Baby, This Town Used to Rip the Bones from Your Back

David Weigel | December 6, 2007

New Jersey (where Democrats own the governor's mansion and state legislature) is scrapping the death penalty, the first state to do so since the SCOTUS brought it back 31 years ago:

New Jersey, with eight people on death row, has not executed anyone since 1963.

A legislative commission recommended in January that the death penalty be abolished, saying there was no evidence it deterred the most serious crimes. Life without parole cost less, and capital punishment is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency," the commission said.

Reason's been watching as the death penalty's popularity has slipped. In 1990 Lynn Scarlett (now Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett) made the case against it. In 2000, Jonathan Rauch asked if the punishment could be saved from its supporters. In 2001, Cathy Young mused on the execution of Tim McVeigh.

Comments

VM|12.6.07 @ 4:58PM|#

Hay - Illinois is sort of in that camp...

(remember PJ O'Rourke's gov't and death penalty - gov't can't deliver mail, so how could it be trusted, etc. etc.)

|12.6.07 @ 5:06PM|#

Massachusetts never brought back the death penalty. It lost by one vote in 1997 or 98.

|12.6.07 @ 5:07PM|#

As if New Jersey isn't punishment enough...

|12.6.07 @ 5:07PM|#

In all fairness, its kind of hard for it to be a deterent if you know that it will take somewhere between 44 years and eternity for the State of New Jersey to ever get around to executing you. If evolving standards of decency should be cited to abolish anything, it should be the Government of New Jersey.

|12.6.07 @ 5:34PM|#

Although I am personally opposed to the death penalty - on the grounds that there is too much risk of executing an innocent person - I think that the convicted person should have to option of choosing to be put to death instead of spending the rest of their life in prison. ("Life" should mean just that. Don't care if you live to be 90 and arthritic.)

|12.6.07 @ 5:35PM|#

As if New Jersey isn't punishment enough...

That's what I was thinking...
I would take death over getting sentenced to life...in NJ

|12.6.07 @ 5:45PM|#

Yea!!! Michigan was the first English speaking government, in 1846, to ban the death penalty. Since becoming a state in 1837, Michigan has had no executions.

I used to be pro-death penalty till I learned about the justice system. I don't see how an informed person would give that power to the present system and sleep at night.

|12.6.07 @ 5:50PM|#

Massachusetts never brought back the death penalty. It lost by one vote in 1997 or 98.

Good for them. I really couldn't care less about what a state I don't live in does with socialized health care, or smoking bans, or zoning, but I think the death penalty makes us less of a civilized society. Even if it's somewhere in this country I don't live.

|12.6.07 @ 5:56PM|#

Still, I hypocritically hope this guy gets it someday.

Harris County, Texas|12.6.07 @ 5:59PM|#

It's cool. We'll pick up the slack since NJ went all pussy on us.

.|12.6.07 @ 6:01PM|#

While I'm not absolutely against the death penalty, I don't think even "beyond reasonable doubt" is good enough to put someone to death. It should be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".(Although, without something with the level of certainty of a mind reading machine, this is likely not possible)

So -- good job New Jersey.

|12.6.07 @ 6:03PM|#

J sub D

I have a feeling that, if 'Dear Leader', does go down, he won't be up against the wall. He'll be a thin goo spread over the pavement.

I hope it gets recorded. I'll buy 10 copies.

.|12.6.07 @ 6:04PM|#

Also, the legal system would have to be infallible.

LarryA|12.6.07 @ 6:23PM|#

Life without parole cost(s) less

Here's the clinker. If "life without parole" means you don't get released until three days after your heart stops beating, fine. If LWPs cheaper because you only spend ten years behind bars it's a ripoff.

Paul|12.6.07 @ 6:31PM|#

"beyond reasonable doubt" is good enough to put someone to death. It should be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".(

What you're really getting at is death penalty reform.

I'm a death penalty supporter, but there are plenty of areas where we could reform sentencing guidelines for the death penalty. But if a state wants to abolish it, hey, trust in democracy... I guess.

Paul|12.6.07 @ 6:33PM|#

Life without parole cost(s) less

Oh, yeah, and this. Whether you support, or don't support the death penalty, justice should never be measured by the cost in dollars.

Dollars will of course, always play a role somewhere. I'd imagine that giving everyone, regardless of the crime they commit, a 50% shorter sentence would "cost less".

Justify an anti-death penalty agument on moral grounds, not financial.

.|12.6.07 @ 6:48PM|#

"What you're really getting at is death penalty
reform."

I suppose, however I'm saying that we shouldn't execute someone if there's any possibility that they didn't do it. Killing an innocent person is a mistake that can't happen.

