What Kind of State Are We?

death penalty (0.00 / 0)

a death penalty never kept anyone from committee the murder. murderers do not believe they'll be caught.

as stated, convicted murderers have been found not-guilty too late to save their lives.

the public needs more information on this to understand the appeals cost Connecticut taxpayers much more than life without opportunity for parole.  inmates shoudl be doing some work that helps pay for their room and board. i know there are a few businesses that they work in. we need more ideas to put them into work that will benefit the state and defray our cost to contain them.

if it is wrong to kill, then Connecticut should not be killing.

---

by: retired yes @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 00:46:42 AM UTC

I was there . . . (0.00 / 0)

and I could not listen to Mr. Steidl's comments without tears.  There are far too many people sentenced to death row who have been found innocent.

Connecticut should not be a state of revenge killing.  Life in prison without possibility of release is a far more sane approach to even the most heinous crimes.

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:29:24 AM UTC

The 130 death row "innocents" scam (0.00 / 0)

I agree, too many innocents are found guilty for many crimes. However, it is important to know what we are really dealing with, as opposed to the bold deceptions of the anti death penalty folks.

The 130 death row "innocents" scam
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

NOTE: fact checking issues, on innocence and the death penalty.

It is very important to take note that the 130 "exonerated" from death row is a  blatant scam, easily uncovered by fact checking.

Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) and DPIC have produced the claims regarding the exonerated and innocents released from death row list.

The scam is that DPIC just decided to redefine what exonerated and innocence mean according to their own perverse definitions.

How Dieter and DPIC define what "exonerated" or "innocent" means.

". . . (DPIC)  makes no distinction between legal and factual innocence. " 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' "

That is untrue, of course. We are all aware of the differences between legal guilt and actual guilt and  legal innocence (not guilty) and actual innocence, just as the courts are.

The only issue in the death penalty innocence debate is how many actual innocents are sent to death row and what is the probability of executing an actual innocent. Legal innocence is not the issue, for the simple fact that we cannot execute a legally innocent person.  So the concern is over the actual innocent, those who had no connection to the murder(s).

Furthermore, there is no finding of actual innocence, but it is "not guilty". Dieter knows that we are all speaking of actual innocence, those cases that have no connection to the murder(s).  He takes advantage of that by redefining exonerated and innocence.

Dieter "clarifies" the three ways that former death row inmates get onto their "exonerated" by "innocence" list.

"A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon."

None establishes actual innocence.  

DPIC has " . . . included supposedly innocent defendants who were still culpable as accomplices to the actual triggerman."

DPIC: "There may be guilty persons among the innocents, but that includes all of us."

Good grief. DPIC wishes to apply collective guilt of capital murder to all of us.

Dieter states: "I don't think anybody can know about a person's absolute innocence." (Green). Dieter said he could not pinpoint how many are "actually innocent" -- only the defendants themselves truly know that, he said." (Erickson)

Or Dieter won't assert actual innocence in 1, 102 or 350 cases. He doesn't want to clarify a real number with proof of actual innocence, that would blow his entire deception.

Or, Dieter declare all innocent: "If you are not proven guilty in a court of law, you're innocent." (Green)

Dieter would call Hitler and Stalin innocent. Those are his "standards".

And that is the credibility of the DPIC.

For fact checking.

1. "Case Histories: A Review of 24 Individuals Released from Death Row", Florida Commission on Capital Cases, 6/20/02, Revised 9/10/02 at http://www.floridacapitalcases...

83% error rate in "innocent" claims.

2. "Is 'the innocence list' an appropriate name?", 1/19/03
FRANK GREEN, TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
http://www.stopcapitalpunishme...

Dieter admits they don't discern between legal innocence and actual innocence. One of Dieter's funnier quotes;"The prosecutor, perhaps, or Dudley Sharp, perhaps, thinks they're still guilty because there was evidence of their guilt, but that's a subjective judgment." Yep, "EVIDENCE OF GUILT", can't you see why Dieter would think they were innocent? And that's how the DPIC works.

3. The Death of Innocents: A Reasonable Doubt,
New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
national legal correspondent for The NY Times

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ".

