penalty that judges and jurors felt was the most appropriate sanction for the crime committed? Because the NO's goal is to help stop any executions, just like their champions.

From a statistical standpoint, it is fitting that N&O agrees with US Supreme Court Justice Blackmun that we should no longer tinker with death's machinery.

That is one judge out of 110 that have served on SCOTUS, or less than 1%. The N&O is in perfect company.

Time for the N&O to get their act together, if it isn't already "Beyond Fixing".

It isn't. Simply honor the Fourth Estate, present honest and balanced coverage of the death penalty. Period.

1) "The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt", New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak, national legal correspondent for The NY Times. Excerpt: "To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ". That is out of the DPIC claimed 119 "exonerated", at that time, for a 75% error rate. NOTE: It's hard to understand how an absolute can have a differential of 33%. I suggest the "to be sure" is, now, closer to 25.

2) The 130 (now 135) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

updated Nov. 2023
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, 
Well Known Since 1998

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

updated Nov. 2023
and
Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions

======
Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

 
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   
 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
======
 
Additional research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.  
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
======
 
Partial CV
Posted by at

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

DETAILS: Why the Racial Justice Act is a SCAM - North Carolina

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

 DETAILS: Why the Racial Justice Act is a SCAM - North Carolina
 
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   

Racial/ethnic bias should be taken seriously and by people of good will with honest intentions.

 The aim of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) is not racial justice. The RJA's purpose is to increase cost and delay in death penalty cases, with a goal of assisting the end of the death penalty in North Carolina.

The RJA bill: Proof of racial discrimination is established if "Death sentences were sought or imposed significantly "MORE FREQUENTLY" upon persons of one race than upon persons of one race than upon persons of another race." (1)

Frequency is a measure of occurrence, not a measure of disproportionality, discrimination or measurable bias.

For example, if 10 death sentences are sought and imposed for both black and white murderers, the frequency of death sentences for each race is equal. Equal frequency can be, totally, disproportionate.

If whites had committed 100 death penalty eligible murders, yet only 10 death sentences were sought and imposed, and blacks had committed 12 "identical" (2) death penalty eligible murders, yet 10 death sentences were sought and imposed, there would be equal frequency, but striking disproportionality.

For those truly looking for discrimination, it doesn't matter how frequently, how often or how rarely the death penalty is sought or imposed for murderers of different races/ethnicities, it only matters if it is significantly, measurably disproportionately sought or imposed based upon discrimination.

 In any jurisdiction, if death sentences are sought or imposed 10 times for whites and 7 times for blacks or 10 times for blacks and 7 times for whites, the frequency is 30% less or 43% more and - voila - a claim of "more frequently" will be made and discrimination will be pronounced, even if death sentences are sought and imposed proportionately to any race/ethnicity involvement in capital murders and there is zero discrimination.

The RJA, intentionally, allows cases to be challenged and overturned based upon a definition of "discrimination" which has nothing to do with discrimination.

The RJA makes a mockery of justice and is a direct insult to those who truly wish to end racism and discrimination.

 The RJA is a big, unnecessary dishonest mess.

The "Study": One often hears that racial bias was established by the study, "Race and The Death Penalty in North Carolina", by UNC-CH professors Boger and Unah (2). It wasn't.

 First, the only alleged racial “disparity” (not bias) uncovered in the “study” is based upon: “. . . the “death odds multiplier” is 3.5, indicating that, on average, the odds of receiving a death sentence are increased by a factor of 3.5 when the murder victim is white.” (3). IF true, that 3.5 odds multiplier might be about a 2%-4% differential – completely meaningless, based upon actual cases sent to death row.

NOTE: Many, in the media and elsewhere, misinterpreted the 3.5 as "times" (a 250% differential) as opposed to the actual "odds multiplier" (maybe a 2-4% differential) .

