Rick Perry's Response to European Criticism of Texas Death Penalty

[Evilmav2]

I enjoyed this ...

Aug. 21, 2007

Statement by Robert Black, spokesman for Texas Governor Rick Perry, concerning the European Union’s appeal that Texas enact a moratorium on the death penalty:


“230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.”

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divi...007-08-21.0521

[Flacolaco]

Perry to Europe:

"Mind your own f$%^&ng business, k. thx"

[Usually Lurkin]

this mean our state's gonna fail the global test? s'ok. I'd rather go fishing.

[Mavdog]

as for the europeans, we don't need to listen.

as for the fact that several innocent people have been put to death by the state of texas, that we should pay attention to.

there should be a moritorium on executions by the state of texas. we cannot be certain that many of those on death row are guilty.

[DevinFuture]

The reasons Texas should enact a moratorium on the death penalty, although having nothing to do with Europe, are numerous.

[dude1394]

We should enact a moratorium on criminals.

[alexamenos]

We should enact a moratorium on death penalty moratoriums.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there should be a moritorium on executions by the state of texas. we cannot be certain that many of those on death row are guilty.

What basis do you have for this statement?

[Mavdog]

here's a few stories about innocent people found guilty in texas:

Gregory Edward Wright

Kerry Max Cook

Carlos De Luna

Cameron Willingham

Ruben Cantu

Kenneth Foster

Christopher Ochoa (life sentence)

Randall Dale Adams

[Flacolaco]

I don't think this was supposed to be about the death penalty, rather that the 'Europeans' can mind their own damned business.

[alexamenos]

I used to be fairly adamently anti-death penalty....in fact, I think I can point to the subject as proof positive that I can study a subject fairly closely, reach a conclusion, and ultimately be persuaded to change my mind....

....iow, my proof that I'm an open and fair minded guy is that I'm on board with barbaric acts of revenge....

it was probably the movie "The Life of David Gale" that ultimately changed my mind. That movie was a mind-numbing and grating shitty piece of propaganda....I would have gladly flipped the switch on the producers of that movie had I been given a chance.

anyhoo....

I'm hip to the argument that "we can't have the State taking lives regardless of the reason....such judgment is reserved as the business of God not man, etc., etc...."

I don't entirely agree with the argument, but I think it has its merits and I take it quite seriously.

but the "we just can't have any more death penalty sentences because we're just not doing a real good job at it" argument is really, really uncompelling, in my view. the same charge could be made of the entire criminal justice system, and it's absurd on it's face to suggest that we do away with a criminal justice system.

yeah, yeah, yeah....I get the point that a death penalty is quite irreversible, but I would suggest that a fellow who has been taking it up the poop-shoot for five years because he was wrongfully convicted probably feels that losing five years of his life (not to mention his anal integrity) was a pretty irreversible thing too.

so yeah, there's some chance that some meth-addled loser is going to be sentenced to death for gunning someone down when in fact he just happened to be standing next to his meth-addled buddy who gunned someone down. and there's further the chance that he'll be whisked through a myriad of appeals and ultimately executed....

.....wrongly executed that is where had justice been properly served he would have spent the next 20 years in huntsville playing the role of he-ho to some fat former biker before being discharged to a shithole existence for the short duration of his pathetic and useless life.

i'm ok with that risk, frankly.

cheers

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I'm hip to the argument that "we can't have the State taking lives regardless of the reason....such judgment is reserved as the business of God not man, etc., etc...."

I agree with this and I think you should not range on the same level as the convicts. This also makes you a murderer, a fortiori if the convict isn´t guilty.

In my opinion it´s in any case a much better punishment and harder for the convict to be in jail for his entire life (and with entire life, I mean entire and not an early remittal of the arrest or a reprieve).

