Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts and Assembly Speaker Pro-Tempore Wilfredo Caraballo are ready to do the right thing. The pair announced today — at a press conference featuring Sister Helen Prejean, the anti-death penalty activist — that they plan to push for a vote on a bill that would remove the death penalty from the statute books.
Roberts, in a press release, said the bipartisan bill sponsored by Caraballo (D-Essex) would go before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6 “so that it could be positioned for an Assembly floor vote on Dec. 13.” The governor already is on record as supporting a repeal.
A similar measure, which also would commute the sentences of the eight men on death row to live in prison without parole — has been approved by a Senate committee.
Roberts and Caraballo say the legislation would make the state the first to end the death penalty by legislative means, making the state a leader in the push for a more humane approach to criminal justice.
Judging public opinion on the issue is difficult because polling results too often depend on how the question is framed — what alternatives are offered in the poll, for instance, or whether the question is tied to a hypothetical crime. My sense is that both support and opposition — aside from the hardcores like me — are rather soft, that a large percentage of people could be swayed in either direction on any given day.
I’ve written about the death penalty more times than I care to imagine — most recently following the release of an American Bar Association’s report detailing the significant flaws in death penalty statutes around the nation. My position is pretty clear: State-sanctioned, premidiated killing is ethically and morally wrong; the death penalty is not a deterrent; and it is impossible to create enough procedural safeguards to guarantee that we do not send the innocent to death.
One way of looking at the issue is to consider the manner in which we execute the condemned. We have gone out of our way to find methods designed primarily to assuage our guilt, to mollify us, to hide the hideous nature of executions so that we can go on with our merry lives. We want it both ways: we want the condemned to die, but we want them to retain their humanity — and we don’t want to have to pay attention.
I don’t like hypotheticals, but imagine what might happen were executions to be made public events — as there were in the bygone era. How might the public react? Would the same level of support for capital punishment exist? Would there be a general revulsion?
Death penalty supporters dismiss this line of reasoning — though they are famous for engaging in the same kind of emotional logic. Remember Michael Dukakis’ reponse when asked if he would favor an “irrevocable death penalty” for someone who raped and killed his wife? His answer was technocratic — very cool and overly wonkish. It wasn’t a fair question, of course. But it does fairly sum up the emotional nature of the debate — and demonstrates the minefield that discussion of the death penalty can be for politicians.
That’s why it is no accident that Roberts and Caraallo waited until today to unveil their plan. Maybe a December hearing will allow the debate to rise above emotional arguments. I am hopeful that will be the case, but not expecting it.
In the end, however, the only thing that matters is shutting down the machinery of death.
See Blue Jersey for video of the morning press conference.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 
Sister Helen Prejean ; her death penalty disinformationDudley Sharp, Justice Matters I. Dead Family Walking : The Bourque Family Story of Dead Man Walking , by D. D. deVinci, Goldlamp Publishing, 2006 \” . . .makes you realize the Dead Man Walking truly belongs on the shelf in the library in the Fiction category.\” \”Being devout Catholics, \’the norm\’ would be to look to the church for support and healing. Again, this need for spiritual stability was stolen by Sister Prejean.\” The book alleges whole cloth fabrications by Sister Prejean within her book \”Dead Man Walking\”. \”On November 5, 1977, the Bourque\’s teenage daughter, Loretta, was found murdered in a trash pile near the city of New Iberia, Louisiana lying side by side near her boyfriend–with three well-placed bullet holes behind each head. \” www(dot)deadfamilywalking.com/ contact T.J. Edler, 337-967-0840, infogoldlamp(at)aol.com II. The Victims of Dead Man Walkingby Michael L. Varnado, Daniel P. Smith comment — A very different story than that written by Sister Helen Prejean. Detective Varnado was the investigating officer in the murder of Faith Hathaway. 