Did Boger/Unah ever correct that misunderstanding? The same problem exists with the McCleskey v Georgia case. (4)

 Secondly, the study looks at 1993-1997, or 16% of the 32 years of current death penalty laws and 99 out of the 383 death sentences, or 26%. In the unlikely case the study is sound, the results show no discrimination. In the context of the full 32 year database, this study is irrelevant in discussing the death penalty in North Carolina, today.

Thirdly, academics, lawmakers, media (I hope) and others have been trying, without success, to get the database/methodology on the Boger/Unah study for nearly a decade. Is there a legitimate academic reason for withholding that information? Of course not.

 The RJA - Renders Justice an Ass. Don't pass this bill.

 Footnotes:

 (1) HB461,15A-2011, (b), (1) & , mostly, (2), 6/30/09
http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S461v5.pdf

 (2) Of course, there is no such thing as "identical" murders. The circumstances of each murder are all distinct, as are the murderer(s) and the victim(s). That is one of the obvious reasons why the RJA is so flawed.

 (3) "Race and The Death Penalty in North Carolina: An Empirical Analysis 1993-1997", page 4, 4/16/2001
http://www.common-sense.org/pdfs/NCDeathPenaltyReport2001.pdf

 (4) See "The Odds of Execution" within "How numbers are tricking you"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/barnett.htm
and
"The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics"
http://8.12.42.31/1998/jul/12/opinion/op-2965

 see also

RACE: A Death Penalty Primer – No Bias in Death Penalty Sentencing
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/25/race-a-death-penalty-primer.aspx?ref=rss
======
Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

 Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

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

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Race, Death Penalty & North Carolina: The Boger/Unah Study

Race, Death Penalty & North Carolina: The Boger/Unah Study
July 12, 2009
 
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   

======
see also:
RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
======
One often hears that racial bias was established by the study, "Race and The Death Penalty in North Carolina", by UNC-CH professors Boger and Unah (1). It wasn't.

First, the only alleged racial “disparity” (not bias) uncovered in the study is based upon: “. . . the “death odds multiplier” is 3.5, indicating that, on average, the odds of receiving a death sentence are increased by a factor of 3.5 when the murder victim is white.”.

IF true, that 3.5 odds multiplier can mean a differential as low as 2%-4% – completely meaningless, based upon actual cases sent to death row.

NOTE: Many, in the media and elsewhere, misinterpreted the 3.5 as "times", a 250% difference, as opposed to the actual 3.5 "odds multiplier" which may be a difference as low as 2-4% .

Did Boger/Unah ever clarify this issue? If they did, I haven't found it. 

The same problem exists with David Baldus and his work in Philadelphia and within Baldus' analysis that has caused so much misinterpretation in SCOTUS' McCleskey v Georgia case. (2)

Secondly, the North Carolina study looks at 1993-1997, or 16% of the 32 years of current death penalty laws and 99 out of the 383 death sentences, or 26%. 

In the unlikely case the study is sound, the results may show no discrimination. In the context of the full 32 year database, this study is irrelevant in discussing the death penalty in North Carolina, today.

Thirdly, academics, lawmakers, media (I hope) and others have been trying, without success, to get the database/methodology on the Boger/Unah study for nearly a decade. 

Is there a legitimate academic reason for withholding that information? Of course not.

Footnotes:

(1) "Race and The Death Penalty in North Carolina: An Empirical Analysis 1993-1997", page 4, 4/16/2001
http://www.common-sense.org/pdfs/NCDeathPenaltyReport2001.pdf

(2) See "The Odds of Execution" within "How numbers are tricking you"
http://reocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/barnett.htm

and

"The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics"
http://8.12.42.31/1998/jul/12/opinion/op-2965

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


Posted by at

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias

Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

7 studies are reviewed, herein

For emphasis, population count is totally irrelevant, regarding any consideration of class, gender or race/ethnicity bias in the application of the death penalty. The only relevant factors in such a review are class, gender or race/ethnic distribution of murderers and their victims in capital murders, as well as criminal history, the specific circumstances of the crime(s) and a review of individual prosecutorial jurisdictions.