That is out of the DPIC claimed 119 "exonerated", at that time, for a 75% error rate.

NOTE:  It's hard to understand how an absolute can have a differential of 33%. I suggest the "to be sure" is, now, closer to 25.

4. CRITIQUE OF DPIC LIST ("INNOCENCE:FREED FROM DEATH ROW"), Ward Campbell, http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

5. "The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois", JJKinsella,6/2000, http://www.dcba.org/brief/juni...

6.THE DEATH PENALTY - ALL INNOCENCE ISSUES, Dudley Sharp
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2...

Origins of "innocence" fraud, and review of many innocence issues

7. "Bad List", Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review, 9/16/02
www.nationalreview.com/advance/advance091602.asp#title5

How bad is DPIC?

8. "Not so Innocent", By Ramesh Ponnuru,National Review, 10/1/02
www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru100102.asp

DPIC from bad to worse.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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  

essays   http://homicidesurvivors.com/c...

http://www.dpinfo.com
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenal...
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
http://www.coastda.com/archive...
http://www.lexingtonprosecutor...
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlep...   (Sweden)
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

---

by: dudleysharp @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 14:25:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the National Review references (0.00 / 0)

Brings to mind how Saddam was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt for developing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

If you really want to base your argument on how we've found 130 people who didn't commit the murder they're on death row for -- but that doesn't make them "not guilty" in the eyes of the law, you can, of course.

But I think most people are rightly horrified by Scalia's quote, how "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." The idea that we might kill people who we know never committed the crime genuinely makes me wonder what kind of people we are.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:13:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Death Penalty protecting more innocents (0.00 / 0)

Mattw:

My arguement is based on reality and truth and not the deception of the anti death penalty crowd.

I think it is important to be clear.

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.

Enhanced Due Process -  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.

Enhanced Incapacitation - To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape,  are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often  folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.

Enhanced Deterrence - 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. A surprise? No. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. 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.

Enhanced Fear - Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out. Reality paints a very different picture. What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.

This is not, even remotely, in dispute.

What of that more rational group, the potential murderers who choose not to murder, is it likely that they, like most of us, fear death more than life?

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

The False Promise  - Part of the anti death penalty deception is that a life sentence, with no possibility of release, is a superior alternative to the death penalty. It's a lie. History tells us that lifers have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc. There are few absolutes with sentencing. But, here are two: the legislature can lessen the sentences of current inmates, retroactively, and the executive branch can lessen any individual sentence, at any time. This has been, actively, pursued, for a number of years, in many states, because of the high cost of life sentences and/or geriatric care, found to be $60,000-$90,000 per year per inmate.

Innocents released from death row: Some reality - Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

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.

copyright 2007-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 08:23:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

mattw, btw no one doubts that Saddam developed & used WMDs (0.00 / 0)

---

by: dudleysharp @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 08:41:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Holocaust Scam (0.00 / 0)

I've also heard people argue that the holocaust is a scam as well.

---

by: Aldon Hynes @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:03:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aldon, is fact checking of no importance to you? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: dudleysharp @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 08:25:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We are a forgiving, compassionate people (0.00 / 0)

That's who we are Aldon. Our leaders seem to think otherwise, but then again, our job as progressives is to show Gov. Rell, Sen. Williams or Speaker Donovan where they should lead us to.

Thanks for the excellent post.

End the barbaric death penalty.  

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 17:49:15 PM UTC

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge (0.00 / 0)

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Death penalty opponents say that the death penalty has a foundation in hatred and revenge. Such is a false claim.

A death sentence requires pre existing statutes, trial and appeals, considerations of guilt and due process, to name but a few.  Revenge requires none of these and, in fact, does not even require guilt or a crime.

The criminal justice system goes out of its way to take hatred and revenge out of the process.  That is why we have a system of pre existing laws and legal procedures that offer extreme protections to defendants and those convicted and which provide statutes and sanctions which existed prior to the crime.

It is also why those directly affected by the murder are not allowed to be fact finders in the case.

