Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Duane Buck & the False Claims of Racism

Duane Buck & the False Claims of Racism: 
More Deceptions by Death Penalty Opponents
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

"Duane Buck: Sentenced to Death Because He is Black" (NAACP - LDF) (1)

Falsely invoking racism, as with the Duane Buck case, is just another example of how death penalty opponents will apply any deception, no matter how vile, to achieve their ends (1).

Vicious double capital murderer Duane Buck, also a double attempted capital murderer, murdered his ex-girlfriend, in front of three children (2,3,4).

 "Debra ran out into the street, where Buck followed after her with shotgun in hand. Debra fell to her knees and begged Buck to spare her life. The three children stood in the doorway of Debra's residence watching. Shennel, Debra's 13-year-old daughter, ran and jumped on Buck's back, clinging to his neck and shoulders and yelling for him not to shoot her mother.

 Both mother and daughter cried and pleaded for Buck to stop. Shennel screamed, "Duane, don't shoot! Duane, don't shoot … don't kill my mama!" Buck gazed down at Debra, aimed his shotgun at Debra's chest and pulled the trigger. She fell back in a pool of her own blood, as the three children cried and screamed in shock. After he was arrested and in a police car, Buck smiled and joked, saying, 'The bitch got what she deserved.' " (4)

SCOTUS' Justice Sotomayor (2), "based" her racism dissent on an out of context presumption of an inference:

 "After inquiring about the statistical factors of past crimes and age and how they might indicate future dangerousness in Buck’s case, the prosecutor said: “You have determined that the sex factor, that a male is more violent than a female because that’s just the way it is, and that the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons; is that correct?” 
Quijano answered, “Yes.” 

 After additional cross-examination and testimony from a subsequent witness, the prosecutor argued to the jury in summation that Quijano “told you that there was a probability that [Buck] would commit future acts of violence." (2)

 As Sotomayor admits, these are two separate times and contexts. Yet, she improperly attempts to combine them.

Quijano and the other defense psychiatrist, both testifying on Buck's behalf, found that Buck was at reduced risk of future danger - reduced, not zero risk. So all the prosecutor is saying is that the defense psychiatrists' findings include that Buck "might" be at some risk of future danger, just as any murderer might be. Quijano's testimony was that Buck was at a reduced risk for future danger, as known to the jury and the opposite of death penalty opponents' claims.

 The prosecutor had substantial evidence of Buck's future dangerousness, devoid of racial components (2.3.4).

Sotomayor, out of thin air, has fabricated her own perception of an inference that was the factual opposite of the testimony.

That is the basis for this newest anti-death penalty campaign - nonsense - just like so many others (1,5,6).

The prosecutors never said that "there was a probability that (Buck) would commit future acts of violence" because of race or gender. Never.

 She couldn't, because that is never what Quijano said and the jury knew it.

 That is the entire "racism" case. Zero.

 The prosecutor had substantial evidence of Buck's future dangerousness (2,3,4), with zero racial components.

 The odd thing is that Sotomayor admits that, exactly. From her opinion, she writes:

 "The context in which Buck’s counsel addressed race differed markedly from how the prosecutor used it. On direct examination, Quijano referred to race as part of his overall opinion that Buck would pose a low threat to society were he imprisoned. This is exactly how the State has characterized Quijano’s testimony. . . . “In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were overrepresented in the criminal justice system; he did not state a causal relationship, nor did he link this statistic to Buck as an individual”.  

 Sotomayor complains: " Buck did not argue that his race made him less dangerous, and the prosecutor had no need to revisit the issue. But (the prosecutor) did, in a question specifically designed to persuade the jury that Buck’s race made him more dangerous and that, in part on this basis, he should be sentenced to death."

 No, the prosecutor never argued that. Sotomayor made it up, even pointing out the statements were at different times, within different contexts.

 The problem for Buck and Sotomayor is that Quijano's entire testimony, with regard to Buck, specifically, was that he was at reduced risk of being a future danger, as the jury knew.

 To repeat, from Sotomayor: 

 “In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were overrepresented in the criminal justice system; he did not state a causal relationship, nor did he link this statistic to Buck as an individual”, as the jury knew.

 This alleged racist component from the trial never existed.