Study 1: Drs. Stephen Klein and John Rolph: "After accounting for some of the many factors that may influence penalty decisions, neither race of the defendant nor race of the victim appreciably improved prediction of who was sentenced to death . . . ". "Relationship of Offender and Victim Race to Death Penalty Sentences in California", Jurimetrics Journal, 32, Fall 1991, aka The Rand Corporation Study)

Study 2: Smith College Professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers found that legal variables, such as prior criminal history and the aggravated nature of the murder, are the proven basis for imposition of the death penalty. The black/white variation in sentencing has generally been reduced to zero when such legal variables are introduced as controls. "Execution by Quota?", The Public Interest, Summer 1994

Study 3: NO BIAS IN DEATH SENTENCING: U of Maryland's Death Penalty Study (1)

The following are direct quotes from the Executive Summary of the U of Maryland study. NOTE: In earlier stages of the process, allegations of bias or some improper racial disproportionality are unfounded (2).

Race of the victim

"The race of the victim effect does not hold up, however, at the decision of the state's attorney to advance a case to penalty trial and at the decision of the judge or jury to impose a death sentence given that a penalty trial has occurred." p 27

"The race of the victim does not appear to matter when the decision is to advance a case to the penalty phase or to sentence a defendant to death after a penalty phase
hearing." page 29

The victim's race has no impact on seeking or giving death sentences

"Among the subset of cases where the case actually does reach a penalty trial, the victim's race does not have a significant impact on the imposition of a death sentence." page 35

The study shows no race of the victim effect in death sentencing in Maryland.

"When the prosecuting jurisdiction is added to the model the effect for the victims race diminishes substantially, and is no longer statistically significant." page 32

When you look at the capital murder cases, from each, separate jurisdiction, individually, any alleged race of the victim effect cannot be found.

" . . . any attempt to deal with any racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty in Maryland cannot ignore the substantial variability that exists in different state's attorney's offices in the processing of death cases." p 34

It is important to look at how each jurisdiction handles their capital cases, because each jurisdiction is different. When that is done, no bias in death sentencing is found.

Race of victim and defendant

"There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death
given a penalty hearing." page 30

Neither the race of the defendant nor the race of the victim have an impact on seeking or giving death sentences.

Race of the defendant

" . . . there is no evidence that the race of the defendant matters at any stage once case characteristics are controlled for." page 26

" . . . we found no evidence that the race of the defendant matters in processing of capital cases in the state." p 26

Maryland is not looking at race, but is concentrating on the nature of the murders.

Study 4: No Racial Bias in the New Jersey Death Penalty System

New Jersey For release: February 11, 2003
For further information: Winnie Comfort, AOC (609) 292-9580
Report on Proportionality
Trenton, N.J.

The 2002 report essentially mirrors the findings contained in the 2001 report, and may be summarized as follows:

--There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that the race of the defendant affects which cases advance to penalty trial. Although bivariate analysis reveals that a greater proportion of death-eligible white defendants than African-American defendants advance to the penalty phase, that finding is not supported by regression studies and application of case-sorting techniques. There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that the race of the defendant affects which cases result in imposition of the death penalty. Again, although bivariate analysis reveals that a greater proportion of death-eligible white defendants are sentenced to death than African-American defendants, that finding is not supported by regression studies and application of case-sorting techniques.
--There is statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than African-American victim cases to advance to penalty trial, but that finding is eradicated when county variability is taken into account. A disproportionate number of minority victim cases are tried in counties with the lowest overall rates of progression to penalty trial, while less urban counties with a high concentration of white victim cases have higher rates of capital prosecutions. Although Judge Baime notes that county variability may itself be a problem, he offers no opinion on the subject because that issue is well beyond the contours of his report.
--There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than minority victim cases to result in imposition of the death penalty

The New Jersey Supreme Court has accepted the 2002 annual report prepared by Judge David S. Baime, a retired Appellate Division judge, on the monitoring of proportionality review in capital punishment cases in New Jersey. The Supreme Court adopted a monitoring system in 2000 to determine whether racial discrimination played a role in the administration of New Jersey's capital cases.