2003 Detective Varnado writes: \”For those who believe in the teachings of Sister Helen Prejean as her journey continues in her effort to abolish the death penalty. \’For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And, no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:13 & 14\’ \” — From Detective Varnado\’s new book Soft Targets; A Women\’s Guide To Survival III. Sister Helen Prejean on the death penalty \”It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone,’ when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) – the Mosaic Law prescribed death – should be read in its proper context. This passage is an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment .” Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking. The sister’s analysis is consistent with much theological scholarship. Also, much scholarship questions the authenticity of John 8:7. From here, the sister states that “ . . . more and more I find myself steering away from such futile discussions (of Biblical text). Instead, I try to articulate what I personally believe . . . ” The sister has never shied away from any argument, futile or otherwise, which opposed the death penalty. She has abandoned biblical text for only one reason: the text conflicts with her personal beliefs. Sister Prejean rightly cautions: \”Many people sift through the Scriptures and select truth according to their own templates.\” (Progressive, 1/96). Sadly, Sister Prejean appears to do much worse. The sister now uses that very same biblical text “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone” as proof of Jesus’ “unequivocal” rejection of capital punishment as “revenge and unholy retribution”! (see Sister Prejean’s 12/12/96 fundraising letter on behalf of the Saga Of Shame book project for Quixote Center/Equal Justice USA). IV. On God and the death penalty It is not uncommon for persons of faith to create a god in their own image, to give to that god their values, instead of accepting those values which are inherent to the deity. For example, death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) states, in reference to the death penalty, that \”I couldn’t worship a god who is less compassionate than I am.\”(Progressive, 1/96). She has, thereby, established her standard of compassion as the basis for God’s being deserving of her devotion. If God’s level of compassion does not rise to the level of her own, God couldn’t receive her worship. Director Tim Robbins (Death Man Walking) follows that same path: \”(I) don’t believe in that kind of (g)od (that would support capital punishment and, therefore, would be the kind of god who tortures people into their redemption).\” (\”Opposing The Death Penalty\”, AMERICA, 11/9/96, p 12). Robbins, hereby, establishes his standard for his God’s deserving of his belief. God’s standards do not seem to be relevant. His sophomoric comparison of capital punishment and torture is typical of the ignorance in this debate and such comments reflect no biblical relevancy. Perhaps they should review Matthew 5:17-22 and 15:1-9. Be cautious, for as the ancient rabbis warned, \”Do not seek to be more righteous than your creator.\” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33) V. Redemption and the death penalty The movie Dead Man Walking reveals a perfect example of how just punishment and redemption can work together. Had rapist/murderer Matthew Poncelet not been properly sentenced to death by the civil authority, he would not have met Sister Prejean, he would not have received spiritual instruction, he would not have taken responsibility for his crimes and he would not have reconciled with God. Had Poncelet never been caught or had he only been given a prison sentence, his character makes it VERY clear that those elements would not have come together. Indeed, for the entire film and up until those last moments, prior to his execution, Poncelet was not truthful with Sister Prejean. His lying and manipulative nature was fully exposed at that crucial time. It was not at all surprising, then, that it was just prior to his execution that all of the spiritual elements may have come together for his salvation. It was now, or never. Truly, just as St. Aquinas stated, it was Poncelet\’s pending execution which may have led to his repentance. For Christians, the most crucial concerns of Dead Man Walking must be and are redemption and eternal salvation. And, for that reason, it may well be, for Christians, the most important pro-death penalty movie ever made. A real life example of this may be the case of Dennis Gentry, executed April 16, 1997, for the premeditated murder of his friend Jimmy Don Ham. During his final statement, Gentry said, \”I’d like to thank the Lord for the past 14 years (on death row) to grow as a man and mature enough to accept what’s happening here tonight. To my family, I’m happy. I’m going home to Jesus.\” As the lethal drugs began to flow, Gentry cried out, \”Sweet Jesus, here I come. Take me home. I’m going that way to see the Lord.