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

here's a few stories about innocent people found guilty in texas:

Gregory Edward Wright

Kerry Max Cook

Carlos De Luna

Cameron Willingham

Ruben Cantu

Kenneth Foster

Christopher Ochoa (life sentence)

Randall Dale Adams

That backs up your first statement, but not your second one.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I agree with this and I think you should not range on the same level as the convicts.

certainly...i think those opposed to the death penalty make a much stronger argument thusly than when they argue that the penalty should be set aside because it isn't properly administered.

In my opinion it´s in any case a much better punishment and harder for the convict to be in jail for his entire life (and with entire life, I mean entire and not an early remittal of the arrest or a reprieve).

this actually gets back 'round to my point of view.....things are often framed thusly:

a. it is unacceptable to risk executing an innocent man;
b. life in prison is arguably as harsh of a sentence as an execution; and
c. it is acceptable to risk sending an innocent man to prison for life.

those three statements really don't add up too well.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That backs up your first statement, but not your second one.

the first statement that we should have a moritorium is backed up, but the statement that we may have innocent people on death row is not backed up by the list of innocent people who were on death row?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this actually gets back 'round to my point of view.....things are often framed thusly:

a. it is unacceptable to risk executing an innocent man;
b. life in prison is arguably as harsh of a sentence as an execution; and
c. it is acceptable to risk sending an innocent man to prison for life.

those three statements really don't add up too well.

I know that, but I think it´s better for the convicts that are not guilty to have a little chance to prove one´s innocent, even the chances are ever so tiny, than to have no chance at all.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I know that, but I think it´s better for the convicts that are not guilty to have a little chance to prove one´s innocent, even the chances are ever so tiny, than to have no chance at all.

They've had multiple trials, reviews, appeals, etc. Nothing in life is perfect.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the first statement that we should have a moritorium is backed up, but the statement that we may have innocent people on death row is not backed up by the list of innocent people who were on death row?

I misspoke. What I was trying to say was, that doesn't support your statement that "we cannot be certain that many of those on death row are guilty."

I'd say that we CAN be certain that the vast majority of the people on death row are guilty. Either way, though, your post didn't demonstrate otherwise.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I misspoke. What I was trying to say was, that doesn't support your statement that "we cannot be certain that many of those on death row are guilty."

I'd say that we CAN be certain that the vast majority of the people on death row are guilty. Either way, though, your post didn't demonstrate otherwise.

so you can't say that there are perhaps some..or a few...or an undetermined quantity, could it be 20%? you have an issue with the word "many"?

gee, a stirring defense....

from the list posted, it's clear that there are more than a few, and no we are NOT certain that "the vast majority" (what is that btw, 80%? 90%?), are guilty.

we need to stop executing people, a moritorium on executions is more than justified. it is an indictment of our state's judicial system if innocent people's lives are taken by way of an execution.

it's not just disappointing, it's disgusting.

[Usually Lurkin]

That this thread has turned into a debate on the death penalty means that the Europeanss have already won. Start another thread and bring me my freedom fries. Extra ketchup.

[dude1394]

Since we can NEVER be 100% sure that someone is guilty or not, then it's just a tactic to get rid of the death penatly for those that don't believe in it.

Tough..

[ty]

Don't mess with Texas.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

You condemn somebody because he is a murder and nevertheless you range on the same level and, to make things worse, accept the death of an innocent? What makes you contrast to a murder, if you kill a innocent? Try to explain this to the executed innocent´s family.

I know it´s hard for the family of the murder victim, but to execute the murder doesn´t bring back the dead. And it´s not worth to bring the family of the murder victim a little satisfaction and at the same time risk to kill an innocent and bring grief to another family.

It´s completely immaterial how many innocents were killed. Each individual was one to much. And all this under the screen and in the cloak of justice, to silence the conscience.

[dude1394]

Yea..right. It's always interesting to me how you can google the first guy on Mavie's list and you can't quite seem to find out why he was even in there. It takes the second or third pages to just find out why the poor, poor mistreated fella is there. In fact I sort of still can't find it as it's about his buddy, who testified against him for stabbing this lady to death.