In his capacity as a "special master," a role that requires extrajudicial expertise and work with court-appointed experts, Judge Baime prepared the "Report to the New Jersey Supreme Court: Systemic Proportionality Review Project 2001-2002 Term." .

Judge Baime was assisted by statistical analysts David Weisburd, a professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The University of Maryland, College Park, and Joseph Naus, a professor at Rutgers University. In an effort to provide the most accurate analysis possible, the monitoring system approved by the Court consists of three different statistical strategies: bivariate analyses, regression studies and case-sorting techniques. In order to establish systemic disproportionality, a defendant must relentlessly document the risk of racial disparity. This requires that the outcomes produced by the three modes of analysis substantially converge, or lead to the conclusion that racial discrimination plays a part in capital sentencing.

The three modes of analysis were applied to three separate decision points: death outcomes at penalty trials, death outcomes among all death-eligible cases, as determined by Judge Baime and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and advancement of death-eligible cases to penalty trials. Three identifiable groups--African-Americans, whites and Hispanics--were examined, and possible disparities in terms of the race or ethnicity of the defendant and the race or ethnicity of the victim were considered.

Study 5: Pro & Con: The Death Penalty in Black and White, by Dudley Sharp
IntellectualCapital.com, 6/24/99.
stored at www.prodeathpenalty.com/racism.htm

I don't know about you, but when I get into a discussion about the death penalty, my first thoughts go to the victim and to the brutality of the murder. That is the foundation of the just nature of the death penalty.

Too often these days, however the death penalty is discussed in different terms. Inevitably, with the racial history of this country, the effect of race in the application of the death penalty has become a central part of the death-penalty discourse. This is particularly true as some politicians are making the case for a death-penalty moratorium, in part to consider whether the death penalty is inherently racist.

All too often, however, those arguments are spurious. In the death penalty debate, it should be the facts, and not the hype, that are in be black and white.

A closer look at the statistics

Often such discussion begins with the obvious: the race of the defendant. The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports that black murderers represent 35% of those executed, white murderers 56%. As the argument goes, this must be evidence of systemic racism, as blacks represent 12% of the population, whites 74%.

Fortunately, the United States does not execute people based on their population counts but on the murders they commit. As blacks represent 47% of murderers and whites 37%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are their black counterparts.

Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that whites sentenced to death are executed 17 months more quickly than blacks. With 98% of all head prosecutors in the United States being white, according to DPIC, how is such a result possible? Maybe prosecutors, judges and juries are focusing on the crimes and not the race of the defendant.

That is not the case, say anti-death penalty groups, such as Amnesty International, and now the United Nations. If you adjust for the specific aggravating factors present within capital crimes, you find clear evidence of racism.

Death-penalty opponents note, for example, that the Supreme Court, in the famous race-based challenge to the death penalty (McCleskey v. Kemp), found in 1987 that those who murderer whites were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murder blacks, under similar circumstances.

David Baldus (3), who did the statistical study on McCleskey's behalf, also completed a recent study in Philadelphia where it is was reported to show that black murderers were four times more likely to receive a death sentence than white murderers. With such results, how can anyone dispute the racist application of the death penalty?

Quite easily.

The Supreme Court, as well as many others, confused odds with multiples. The data reflect odds of 4-to-1, not four times more likely.

What difference does it make?

In Baldus' Philadelphia (3) study, we find that if only 2% more white murderers had been sentenced to death and only 2.5% fewer black murderers had been sentenced to death, then each group would have been sentenced to death by juries at the same rate -- a far cry from the 300% difference stated within the incorrect interpretation of "four times"!

A punishment that fits the crimes

The next issue raised is the victim's race. While blacks and whites comprise about an equal number of murder victims, the ratio of white-to-black victims in death-penalty cases is about 7-to-1. This has given rise to the allegation that the "system" only cares about white murder victims. A horrible accusation, if true.