I think that, with current technology, that's probably impossible.

|12.6.07 @ 7:28PM|#

This is my opinion, which is the most important one. I have no theoretical problems with the death penalty. Being in the bar, I get to see some pretty gruesome fucking cases. If a person has committed an extremely violent crime (say like violently sexually assaulting and molesting a young girl who is close relative then crushing her skull in), I have no issues that that person should die. I think a Schweitzerian analysis could actually conclude that killing this person actually affirms life (though on the surface that may sound oxymoronic. Think killing tumors).


But because I have an abject and complete distrust of a court of law to serve its epistemic function of determining whether the defendant IS the person who is alleged to have committed the crime, I can not support the death penalty. Another premise is that killing an innocent person is no life affirmation. I have this complete lack of faith in the legal system because 1) the number of people on death row who have later been found innocent, i.e. through DNA. and 2) because in my short tenure as a defense counsel, the number of innocent, or way overly charged, people who are willing to accept stipulated guilty pleas because they don't want to face the risk of going to trial.


I think that the epistemic issues could be ameliorated. But it would require judges who are taught critical thinking skills and scientific as opposed to legal scholar skills.

|12.6.07 @ 8:03PM|#

It's apparently lost on most people that the death penalty only costs more than life in prison because of the constraints put on it by anti-death-penalty inspired rules imposed to make it very unlikely to be imposed incorrectly. In "Bloody England", you can bet that it was pretty cheap.
I think it's curious that now that the data's finally beginning to bear out that it's an effective deterrent, it's becoming less popular.
The only effective argument against is, IMAO, that the process is imperfect and there's a tiny risk of a false positive. (Unless you're a "killing is always wrong" pacifist type)
I do believe that we should allow killers (and traitors) to decline "mandatory" appeals and pick their method of execution (Firing squad, please!)

BakedPenguin|12.6.07 @ 9:17PM|#

SuperMike - 15 people on death row have already been exonerated by the Innocence Project.

This is a non-profit that only takes on cases where the evidence is heavily in favor of the person being wrongly convicted. In other words, there are many, many, more wrongly convicted people in prison, but the evidence isn't strong enough for them to pursue the case.

I don't know if you're new here, but I'd recommend going to Radley Balko's blog and read about police and prosecutor tactics. You may wind up revising the idea that the risk of a false positive is "tiny".

|12.6.07 @ 10:38PM|#

(remember PJ O'Rourke's gov't and death penalty - gov't can't deliver mail, so how could it be trusted, etc. etc.)

Governments don't sentence people to death. Juries do.

|12.6.07 @ 10:41PM|#

Also, most of the folks decrying the death penalty think that a woman who doesn't know how to use contraceptives properly can be trusted to decide whether the embryo/fetus in her womb is a person or not.

Happy Jack|12.7.07 @ 12:48AM|#

I think it's curious that now that the data's finally beginning to bear out that it's an effective deterrent, it's becoming less popular.

Cite?

|12.7.07 @ 8:03AM|#

"."-

It should be "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".(Although, without something with the level of certainty of a mind reading machine, this is likely not possible)

Some scumbags just need killin'.

x,y|12.7.07 @ 8:32AM|#

Governments don't sentence people to death. Juries do.

Technically correct, but you're missing the point. Those of us against the death penalty don't think the state should have the power (whether delegated to someone else or not) to end someone's life. Too much power in the hands of the state. And that's not even considering the fallible nature of juries and the U.S. justice system.

x,y|12.7.07 @ 8:35AM|#

Also, most of the folks decrying the death penalty think that a woman who doesn't know how to use contraceptives properly can be trusted to decide whether the embryo/fetus in her womb is a person or not.

Likely true, but what does that have to do with the immorality of a state-sanctioned death penalty? You'll find no more ardent "pro-life" supporter on this board than me, but I don't see how what you're saying has anything to do with the death penalty.

|12.7.07 @ 8:37AM|#

Radley's expose' on Mississippi autopsies put a major chink in my support for the death penalty. But still, if there is no doubt, then painful executions are fine with me. Also the most recent study I read, a few months ago on this site, suggested that the death penalty was indeed a deterrent.

|12.7.07 @ 8:39AM|#

Let he who is without sin pull the handle

Dave Woycechowsky|12.7.07 @ 9:19AM|#

Factual correction to linked article:

McVeigh did the bombing more as revenge for the collateral damage in the Gulf War than because of Waco. For example, McVeigh wrote:

"Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? Do people believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?"