The reality is that the pre trial, trial. appellate and executive clemency/commutation processes offer much  greater time and human resources to capital cases than they do to any other cases, meaning that the facts tell us that defendants and convicted murderers, subject to the death penalty, receive much greater care and concern than those not facing the death penalty - the opposite of a system marked with vengeance.

Calling executions a product of hatred and revenge is simply a way in which "some" death penalty opponents attempt to establish a sense of moral superiority. It can also be a transparent insult which results in additional hurt to those victim survivors who have already suffered so much and who believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for those who murdered their loved one(s).

Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do.  Instead, they might reflect on why others believe it is a just and deserved sanction for the crimes committed.

The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances.

Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US - unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge - an unreasonable, unfounded position

Far from hatred and revenge, the death penalty represents our greatest condemnation for a crime of unequaled horror and consequence. Lesser punishments may suffice under some circumstances. A death sentence for certain heinous crimes is given in those special circumstances when a jury finds such is more just than a lesser sentence.

Less justice is not what we need.

A thorough review of the criminal justice system will often beg this question: Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims?

The punishment of death is, in no way, a balancing between harm and punishment, because the innocent murder victim did not deserve or earn their fate, whereas the murderer has earned their own, deserved punishment by the free will action of violating societies laws and an individual's life and, thereby, voluntarily subjecting themselves to that jurisdiction's judgment.

copyright 2001-2009   Dudley Sharp, Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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  

http://homicidesurvivors.com/c...

www.dpinfo.com
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www.coastda.com/archives.html
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlep...   (Sweden)

---

by: dudleysharp @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 23:52:06 PM UTC

Faulty arguments (0.00 / 0)

A death sentence requires pre existing statutes, trial and appeals, considerations of guilt and due process, to name but a few.  Revenge requires none of these and, in fact, does not even require guilt or a crime.

This argument is completely illogical.  True, revenge does not require "considerations of guilt and due process".  However, it does not preclude them either.  Too often, people act out of revenge and hatred after working very hard, like dudleysharp does to justify the revenge and hatred by cloaking it in considerations of guilt and some sort of due process.

However, as the lawyers pointed out at the news conference, the "due process" is unequally applied.

---

by: Aldon Hynes @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 13:30:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the is no case for revenge (0.00 / 0)

Jurors and judges have no reason for revenge, not does the law, as provided in death penalty cases, allow for it.

Even, unevenly applied, as is due process in all cases, the due process protections are greater with the death penalty than for any other sanction.

No one, knowledgeable and honest, disagrees, fro my experience.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 14:13:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poisoning the Well (0.00 / 0)

Well, I must be unknowledgeable and dishonest.  Either that or you must be a demagogue.  

The law as provided for in death penalty cases does nothing to prevent vengeance.  Instead, the law as it exists today provides a venue for prosecutors to argue for vengeance in front of the jurors and judges you describe.

---

by: Aldon Hynes @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:02:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We will have to disagree (0.00 / 0)

The death penalty is given as are all sentneces in the US, as a just and appriproate sanction, under law.

The only difference is that the death penalty has greater due process protections provided throughout the process.

No one disputes that the punishment is different in kind than are others. Then, murder is different in kind than any other crime.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 08:29:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review (0.00 / 0)

Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review
Dudley Sharp. contact info below

". . .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 Bourques, Victim Survivors, Dead Family 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. "

I. From Dead Family Walking: The Bourque Family Story of Dead Man Walking , by D. D. deVinci, Goldlamp Publishing, 2006, www.deadfamilywalking.com/    contact: T.J. Edler, 337-967-0840

II.  The Victims of Dead Man Walking
by 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

III.   Death Of Truth:  Sister Prejean's book The Death Of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions.

Four articles

(a) "FOR GOOD REASON, JOE O'DELL IS ON DEATH ROW"
scholar.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). http://www.newoxfordreview.org...

"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 victim'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'Dell
by 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.

IV.   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)

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.

For that reason, it may well be, for Christians, the most important pro-death penalty movie ever made.