The "innocent" is the poor lady who took in homeless folks and was stabbed to death. Talk about silencing the "conscience".

Hey maybe he's innocent, but I doubt it. In any case the government would have had to prove their case without this piece of evidence (bloody knife that belonged to one of the guys). They may/may not have been able to do so, but spare me the holier-than-thou please. I'm sure not going to advocate a moratorium on ALL cases because of this, get your lawyers in gear and get to work, or sayonara.

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/lis.../msg01968.html

TEXAS:

A Dallas County jury convicted a homeless man o capital murder Monday
in the fatal stabbing of a DeSoto woman who had taken him into her
home, offering him food and a place to sleep.

Jurors deliberated about 2 hours before finding John Wade Adams, 35,
guilty of the March 21, 1997, slaying of Donna Duncan Vick. The 52-
year-old widow had dedicated her life to helping the downtrodden.

The jury of 8 men and 4 women in state District Judge Robert W. Francis'
court must now decide whether to sentence Mr. Adams to death or life in
prison. Mr. Adams' co-defendant, Gregory Edward Wright, another
homeless man, was sentenced to death last year in Ms. Vick's slaying.

Jerry D. Blanton, Ms. Vick's son, said he hopes Mr. Adams will join Mr.
Wright on death row.

"My mom believed an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. She was a
very religious woman, but she sure believed that," Mr. Blanton said.

He said the senselessness of the crime still haunts him.

"I just can't see what she would have said 'no' to that would have
caused them to go ahead and do it. This is a lady who would go and
minister to the (homeless) people underneath the bridge, bring them
blankets. It doesn't make any sense," he said.

Mr. Adams testified Friday that he witnessed Mr. Wright, 32, stab Ms.
Vick to death as she lay defenseless in her bed. With tears in his
eyes, Mr. Adams said he did not participate in the killing and
regretted not doing anything to stop Mr. Wright.

In their closing arguments, Mr. Adams' attorneys told the jury that Mr.
Wright alone is responsible for Ms. Vick's murder.

"There is not a drop of Ms. Vick's blood on Mr. Adams. That is
literally impossible if he participated in that gruesome stabbing,"
said David Pickett, Mr. Adams' attorney. He emphasized to the jury
that Ms. Vick's blood was on Mr. Wright's clothes.

Prosecutors contend that both men stabbed Ms. Vick, each using a
different knife. Investigators recovered 2 bloody knives, 1 of which
belonged to Mr. Adams.

"2 people killed Donna Duncan Vick. 1 is on death row right now where
he belongs. The other is sitting over here at this counsel table,"
said Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis, gesturing toward Mr.
Adams.

Mr. Davis described Mr. Adams' testimony as a charade and a feeble
attempt to "save his own hide." Mr. Adams and Mr. Wright, prosecutors
said, traded Ms. Vick's property for drugs within hours of the murder.

3 prosecution witnesses testified that Mr. Adams made self-incriminating
statements. 1 of the witnesses said Mr. Adams told him that he had
to "finish off" Ms. Vick because Mr. Wright had not finished the job.
Another said Mr. Adams asked him about the punishment range for murder.

Mr. Adams denied Friday making those statements. He told the jury
that he contacted police about 1 1/2 days after the slaying and led them
to Ms. Vick's car and to 1 of the murder weapons because he wanted to
tell the truth.

Prosecutors said Mr. Adams phoned police because he wanted to "roll
over" on Mr. Wright and because he became scared when he couldn't find
his billfold. Investigators found his billfold in Ms. Vick's car.

Police also found a note on a paper towel in Ms. Vick's trash that read,
"Do you want to do it?"

Mr. Adams testified that Mr. Wright wrote the note and that he told him
no. Prosecutors have said the note reflects collusion and planning.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this is about,"
said Assistant District Attorney Mike Gillett, holding the note in his
hand.

