The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents

The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

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

This is a truism.

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

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

That is. logically, conclusive.

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

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 . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.

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

"This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death." (1)

" . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, (capital) punishment." (1)

"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution." (1)

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.
-----------------------
Full report - All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request

(1) From the Executive Summary of
Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs, March 2005
Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, Cass_Sunstein(AT)law.uchicago.edu
Prof. Adrian Vermeule , avermeule(AT)law.harvard.edu
Full report http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131

(2) "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

Harper's a Straussian, you say?.

Geeez, RantingRager, you're telling us that ol' Dobbin caught on to Preston, the Byfields and all that gang, back in the early days of Reform and was writing alarmist rubbish about them even then? Wow, he just went up a few notches in my estimation, since nobody else then gave those religious wackos a hope in hell of becoming a political force.

But who'd of guessed the Socreds would implode and join up with Reform? And when that bunch couldn't form a gov't federally or provincially, who'd of guessed that they'd take Straussian strategy to heart and use such obvious deception to morph into "Liberals" and "Conservatives"?

And hey, man, Even though I'm an athiest, even I can see that revenge - even if it's called "retribution" - is just plain wrong. But don't ask a Reformer why that's so, see if you can find a Christian somewhere.

to dudley

This is a truism.

No it’s not. That’s a red herring

"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution." (1)

Did you even glance at the report or just the executive summary. The authors took a bunch of correlations from previous and you’re applying attribution to it. Furthermore, the first of you quotes is very value laden, in my opinion, and immediately makes me think that the rest of the report is going to be filled with biased language.

Angry people

What I notice about people like Stockwell Day and vociferous defenders of capital punishment is how angry they seem. And our society does present us with plenty to provoke anger, but murder and terrorist attacks are fairly rare events. They stir up emotion, however, and that's what demagogues are good at taking advantage of. So rather than channeling our anger at the perpetrators of the vast majority of injustice and inhumanity--the banks, the multinational corporations that pollute, those who steal from the poor to further enrich the rich--we are urged to be angry at drug users and dark men across the ocean.

Religion is of course a powerful vehicle for demagogues, and has been quite successful for centuries as a political tool. The best defense against it is an enlightened citizenry. In the US, education has been degraded so that the population is easier to dominate. The same is likely to happen here.

As for militarization, take a look at the CBC news item today. Canadian Forces is creating a spy unit, like the Pentagon has. Again mimicking the Republicans, the Conservatives will give more and more power to the military and claim that national security prevents our knowing what they're doing and how they're spending our money.

Theocons

Will some journalist/graduate student/somebody investigate to tell us all just how many of Harper's MP's, Riding associations, and candiates are religious fundamentalists.

My riding is controlled (south surrey) by a group of God freaks from the Alliance church and the MP is a religiously educated Alliance church personage. I hear of lots of other ridings are the same but have never seen a study giving us the exact percentage.

The only data available are analysis' of voting records on social issues which has 95% of Harpers MP's votes tracking the Alliance church position exactly.

I could stand having a small minority as Jesus folks but if as I've heard the number is closer to 90%, the unholy hell that would descend upon us with a Conservative majority is too frightening to contemplate.

Reform/DR??P/CCRAP/Alliance/Socred/Conservative

Seth,

I tried to talk to Gary Lunn once. He was newly elected as an MP and I thought, why don't I wish him well and then discuss my concerns on behalf of CBC. So I did. Somewhere, I still have copies of our letters.

So I wished him well. Then I said that I assumed he would be representing all his Saanich-and-the-Islands Constituency and that, although I knew he opposed CBC, he might like to hear different viewpoints.

I asked him to support an improved budget for CBC and explained why I believe it to be important for Canada.

Sheesh. What a sanctimonious lecture I received! One paragraph began with a direct, finger-wagging scolding: "You would do well to remember ..." and man oh man, I soon hurled 15 good ideas that Wee Gary "would do well to remember." With the blink of an eye, Gary Lunn MP had made an enemy because I knew he didn't care two hoots for Canada's future.

Now these guys have proliferated in the House of Commons. Through all the phony name-changes (including BC Liberal), the Ottawa variety are still Wee Gary Lunn, Stockwell Day, Tony Clement, Harper (and in the shadows, Tom Flanagan) and Presters, dedicated to eroding Canada until it's helpless to protect itself in future.

Citizenship shouldn't feel this way.

How many on this blog have

How many on this blog have even been sentenced to death?