In the book, murderer Patrick Sonnier stated: "I don't want to leave this world with any hatred in my heart. I want to ask your forgiveness for what me and Eddie done, but Eddie done it".

Prejean says: "(Patrick Sonnier)  seems to accept that he is responsible for what had happened, even though he claims not to have killed the teenagers. ... I suspend judgment. With the electric chair waiting, with death close like this, who the triggerman was seems not the point."

The most important point of any Christian ministry is salvation. If  the most important part of any Christian ministry is saving souls, and Sonnier is lying, and redemption is undermined, that seems a very important point.  What could be a more important point for a death row ministry? Ending the death penalty?

In the movie, murderer Matthew Poncelet repeats the final words of one of the real murderers, Robert Willie: "I would just like to say ... that I hope you get some relief from my death. Killing people is wrong. That's why you've put me to death. It makes no difference whether it's citizens, countries, or governments. Killing is wrong."

Here, tragically, hauntingly, it seems that Sister Prejean has taught Willie to be an anti death penalty activist. The crucial elements of atonement, expiation, responsibility and forgiveness are replaced by the  classic anti death penalty saying that all "Killing is wrong",  the amoral position of equating murder and execution, violent crime and just sanction, the guilty murderer with the innocent victim - the worst set of messages for the murderer's redemption.

In his final statement, , Dennis Gentry, executed April 16, 1997, for the premeditated murder of his friend Jimmy Don Ham, stated: "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 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. On God and the death penalty

"(Sister Prejean)  received nothing but a stony silence, however, when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a "projection of our violent society." "Is this a God?" Prejean asked about the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity. "Or is this an ogre?" "The audience -- to that point in strong agreement with the author of "Dead Man Walking" -- said and did nothing." ("God, ogre comparison doesn't fly with interfaith crowd", Paul A. Anthony, Rocky Mountain News, 03:35 p.m., August 24, 2008).

It is understandable that the audience was stunned. Sister Prejean is questioning the bedrock of the Christian faith.

Appropriately, Pope Benedict XIV appears to rebuke her a few days later:  "If to save us the Son of God had to suffer and die crucified, it certainly was not because of a cruel design of the heavenly Father. The cause of it is the gravity of the sickness of which he must cure us: an evil so serious and deadly that it will require all of his blood. In fact, it is with his death and resurrection that Jesus defeated sin and death, reestablishing the lordship of God."  ("It Is Not 'Optional' for Christians to Take Up the Cross", 8/31/2008)  http://www.zenit.org/article-2...

None should have been surprised.

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. Sister Prejean 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 establishes his standard for his God's deserving of his belief. God's standards do not seem to be relevant. Robbins' sophomoric comparison of capital punishment and torture are typical of the ignorance in this debate, are remarkably similar to the ogre message from Sister Prejean in Denver and reflect no biblical relevancy.

The movie scene where Poncelet is raised, vertical, arms outstretched on the gurney, seems an obvious recreation -  a visual representation of Christ's crucifixion. That was a conscious decision on the part of director Tim Robbins. It was not in the book and no execution gurney raises in such a fashion.  Would it be a reach to call that blasphemous?

Perhaps they should review Matthew 5:17-22 and 15:1-9.

And be cautious, for as the ancient rabbis warned, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your creator." (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33)

Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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

---

by: dudleysharp @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 23:53:50 PM UTC

Sr. Prejean, from bad to wrose (0.00 / 0)

Sister Helen Prejean asked if we really wanted to imitate the behavior of a killer by killing those who have hurt us.  

Classic anti death penalty nonsnesne.

We execute guilty murderers who have murdered innocent people.

The difference between crime and punishment, guilty murderers and their innocent victims is very clear to most.

The moral confusion exists when people blindly accept the amoral or immoral position that all killing is equal.

The anti death penalty folks are looking at an act --  "killing" --  and saying all killings are the same. Only an amoral person would equate acts, without considering the purpose behind them.

For those, like some anti death penalty folks,  who believe all killing is morally equivalent, they would equate the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 6-7 million additional innocents with the execution of those guilty murderers committing that slaughter. They would also equate the rape and murder of children with the execution of the rapist/murderer.