In the late afternoon, prosecutors began presenting witnesses in the
trial's punishment phase. Mr. Adams, who has previously been
convicted of robbery, burglary and possession of a controlled substance,
had been on parole for about 3 months when Ms. Vick was killed.

Bryan Boyce, 34, testified that Mr. Adams robbed him at knife point and
tied him up in November 1984 while he worked at a gas station in El
Paso.

"I was scared to death, literally," he said. "I figured my time had
come."

Another witness testified that Mr. Adams belonged to the Aryan
Brotherhood of Texas while in prison.

After hearing more evidence about Mr. Adams' background and character,
jurors will be asked Tuesday to decide whether he poses a continuing
threat to society and whether anything in his history would lessen his
moral responsibility for the crime.

If the panel decides against death, Mr. Adams will automatically be
sentenced to life in prison. He would be required to serve at least
40 years before becoming eligible for parole.

(source: Dallas Morning News)

[

[Mavdog]

there is one absolutely foolproof way to be 100% certain that innocent people are not killed.

stop executing people.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is one absolutely foolproof way to be 100% certain that innocent people are not killed.

stop executing people.

tell that to the lady

And I think you just supported my above point about the whole "innocent" thing is only used to abolish it altogether.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is one absolutely foolproof way to be 100% certain that innocent people are not killed.

stop executing people.

and likewise there is one absolutely foolproof way to be 100% certain that innocent people are not imprisoned.

stop sending people to prison.

...............

I think you'll find that of the people 'round here who believe that a prison sentence is a justifiable penalty for a person found guilty of a crime, virtually none will find the foregoing a compelling argument to do away with prison sentences.

..............

and I'm really not making a commentary on the objective rightness or wrongness of an argument, just on it's uselessness for persuading purposes.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

and likewise there is one absolutely foolproof way to be 100% certain that innocent people are not imprisoned.

stop sending people to prison.

...............

I think you'll find that of the people 'round here who believe that a prison sentence is a justifiable penalty for a person found guilty of a crime, virtually none will find the foregoing a compelling argument to do away with prison sentences.

..............

and I'm really not making a commentary on the objective rightness or wrongness of an argument, just on it's uselessness for persuading purposes.

odd, but I don't find anyone arguing that society should "do away with prison sentences"....nor do I find anyone arguing that our justice system is infallible, and we are all I'm sure understanding that there may be innocent people who are convicted of a crime...so yes, those straw arguments are useless, irrelevant and will go nowhere in persuading anybody.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

.... irrelevant and will go nowhere in persuading anybody.

and it's much the same with the argument that "we mustn't execute anyone to ensure that we don't execute an innocent person."

I think, deep-down, most pro-death-penalty people understand that there is some remote chance that the system will fail from time to time. They are *ok* with that risk and the argument that you present above doesn't begin to address the real differences of opinion.

Dr. Zoidberg offers a slightly enhanced version of the same argument.....

You condemn somebody because he is a murder and nevertheless you range on the same level and, to make things worse, accept the death of an innocent? What makes you contrast to a murder, if you kill a innocent?

What makes *me* (ie, the State) different from a murderer if *I* kill an innocent?

The difference is the State tries an alleged-murderer before a jury of his peers and, being (wrongfully) found guilty, that alleged-murderer has numerous remedies. The difference is that the State is following procedures which we the people have deemed necessary and sufficient for ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the alleged.

The difference is that the murderer is breaking the law and the State is upholding the law.

The State, being comprised of men, is necessarily fallible and even the best designed checks and balances can fail. But a failure on the State's part isn't per se morally the same as a murderer's wanton disregard for the law.

[DevinFuture]

But a failure on the State's part isn't per se morally the same as a murderer's wanton disregard for the law.