However, the ratio of white-to-black victims in the aggravated circumstances necessary for a capital murder conviction (rape, robbery, car-jacking, burglary, police murders, serial/multiple murders, etc.) is from 4-to-1 to 8-to-1 -- numbers consistent with the victim ratios on death row.

The final resting place for the racism charge lies within those cases where blacks have been executed for murdering whites and whites have been executed for murdering blacks. There have been 144 blacks and 10 whites executed under such circumstances, or a ratio of 14-to-1. As blacks are about 2.5 times more likely to murder whites than the other way around, there appears to be a huge disparity in such executions. Is racism the reason?

If we look at robbery, the aggravated crime found most often in capital cases, we find that when there is a robbery with injury, the ratio of black robber/white victims versus white robbers/black victims is 21-to-1.

Again, when looking at the circumstances consistent with capital crimes, we find no evidence of racial bias.

The determining factor for sentencing in death-penalty cases is what it should be -- the aggravating nature of the crimes. Both the Rand Corp. study of 1991 and the research presented by Smith College professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers in 1994 confirm that finding. In other words, it appears that any racial variations present within the data are reflective of the crimes themselves and not racial bias within the system. A review of those studies, as well as of criminal-justice statistics, within the context of the aggravating circumstances present within capital murders and the related statutes, produces the same conclusion.

Don't assume the worst motives

There will always be some variables of race, ethnicity and class within any study of criminal-justice practices, and based on historic, as well as current prejudices, we can never lower our guard. Because all studies are subject to poor protocols, bias and misinterpretation, we must make reasoned judgments based on as many respected considerations as we may have at our disposal.

And even if criminal-justice statistics did not show the obvious correlation between crimes and the application of the death penalty, we should note what the Supreme Court stated in McCleskey: "Where the discretion that is fundamental to our criminal justice process is involved, we decline to assume that what is unexplained [by measured factors] is invidious." Sound ideas should not be eliminated based on misguided statistics.

In the case of the death penalty, the facts lead to only one conclusion. No moratorium is necessary.

Study 6: Death Penalty Opponents Distortions are the Real Story

"To properly protect the people in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions like it, we must restore public confidence in and support of capital punishment, so that prosecutors can seek it in appropriate cases, and jurors will impose it. The first step toward that end is to debunk the myth that capital punishment is imposed discriminatorily. The numbers are there, in the opponents's own studies, once we cut through the spin and look at the facts."

Smoke and Mirrors on Race and the Death Penalty, Kent Scheidegger, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Engage Magazine, Volume 4, Issue 2, 10/2003 www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/EngageArticle.pdf

Study 7: Full Review Finds no Bias

"From 1976-1995, 5 white murderers have been put to death for the murder of black persons and 101 black murderers have been put to death for the murder of white persons (NAACP LDF, 1996). Opponents falsely contend that this is evidence of racism in the "system". That 101:5 ratio, or 20:1, is consistent with statistics that show aggravated crimes (those crimes committed with the murder which may make a crime eligible for the death penalty) are committed by blacks against whites in far greater numbers than by whites against blacks. For all violent crimes, there are ten times as many black offenders (2,016,939) involved in white victim violent crimes as there are white offenders (210,869) involved in black victim violent crimes, or a 10:1 ratio. (The State of Violent Crime in America, pg. 12,1/96, data derived from Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1993, BJS forthcoming, tables 42 and 48. Multiple offenders were assumed to be two offenders for calculation purposes.) In addition, blacks are nearly three times as likely to murder whites (849), as whites are to murder blacks (304), or 3:1 (Sourcebook 1994, BJS 1995, table 3.123). IF murder rates are statistically consistent within the violent crime category, as McCleskey et al indicate, then blacks are, statistically, by a 30:1 (10:1 X 3:1) ratio, more likely to murder whites, than whites are to murder blacks, in those circumstances where an additional aggravating factor is present (see C2). These are those crimes most eligible for the death penalty. That statistically projected ratio of 30:1 is hardly inconsistent with the 20:1 ratio for black offender(s)/white victim vs white offender(s)/black victim executions. The most relevant aggravated crime is robbery with injury, wherein blacks are 21 times more likely to be involved in such crimes as are whites. This 21:1 ratio represents 1.4 million black offender(s)/white victim vs. 68,000 white offender(s)/black victim for robbery with injury crimes (JFA, using BJS, 1977-84 data). IF overall murder statistics are consistent, within this crime category, as McCleskey et al suggests, then there is a 30-60:1 ratio of black on white vs white on black murders within this robbery/murder category. (From 1977-1984)."