This is what the anti death penalty folks do, morally equate killing (murder) with the punishment for that murder, another killing (execution).

For such anti death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution).

Most folks understand the moral differences.

Some anti death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating  killing (murder) with killing (execution).

Sr. Prejean, which are you?

 

---

by: dudleysharp @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 00:00:37 AM UTC

Cost issues, what Mr. Steidl forgot to mention (0.00 / 0)

Cost Savings: The Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Reasonable and responsible protocols,  currently in use, will produce a death penalty which costs no more, or will cost less,  than Life Without Parole (LWOP).

States could better implement justice, as given by jurors, and save taxpayers money, currently wasted by irresponsible state systems.

1) Obvious solution: Improve the system

Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. The national averages are 11 years,  14% and 36%, respectively.

With the high costs of long term imprisonment, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol.

2) Current cost study problems

a) Geriatric care: Most, if not all, cost studies exclude geriatric care, recently found to be $60,000-$90,000/inmate/yr., a significant omission from life sentence costs. Prisoners are often found to be geriatric at relatively young ages, 50-55, because of lifestyle.

b) Plea Bargain to life:  ONLY the presence of the death penalty allows for a plea bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea cost benefit, estimated at $300,000 to $1 million/case, accrues as a cost benefit/credit to the death penalty. I am aware of no study which includes this. They all must, for a relevant cost analysis.

c) The cost of death row: There need not be any additional cost for death row. Missouri and Kansas don't have one.

NOTE: Depending upon jurisdiction, the inclusion of only 2a and 2b will result in a minimal cost differential between the two sanctions or an actual net cost benefit to the death penalty.

Adding (1) would, very likely,  mean that all death penalty jurisdictions would see a cost savings with the death penalty as compared to a true life sentence.

3) The Disinformation problem:   The pure deception in some cost "studies" is overt.

       a)  Some studies compare the cost of a death penalty case, including pre trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, and geriatric care for a life sentence. The much cited, highly misleading Texas "study" does this.
       b) It has been claimed that it costs $3.2 million/execution in Florida. That "study" decided to add the cost of the entire death penalty system in Florida ($57 million), which included all of the death penalty cases and dividing that number by only the number of executions (18). It is the same as stating that the cost of LWOP is $15 million/case, based upon all costs of 2000 LWOP cases being placed into the 40 lifers to have died (given an average cost of $300, 000/LWOP case, so far, for those 2000 cases.). The much cited and misused Duke University death penalty cost analysis for North Carolina does the same thing.
           c) Many of the "studies", such as Maryland's (2008), suffer from similar or worse problems.

4) Deterrence "value": FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (1)

That is a cost benefit of $70 million per execution.  15 additional recent studies, inclusive of their defenses,  support the deterrent effect.

No cost study has included such calculations.

Although many will find it inappropriate to put a dollar value on life, evidently this is not uncommon for economists, insurers, etc.

Tehe death penalty provides greater protections for innocents than life sentences. (2).

What value do you put on the lives saved? Certainly not less than $5 million.

5) Justice:  The main reason sentences are given is because jurors find that it is the most just punishment available. No state, concerned with justice, will base a decision on cost, alone. If they did, all cases would be plea bargained and every crime would have a probation option.
----------------------------------

1) "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/de...

2) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2...

copyright 2003-2009 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp

---

by: dudleysharp @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 00:03:15 AM UTC

Polls, of course Ct citizens support death penalty (0.00 / 0)

When, properly, only looking at capital, death eligible murders, Connecticut death penalty support is 70-85%, for the Petit murders and those of Michael Ross. (1)

73% support the death penalty in the Petit case, 23% don't  more than 3:1 death penalty support
85% support Michael Ross dropping appeals, 9% didn't         more than 9:1 for execution support
70% support the death penalty for Ross,  23% don't               more than 3:1 death penalty support

Quinnipiac University Polls: 85% say OK for Michael Ross to waive appeals and be executed; 70% approve of death penalty for Ross: 73% support the death penalty for the Petit murders, 1/12/05 (Ross) & 11/7/09 (Petit), respectively.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 00:07:00 AM UTC

Polls also supported keeping Interracial Marriage illegal (0.00 / 0)

Prior to Loving v. Virginia, polls were strongly in favor of keeping interracial marriages illegal in the United States.  Polls also showed that after 9/11, most American's believed that Iraq was involved in the World Trade Center attacks.