IMHO, In some ways it's worse, because it is killing that cloaks itself in righteousness and civility. Only some people on trial murder attempt to defend thair actions by saying they are justified. The state does this as a matter of course when it imposes the death penalty.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

and it's much the same with the argument that "we mustn't execute anyone to ensure that we don't execute an innocent person."

I think, deep-down, most pro-death-penalty people understand that there is some remote chance that the system will fail from time to time. They are *ok* with that risk and the argument that you present above doesn't begin to address the real differences of opinion.

no, your argument fails due to its irrelevance. it is not the same.

those who are comfortable with executing an innocent person wouldn't be so complacent if the victim was someone they actually knew. its easy to say "let em hang" to a nameless, faceless person who they don't know. what if it were a friend or a relative, would you be so "understand[ing}"? would you just say "it's the risk I accept"?

I seriously doubt it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, your argument fails due to its irrelevance. it is not the same.

those who are comfortable with executing an innocent person wouldn't be so complacent if the victim was someone they actually knew. its easy to say "let em hang" to a nameless, faceless person who they don't know. what if it were a friend or a relative, would you be so "understand[ing}"? would you just say "it's the risk I accept"?

I seriously doubt it.

Nor would they be so complacent about life in prison either. The point is irrelevant.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

.....those who are comfortable with executing an innocent person wouldn't be so complacent if the victim was someone they actually knew.

and likewise those who are comfortable with the risk of sending an innocent to prison for life wouldn't be quite so comfortable with the risk if that innocent person was their grandma.....

so what?

....given the extreme unlikelihood of someone I know getting wrongly executed, it's a risk I'm willing to take.

look, md, I'm not completely unsympathetic to the anti-death-penalty view and I'm just trying to help you and Dr. Z tighten up your arguments....but if want to keep making the same banal and unconvincing arguments, then as Dude said, "Tell that to the lady."

cheers

[purplefrog]

FYI. List of countries that allow the Death Penalty. You might want to cross these countries off your list of hot vacation spots IF you plan to commit a crime. Enjoy.

Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China (People's Republic), Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, North, Korea, South, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Where's Texas? Oh... that's right, I almost forgot Texas is not officially a country.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

FYI. List of countries that allow the Death Penalty. You might want to cross these countries off your list of hot vacation spots IF you plan to commit a crime. Enjoy....

... Jamaica.....

of all the countries, I think Jamaica is unquestionably the place I'd most like to be executed.

hey mon, do you think I can have one last toke before you hang me?

[dude1394]

Wow..even the land of Gandhi? Go figure.

[ty]

Dang, didn't know Japan was on there.

[Arne]

Six Myths about the
Death Penalty

Fact #1: The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.

Recent studies have found that 84% of criminologists surveyed[1] and a majority of Police Chiefs[2] believe that the death penalty is not effective at deterring crimes. Other studies have even found that the death penalty adds to the violent nature of society and increases the murder rates.�

Fact #2: The death penalty is not reserved for the worst criminals regardless of their race or class.

The death penalty is severely biased based on race and the ability to afford decent representation. Blacks represent 47% of the murder victims nationally, but since 1976 only 14% of the people executed were convicted of killing a black.[3]� Of the many death penalty cases that come before the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she has yet to see one �in which the defendant was well represented at trial.�[4]�

Fact #3: Victims� families do not all want the death penalty.

While some victims� families call for vengeance, many others believe that no human being has the right to take the life of another. Coretta Scott King, widow of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., says, �I refuse to accept the cynical notion that their killer deserves the death penalty.�

Fact #4: The Bible does not call for the death sentence when it says �an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.�

The Hebrew text, �An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth� was a limitation on mass killings among clans out of vindication and it was used only when two witnesses had seen the murder taking place. In the New Testament, Jesus says, �You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person�.Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.�� It is no surprise then, that many denominations from the Catholic Church to the American Baptists are opposed to the death penalty.[5]

Fact #5: The death penalty costs more than life in prison.