Fun wikipedia snippet:

"In the gun show culture, McVeigh found a home. Though he remained skeptical of some of the most extreme ideas being bandied around, he liked talking to people there about the United Nations, the federal government, and possible threats to American liberty."

|12.7.07 @ 9:47AM|#

When there is no doubt, chance of doubt or any type of setup having happened I have no problem with the Death Penalty.

You have people that commit murder infront of lots of others. Some victims even sit on the stand and say "that guy shot me and everyone else on such and such day," and you still think this person should be only locked up for life and not put to death? In cases where there is no doubt, take them out back and be done with it. If there is any chance otherwise then you don't.

|12.7.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Dee

Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And, yes, while I have none at hand, there have been cases where the survivors of an attack identified a person who had nothing to do with it. Mostly it seems because they assumed the cops and prosecutors could not have gotten the wrong man.

lunchstealer|12.7.07 @ 10:37AM|#

"remember PJ O'Rourke's gov't and death penalty - gov't can't deliver mail, so how could it be trusted, etc. etc."

Governments don't sentence people to death. Juries do.

Wait, are you suggesting that we replace the USPS with the OJ jury? Well, they might be slightly less likely to go psycho and shoot a bunch of people...

Greg|12.7.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Justify an anti-death penalty agument on moral grounds, not financial.

I agree, but I think this argument is made to counter an oft heard complaint made by those who support the death penalty that "they shouldn't have to foot the bill for murderers" and such.

|12.7.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Justify an anti-death penalty agument on moral grounds, not financial.

Actually in the absence of other more compelling arguments financial considerations are perfectly appropriate.

|12.7.07 @ 1:36PM|#

Innocents more at risk WITHOUT the death penalty

What many forget to do is to weigh the risk to innocents within a life sentence and absent the death penalty. When doing that, the evidence is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

This is a truism.

No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

That is. logically, conclusive.

16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.

Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.

What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.

However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

--------

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?

Unlikely.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail [e-mail], 713-622-5491,

|12.7.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Reason writes "Reason's been watching as the death penalty's popularity has slipped."

Well, it really hasn't.

Death Penalty Polls - Support Remains Very High
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

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 under specific circumstances.

General Support

76% of Americans find that we should impose the death penalty more or that we impose it about right - only 21% that it is imposed too often. (Gallup, May 2006 - 51% that we should impose it more, 25% that we impose it about right)

71% find capital punishment morally acceptable - that was the highest percentage answer for all questions (Gallup, April 2006, moral values poll). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)

When asked the general question "do you support capital punishment for murderers?" , 67% of Americans said yes, with 28% opposed (Gallup, 10/06).


Specific Case Support is much higher

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 pf the primarily liberal Connecticut respondents voiced support for serial/rapist murderer Michael Ross' "voluntary" execution. (Quinnipiac University Poll, January 12, 2005).

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

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 more than 3 to 1. The poll showed 73% for execution, 23% opposed, for those parolees. It was 63-27% for the general question.

This, from the French daily Le Monde, December 2006 (1):

Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46% USA: 82%

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 the large "error rate" between general and specific case support?

That very wide "error rates", between general support and specific case support, is likely due to the differences in (1) the widespread media coverage of anti death penalty claims, without the balance of contradicting those false claims, producing lower general support, (2) the absence of that influence 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 and/or (3) reluctance of some respondents to voice stronger support for the death penalty, unless specific examples of murderers and their crimes are provided, as evidenced within (1) and (2).


Death Penalty Opposition? Look Again.

Significant percentages of those who say the oppose the death penalty do, in fact, support that sanction under specific circumstances. This provides firm evidence that death penalty support is much wider and deeper than expressed with the answer to the general 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, 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, 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).

ERROR 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 speculation cannot be justified and is an unethical use of pollsters opinion.

Neither respondent group is saying do away with the other sanction or that they oppose the other sanction. What is does mean is that 95% of US citizens support the death penalty and/or life without parole for murderers. It could also mean that 85% of all respondents support both sanctions.

For example, "Which do you think is better - vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream?" 50% prefer chocolate, 45% vanilla. However, 85% actually like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream - with a slightly lower percentage liking vanilla, marginally less. 99% of respondents don't want either ice cream banned. 1% were undecided.

Also, this Gallup question is highly prejudicial, which wrongly influence the answers. This has become commonplace.

First, "absolutely" no possibility of parole 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 "absolute" 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.

Secondly, by law 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.

Gallup did not ask this question in 2007. I hope they did it because of theses error issues and will not resume it in the future.

The proper questions might be, IF you are searching for a true life vs execution choice,:

For (specific case) murderers, do you prefer the punishment options of
1) The death penalty or life without parole? or
2) Life without parole, only, or lesser sentences, excluding a death sentence in all cases?

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


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 under specific circumstances.