Excerpt from "C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY", paragraph No. 5., DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION In the United States, 10/1/97, by Dudley Sharp, http://prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Race

or
or

===
Conclusion

You cannot remove all bias from human endeavors.

The weight of the evidence is that there is no systemic racial/ethnic bias within the modern US death penalty. Police, prosecutors, judges and jurors, overwhelmingly, are honorable folks, working to do the right thing, in any given case.

The death penalty has the most extensive due process protections, meaning they have the most thorough reviews, inclusive of bias, in the pre trial, trial and appellate reviews.

With so few death sentences, over such a long period of time, statistical variances are, often, the result of very small numerical or percentage comparisons, which cannot and do not establish racial or ethnic bias or are the result of very poor studies, as Baldus' in McCleskey.

======
===

1) Executive Summary: An Empirical Analysis of Maryland's Death Sentencing System with Respect to the Influence of Race and Legal Jurisdiction, www.urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/pdf/exec.pdf

2) Minority Report, well hidden, between pages 128 and 129 (see p 8-12), part of Final Report to the General Assembly, Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment, 12/12/08
http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/capital-punishment/documents/death-penalty-commission-final-report.pdf

3) I am, particularly, wary of David Baldus' works or anyone who refers, approvingly, of his work. See Joseph Katz' deconstruction of Baldus' work for McCleskey, as well as:

"The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics"
John Allen Paulos, Los Angeles Times, 7/12/98
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/12/opinion/op-2965

and

"The Odds of Execution" within "How numbers are tricking you
Arnold Barnett, MIT Technology Review October, 1994
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/barnett.htm


REBUTTAL TO MORE STANDARD ANTI DEATH PENALTY DECEPTIONS

Anti-death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.

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
======

copyright 1998-2022 Dudley Sharp Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
=====
 
Partial CV
Posted by at

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Death Penalty Polls - Support Remains Very High - 80%

Death Penalty Polls - Support Remains Very High - 80%
April, 2009 - updated 9/2021
 
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   

======
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.

When polls correctly ask about true capital, death penalty eligible murders, support is around 80%.

Most familiar polls wrongly ask a variation of "Do you support the death penalty for murder?", usually getting replies in the 60-75% range.

However, in the US, the death penalty is only allowed for those who commit capital murders. Therefore, all polls, which only refer to murders are irrelevant when asking about death penalty support.

Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe.

Death penalty support for relevant capital, death penalty eligible murders

81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh, with only 16% opposed. "(T)his view appears to be the consensus of all major groups in society, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, "liberals" and "conservatives." (Gallup 5/2/01).

85% of Connecticut respondents voiced support for serial/rapist murderer Michael Ross' "voluntary" execution. (Quinnipiac University Poll, January 12, 2005). This is the best example of a death penalty poll I have seen, regarding how polling results change, based upon the way a question is asked.

79% support the death penalty for terrorists (Survey USA News Poll #12074, Sponsor: WABC-TV New York, 4/26/2007 New York State poll)

"78% of (Nebraska's) 3,232 respondents said they supported the death penalty for “heinous crimes.” 16% opposed. ". . . a nearly identical number (76%) said they opposed legislation that would abolish the death penalty. ("Survey Shows Statewide Support for Death Penalty", MPB Public Affairs Poll, 2/14/08)

73% of Connecticut voters support the death penalty for the two parolees accused of the Cheshire (Ct) home invasion rape/murders of a mother and her two daughters. While 63% of Connecticut voters support the death penalty for murderers, in general, AT THE SAME TIME. ("Connecticut Voters Support Death Penalty 2-1", Quinnipiac University Poll, 11/7/07). NOTE: Support is actually greater than 3 to 1. The poll showed 73% for execution, 23% opposed, for those parolees. It was 63-27% for the general question.