Because of legal costs, capital punishment is a huge drain on state and county resources.� A 1992 study found that the cost of executing a criminal in Texas was 2.5 times more expensive than putting the criminal in prison for life.[6]�

Fact #6: Executions are not common throughout the world.

The death penalty has been abolished across Europe and many other countries.� If we judge ourselves by the company we keep, it is not a pretty picture.� Only 7 countries are known to have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.[7]


Notes and references



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Radelet Michael E. and Ronald Akers. 1996. �Deterrence and the Death Penalty The Views of the Experts� The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87(1).

[2] 1995 Hart Research Poll of police chiefs.

[3] NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. 2003. � Death Row U.S.A.� http://www.naacpldf.org/welcome/ldfpubs_deathrow.html

[4] Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 2001. �Access to Justice: The Social Responsibility of Lawyers In Pursuit of the Public Good: Access to Justice in the United States� Washington University Journal of Law & Policy vol. 7(1).

[5] Statistics compiled at ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm)

[6] C. Hoppe, "Executions Cost Texas Millions," The Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992, 1A

[7] Amnesty International "Indecent and Internationally Illegal: The Death Penalty Against Child Offenders" September 2002

[8] DNA, �The Death Penalty and Horrifying Mistakes�, by George F. Will, The Washington Post 4/6/2000.

[9] In speech to the College of William and Mary's Law School as reported by ChristianityToday.com (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/115/13.0.html)

[10] In a speech Monday to the Minnesota Women Lawyers Association as reported by CBSNews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...n299592.shtml).


Link: http://tcadp-bv.org/DPFacts.html

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty

1. Abolitionist and retentionist countries

Two-thirds of the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Amnesty International's latest information shows that:

• 90 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes; 11 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes; 29 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, making a total of 130 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
• 67 other countries and territories retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller.

2. Progress towards worldwide abolition

Over 50 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes since 1990. They include countries in Africa (recent examples include Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Rwanda), the Americas (Canada, Paraguay, Mexico), Asia and the Pacific (Bhutan. Philippines, Samoa) and Europe and Central Asia ( Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey).


3. Moves to reintroduce the death penalty

Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced. Since 1990, only four abolitionist countries reintroduced the death penalty and two of them - Nepal and Philippines- have since abolished the death penalty again. There have been no executions in the other two (Gambia and Papua New Guinea).


4. Death sentences and executions

During 2006, at least 1,591 people were executed in 25 countries and at least 3,861 people were sentenced to death in 55 countries. These were only minimum figures; the true figures were certainly higher.

In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA.

Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,010 people were executed in China during the year, although the true figures were believed to be much higher. Credible sources suggest that between 7,500 to 8,000 people were executed in 2006. The official statistics remain a state secret, making monitoring and analysis problematic.

Iran executed 177 people, Pakistan 82 and Iraq and Sudan each at least 65. There were 53 executions in 12 states in the USA.

The worldwide figure for those currently condemned to death and awaiting execution is difficult to assess. The estimated number at the end of 2006 was between 19,185 and 24,646 based on information from human rights groups, media reports and the limited official figures available.


5. Methods of execution

Executions have been carried out by the following methods since 2000:

- Beheading (in Saudi Arabia)
- Electrocution (in USA)
- Hanging (in Egypt, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Pakistan, Singapore and other countries)
- Lethal injection (in China, Guatemala, Thailand, USA)
- Shooting (in Belarus, China, Somalia, Taiwan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam and other countries)
- Stoning (in Afghanistan, Iran)


6. Use of the death penalty against child offenders

International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being sentenced to death or executed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the American Convention on Human Rights all have provisions to this effect. More than 100 countries whose laws still provide for the death penalty for at least some offences have laws specifically excluding the execution of child offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, continue to execute child offenders.