 It is despicable that so many death penalty opponents are libeling Quijano with the term "racist", which he certainly does not deserve. Such opponents will say anything to save murderers. 

 Some see a perception of an inference. Odd how Sotomayor compounded it, then contradicted it, within her dissent:

 "Moreover, the prosecutor did not revisit the race-related testimony in closing or ask the jury to find future dangerousness based on Buck’s race." (2).

Death penalty opponents manufactured racism in this case, as with so many others' (5).

 The prosecutor had substantial evidence of Buck's future dangerousness (2,3,4), with zero racial components.

Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) Justice Alcala (3) , who dissented, IN FAVOR OF Buck:

Alcala writes: "As to (Buck's) second claim (based upon racism) , I conclude that (Buck) has failed to make out a prima facie case for discriminatory intent in the prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty in his case." (3).  

 Not even "intent", much less an actual claim.

 Alcala thought this such a minor issue that response was in a footnote (3).

 Even though Alcala found no intent, in her opening paragraph, she stated, the integrity of the proceedings were "further called into question by the admission of racist and inflammatory testimony from an expert witness at the punishment phase."

 Alcala, like Sotomayor, invents racism, here, for which there is zero evidence. The prosecutor asked Quijano about his research, finding that blacks were more likely to commit violence, to which Quijano responded that such was true. Not racism but, instead, a criminological fact (5b) . . . and not inflammatory, as both defense experts stated, throughout, that Buck was at a lesser risk of future danger, as the jury knew, just as the jury knew of all of the substantial proof of Buck's real future dangerousness (devoid of any racial components), as presented by the prosecutor (2,3,4).

 No intent, no racism, no inflammation.

 What was inflammatory? Buck committed two capital murders, tried to commit two additional capital murders and did so in the presence of three children. Lots of intent, lots of inflammation, lots of destruction, all courtesy of Buck.

 How bad was Justice Sotomayor's claim?

One might speculate, as did Sotomayor, that the prosecutor may have been attempting to infer that Buck was a future danger because of race, but the prosecutor never stated it and the jury knew that Quijano's testimony, as well as the other defense psychologist, was to the contrary. Alcala didn't even find intent, much less proof.

The prosecutor was inferring that, because Buck never argued that he was at zero probability of any future danger, that Buck might represent some future danger, just as any murderer might, statements, more truthfully, representing what Quijano or the prosecutor may have inferred, as that would be consistent with the defenses position that Buck represented a reduced risk of future danger, but not a zero risk, the only inference the prosecutor could make, based upon all the presented evidence, none of which found Buck a future danger based on race, the, completely, fabricated claim by death penalty opponents.

 Buck's history supplied lots of evidence for future danger for the prosecutor to use (2,3,4), with zero racial components.

 Not even the dissents FOR Buck, in SCOTUS and the TCCA, nor with Texas AG Cornyn's concerns did any of them make the mistake of saying that Quijano or the prosecutor stated that Buck was a future danger because of being black or male. Why? Because it never happened, as the jury knew.

 There was a clear reason that Texas AG Cornyn did not pursue relief for Buck. He shouldn't have.

 The testimony from the two defense witness psychologists, including Quijano, was that Buck was at reduced risk for future danger, not zero risk, as the jury knew.

The prosecutor never said what some may presume was her inference, which, of course, has no weight, in the context of all of Quijano's actual testimony on behalf of Buck, that Buck was at reduced risk of future danger, as the jury well knew.

 If we, generously, presume a non-credible inference of racial bias, which is all Sotomayor and Buck's other supporters have, are left with: 

Presuming an inference of facts not in evidence, when both that presumption and inference are opposite the facts in evidence, is a prescription for a no win appellate argument, as it should be, just as it proves the lie, by death penalty opponents, who repeatedly claim that Buck was sentenced to death because of his race (1).

 As Sotomayor repeated, within her same dissent, again:

 “In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were overrepresented in the criminal justice system; (Quijano) did not state a causal relationship, nor did he link this statistic to Buck as an individual”. (bold my emphasis)

 There is no smoke and no fire. It's a bogus claim and a bogus argument by Buck. Again, just another vile claim of racism, contrary to the facts, very common with 
anti -death penalty folk (1, 5, 6).

 As a common rule, the media didn't just drop the ball, they parroted the anti-death penalty folks.

