《death penalty and sentencing information.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《death penalty and sentencing information.doc（35页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATIONIn the United States 10/1/97By Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty Resources Director, Justice For AllThe death penalty debate in the U.S. is dominated by the fraudulent voice of the anti-death penalty movement. The culture of lies and deceit so dominates that movemen
2、t that many of the falsehoods are now wrongly accepted as fact, by both advocates and opponents of capital punishment. The following report presents the true facts of the death penalty in America. If you are even casually aware of this public debate, you will note that every category contradicts the
3、 well-worn frauds presented by the anti-death penalty movement. The anti-death penalty movement specializes in the abolition of truth. 1. Imposition of the death penalty is extraordinarily rare. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1600 murders, or 0.06%. There have been approximately
4、560,000 murders and 358 executions from 1967-1996 FBIs Uniform Crime Report (UCR) & Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 2. Approximately 5900 persons have been sentenced to death and 358 executed (from 1973-96). An average of 0.2% of those were executed every year during that time. 56 murderers were
5、 executed in 1995, a record number for the modern death penalty. This represented 1.8% of those on death row. The average time on death row for those 56 executed - 11 years, 2 months (Capital Punishment 1995, BJS, 1996), an all time record of longevity, breaking the 1994 record of 10 years, 2 months
6、. 3. Death penalty opponents (opponents) state that Those who support the death penalty see it as a solution to violent crime. Opponents, hereby, present one of many fabrications. In reality, executions are seen as the appropriate punishment for certain criminals committing specific crimes. So says
7、the U.S. Supreme Court and so say most death penalty supporters (advocates). 4. Opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satis
8、fy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnaping and legal incarceration the same? Both involve imprisonment against ones will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Are rape and making love the same? Both may result in
9、sexual intercourse. How absurd. Opponents flawed logic and moral confusion mirror their factual arguments - there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral confusion of some opponents is astounding. Some equate the American death penalty with the Nazi holocaust. Opponents see no moral distinction
10、between the slaughter of 12 million totally innocent men, women and children and the just execution of societys worst human rights violators. A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT B. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PA
11、ROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY E. DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES F. CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT Great effort has been made in pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of an innocent being convicted, sentenced to death or executed
12、. Since 1973, legal protections have been so extraordinary that 37% of all death row cases have been overturned for due process reasons or commuted. Indeed, inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals than by execution. (“Capital Punishment 1995, BJS, 1996). And, in fact, many
13、of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases. Opponents claim that 69 innocent death row inmates have been released since 1973. (Innocence and the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center, July, 1997). Just a
14、 casual review, using the DPICs own case descriptions, reveals that of 39 cases reviewed (Sec. A, B, & C, pg. 12-21), that the DPIC offers no evidence of innocence in 29, or 78%, of those cases. Incredibly, the DPIC reviews Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions (p 23-24), wherein they list th
15、e cases of Roger Keith Coleman, Leonel Herrera, and Jesse Jacobs - 3 cases which helped solidify the anti-death penalty movements penchant for lack of full disclosure and/or fraud. For the fourth case, therein, that of Coleman Wayne Gray, the DPIC makes no effort to claim innocence. Furthermore, the
16、 DPIC and most opponents fail to review that the role of clemency and appeals in such cases is to judge the merits of death row inmates claims regarding innocence and/or additional trial error. Indeed, the release of those 69 inmates proves that such procedures worked precisely, and often generously
17、, as intended. Also contrary to opponents claims, clemency is used generously to grant mercy to death row murderers and to spare inmates whose guilt has come into question. In fact, 135 death row inmates have been spared by clemency or commutation from 1973-95 (ibid.). This represents 43% of the tot
18、al of those executed during that time - a remarkable record of consideration and mercy. In reviewing the DPICs original 1993 study, finding 48 (of the 69) innocent defendants on death row, the DPIC states its debt for the . . . ground breaking work done by . . . Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo B
19、edau(p 1) in their Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases. See below. The most significant study conducted to evaluate the evidence of the innocent executed is the Bedau-Radelet Study (Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases, 40, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/87). The study co
20、ncluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the studys methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt. Bedau & Radelet, both opponents, consistently presented incomplete and misleading accounts of t
21、he evidence. (Markman, Stephen J. & Cassell, Paul G., Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau-Radelet Study 41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88). The remaining 11 cases represent 0.14% of the 7,800 executions which have taken place since 1900. And, there is, in fact, no proof that those 11 exe
22、cuted were innocent. In addition, the innocents executed group was extracted from a Bedau & Radelet imagined pool of 350 persons who were, supposedly, wrongly convicted of capital or potentially capital crimes. Not only were they at least 50% in error with their 23 innocents executed claim, but 211
23、of those 350 cases, or 60%, were not sentenced to death. Bedau and Radelet already knew that plea bargains, the juries, the evidence, the prosecutors, judicial review and/or the legal statutes had put these crimes in the no capital punishment category. Indeed, their claims of innocence, regarding th
24、e remaining 139 of those 350 cases, should be suspect, given this studys poor level of accuracy. Calling their work misleading hardly does this academic study justice. Had a high school student presented such a report, where 50-60% of the material was either false or misleading, a grade of F would b
25、e a likely result. Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that . . . the Bedau-Radelet study is remarkable not (as retired Supreme Court Judge Harry Blackmun seems to believe) for demonstrating that mistakes involving the death penalty are common, but rather for demonstrating
26、how uncommon they are . . . This study - the most thorough and painstaking analysis ever on the subject - fails to prove that a single such mistake has occurred in the United States during the twentieth century. Presumably, Bedau and Radelet would have selected the most compelling 23 cases of the in
27、nocent executed to prove their proposition. Yet, in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are eyewitnesses, confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of the defendants guilt. Bedau has written elsewhere that it is false sentimentality to argue that
28、 the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record fails to disclose that such cases exist. . . . (T)he Bedau and Radelet study . . . speaks eloquently about the extraordinary rarity of error in capital punishment. (
29、Innocents on Death Row?, National Review, September 12, 1994). Another significant oversight by that study was not differentiating between the risk of executing innocent persons before and after Furman v Georgia (1972). There is, in fact, no proof that an innocent has been executed since 1900. And t
30、he probability of such a tragedy occurring has been lowered significantly more since Furman. In the context that hundreds of thousands of innocents have been murdered or seriously injured, since 1900, by criminals improperly released by the U.S. criminal justice system (or not incarcerated at all!),
31、 the relevant question is: Is the risk of executing the innocent, however slight, worth the justifications for the death penalty - those being retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, required punishment, deterrence, escalating punishments, religious mandates, cost savings, the moral imperative,
32、 just punishment and the saving of innocent lives? Predictably, opponents still continue to fraudulently claim, even today*, that this study has proven that 23 innocent people have been executed, even though Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any
33、 previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had. (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988). One of opponents most blatant frauds is their claim that the U.S.
