sent Dec, 29, 2024
To: Philip Martin and all editors, columnists, opinion writers and news reporters
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Bcc: sent Jan 2, 2025
Parents of Murdered Children, Arkansas
Arkansas Governor, Lt.. Gov, Atty. Gen., & their staffs, boards and commission members
Arkansas House, Senate and all staff
2024-2025 Chapter Officers & Board Members, Arkansas Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists
Arkansas Press Assoc.
Media throughout Arkansas
Arkansas College Media Association
Arkansas Journalism/Communications Depts. and Colleges
Arkansas Secretary of Corrections Lindsay Wallace, staff and board
Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Assoc.
Subject: Martin & The Death Penalty: Factual Rebuttal All Points w/Sources
Re: Rebuttal of Martin's article and comments
Martin's replies to me (@dudleysharp3), in comment section from
"The tension between grace and retribution", by Philip Martin, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, December 29, 2024
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Preface
I rebutted all of Martin's replies in the fact checking material that I sent him and all editors, prior, here (1). It would have taken him a few weeks to read, fact check and vet that material. He should have waited.
Based upon his article and his replies to me, he will continue to refuse fact checking and vetting. Ask him
Martin used anti-death penalty material, did not fact check nor vet it, nor used critical thinking and eschewed all pro-death penalty material and experts, both within his article and repeated within his reply, to me.
Rebuttals to Martin
I quote Martin, then reply as Sharp
1) Martin: "Studies on Deterrence: While some studies claim a deterrent effect, others dispute this."
Sharp: There is not one negative incentive that does not deter some (2). The dispute Martin speaks of is not that there is no deterrence from the death penalty/ executions, but disputes over methodology, within the studies (2).
You might note that the methodology, finding for deterrence, is the same methodology which those same academics use for other research, with no complaints (2) and you may note the complete destruction of some of those finding fault with those studies (2), once you have read all the material I sent you.
No one says executions deter none. Such would be irrational. The issue is not do death penalties and executions deter. They do. The issue is to what degree (2).
2) Martin: "The National Research Council (2012) found that studies claiming deterrence from the death penalty were methodologically flawed and inconclusive."
Sharp: It was not the NRC. They only published the paper. Nagin is the primary author, He is an anti-death penalty professor, whose academic chair is financed by an anti-death penalty foundation (3).
But, you wouldn't know. I, fully, rebutted the study here (3).
3) Martin: "Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the death penalty does not deter crime more effectively than life imprisonment."
Sharp: Murderers facing the death penalty have the same reaction as most healthy 28 years olds, which is, nearly 100% of them prefer life over death (2).
No, those murderers were not deterred, at least not for those murders, but they certainly fear death more than life, by nearly 100%. Unchallenged (2).
It is obvious that healthy, non suicidal persons prefer life over death and fear death more than life. Rationally, what we prefer more deters less. What we fear more deter more (2). Also, unchallenged, with the ACLU exception.
NOTE: 28 is the average age put on death row.
4) Martin: "Crime Statistics: States without the death penalty often have lower murder rates than those with it, according to FBI data. This challenges the assertion that executions deter violent crime."
Sharp: No it does not. Think. "Often" means not always and with exceptions. perhaps many, which means it has nothing to do with negating deterrence.
First, sometimes that is the case and sometimes it is not (see Second, just below), which, by definition, means that it confirms nothing, as you confirmed, yourself when using "often".
I think you didn't notice because you are just parroting anti-death penalty material, with not thinking.
Second, when different villages, towns, cities, counties, states, countries or united regions, all with different characteristics, and all with different crime rates, high, average or low, does that mean that there is no deterrence of crimes because of law, law enforcement and sanctions, in any of those? Of course not. It would be an idiotic notion.
Third, for example, let's say Iceland and all of its villages, towns and cities have the lowest crimes rates in the world (close to it). Would that mean that all potential criminals, in all other locations, all over the world, are not deterred by sanction? I THINK we can all answer that.
NOTE: So far, standard anti-death penalty nonsense.
5) Martin: "Gary Becker's Statement: While Becker's perspective holds weight as a Nobel laureate, it represents an opinion rather than irrefutable evidence. Social science interpretations are inherently subject to debate and context."
Sharp: Exactly, Becker's opinions and interpretations are based upon factual confirmations, which you appear not to care about, and which supported his opinion, which The New York Times found the most important of the social scientists for the past 50 years and supportive of death penalty/execution deterrence.
6) Martin: "Accuracy in Death Penalty Cases Claim: The death penalty has a 99.6% accuracy rate in guilty findings. Refutation: Errors in Convictions: Organizations like the Innocence Project highlight wrongful convictions, including cases where individuals were sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 190 death row inmates in the U.S. have been exonerated due to evidence of innocence."