There is 82% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006. Even the most liberal of US states, Connecticut, has shown very strong support for specific 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 the choice between those two sentences in capital eligible cases.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
email [e-mail], phone [phone]
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS 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

homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)


(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).

Copyright 2005-2007

Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.

|12.7.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Reason should look at the New Jersey report. I did.

REPORT: NJ Death Penalty Commission Made Significant Errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

from http://www.hallnj.org/cm/listing.jsp?cId=3

Summary

The New Jersey Death Penalty Commission made significant errors within their findings. The evidence, contrary to the Commissions findings, was so easy to obtain that it appears either willful ignorance or deception guided their report.

A brief review.

Below, are the 7 points made within the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January, 2007. The RUBUTTAL presents the obvious points avoided by the Commission and discussed by this author, a death penalty expert.

I was invited to be a presenter, before the NJDPSC, but my time didn't fit their schedule.

1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.

REBUTTAL:

- The reason that 81% of Americans found that Timothy McVeigh should be executed was justice - the most profound concept in criminal justice, as in many other aspects of life. It is the same reason that New Jersey citizens, 12 jurors, put all those on death row.

- Although the Commission and the NJ Supreme Court both attempt to discount deterrence, logically, they cannot.

First, all prospects for a negative outcome deter some. This is not, logically or historically rebutted. It cannot be. Secondly, those studies which don't find for deterrence, do not say that it doesn't exist, only that their study didn't find it. Those studies which find for deterrence did. 16 recent studies do.

- The Commission had ample opportunity and, more importantly, the responsibility to read and contact the authors of those many studies which have, recently, found for deterrence. There seems to be no evidence that they did so. On such an important factor as saving innocent lives, why didn't they? The testimony before the Commission, critical of those studies, would not withstand a review by the authors of those studies. That should be an important issue that the Commission should have investigated, but did not.

- LIFE WITHOU PAROLE: The Commission considered the risk of innocents executed and concluded that it wasn't worth the risk and that a life sentence would serve sufficiently without that risk to innocents.

Again, the Commission avoided both fact and reason. The risk to innocents is greater with a life sentence than with the death penalty.

First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after improper release, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - an obvious truism ignored by the Commission.

Secondly, no knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

Thirdly, there has been a recent explosion of studies finding for death penalty deterrence. The criticism of those studies has, itself, been rebutted.

- Therefore, in choosing a life without parole and calling for the end of the death penalty, the Commission has made the choice to put more innocents at risk - the opposite of their stated rationale.


2) The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole, but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision.

REBUTTAL:

- For the amount of time and resources allegedly expended by the Commission, this section of their review was unconscionable in its lack of responsibility to the Commission's directive.

- The Commission concludes that the current system in New Jersey is very expensive, without noting the obvious ways in which those issues can be addressed to lessen those costs. Why?

One example, they find that proportionality review cost $93, 000 per case. Why didn't the Commission recommend doing away with proportionality review? There is no reason, legally, to have it and it has been a disaster, cost wise, with no benefit.

Secondly, the Commission states: "Nevertheless, consistent with the Commission's findings, recent studies in states such as Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, Florida and North Carolina have all concluded that the costs associated with death penalty cases are significantly higher than those associated with life without parole cases. These studies can be accessed through the Death Penalty Information Center." (Report, page 33).

On many topics the Death Penalty Information Center has been one of the most deceptive or one sided anti death penalty groups in the country. While it is not surprising that the Commission would give them as a reference, multiple times, it doesn't speak well of the Commission.

Did the Commission read any of the studies referenced by the DPIC? It appears doubtful, or the Commission would not have referenced them.

For example, let's look at the North Carolina (Duke University) study. That cost study compared the cost of only a twenty year "life sentence" to the death penalty. Based upon that study, a true life without parole sentence would be more costly than the death penalty. Somehow the Commission missed that rather important fact.

These types of irresponsible and misleading references by the Commission do nothing to inspire any confidence in their findings, but do reinforce the opinion that their conclusions were predetermined.

Please see "Cost Comparisons: Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases", to follow.

3) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.

REBUTTAL:

The Commission uses several references to prove their point. None of them succeeded.

- The first was based upon polling in New Jersey. The data showed strong support for executions in NJ, except when asking those polled to choose between a life sentence or a death sentence, for which life gets greater support. The major problem with this long standing and misleading polling question is that it has nothing to do with the legal reality of sentencing. Secondly, that poll shows broad support for BOTH sanctions, not a call to abandon either. The Commission, somehow, overlooked that obvious point.