Just because many people believe something doesn't make it right.  Instead, it is the responsibility of the media, both old and new, to engage the public in a serious discussion about the issues that we face and help people think more seriously about them.

---

by: Aldon Hynes @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 13:25:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aldon, I never suggest majority support meant "right", however (0.00 / 0)

all I was dealing with was the actual death penalty support in Ct for death eligible capital murders, as opposed to the poll you mentioned.

I fully agree with you about the media engaging in a serious discussion and helpoong folks to think more seriously about them.

Part of that responsibility is to present both sides, which of course, you did not do.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 14:18:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Engaging both sides (0.00 / 0)

If you wish to present your side, you would be much more effective if you did not use faulty logic and inappropriate debating techniques like poisoning the well.

---

by: Aldon Hynes @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:05:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aldon, please review (0.00 / 0)

First, I do not use faulty logic. You are welcome to present and I will review.

Secondly, there was no such poisoning.

My statenmebt was:

Even, unevenly applied, as is due process in all cases, the due process protections are greater with the death penalty than for any other sanction.

No one, knowledgeable and honest, disagrees, from my experience.

First, I the due process statement is a factual issue, which you are free to attempt to rebut. I don't think you will or can.

Secondly, so far, I haven't even found an ignorant dishonest person try to contradict the due process stament.

If you wish to present a knowledgeable, honest rebuttal, please do so.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 08:39:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mr. Sharp (0.00 / 0)

It is not appropriate for you to spam entire articles here, written by you or not.

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:30:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To Kim from Dudley Sharp (0.00 / 0)

Dear Kim:

I don't want to do anything which voiiolates your rules and was unaware that I was doing so by posting my writings, which were, directly relevant to the topic.

I thank you for allowing me to post on your blog, which I do at your discretion and, hoepefully, within your rules

---

by: dudleysharp @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 20:50:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mr. Sharp calls this "logic"? Good grief! (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Sharp writes:

". . . (DPIC)  makes no distinction between legal and factual innocence. " 'They're innocent in the eyes of the law,' Dieter says. 'That's the only objective standard we have.' "

That is untrue, of course. We are all aware of the differences between legal guilt and actual guilt and  legal innocence (not guilty) and actual innocence, just as the courts are.

The only issue in the death penalty innocence debate is how many actual innocents are sent to death row and what is the probability of executing an actual innocent. Legal Mr. Sharp writes, "innocence is not the issue, for the simple fact that we cannot execute a legally innocent person. So the concern is over the actual innocent, those who had no connection to the murder(s).

"Furthermore, there is no finding of actual innocence, but it is 'not guilty'...Dieter 'clarifies' the three ways that former death row inmates get onto their 'exonerated' by 'innocence' list.

"'A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon.'"

"None establishes actual innocence."

 

Good grief!  By Mr. Sharp's tortured logic, absolutely no one who has ever been found "not guilty" in a court of law is actually "innocent", because "not guilty" doesn't mean innocent.  Perhaps, but we also begin in our legal system with a "presumption of innocence", so if a defendant is presumed innocent and is found not guilty, in Mr.Sharp's twisted world, we should actually consider him only "legally not guilty", not actually innocent.  That is the mentality of the lynch mob, justifying taking the law into one's own hands because justice is flawed and emotions are more important than legal proceedings.  That is the thinking of those with no regard for the rule of law.  According to Mr. Sharp, no one is actually innocent, so everyone can be considered guilty and treated as such.  

Mr. Sharp also employs the outrageous dodge that someone who is acquitted, granted an absolute pardon, or granted a new trial and the prosecutor declines to retry the case should not be considered "actually innocent". Apparently in Mr. Sharp's mind, only the appearance of God almighty in a blaze of light descending from a celestial cloud and proclaiming the condemned's innocence before all humankind would satisfy him.  But frankly, I think Mr. Sharp would find a reason to kill the convict even in that situation.