\” (Michael Gracyk, Associated Press, Houston Chronicle, 4/17/97). We cannot know if Gentry or the fictitious Poncelet or the two real murderers from the DMW book really did repent and receive salvation. But, we do know that St. Aquinas advises us that murderers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. We should err on the side of caution and not give murderers the opportunity to harm again. \”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.\” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146. VI. Death Of Truth: Sister Prejean\’s new book Death Of Innocents For some years, there has existed a consistent pattern, from death penalty opponents, to declare certain death row inmates to be actually innocent. Those claims have, consistently, been 70-83% in error. (\”ALL INNOCENCE ISSUES — THE DEATH PENALTY\”) Keep that in mind with \”Death of Innocents\”. Readers should be very careful, as they have no way of knowing if any of the fact issues in either of the two cases, as presented by Sister Prejean, are true. Readers would have to conduct their own thorough, independent examination to make that determination. You can start here. Four articles (a) \”FOR GOOD REASON, JOE O\’DELL IS ON DEATH ROW\”scholar(DOT)lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950728/07210224.htm quote: \”The DNA report commissioned by O\’Dell and his lawyers actually corroborates O\’Dell\’s guilt. There is a three-probe DNA match indicating that the bloodstains on O\’Dell\’s clothing is indeed consistent with the victim Helen Schartner\’s DNA as well as her blood type and enzyme factors.\” \”There is certainly no truth to O\’Dell\’s accusation that evidence was suppressed or witnesses intimidated by the prosecution.\” (b) \”Sabine district attorney disputes author\’s claims in book\”www(DOT)shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS01/501240328/1060 quote: \”I don\’t know whether she is deliberately trying to mislead the public or if she\’s being mislead by others. But she\’s wrong,\” District Atty. Burkett, dburkett(AT)cp-tel.net(c) Book Review: \”Sister Prejean\’s Lack of Credibility: Review of \”The Death of Innocents\”, by Thomas M. McKenna (New Oxford Review, 12/05). \”The book is moreover riddled with factual errors and misrepresentations.\” \”Williams had confessed to repeatedly stabbing his victim, Sonya Knippers.\” \”This DNA test was performed by an independent lab in Dallas, which concluded that there was a one in nearly four billion chance that the blood could have been someone\’s other than Williams\’s.\” \” . . . despite repeated claims that (Prejean) cares about crime victims, implies that the victim\’s husband was a more likely suspect but was overlooked because the authorities wanted to convict a black man.\” \” . . . a Federal District Court . . . stated that \’the evidence against Williams was overwhelming.\’ \” \”The same court also did \”not find any evidence of racial bias specific to this case.\” \”(Prejean\’s) broad brush strokes paint individual jurors, prosecutors, and judges with the term \”racist\” with no facts, no evidence, and, in most cases, without so much as having spoken with the people she accuses.\” \”Sr. Prejean also claims that Dobie Williams was mentally retarded. But the same federal judge who thought he deserved a new sentencing hearing also upheld the finding of the state Sanity Commission report on Williams, which concluded that he had a \”low-average I.Q.,\” and did not suffer from schizophrenia or other major affective disorders. Indeed, Williams\’s own expert at trial concluded that Williams\’s intelligence fell within the \”normal\” range. Prejean mentions none of these facts.\” \”In addition to lying to the police about how he came to have blood on his clothes, the best evidence of O\’Dell\’s guilt was that Schartner\’s (the rape/murder vicitim\’s) blood was on his jacket. Testing showed that only three of every thousand people share the same blood characteristics as Schartner. Also, a cellmate of O\’Dell\’s testified that O\’Dell told him he killed Schartner because she would not have sex with him.\” \”After the trial, LifeCodes, a DNA lab that O\’Dell himself praised as having \”an impeccable reputation,\” tested the blood on O\’Dell\’s jacket — and found that it was a genetic match to Schartner. When the results were not to his liking, O\’Dell, and of course Sr. Prejean, attacked the reliability of the lab O\’Dell had earlier praised. Again, as with Williams\’s conviction, the federal court reviewing the case characterized the evidence against O\’Dell as \’vast\’ and \’overwhelming.\’ \”Sr. Prejean again sees nefarious forces at work. Not racism this time, for O\’Dell was white. Rather, she charges that the prosecutors were motivated to convict by desire for advancement and judgeships. Yet she never contacted the prosecutors to interview them or anyone who might substantiate such a charge. \”(Prejean) omits the most damning portion of (O\’Dell\’s criminal) record: an abduction charge in Florida where O\’Dell struck the victim on the head with a gun and told her that he was going to rape her. This very similar crime helped the jury conclude that O\’Dell would be a future threat to society. It supports the other evidence of his guilt and thus undermines Prejean\’s claim of innocence.