Jurors have the choice of both sentences in states with the death penalty and life without parole. Therefore, a proper polling question for NJ would be,

A) should we eliminate the death penalty and ONLY have life without parole? or
B) should we give jurors the OPTION of choosing life or death in capital murder cases?

Based upon other polls, I suspect B would be the resounding winner of this poll in NJ.

Secondly, the Commissions polling speaker avoided the most obvious and reliable polling question on this topic - asking about the punishment for a specific crime, just as jurors have to decide. For example, 81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross.

Thirdly, poll New Jersey citizens with the following questions. Is life without parole or the death penalty the most appropriate punishment for those who rape and murder children? Or should NJ remove the death penalty as a jury option for those who rape and murder children?

- Two religious speakers spoke against execution. Both are easily rebutted by religious scholars holding different views.

- Another alleged example of this evolving standard is based upon the fact there has been a reduction in death sentences. Such reduction is easily explained by a number of factors, other than some imagined "evolving standard of decency".

Murders have dropped some 40%, capital murders have likely dropped by even a greater number, based upon other factors. This, by itself, explains the overwhelming percentage of the drop in death sentences.

In addition, many prosecutors, such as those in NJ, know that their courts will not allow executions, leading to prosecutorial frustration as a contributing factor in any reduction - not an evolving standard of decency, but an evolving and increasing frustration.

Please review: "Why the reduction in death sentences?", to follow.

4) The available data do not support a finding of invidious racial bias in the application of the death penalty in New Jersey.

CLARIFICATION:

In fact, there is no data to support any racial bias, invidious or otherwise. The Commission must have read the series of NJ studies.

5) Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital sentencing.

REBUTTAL:

Yes, Commission, and the abolition of all criminal sentences will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in all sentences, as well. This is hardly a rational reason to get rid of any sentence. Get rid of the expensive and unnecessary proportionality review.

6) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible error.

REBUTTAL:

- The risk to innocents is greater with life without parole than with the death penalty. See (1), above LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.

7) The alternative of Life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.

REBUTTAL:

This Commission statement is quite simply, false.

- Life imprisonment puts more innocents at risk than does the death penalty.

- Justice, just punishment, retribution and/or saving innocent lives, among others, are all legitimate social and penological interests all served by the death penalty.

- 81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial, rapist/murderer Michael Ross.

The overwhelming majority of those polled did not have family members murdered.

Is the Commission trying to tell us that a poll of NJ murder victim survivors would show a majority opposed to the death penalty? Of course not, that would be as absurd as the Commissions conclusions in this section.

Conclusion:

Almost without exception, The Commission accepted the standard anti death penalty position, without presenting the easily accessible rebuttal to that position.

Enough said.

-----------------------

NJ Death Penalty Study Commission

It is alleged that the Commission had fair hearings, with both sides adequately presented.

Alleged fair hearings mean nothing, if decisions are predetermined, as this one was.

11 of the 13 committee members were either known or leaning anti death penalty. The contempt for and discounting of pro death penalty positions in both the hearings and final report confirm that.

All the prosecutors on the Commission were up for reappointment - by the staunchly anti death penalty Governor. Would any of them sacrifice their livelihood to fight for the death penalty? Of course not and they did not.

One committee member - one - was confirmable as pro death penalty.

Most, if not all, of Committee Chairman Rev. Howard's previous affiliations were anti death penalty.

Rev. Howard's fairness is best shown by the Commission's final report, which was laughable in its exclusion of pro death penalty positions, positions which would have either overwhelmed or neutralized the anti death penalty, predetermined conclusions of the panel, had those pro death penalty positions been given a fair showing in that report - which they weren't.

The Commission hearings and final report were, as all show trials, a farce.

copyright 2007 Dudley Sharp

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail [e-mail], 713-622-5491,

Minion of URKOBOLD|12.7.07 @ 2:11PM|#

DUDLEY SHARP IS ACTUALLY RATHER DULL.

*ICES FOREHEAD WHERE IT HIT THE DESK AFTER THE THIRD WORD OF HIS FIRST POST*

|12.7.07 @ 4:23PM|#

"""Also, most of the folks decrying the death penalty think that a woman who doesn't know how to use contraceptives properly can be trusted to decide whether the embryo/fetus in her womb is a person or not.""""

Women like that sit on juries.

If you can't trust the government, and you can't trust a jury, who can you trust? No one?

|12.7.07 @ 6:48PM|#

"Baby, This Town Used to Rip the Bones from Your Back"

This is hardly obscure compared to many other Reason H&R title references to song lyrics.

But no takers at all? The the songwriter has another interesting piece from a headline murderer facing electrocution and wishing that his 'pretty baby', and accomplice, would be sittin' right there in his lap.