I was a couple of days after my 18th birthday, by the nazis, for "high treason and espionage", and saved only by the end of the war. Unfortunately, I was innocent, but they had to hang the occasional victim to keep the rest in line.

A book went missing from the battalion staff office, after we had to pack it up in pitch darkness on account of an air raid over our heads and I was accused with handing it over to some British POWs, when we got mixed up with their column one night and I gave some a piece of bread, I was dying to eat myself.

But once you have the authority, the list is endless.

2 German POWs have been sentenced to death for desertion, days after the war ended, by a German court martial, inside a POW camp, with the Canadian army supplying the guns and ammo to the German execution squad and shot with Canadian guards standing by.

History's ruling classes have always been
comprised of the conspiracies between:

The Merchants, who devise and develop the theories and demands for theft. Now represented by the banks and multinationals.

The Priesthoods, who develop the excuses, as "divine orders", for the legalization of theft and mass murder. Now represented by fundamentalist religions and the pseudo priesthood of economists.

The Military, who execute the orders, as long as they can kill somebody and hope for absolution for their crimes by the priests.

The most dangerous rulers in history have always been those who pray before making decisions, then accept the first idiocy that comes to their minds as "God's Will"

Besides, the "born again" can not make mistakes, or commit crimes, as they are only following and fulfilling God's orders.

Ask them !

" The Lord put the fossils and polished rocks into the ground to test out faith!"

So, who can argue, with such brilliant logic and proofs ?

Ed Deak.

The Wrath of God

When you have God on your side and when it's "the one true God" then anything can be rationalized.

I have yet to hear of a faith or religion that doesn't have the one true god on their side with the possible exception of Buddhism, which I am growing to admire more each day.

The most rabid politicians with the most outrightly corrupt agendas are without question the ones who have found religion.

When you have a religion backing your political career you have the added bonus of the faithful, and as we all know, faith is blind.

How are the theocracies fairing in the world these days?

What is the hallmark of these theocracies?

What a scary lot we've on in gov't in BC & Ottawa

Stockwell Day is indeed a curious character. Last week in the Sun he is quoted as saying we have the safest Ports in the world. Yet Maclean's magazine pointed out the Crime rate here & mentioned the criminals are just waiting for Foolish Falcon's Gateway project to open here in Delta! Do these guys live in a vacuum ? are they pathological liars?
is God going to protect them? Many disturbing comments here today.

Death Penalty

Not sure why this morphed into a discussion on the death penalty - probably because the second commenter put forth a series of defenses on behalf of the indefensible. (Yes, I very strongly oppose the death penalty.) The reality is, the death penalty will never again see the light of day in Canada. And despite the fear mongering from the likes of Dobbin and some of the above commenters, Harper & Day have no intention of pursuing it. Not because they don't believe in it (they probably do) but because it is not politically possible in this country. They are politicians afer all; they and their cohorts do have to worry about re-election. Also, there is too much opposition to the death penalty even within the Conservative party for such a legislative gambit to even be considered.

As for Canada not automatically defending Canadians on death row in the US, it's about time we abandoned that foolish policy. Why should Canadians who commit crimes in the US not be subject to the US justice system in the same way that Americans are?

There is a Mexican national on death row right now in Texas for brutally raping and slaughtering teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pea in Houston in 1993. (Author Corey Mitchell wrote a book about this case entitled Pure Murder. It is due out on June 3.) At the latest of his endless string of appeal hearings, the Mexican government had provided him with no less than SEVEN legal representatives. Numerous other Mexican diplomats and politicos sat in the court audience, far outnumbering the victims' supporters. This tremendous show of solidarity all on behalf of a murderer, simply because he holds Mexican citizenship.

Despite my own opposition to the death penalty, I NEVER want to see Canada shame itself by expending such efforts on behalf of a killer simply because that killer carries a Canadian passport. (Not unless there was some obvious violation of due process, or of the defendant's rights.) For the same reason, I don't want to see the Surpreme Court providing safe harbour for Americans fleeing death penalty trials in the US. (The ugly stain of serial killer Charles Ng - minimum 30 victims - comes to mind. He was deported back to the US - barely - on a 5-4 split decision by the SC in 1991.)

Progressives like to portray themselves as compassionate. It would be a lot more believable if they demonstrated as much compassion for the victims of crime as they do for rapists and murderers. But that might require that they also become "angry" about crime wouldn't it? And we all know that to be a good progressive, one can never allow oneself to feel anger towards criminals. Anger and vengeance, we are told, have no place in the criminal justice system.