\” \”There is thus a moral equivalence for Prejean between the family of an innocent victim and the newfound girlfriend of a convicted rapist and murderer.\” \”This curious definition of \”the victims\” suggests that her concern for \”victims\” seems to be more window-dressing for her cause than true concern.\”(d) Hardly The Death Of Innocents: Sister Prejean tells it like it wasn\’t — Joseph O\’Dellby Anonymous, at author\’s request In lionizing convicted murderer Joseph O\’Dell as being an innocent man railroaded to his 1997 execution by Virginia prosecutors, Sister Helen Prejean presents a skewed summary of the case to bolster her anti-death penalty agenda. While she is a gifted speaker, she is out of her element when it comes to \”telling it as it was\” in these cases. Prejean got to walk with O\’Dell into the death chamber at Greensville Correctional Center on July 22, 1997. However, she wasn\’t in Virginia Beach some 12 years earlier when he committed the crime for which he was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death. That is where the real demon was evident, not the sweet talking condemned con-man that she met behind bars. O\’Dell was, in the words of then Virginia Beach Deputy Commonwealth\’s Attorney Albert Alberi (case prosecutor), one of the most savage, dangerous criminals he had encountered in a two decade career. Indeed,O\’Dell had spent most of his adult life incarcerated for various crimes since the age of 13 in the mid-1950\’s. At the time of the Schartner murder in Virginia, O\’Dell had been recently paroled from Florida where he had been serving a 99 year sentence for a 1976 Jacksonville abduction that almost ended in a murder of the female victim (had not police arrived) in the back of his car. The circumstances of that crime were almost identical to those surrounding Schartner\’s murder. The victim of the Florida case even showed up in Virginia to testify at the trial. Scarcely a mention of this case is made in the Prejean book. Briefly, let me outline some of the facts about the case: Victim Helen Schartner\’s blood was found on the passenger seat of Joseph O\’Dell\’s vehicle. Tire tracks matching those on O\’Dell\’s vehicle were found at the scene where Miss Schartner\’s body was found. The tire tread design on O\’Dell\’s vehicle wheels were so unique, an expert in tire design couldn\’t match them in a manual of thousands of other tire treads. The seminal fluids found on the victim\’s body matched those of Mr. O\’Dell and pubic hairs of the victim were found on the floor of his car. The claims that O\’Dell was \”denied\” his opportunity to present new DNA evidence on appeals were frivolous. In fact, he had every opportunity to come forward with this evidence, but his lawyers refused to reveal to the court the full findings of the tests which they had arranged to be done on a shirt with blood stains, which O\’Dell\’s counsel claimed might show did not have the blood marks from the defendant or the victim. Manipulative defense lawyer tactics were overlooked by Prejean in her narrative. O\’Dell was far from a victim of poor counsel. As matter of fact, the city of Virginia Beach and state government gave O\’Dell an estimated $100,000 for his defense team at trial. This unprecedented amount nearly bankrupted the entire indigent defense fund for the state. He had great lawyers, expert forensic investigators and every point at the trial was contested two to five times. There was no \”rush to justice\” in this case. O\’Dell\’s alibi for the night of Schartner\’s murder was that he had gotten thrown out of the bar where he encountered Schartner following a brawl. However, none of the several dozen individuals supported his contention – there weren\’t any fights that night. Rather, several saw Miss Schartner getting into O\’Dell\’s car on what would be her last ride. But Prejean would want us to believe the claims of felon Joseph O\’Dell.He had three trips to the United States Supreme Court and the \”procedural error\” which Prejean claims ultimately doomed him was the result of simple ignorance of basic appeals rules by his lawyers. Nothing in the record ever suggested that Joseph O\’Dell, two time killer and rapist, was anything but guilty of the murder of Helen Schartner. Justice was properly served. ——————————————————————- Dudley Sharp, Justice Matterse-mail sharpjfa(AT)aol.com, 713-622-5491,Houston, TexasMr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, Court TV, 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.comwww(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htmwww(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htmjoshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htmwww(dot)prodeathpenalty.comwww(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden) Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
