Archive: Opinions

Mr. Laux:

Based upon your comments, you know very little about the Willingham and Skinner cases.

Skinner rejected the additional testing of DNA, pre trial, because Skinner knew it would simply be more evidence against him.

The prosecution knew they didn't need any more DNA evidence against Skinner, because they already had all they needed to convict him, as well as other convincing evidence.

The prosecution could have tested the additional DNA evidence but why waste the time and money when you already have a solid case, inclusive of DNA?

Among othr solid reasons, Perry should have replaced the Commission members, who were breaking a very clear law that they could not investigate the Willingham case, but did so anyway. Government entities violating the law is not a good thing.

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

3) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary.

Laux writes:

"Therefore, (Sharp's) assertion that 'all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There is no exception' is clearly inapplicable to most murders and, even if it were true, would in no way validate the idea that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than life without parole."

First, deterrence not only does not apply to "most murders" it does not apply to any murders, because I am discussing deterrence, not the absence of it.

Secondly, you seem to agree with me, by saying most (future) murders aren't deterred, in that I said that only "some" we deterred, which was my only assertion. I never stated that most potential murderers were deterred, but only some, just as the studies have found. In fact, all of the studies have found that only a small percentage of such cases are deterred by the death penalty. So, you, I and the studies are in concert - most future murderers will not be deterred by executions or the presence of the death penalty. Some deterrence is enough and is important.

Thirdly, rationally, factually and anecdotally, the evidence supports that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.

Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate.

Dudley Sharp

1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot.

2) There have been 27 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.

3) No deterrence study finds that the death penalty deters none. They cannot. Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penalty deters none." Yes, some do, But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degree.

4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course.

5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.

6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.

7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 27 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.

8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths.

10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

Dudley Sharp
Houston Texas

v7i36