See Today's Toronto Star

at last a major is finally asserting their authority and accepting the responsibility of being the 4th estate that protects democracy.

They appear to be going after Harper's head on a plate! Yahoo...go get 'em.

The secrecy this government has introduced into Canadian politics is shameful. They despise science and have done their best to thwart their influence. All the power that's currently in the hands of ONE man through the use of the PMO office and unelected people.

Previous colonial governments controlled parliament by using that exact strategy. Brits ruled Canada using the backdoor of the Governor General's office. Now Harper is using his authority in a very similar manner. He needs to be called to account by the 4th estate and the voters of this country. I don't believe this is one thing that doesn't get approved by Harper...the control freak, who gets his strategy by studying what George Bush accomplished--i.e. the erosion of US democracy.

Canuck

Reformers

Mostly agree with the column. These guys with a majority would be scary. Do we really have a separation of church and state? Was there a Thomas Jefferson in our past?...The way out is to have the Liberals give us someone that's electable.
A 6000 year old earth, indeed.

I don't believe separation

I don't believe separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. But so what...for all intents and purposes we're better off not writing stuff down.

i.e. The United States tried and continues to try to enshrine everything in their Constitution. Did their Constitution give them the type of government they wanted? Seems to me the founding fathers wanted very strong States rights--what they ended up with was a gargantuan Central government instead. Canada too made the mistake of trying to codify a strong federal government because they needed to protect themselves against the much larger Southern population. Canada ended up with one of the most de-centralized governments in the world because of the two-founding nations.

Hey...write power distribution down and lawyers will chip away at it until it no longer resembles the original document. England doesn't even have a Constitution -- like Canada, courts make up legislation as problems arise without trying to think of everything that could happen that would subvert what is intended.

Canada's Constitution is far from perfect...but who needs 'perfect laws' when it will be examined under a power microscope with the intent of subverting it.

Pragmatic is better and making up laws as one goes along.

No democracy can exist without good will and trust on the part of everyone involved. Good government depends on each level integrating with the other. No level should seek powers that they know should not belong to them--i.e. House of Commons/Senate/Prime Minister's Office/ Judiciary/and finally the Electorate--all have to come together to deliver good governance.

Canada's parliamentary system could be much improved if the Speaker of the House used the powers he already has by controlling debate. He must insist that MP's answer questions instead of letting the House become like a huge Kindergarten where insults are the rule instead of the exception. Decorum must be returned and the Speaker has the power that enables it. If the present Speaker can't control parliament, he needs to be removed. Perhaps all Speakers should be given a trial period of 30 days and if they can't do the job, another one would try it on for size until someone qualified is able to control what is currently a partisan circus.

I would also strongly suggest that civics become a compulsory high school subject for every year the student is in attendance. The electorate needs to get over being victims and take responsibility for the lack of role they play.

IMHO, more laws and a better Canadian Constitution will ultimately NOT deliver democracy to the electorate. The electorate has to elect good MP's to get good governance.

Figures

Had a sinking feeling that the people at the helm were working with flawed instrumentation or possibly handicapped mentally or physically themselves.
I happen to be a passenger on this here HMCS "Canada" And I have a "small small" experience in navigation. This vessel is well off course: it is following a much bigger vessel into shoal waters assuming the larger vessel is piloted by competant crew. In the old days the best advice when you were lost was to "Trust the Compass"; a few years ago I would say: "trust the GPS"
Today I am saying:"Trust your heart!"
My heart says this government: Harper/Bush
are not qualified to row a skiff from side to side of a creek nor send armed warships and aircraft (let alone the ground forces) to remote parts of the planet.
"They know not what they do" in their own words

State sanctioned murder and the concept of REVENGE

Since at least a couple of posters seem to think the 'death' penalty (something we have, I hope and believe, left behind us in this country) still has some positive allure for them, I'd like to submit the following - written by someone at very heart of the beast in Hunstville, Texas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/arts/television/27docu.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

With the Reform Party now

With the Reform Party now governing Canada under various other disguises, what else can we expect ?

Years ago, when Manning was still unknown and has just started making some noises, I met a guy from Alberta at some function. No idea who he was, just a casual meeting. So I asked him what he knew about Manning, and what can we expect of him ?