82% of those in the US favored of executing Saddam Hussein (French daily Le Monde, 12/2006{1}), also in
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46%
(Europe, America and the Death Penalty by Soeren Kern GEES Analysis January 30, 2007


We are led to believe there isn't death penalty support in England or Europe. European governments won't allow executions when their populations support it: they're anti democratic. (2)

Why is the "error rate" so large between the general murder question and specific, death penalty eligible murders?

Likely, it is due to several factors:
(1) the reluctance of some respondents to voice stronger support for the death penalty, unless specific examples of murderers and their crimes are provided. All of the above polls reflect that.;
(2) the widespread media coverage of anti death penalty claims, without the balance of contradicting those false claims, producing lower general support (The 130 death row "innocents" scam is a perfect example); and
(3) the absence of that influence from (2) when looking at individual cases, when the public knows the crimes, the guilt of the murderer and absent the anti death penalty bias factor, thus producing much higher specific case support, also reflected in the polls, above.

Death Penalty Opposition? Look Again.

Significant percentages of those who say the oppose the death penalty, in general, do, in fact, support that sanction for truly death eligible crimes. This provides firm evidence that death penalty support is much wider and deeper than expressed with the answers to the general and improper death penalty polling questions.

57% of those who say they oppose the death penalty, generally, actually do support it for McVeigh's execution (81% supported the execution of McVeigh, 16% opposed (Gallup 5/02/01), while 65% offer general support for executions for "murder", with 28% opposed (Gallup, 6/10/01). The polls were conducted at nearly the same time.

40% who say they oppose the death penalty, generally, actually do support it for terrorists. (79% support and 18% oppose the death penalty for terrorists. 67% support and 29% oppose the death penalty for "murder".) (SAME POLL - Survey USA News Poll #12074, Sponsor: WABC-TV New York, 4/26/2007 New York State poll)

84% of those who, generally, say they oppose the death penalty, in general, actual did support it for Michael Ross. (SAME POLL - 85% say Connecticut serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross should be allowed to waive appeals and be executed. When asked whether they favor or oppose the death penalty, 59% favor - 31% oppose (Quinnipiac University Poll, January 12, 2005).

NOTE: The percentages will likely have a range of change, instead of a specific percentage, because there would be a transfer of points, not just from those opposing, under the general question, but from the undecided" or "did not answer" group, as well, into the supportive group for specific murders.


Distortion: Death Penalty vs Life Without Parole Polls

When responding to this question: “If you could choose between the following two approaches, which do you think is the better penalty for murder: the death penalty (or) life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole?”, Gallup found:

47% for the death penalty, 48% for life without parole, (Gallup, May 2006).

Some, including Gallup and Quinnipiac, speculate that this represents lower support for the death penalty. Such improper and inaccurate speculation cannot be justified and is an unethical use of pollsters' opinion.

First error: Neither respondent group is saying do away with the other sanction or that they oppose the other sanction. What it does mean is that 95% of US citizens support the death penalty and/or life without parole for murderers. It could also mean that 90% of all respondents support both sanctions, particularly when properly using capital murders.

For example, "Which do you think is better - vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream?" 50% prefer chocolate, 45% vanilla. However, 92% actually like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream - with a slightly lower percentage liking vanilla, marginally less. 100% of respondents don't want either ice cream banned.

Second error: This polling question is highly prejudicial, which wrongly influences the answers. This has become commonplace.

"Absolutely" no possibility of parole (release) doesn't exist.