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 Support76% 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 higher81% 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% (my note: This falls within the margin of error for 50% support)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)90% 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). Distortion: Death Penalty vs Life Without Parole PollsWhen 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 found47% 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. 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 of1) The death penalty or life without parole? or2) 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 Mattersemail sharpjfa@aol.com, phone 713-622-5491 Houston, TexasMr. 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.aspxwww(dot)dpinfo.comwww(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htmwww(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htmjoshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htmwww(dot)prodeathpenalty.comwww(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 2005-2007Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
The American Bar Association has released another, predictable, anti death penalty missive calling for a national moratorium on executions. Both individually and collectively, the ABA\’s points for supporting a moratorium fall far short. Just like in the ABA\’s 1997 release, their facts and reasoning are suspect. (see \”ABA\’s Proposed Moratorium Relies on Flimsy Facts\”, Dudley Sharp, The Texas Lawyer, March 16, 1997). From the ABA\’s death penalty review, the ABA includes, within their News Release a section titled \”Several serious problems were found in many of the states\”. It is, primarily, a wish list of defense counsel and speculation without evidence. I have numbered them in order, selected ABA\’s specific points, in quotation, followed by my Reply:. 1) \”(the death penalty) appears to have significant racial disparities\”. Reply: Appears. Competent, unbiased review and fact checking would be more helpful. That would show the lack of racial disparities. No moratorium needed (NMN).2) \”Judicial elections mean that electoral pressures may influence judicial decisions,\” Reply: May or may not. Obviously, NMN. 3) — \”States often do not have policies in place to ensure that lawyers representing people with mental retardation or mental illness fully appreciate the significance of their clients’ mental disabilities.\” Reply: Often, states do have such policies in place. That\’s why the courts provide for mental health experts to assist counsel when deemed appropriate. NMN— \”states do not formally commute death sentences when an inmate is found incompetent. . . \”. Reply: There is no requirement to do so. NMN — \”states they do not require instruction of jurors on the distinction between insanity as a defense and reliance on a mental disorder or disability to mitigate sentencing.\” Reply: Nonsense. Almost all states (if not all) do provide these as mitigators to be presented to the jury. NMN 4) \”In clemency proceedings, most states fail to specify the type or breadth of review, or to require the clemency decision maker to explain reasons for their decisions.\” Reply: Clemency is an absolute right of the executive branch. Each executive can handle this matter in anyway they deem fit, whether any of us like it or not. NMN. 5) — \”Most states have had at least one serious incident of mistakes or fraud in crime laboratories.\” Reply: Most. One serious incident out of many thousands handled correctly. All those individual cases are being reviewed, handled and systemic improvements are being made. NMN. How about disbarring any attorney found ineffective in a death penalty case? —- \”(States) often do not require that crime laboratories and medical examiner offices be accredited, or that crime laboratories make their standards and procedures public. The laboratories are often seriously under funded and do not use the most sophisticated testing procedures.\” REPLY: For DNA testing, yes, most don\’t have the most sophisticated testing procedures, but they can sent the samples to those who do. Standards are being improved. Currently, NMN. 6) — \”With respect to collection, preservation and testing of biological evidence, most states do not require preservation of the evidence through the entire legal process until the accused is either released from prison or executed.\” Reply: This should be evaluated on a case by case basis. When biological evidence is crucial to the case, it should be preserved. NMN.