Turned out that he knew him quite well and he said: "Tell me about that idiot. I knew him when he was telling kids in Sunday school that anybody who questions that the world was created 7,000 years ago, will burn in hell".

We know where the other preacher, Day, stands, but it would be nice to hear Harper's beliefs on this question. Do they also believe in "rapture" ?

Ed Deak.

Retribution

in the legal sense merely means that anyone who commits an offense against another should pay a comparable cost to the one who is offended or to a surrogate.

But retribution in a religious sense has been discarded by true Christians who take the words of the New Testament to heart. People like Harper, Day and others of their ilk are actually condemned because they have ears but do not hear and eyes but do not see.

Otherwise they could read that Christ told his followers that although Moses said "An eye for an eye, and an ear for an ear," the true Christian would turn the other cheek, forgive his enemy, and otherwise accept the offender. Sort of like "Insite" isn't it?

Now the Mosaic Law was a vast improvement over the former system of crime and punishment, and it may still appeal to certain people, but those who profess to be true Christians know enough to reject the concept of "retribution" as a relic of antediluvian times, as old-fashioned as the blood-lust we inherited from our animal origins.

So all in all, Murray is quite right to worry about the cave-dwellers shambling about the corridors of power in Ottawa.

The Tories' wrath...

Apparently Tony Clement has directed Dept. of Justice lawyers to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Ian Pitfield which would allow the safe injection site to continue operating...any suggestion that pee wee and his crew had managed to 'learn' something about the concept of harm reduction is now no longer even a possibility.

Readers might find this post interesting on the subject of the kind of 'science' which has meaning for the Tories.

Look here: http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com/

under the title:
The Harm Reduction Haters' Club.....Is That All They've Got?

tip 'o the hat to Pacific Gazetteer.

I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

"Harm Reduction" in & of

"Harm Reduction" in & of itself is pure ideology, not medical science. Public tolerance of InSite might have been abetted if proponents of “harm reduction” had not prostituted the term to justify all sorts of public indulgences with far more questionable medical value, from free crack pipes to promotion of “sero-sorting” among gay men (unprotected sex among people with the same sero-status). Both of these harmful innovations have been given a massive boost under the rubric of “harm reduction.”

Why is this important? It’s important because as soon as you fail to make the case that “harm reduction” is an extremely rare, extremely exceptional intervention to salvage the most hopeless and marginal cases, it then becomes a question of societal and public policy norms. Harm reduction then becomes an open-ended proposition, a public policy case for a drug-dealing welfare state. Social norms and restraints have to be protected and upheld. “Harm reduction” was never meant for the general population, yet it is now being used to justify all sorts of self-destructive nonsense in liminal communities and at-risk groups.

I'm sorry nightbloom, you don't know what you're talking about.

Please roll back up the page here, click on the link to Pacific Gazetteer's excellent site and read the material referenced there.

http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com/

When you've done that, go to Maclean's website and find Kady O'Malley's blog...she covered the hearings of the committee yesterday during which the Health minister embarrassed himself and his government.

Then, when you've done that, come back and make your semantic points. The subject discussed above is INSITE - and it's not a very sexy place...of course, you've never been there. The object is to save lives and it's working better than anything the neo-cons here or south of the border have ever done (or failed at).

Have a nice weekend, must be getting hot and muggy by now in Ottawa.

I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

I'm not in Ottawa - dunno

I'm not in Ottawa - dunno why you keep saying that in each of your responses to me.

The point is the use & abuse of "harm reduction". I'm at ground zero in one such "harm reduction" pitch. Arguments based exclusively on the econometrics of health outcomes don’t account for the full picture, which is why “harm reduction” can’t become a rule of thumb for the general population unless we account for society-wide “harm reduction”. Minister Jim Prentice made a perfectly valid point about the need to balance meagre gains with possible losses in other areas.

This issue is a whole lot bigger than InSite, thanks to abuse and misapplication of “harm reduction” ideology. That’s why proponents can only parrot the (very unconvincing) numbers without engaging on the larger policy questions which critics of carte-blanche “harm reduction” have been raising for some time now.

Oops - wrong Minister. I

Oops - wrong Minister. I meant Tony Clement.

If it helps, my beef isn't with InSite specifically, but with social activists and some medical professionals who have been irresponsible in their application of "harm reduction" ideology to other areas in a manner which normalizes social pathologies within the general population, and which also reinforces high-risk activities within liminal communities, where individuals must navigate their way through an astonishing range of pitfalls and perverse reward systems.