34、 Supreme Court, in Herrera v. Collins (113 S. Ct. 853, 8701993), found that the Herrera decision would allow the states to execute a defendant for a crime that he did not commit. Justice OConnors concurring opinion makes clear that Herrera does not stand for that proposition. Justice OConnor stated,
35、 I cannot disagree with the fundamental legal principal that executing the innocent is inconsistent with the Constitution and the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event. As Justice OConnor stated, the Court assumed for the sake of argument
36、that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim. Id., at 874. That is the holding in Herrera, and any claim to the contrary is simply not cor
37、rect. Moreover, Herreras claim of innocence was weak at best, seeking to blame his dead brother for the crimes Herrera was found guilty of committing. When the evidence against Herrera is considered against the proffered evidence of innocence, it is not surprising that none of the federal judges to
38、hear this claim, including the dissenters in the Supreme Court, have ever expressed any doubt as to Herreras guilt. Kenneth S. Nunnelley in Congressional testimony, July 23, 1993 *Example: Stephen Bright, Director, Southern Center For Human Rights (Atlanta, Ga.). claims that Aubrey Adams of Florida
39、represents a case of the “innocent” executed. (Cochran & Grace, Court TV, 3/ 25/97). Since neither JFA nor the Death Penalty Information Center could locate an Aubrey Adams for which such claims had been made, JFA assumes that Mr. Bright meant the well known case of James Adams of Florida. The James
40、 Adams case is particularly worthy of review. Not only is the Adams case one of those alleged 23 innocent executed, but his is the only post-Furman case cited by Bedau and Radelet. Bedau and Radelets claims and evidence are too lengthy to review here. A short review is all that is required to discre
41、dit such claims. They proved Adams innocence by a review, not of the case facts, but of Adams own claims from his clemency hearing! This dishonest review was presented as an objective evaluation of the case when, in fact, it was completely biased, with only one goal - to present the case facts in th
42、e light most favorable to Adams and to neglect or suppress the voluminous evidence of Adams guilt. Cassell and Markman exposed this academic fraud and presented the case facts from the full record, as Bedau and Radelet should have. The case for Adams guilt is solid. Mr. Bright is a leading spokesper
43、son in the anti-death penalty movement Both Bedau and Radelet refused to claim that Adams was innocent. Yet, this does not prevent opponents from making false claims to the contrary. If Mr. Bright was discussing the James Adams case, this is a classic, standard example of the type of anti-death pena
44、lty fraud found every day. Irresponsible editors, publishers and authors are common within this debate. Two examples: Punishment and the Death Penalty, Baird, Robert & Rosenbaum, Stuart, Prometheus, 1996 and Capital Punishment: the death penalty debate, Gottfried, Ted, Enslow, 1997. Both still claim
45、 that 23 innocents have been executed! B. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS SUMMARY - The incapacitation effect saves lives - that is, that by executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent life (B.1-4, 7, 9, 10 & 15). The evidence of this is conc
46、lusive and incontrovertible. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect also proves that executions save innocent life (B.7-9 & 11-18). This effect represents those potential murderers who did not murder under specific circumstances because of their fear of execution. There are many, perhaps thous
47、ands, of such documented cases, representing many innocent lives saved by the fear of execution. Circumstances dictate that the majority of these cases will never be documented and that the number of innocent lives saved by individual deterrence will be, and has been, much greater than we will ever
48、be able to calculate. Finally, there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies which reveal a general, or systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders (B. 7-9 & 11-18). However, such studies are inconclusive because there are al
49、so studies that find no such effect - not surprising, as the U.S. has executed only 0.08% of their murderers since 1973. Because such studies are inconclusive, we must choose the option that may save innocent lives. For, if there is a general deterrent effect, and we do execute, then we are saving innocent lives. But, if there is a general deterrent effect and we dont execute murderers, we