Nine countries since 1990 are known to have executed 54 prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – China, Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, USA and Yemen. China, Pakistan, USA and Yemen have now raised the minimum age to 18 in law, The USA and Iran have each executed more child offenders than the other seven countries combined and Iran has now exceeded the USA's total since 1990 of 19 child executions. Four child offenders were executed in Iran and one in Pakistan in 2006.

Two child offenders have been executed in Iran and one in Saudi Arabia thus far in 2007.


7. The deterrence argument

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: ". . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)


8. Effect of abolition on crime rates

Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and homicide rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 stated: "The fact that the statistics continue to point in the same direction is persuasive evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".

Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2006, 30 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975 and the second lowest rate in three decades.

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 214)


9. International agreements to abolish the death penalty

One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to not having the death penalty. Four such treaties now exist:

• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by 61 states. Eightother states have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it at a later date. The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has been ratified by eight states and signed by two others in the Americas. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which has been ratified by 46 European states and signed by one other.
• Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which has been ratified by 39 European states and signed by six others.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an exception. Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the total abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.


10. Execution of the innocent

As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Since 1973, 124 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004, two in 2005, one in 2006 and one so far in 2007. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt. The state of Florida has the highest number of exonerations: 22.

The then Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed. In January 2003 Governor Ryan pardoned four death row prisoners and commuted all 167 other death sentences in Illinois.

The problem of the potential execution of the innocent is not limited to the USA. In 2006, Tanzania released Hassan Mohamed Mtepeka from death row. He was condemned to death in 2004 for the rape and murder of his step daughter. The Appeal Court found that his conviction overwhelmingly rested on circumstantial evidence which “did not irresistibly point to his guilt”. In Jamaica, Carl McHargh was released from death row in June 2006 after being acquitted on appeal.


11. The death penalty in the USA

In 2004, New York's highest court found the state's death penalty statute unconstitutional. By early 2007, this law had not been replaced.

In 2006, the New Jersey legislature imposed a moratorium in that state, and established a commission to study all aspects of the death penalty in New Jersey. In its final report in January 2007, the commission recommended abolition of the death penalty.

During 2006 executions in a number of other states were effectively on hold because of legal challenges and concerns relating to the lethal injection process.

• 53 prisoners were executed in 12 states in the USA in 2006, bringing the year-end total to 1057 executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977. Around 3,350 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 January 2007.
• 38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in law. The death penalty is also provided under US federal military and civilian law

Last updated: 08 August 2007

Link

[dude1394]

Que deliverance deuling banjos music... i think that all of these "facts" quoted above are attempts to make us think that there is a "consensus" on this? Sounds familiar to me.

Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

Sunday June 10, 2007 7:16 PM

By ROBERT TANNER

AP National Writer

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
...
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them?"

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...out-death.html

"THE DEATH PENALTY MEETS SOCIAL SCIENCE: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny" by Robert Weisberg of the Stanford University School of Law. His review was published in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science last year. In that review, he says this:

References:

Dezhbaksh H, Rubin P, Shepherd J. 2002. Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from post-moratorium panel data. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 5(2):344–76

Shepherd J. 2004a. Murder of passion, execution delays, and the deterrence of capital punishment. J. Leg. Stud. 33(2):283–322

Zimmerman P. 2004. State execution, deterrence, and the incidence of murder. J. Appl. Econ. 7:163–93

Cloninger DO, Marchesini R. 2001. Executions and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment. Appl. Econ. 35(5):569–76

Brumm H, Cloninger D. 1996. Perceived risk of punishment and the commission of homicides: a covariance structural analysis. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 31:1–11

Ehrlich I, Liu Z. 1999. Sensitivity analysis of the deterrence hypothesis: let's keep the econ in econometrics. J. Law Econ. 41(1):455–88

Liu Z. 2004. Capital punishment and the deterrence hypothesis: some new insights and empirical evidence. East. Econ. J. 30(2):237–58

Yunker J. 2002. A new statistical analysis of capital punishment incorporating U.S. postmoratorium data. Soc. Sci. Q. 82:297–311