And what ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill"?  

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 13:45:45 PM UTC

To thomashooker, actual innocence is the only issue (0.00 / 0)

I was quite clear, as is the national debate, that we are only dealing with those cases of actual innocence and how that affects the probability of executing an actual innocent.

Therefore, the issue is identifying actually innocent folks sent to death row.

The New York Times, a federal judge and many others agree.

Everyone know that there is a difference between actual innocence and a not guilty verdict.

As it is not possible to execute a legally innocent person, by definition, the concern is about convicting the actually innocent and the probability that creates for executing an actually innocent person.

Therefore, clarity requires us to identify the actually innocent sent to death row.

That could hardly be any more rational and logical. No one can make thomashooker understand that. He must want to.

For example, as we all know, Presidents give large amounts of pardons, in every administartion, to guilty folks, if a death penalty case is overturned because of evidence that was ruled improperly gathered, then the prosecutor may well have to drop the case from future prosecution because the evidence that was tossed out, that proved the murderer guilty, was no longer avaiable for another trial.

And, again, everyone knows that actually guilty people are acquitted, and that actually innocent people are found guilty. I presume thomashooker understands this, perfectly, but is being a dishonest debater.

There have been a number of reviews of the "innocents" or "exonerated" claims of the anti death penalty folks and various reviews, including those by the New York Times and a federal judge, have found that between 60-83% of their claims don't hold up.

Mr. Hooker, with regard to your question about "Thou shalt not kill", I would suggest you do some research on that commandment and how it relates to the execution of murderers, prior to any discussion.

---

by: dudleysharp @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 20:32:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What gibberish! (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Sharp writes:

"There have been a number of reviews of the "innocents" or "exonerated" claims of the anti death penalty folks and various reviews, including those by the New York Times and a federal judge, have found that between 60-83% of their claims don't hold up."

If a person has had his case thrown out because evidence has been either improperly obtained, or falsified, or a witness was coerced into making a false statement, then that person deserves to be set free.  Mr. Sharp apparently believes that they really don't deserve to be set free, because they weren't actually proved "innocent", but their trials were merely deemed to have been flawed.  In the American system of justice, that is enough to let them go free with a presumption of innocence.

Mr. Sharp also writes that "reviews of the "innocents" or "exonerated" claims of the anti death penalty folks and various reviews, including those by the New York Times and a federal judge, have found that between 60-83% of their claims don't hold up."  I have no idea what Mr. Sharp is talking about here.  "Their claims don't hold up"?  Either a defendant is set free because his claims to flawed legal process are upheld or they aren't.  If they are upheld, then there is no need to split hairs about whether or not any individual outside of the judicial system believes they actually were innocent.

But Mr. Sharp goes back to the absurd argument about the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".  As he puts it, "Everyone know that there is a difference between actual innocence and a not guilty verdict."  No, Mr. Sharp, there is no difference between the two in the eyes of the American system of justice.  You and others might have your doubts about a particular verdict, but a finding of "not guilty" means that under the law that person is considered innocent, and no one may take revenge against him or inflict any type of extra-legal punishment.  To paraphrase you, everyone knows that.

Mr. Sharp goes on to write, "I would suggest you do some research on that commandment and how it relates to the execution of murderers."  Tell me, please, how strapping a man down, putting needles in his veins, then injecting a cocktail of poisons into his body somehow was meant as perfectly acceptable by God and Jesus.  I think the answer you propose will be about as nonsensical as those you've already put forth.  It's murder, Mr. Short, plain old state-sanctioned, and state-ordered murder.  And it's wrong.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 18:33:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mr. Sharp (0.00 / 0)

It is not appropriate for you to spam entire articles here in the comments section, whether or not they are written by you.

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:31:15 PM UTC

sorry for the double comment! (0.00 / 0)

I didn't see that the first one had gone through initially .  . .

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 16:42:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I forgive you! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 19:21:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]