 It is a, completely, invented race conflict, which so many seem so eager to embrace. Irresponsible and despicable.

 1) No racial bias in Duane Buck's case: A Review 

BOLD my emphasis. "Quotes" from denial of certiorari, US Supreme Court:

"The witness, Dr. Walter Quijano, testified that (Buck), if given a noncapital sentence, WOULD NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO SOCIETY." (2).

Repeatedly, defense counsel and the two defense experts made it clear that BUCK DID NOT FIT INTO THE CATEGORY OF BLACK MALES THAT WERE MORE LIKELY TO RE OFFEND AND THAT BUCK WAS AT A REDUCED RISK TO RE OFFEND.

 Never was it presented to the jury that because Buck was black and/or male, that he was more likely to re-offend because of that. All of the evidence, for Buck,  was to the contrary.

“In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were over represented in the criminal justice system; (Quijano) DID NOT STATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP (BY RACE OR GENDER), NOR DID HE LINK THIS STATISTIC TO BUCK AS AN INDIVIDUAL."(2).

 "On direct examination, Quijano referred to RACE AS PART OF HIS OVERALL OPINION THAT BUCK WOULD POSE A LOW THREAT TO SOCIETY WERE HE IMPRISONED." (2).

"Although (Sotomayor's) dissent suggests that the District Court may have been misled by the State’s inaccurate statements, the District Court, in denying petitioner’s motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was fully aware of what had occurred in all of these cases. It is for these reasons that I conclude that certiorari should be denied." (2).

There were six other death penalty cases, wherein Dr. Quijano testified, that some minorities and males were more likely to be a future danger.

It is extraordinarily difficult to get a death sentence (7), yet . . .

 In those 6 re sentencing trials, all received the death penalty, again, a solid rebuttal to any claim that race/gender testimony, in any of the cases, was a factor in the prior jury decisions to give death.

Just as with Buck, it was the nature of the crimes and other non-racial/gender factors which convinced 156 jurors in those 13 trials to, unanimously, award the death penalty.

"Moreover, the prosecutor did not revisit the race-related testimony in closing or ask the jury to find future dangerousness based on Buck’s race." (2).

THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT ASK THE JURY TO FIND FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS BASED UPON BUCK'S RACE OR GENDER.

 Quijano responded affirmatively and truthfully, to the prosecutor's question, regarding that both blacks and males were more likely to be violent and re offend.

"And, on redirect, defense counsel mentioned race ONLY TO MITIGATE the effect on the jury of Dr. Quijano’s prior identification of race as an immutable factor increasing a defendant’s likelihood of future dangerousness." (2).

When the prosecution presented Buck's probability of future dangerousness, IT WAS NEVER IN THE CONTEXT OF BUCK'S RACE OR GENDER.

 2) No Racial Bias on Death Row

"White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers.  (3)

"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 . . . ". (3).

"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." (3).
 
3) Redemption and Death Row - an additional reply to the many ministers supporting Buck

Only God and the individual know of their transformation, if any (8).

 ". . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy." Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992 (8).

St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146. (8).
======


 FOOTNOTES

 1)  a) With liberal ant- death penalty group Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty showing the way, http://conservativesconcerned.org/27-evangelical-leaders-call-for-a-new-fair-sentencing-hearing-for-death-row-prisoner-duane-buck/
      b)  Conservatives Concerned About The Death Penalty:   Just another dishonest anti death penalty group (A Young Americans for Liberty partner) 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/concerned-conservatives-about-death.html
      c) Duane Buck: Sentenced to Death Because He is Black, NAACP-LDF, 12/5/12

and many, many others.

 2) From the denial of certiorari, US Supreme Court

DUANE EDWARD BUCK v. RICK THALER, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, No. 11–6391. Decided November 7, 2011
majority  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-6391alito.pdf
dissent  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-6391Sotomayor.pdf

 3) Dissent, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Footnote 8, http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=24847

 4) Smith: "Justice is served in case of Duane Buck", By Accie Smith, Houston Chronicle, July 13, 2013

 Smith is Debra Gardner's sister
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Smith-Justice-is-served-in-case-of-Duane-Buck-4663725.php

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

 b)  Race, ethnicity and crime statistics

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

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

 From

 REASSESSING TRENDS IN BLACK VIOLENT CRIME, 1980.2008: SORTING OUT THE "HISPANIC EFFECT" IN UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS ARRESTS, NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY OFFENDER ESTIMATES, AND U.S. PRISONER COUNTS, DARRELL STEFFENSMEIER, BEN FELDMEYER, CASEY T. HARRIS, JEFFERY T. ULMER, Criminology, Volume 49, Issue 1, Article first published online: 24 FEB 2011

 6)  The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
8) The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

 some others:

 "All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, “Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.). Part of Synopsis of Professor Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says, Abingdon Press, 1987.