What is absolute is that the executive branch can reduce sentences and the legislature can change the laws and make them retroactive, if it benefits the criminal, thereby offering two avenues for parole in "absolutely" no-parole cases.

Therefore, the polling question offers a false premise which, obviously, distorts the answers. Gallup has been made aware of this for some time.

Third error: By law and in the context of the death penalty, it cannot be a choice of either only a death sentence or only a life sentence, as Gallup wrongly poses. Constitutionally, the death penalty cannot be mandatory. Therefore, at least two sentencing options must always be provided to jurors in a death penalty eligible case.

Therefore, the polling question begins with 3 false premises, all of which wrongly effect the poll.

Gallup did not ask this misleading question in 2007, 2008 or 2009. I hope they did so because of theses error issues and will not resume it.

Fourth error: Inexcusably, Gallup wrongly continues to mention the previous results of this highly misleading poll.

If you are searching for a true life vs death penalty choice, the poll question should be in the context of true death penalty eligible murders, such as:

For the rape and murder of children do you prefer the punishment options of
1) Life without parole, excluding, in all cases, the death penalty? or
2) Giving the jury the option of selecting either the death penalty or life without parole?

This has the benefit of reflecting reality, as opposed to the distorted fiction of Gallup's (and others') current life sentence vs death penalty polling. The death penalty cannot be a punishment option, without also having life or other options and the death penalty is case specific to capital murders.

Conclusion

Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe, with significant percentages of those who say they, generally, oppose the death penalty, actually supporting it when it is a true death eligible crime.

There is 82% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006. Even one of the most liberal US states, Connecticut, has shown very strong support for specific, death eligible case executions - 85% (2005), 73% (2007).

95% of US citizens support the death penalty and/or life without parole for murderers. Therefore, we already have the most democratic approach - we give jurors and judges the choice between those two sentences in capital eligible cases.

Copyright 2005-2021 Dudley Sharp, Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or part, is approved, with proper attribution.

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.

Pro death penalty sites

essays http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

http://www.dpinfo.com
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
http://prodpinNC.blogspot.com/
http://www.coastda.com/archives.html
http://www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html



(1) The recent results of a poll conducted by Novatris/Harris for the French daily Le Monde on the death penalty shocked the editors and writers at Germany's left-leaning SPIEGEL ONLINE (Dec. 22, 2006). When asked whether they favored the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, a majority of respondents in Germany, France and Spain responded in the affirmative.

(2)An excellent article, “Death in Venice: Europe’s Death-penalty Elitism", details this anti democratic position (The New Republic, by Joshua Micah Marshall, 7/31/2000). Another situation reflects this same mentality. "(Pres. Mandela says 'no' to reinstating the death penalty in South Africa - Nelson Mandela against death penalty though 93% of public favors it, according to poll. "(JET, 10/14/96). Pres. Mandela explained that ". . . it was necessary to inform the people about other strategies the government was using to combat crime." As if the people didn't understand. South Africa has had some of the highest crime rates in the world in the ten years, since Mandela's comments. "The number of murders committed each year in the country is as high as 47,000, according to Interpol statistics." As of 2006, 72% of South Africans want the death penalty back. ("South Africans Support Death Penalty", 5/14/2006, Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

NOTE: Some recent polls - with no mention of specific crimes.

97%+ of Guatemalans support the death penalty. 2.6% oppose
(telephone survey, newspaper Prensa Libre, 2/14/08)
www.latinamericapress.org/article.asp?lanCode=1&artCode=5545

79% support the resumption of hanging in Jamaica. 16% oppose. (Bill Johnson Polling for The Gleaner (Jamaica) Newspaper, 1/12-13/08

Two-thirds of Czechs for death penalty reintroduction - poll
Prague- Almost two-thirds of Czechs believe that death penalty should exist in the Czech Republic, while one-third believes the opposite, according to a poll the CVVM agency conducted in May and released. June 12, 2008, Ceskenoviny.cz/news/
 
======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
======
 
Additional research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.  
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
======
 
Partial CV
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)