— \”As scientific testing capability advances, evidence that could prove innocence may be destroyed. Testing statutes create onerous procedural hurdles impeding the ability of convicted persons to file for and obtain DNA testing.\” Reply: I am unaware of any case where DNA testing was refused, when the evidence suggested that such testing would impact the verdict. Even if it is, that decision is subject to appeal. NMN. 7) \”States do not require law enforcement agencies to adopt procedures comporting with national best practices on identification and interrogation, and most states do not require law enforcement agencies to videotape or audiotape custodial interrogations in murder cases.\” Reply: First, the ABA is not the only or best arbiter of what may be the best practices. Secondly, videotape and audiotape are preferred. It, now, appears that we are about 99.7% accurate in convicting the actually guilty in death penalty cases and that the 0.3% actually innocent convicted are being released on appeal, Extraordinarily accurate system. It can always be improved. NMN.8) \”States are not establishing policies or requiring prosecutors\’ offices to establish policies on exercise of prosecutorial discretion, or on evaluating cases that rely on evidence such as testimony of jailhouse snitches, or on eyewitness identification or confessions, considered as less reliable evidence.\” Reply: Every prosecution office evaluates those issues, now. NMN. — \”Many states don\’t require specialized training for capital cases, and most states have not disciplined the prosecutors even when serious misconduct has been found.\” Reply. This goes to the very strong anti prosecution bias of this report. The ABA doesn\’t even pretend to want to discipline defense counsel where serious misconduct has occurred. It isn\’t mentioned, at all. All attorneys should be sanctioned in proportion to their offense. NMN. 9) \”Some states fail to provide for appointment of defense counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and all states fail to provide for appointment of counsel in clemency proceedings. Capital indigent defense is generally significantly under funded, and compensation paid to appointed capital defense attorneys is often inadequate. Many states require only minimal training and experience for defense counsel in capital cases. Reply: I am unaware of any death row inmate, executed since 1973, that had no counsel representing them in appeals, when they wanted representation. Counsel is certainly not required during commutation and shouldn\’t be. I think the ABA forgot the prosecution, again. The prosecution is often under funded and often doesn\’t have much training for capital cases, as well. Notice how the ABA only concentrates on the needs of the defense. Both groups want more money. The legislature makes those determinations. NMN.10) \”Some states do not require a meaningful proportionality review to determine whether death sentences are imposed on similarly situated defendants and few, if any, maintain databases adequate to achieve such a review. \” Reply: Proportionality review should not be required and is a disaster in these cases. NMN. 11) \”With respect to post-conviction review, many states provide unreasonably short time periods in which to petition the courts for review, and most states allow judges in such proceedings to adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by one party, potentially undermining the judge’s exercise of independent judgment. Some states assign post-conviction review of whether errors were made at trial to the same judge who presided at trial, and many states make it difficult to obtain discovery, or evidentiary hearings.\” Reply: Only the ABA could suggest their isn\’t enough time. Absurd. Trial judges write their opinions and those are passed on to the superior courts. Trial judges are the first and best arbiters of what actually occurs at trial and in context. Very appropriate. Discovery and evidentiary hearings are subject to specific standards and guidelines, as they should be. NMN 12) Jury instructions often are poorly written and poorly conveyed, making it difficult for jurors to understand their roles and responsibilities. States often fail to provide instructions in writing, and instructions fail to define important terms, or to tell jurors that they may impose life sentences even if there are no mitigating factors or where aggravating factors are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Reply: I am not sure where this is a problem, today. NMN. The one sided and deceptive news release is fairly typical of the ABA, with regard to the death penalty. Dudley Sharp, Justice Matterse-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,Houston, Texas Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, 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.