 Saint (& Pope) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).
 
Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.
 
"Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
 
Christianity and the death penalty.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity
 
Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty,
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

======

Some related topics

The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation

 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
    World Support Remains High
    95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

Few Conservatives Embrace Anti Death Penalty Deceptions

Conservatives Concerned About The Death Penalty:
Just another dishonest anti death penalty group

DEAD WRONG: (Montana) Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty (MCCATDP)

Rebuttal to Richard A. Viguerie's "A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty"

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

Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims. 
 
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
 
a) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
 
======
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, November 21, 2013

The Death Penalty: How bad is the European Union?

updated Feb 2025

The Death Penalty: How bad is the European Union?
From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

As with all sanctions, the death penalty represents justice and, in addition it protects and saves more innocent lives, in six ways, than does a life imprisonment (1) which confounds justice and is a greater harm to innocents (1), as EU supports, making EU the greater human rights violator.

1) The EU's Hypocricy

a) Sarin Gas

The EU could hardly be more hypocritical on this issue, selling tons of materials to produce sarin gas for Syria to murder a huge number of innocents, just to make a profit (2). 

In the US, guilty murderers are executed within justice, making no profit, except that of justice and saving more innocent lives (1), a huge profit, indeed.

b) The European Union's vile immigration system captures migrants arriving from Africa. then sends them to brutal detention centers run by Libya militias, with unknown numbers of innocents killed.
c)  Children committing suicide

How bad can it get? 5 year olds are more mature than 17 year olds? Of course, says the EU.

As a matter of law, Belgium has agreed that children, of any age, can consent to assisted suicide (3), if they possess "the capacity of discernment" --   undoubtedly, a human rights movement that will sweep throughout the EU.

I'll take a chance, here, and say that Belgium and the EU may end up drawing the line at 5 year olds, unless they find that would violate the human rights of those children, aged 0-4.

EU politicians were aghast that the US would allow 16-17 year old rapist/murderers to be executed, even with thorough reviews of their mental and psychological capacities, to determine their discernment. Yet, Belgium allows children, of any age, to discern whether or not suicide is appropriate for their condition. 

Combining EU's anti-death penalty position with that Belgian law shows how absurd they are, if one is capable of rational discernment.

The EU finds, no matter what, 16-17 year old rapist/murderers are not mature enough to be subject to such a punishment because they can't possibly discern murder and execution - although, somehow, 16-17 year olds do discern both murder and incarceration? Really? It's ludicrous, of course.

Now that Belgium and, possibly, the EU, are to agree that some children, of any age, are mature enough to invite death, I guess the EU and those US Supreme Court Judges will have to change their opinions on the possibility that 16-17 year old rapist/murderers may discern the error of their ways, to the point that execution may be an option. Well, no. Hypocrisy  and irrationality will rule the day.

All of a sudden, 0-17 year olds are more than capable of offing themselves, because they are mature enough. I guess mental and psychological maturity is dependent on the type of killing - or, at least, that is the only "rationale" for EU's illogic.

But, of course, the EU finds that s0me 0-5 year olds have the discernment to decide their own suicide.

EU governments could could not see what most see, quite clearly,  that some 16-17 year old murderers are more mature than many 18-21 year olds, just as many non-murderous 16 and 17 years are, as we all know, except for the EU.

But, 0-5 year olds? Of course. 

Some idiotic US Supreme Court judges used that same illogic in Roper v Simmons, based upon EU sensibilities, to outlaw the execution of any 16-17 year old murderers, regardless of how mature they are and regardless that the rest of us, with some sense, know than many 16-17 year olds are more mature, in every way, than are many 18-21 year olds. 