Sharp: The inflated, fraud based numbers of the "innocent"/"exonerated", released from death row has been well known since 1998, when it was confessed as 50% and has grown to a 71-83% fraud rate, since (4), which equates to a 99.6% accuracy rate in guilty findings, and a 0.4% proven factually innocent and released (4).
Martin has no idea. Why? No fact checking, no vetting. Basic.
All of which is detailed for you (4) and which fact checking would have revealed in 1998 and forward (4).
7) Martin: "Human Error and Bias: The legal system is susceptible to human error, prosecutorial misconduct, and systemic biases."
Sharp: By far the greatest human errors within criminal justice are these:
Since 1973,
20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we allowed to harm, again - recidivist murderers;
500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals;
as murders are 7 times greater than rapes, robberies and other assaults, combined, we have this
3.5 million ADDITIONAL innocents have been raped, robbed or, otherwise assaulted, by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals (4).
We might - VERY BIG MIGHT - have proof of innocents executed as recently as 1915.
Where are the innocents most at risk?
Why no interest? NOTE: The truth is that the anti-death penalty movement cares more about guilty murderers than innocent crime victims, as detailed by the facts and not rebutted (5).
8) Martin: "Death vs. Life Sentences: The finality of the death penalty means errors are irreversible. Life imprisonment allows for the possibility of correcting mistakes and exonerating the innocent. "
Sharp:4,000- 5,000 die, every year, within US criminal custody. We execute an average of 30/yr (1973-present) .
The only sanction with super due process is the death penalty.
Innocents, by a huge margin, are much more likely to die in non-death penalty custody than are we likely to execute an innocent. There is no dispute.
By anti-death penalty logic, they will seek abolition of all custody, but, no, it is murderers they wish to save (5).
9) Martin: "Racial Disparities in the Death Penalty Claim: White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as Black murderers. Refutation: Systemic Bias: Research consistently shows racial disparities in death penalty cases. For example, the Death Penalty Information Center notes that defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty if the victim is white. "
Sharp: The anti-death penalty media standard.
-- First, you did not refute my claim, because you cannot (6)
-- Second, of course the death penalty is more likely with white victims. White victims are much more likely in death penalty eligible murders (6). Basic.
10) Martin: "Additionally, studies have found racial bias in jury selection, sentencing, and prosecutorial discretion."
Sharp: With many of the studies, those conclusions disappear with fact checking and vetting, which we have confirmed that you do not do and that I do (6).
11) Martin: "Data Interpretation: The claim that white murderers are executed more frequently could be influenced by other factors, such as differences in legal representation, plea bargains, or geographic disparities in death penalty enforcement."
Sharp: "Could" - You could say that about everything that you have stated, but you wouldn't know because you do not fact check, nor vet, nor use critical thinking. You have just proven what a mess you have made and you don't even know it.
Martin could have fact checked and vetted, but refused.
12) Martin: "Costs of Life Without Parole vs. the Death Penalty Claim: Life without parole is more expensive than the death penalty. Refutation: Cost Analysis: Numerous studies indicate that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. For example: A 2011 study in California found that the death penalty system had cost taxpayers $4 billion more than life imprisonment since 1978."
Sharp: The California study is horrendous, if one fact checks and vets (7).
Read California, Nebraska, Nevada and Maryland, then move on (7).
13) Martin; "Ethical Implications: The death penalty raises moral and ethical questions about the state's role in taking life. Critics argue that it devalues human dignity and risks executing innocent people."
Sharp: As proven, above, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty. Human dignity is devalued by murders of the innocent, not by the just and proportional sanction for it (8).
Many moral and ethical foundations for the death penalty, here (9, 10). You had none.
14) Martin: "Global Trends: Many countries have abolished the death penalty, viewing it as incompatible with modern human rights standards."
Sharp: True. Keep in mind, they use the same nonsense that you do.
One example:
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 one . . . 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.
Consistent activist reasoning finds the death penalty not a human rights violation. More Here (11).
In Closing
Journalists have lost their way, on purpose, nullifying journalism standards and ethics, while becoming anti-death penalty activists, for, at least 30 years.
There is no indication that will change, as detailed, herein and here (12) .
I just happen to be a death penalty expert, meaning I have no idea how often journalists act in this fashion, with other topics.
FN
1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in 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.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
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
2) Of Course The Death Penalty Deters: A review of the debate
3) Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended & Advanced
4) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
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
6) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
8) The Catholic Church & The Death Penalty12 (14) Factual Errors: 2018 CCC 2267 amendment
9) 600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
10) Religion and The Death Penalty
11) The Death Penalty: How bad is the European Union?
12) enter Media Disaster within the search engine, which I did here:
======
Victim Services
======
Partial CV