Clear, obvious, unchallenged.

All US criminal cases are supposed to evaluate suspects/criminals, individually, not collectively.

Prof. Kontorovich writes: " . . . a system that permits the euthanasia of innocent 12 year-olds but not the punishment of guilty 17-year-olds is one that exalts autonomy without culpability." So it comes out that the juveniles cannot really make accountable decisions when it comes to killing people, unless it is themselves. Or to put it differently, Belgium will not hold children responsible when they hurt others, but gives them free license to hurt themselves." (3)

Undoubtedly, the EU will, someday, make child suicide a human right.

Complete moral bankruptcy. Nothing new.

2) Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Patients

The state of Missouri had planned to use propofol for executions, which no one doubted would result in a quick, painless death. The European manufacturer stated that they would withhold that drug from the US if propofol were used in executions, thus denying its use, estimated at 50 million uses per year in the US (4).

Missouri Governor Nixon was much more concerned about those innocent patients and how their lives and suffering would be additionally threatened and increased, respectively, by the withholding of that drug, that he ordered the drug not be used, because he was certain that the drug manufacturer would increase the harm and suffering to all those innocent patients, by withholding that drug (4).

Drug manufacturers in Europe are so against the death penalty that they would, knowingly, put more innocent patients at risk, by withholding their drugs from the US, valuing US murderers over innocent patients, with the pro-death penalty governor valuing the innocent patients more that the murderous human rights violators. The pattern (5). 

Favoring guilty murderers over the innocent is the standard anti-death penalty malady/pattern (5).

"After Hospira announced its decision, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a strongly worded statement saying it was "extremely troubled" by Hospira's forced exit from the market and criticizing the anti-death-penalty movement for "using" thiopental supplies to make a point. The doctors noted the "unfortunate irony that many more lives will be lost or put in jeopardy as a result of not having the drug available for its legitimate medical use." (4) Again, favoring guilty murderers over the innocent (5). The pattern.

The European Union is proud of this.

3)  The Ethics Time Gap

The drug companies were invisible and speechless, from 1977, when the lethal injection protocols were, publicly, adopted by Oklahoma, and from 1982, when they were first used for executions, in Texas, until 2009 - 32 years and 27 years later, respectively. 

Why did the moral outrage take 27-32 years to surface? 

Anti-death penalty folks didn't, publicly, criticize the drug companies (and their countries of origin), until 2009.  Of course, the drug companies and their countries of origin were well aware of the lethal injection use of drugs from 1977, but were not embarrassed, publicly, until 2009.

The response was all PR, not ethics. Obvious.

4) EU Rejects Hippocratic Oath

Would the EU ban such drugs for use in euthanasia and abortion, which are both banned by the Hippocratic Code, and the death penalty is not (5)?  

Of course not.

For the EU, as so many others, the Hippocratic Oath has become the Hypocrisy Oath.

5) The EU: Lack of Reason - Human Rights & The Death Penalty

The EU opposes the death penalty, allegedly because they find it a human rights violation, even though they have never shown it to be . . . but they have tried.

The EU's lack of reason.

Fundamental human rights include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to the fruits of our labors, meaning earnings and possession of property, and the right to pursue happiness.

Human rights tell us that all of those may be taken away, by the due process of law, when the social contract, the laws of our land, are violated, with all countries accepting a) incarceration taking away freedom; b) fines taking away currency or other property; c) with about half the countries retaining the death penalty, taking away life, with d) all countries, fortunately, taking away the happiness of criminals, from continuing their trade and e)  with some countries providing community service, whereby the sanction is both time and labor, taking both freedom and currency.

According to the reasoning of anti-death penalty human rights activists, all of those should be human rights violations, even though such activists, only, claim the death penalty to be, when all should be, given their reasoning.

With, only, irrational and inconsistent reasoning, death penalty opponents find the death penalty a human rights violation, when it is they who have chosen to put many more innocents at risk.
6)  EU Population Supports The Death Penalty

The EU contradicts their own population, a majority which supported the execution of Iraqi dictator/mass murderer Saddam Hussein (7) and, very likely, a majority would support the death penalty for cases where children were raped, tortured and murdered, as well as cases of mass and serial murders (7), with the EU government supporting the anti-democratic, anti-death penalty position, which also sacrifices more innocent lives. 

Majority does not make right, but all other points, herein, do make it right, as is that majority.

7) EU Valuing Guilty Murderers Over Innocent Victims

 "EU agencies contributed over $4.8 million in donations to U.S. anti-death-penalty organizations between 2009 and 2013" (((())))) and, if the same average annual contributions, $17 million through 2025, supporting US murderers instead of giving that money to innocent victims of crime, within the EU, another example of death penalty opponents valuing the lives of guilty murderers over innocent rape and murder victims (5).
NOTE: The US and the EU have never had a problem in extraditing criminals to the US, that face the death penalty, as the US simply waives seeking death in those cases, putting more innocents at risk (1), at the behest of the EU. The pattern (5).
======

FN

1)  The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
and
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
 http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html 

2)  Gross Hypocrisy & Moral Choices: 

3) What Belgium’s child euthanasia law means for America and the Constitution, Eugene Kontorovich, The Volokh Conspiracy, The Washington Post, February 13, 2014
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/belgiums-kiddie-euthansia-law-and-roper-v-simmons/

 4) "Europe's dangerous death penalty gesture", Charles Lane, Washington Post, Posted at 2:39 PM ET, 02/ 1/2011 

5)  30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers 
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/full-rebuttal-of-sir-richard-branson.html 

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

6) The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
http://homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2006/03/21/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation/ 

7) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
    World Support Remains High
    95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html 

8)  European Union financing efforts to end death penalty in U.S., By Lachlan Markay — The Washington Free Beacon, carried by the Washington Times, 10/31/2013, 
======
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, November 16, 2013

Texas Death Penalty Procedures: Super Due Process

updated 2023

Texas Death Penalty Procedures: Super Due Process
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
SUMMARY

 It is extraordinarily difficult for prosecutors to obtain a death sentence. They must, therefore, be extremely limited in their selection of cases to pursue.

100% of the 48 votes (4 voting issues for each of the 12 jurors), must be against the defendant/murderer, to be given a death sentence.

2%, only 1 of those 48 votes, must be for the defendant/murderer, to remove the death penalty option.

The 1 vote (2%) overwhelms the 47 votes (98%), by far, the most undemocratic vote in the US's democratic republic. 

Well no.

Calling the death penalty immoral, Governor Kate Brown commuted the death sentences of all 17 Oregon death row inmates, with her 1 vote ruling over 816 votes (17 times 48); Illinois' felon Gov. Ryan, 1 vote ruling over 8016 (167 times 48) and, likely, Californias "do-as-I-say-not as-I-do" Gov. Newsom 1 vote will rule over 35,520. 

These are governors who believe they have the moral high ground, over both their citizens and the jurors, with zero evidence to support that claim or with evidence, to the contrary.

In Texas, any juror can use anything they want, personally and subjectively, to spare the murderer a death sentence.

TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 37. THE VERDICT

======

Article 37.071 PROCEDURE IN A CAPITAL CASE

Sec. 1.  If a defendant is found guilty in a capital felony case in which the state does not seek the death penalty, the judge shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without parole.

 (Sharp: 12 unanimous votes required for guilt)

(Some deleted)

Sec. 2. (b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to the jury  (1) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society;  and  (2) . . .  whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.

(c) The state must prove each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury shall return a special verdict of "yes" or "no" on each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this Article.

(d) The court shall charge the jury that: (1) in deliberating on the issues submitted under Subsection (b) of this article, it shall consider all evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage and the punishment stage, including evidence of the defendant's background or character or the circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty;  (2) it may not answer any issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article "yes" unless it agrees unanimously and it may not answer any issue "no" unless 10 or more jurors agree;  and

 (Sharp: 24 unanimous votes required to find against the murderer and keep the death penalty option)

(3) members of the jury need not agree on what particular evidence supports a negative answer to any issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article.

(Sharp: any juror can use any reason they want to vote "no" and to spare the murderer from death, with no other agreement, whatsoever, with any other juror. The chances to escape death are nearly endless.)

(e)(1) The court shall instruct the jury that if the jury returns an affirmative finding to each issue submitted under Subsection (b) 

(Sharp: That being 24 unanimous "yes" votes against the murderer)

, it shall answer the following issue:

Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed.

(2)  The court shall: (A)  instruct the jury that if the jury answers that a circumstance or circumstances warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed, the court will sentence the defendant to imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life without parole; and (B)  charge the jury that a defendant sentenced to confinement for life without parole under this article is ineligible for release from the department on parole.

 (Sharp: In making this decision, any juror can use anything they want, personally and subjectively, under (e) (1&2) to spare the murderer a death sentence.)

(f) The court shall charge the jury that in answering the issue submitted under Subsection (e) of this article, the jury:

(1) shall answer the issue "yes" or "no"; (2) may not answer the issue "no" unless it agrees unanimously and may not answer the issue "yes" unless 10 or more jurors agree; (3) need not agree on what particular evidence supports an affirmative finding on the issue;  and (4) shall consider mitigating evidence to be evidence that a juror might regard as reducing the defendant's moral blameworthiness.

 (Sharp: There must be 12 jurors voting unanimously "no", to the mitigation consideration or ANY consideration, in order to keep the death penalty option.)

(g)  If the jury returns an affirmative finding on each issue submitted under Subsection (b) and a negative finding on an issue submitted under Subsection (e)(1), the court shall sentence the defendant to death.  If the jury returns a negative finding on any issue submitted under Subsection (b) or an affirmative finding on an issue submitted under Subsection (e)(1) or is unable to answer any issue submitted under Subsection (b) or (e), the court shall sentence the defendant to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life imprisonment without parole.

(h) The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

 Sharp: 100% of the 48 votes (4 voting issues for each of the 12 jurors), must be against the defendant/murderer to obtain a death sentence.

2%, only 1 of those 48 votes, must be for the defendant/murderer, to remove the death penalty option.

Appeals:

In Texas, appeals take, on average, 16 years prior to execution, and can go through 4 courts: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest Texas court, that only looks at criminal cases), the Federal District Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court, all of which review both direct appeals and the writ.

1) Texas death penalty cases are overturned 17% of the time. Nationally, absent Texas, 40% of death penalty cases are overturned within appeals (1).

Texas's due process shows a 58% improvement over the national average.

2)  Texas has executed 45% of those sentenced to death. Nationally, absent Texas, that figure is 11% (1).

Texas' appellate record is 310% better than the national average.

NOTE: Virginia has executed 72% (109) of those so sentenced and has an overturning rate of only 11% (1) and executes within 7.1 years, on average (2).

Nationally, within appeals, inmates are twice as likely (42%, 3481 cases) to be removed from death row by means other than execution or other death (21%, 1737) (1).

 In Virginia, inmates are 4.1 times more likely (76%, 115) to be removed from death row by execution or other death than to be removed by other means (18%, 28) (1).

Why such a disparity? The judges (3).

An example: How bad are California Judges?

As of 2011, 962 murderers have been sent to California's death row, with 13 (1.3%) having been executed, the last 5 averaging 22 years on death row, prior to execution, and 148 (15%) overturned on appeals.

The 15% overturned on appeal doesn't look so bad, until you realize it is because California judges do all they can to drag out these cases, taking a reported 5 years to hear the first appeals, after sentencing!

That willful mismanagement has caused a terrible backlog, is a huge insult to murder victim survivors, as to justice, and has created a huge burden on taxpayers, all because of this nest of boondoggles, aka judges.

For the last 6 years, these judges have prevented executions based upon California's lethal injection protocol, which mimics the successful use of intravenous medical procedures in countless millions of cases, worldwide, over decades. The lethal overdose of the drugs used in California's protocol have well known, never changing pharmacological properties.

Shocking that these judges haven't stopped all medical intravenous procedures in California, based upon them being cruel and unusual.

California judges are cruel and unusual.

Virginia has executed 70% (110) of their death row murderers, within 7.1 years, Texas 45% (510) within 10.5 years. Since 1976, Texas has executed about 0.8% of her murderers, Virginia 0.7%, California 0.014%.

1) Capital Punishment, 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2013,  Table 17, Number sentenced to death and number of removals, by jurisdiction and reason for removal, 1973–2011, page 20

2) Path to execution swifter, more certain in Va., FRANK GREEN, Richmond Post-Dispatch, December 4, 2011 Page: A1 Section: News Edition: Final 

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

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