CNSNews.com) - New Jersey is moving rapidly towards outlawing capital punishment in the face of academic studies challenging the view that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder and despite opinion polls showing that two-thirds of Americans see capital punishment as morally acceptable.

Although New Jersey has a death penalty statute dating back to 1982, it has not executed anyone since 1963. It is now looking to abolish the death penalty altogether.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a moratorium on the death penalty in 1976. Since then, notes Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF) Legal Director Kent Scheidegger, more than 11,000 people have been murdered in New Jersey. That number of victims, he contends, would have been lower had the state enforced the death penalty.

Scheidegger made that argument before a New Jersey death penalty study commission late last year. He argued that there had been sharp reductions in the homicide rates of those states that have consistently applied capital punishment.

Nonetheless, the commission recommended abolishing the death penalty in exchange for a penalty of life imprisonment in a maximum security prison, without the possibility of parole.

Legislation taking up the recommendation has been drafted, and an aide to the bill's primary sponsor, State Sen. Shirley Turner (D), told Cybercast News Service that the death penalty statute could be history when lawmakers reconvene in November.

The deterrence value attached to capital punishment has been a matter of intense dispute since the Supreme Court decision in the mid-1970s.

Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Amnesty International claim the costs outweigh the potential benefits, and the possibility of an innocent person being executed has been a particular point of concern.

On the other hand, several academic studies have found an unambiguous link between executions and fewer homicides. A 2003 study by Emory University professors said that there are an average of 18 fewer murders for every execution.

Paul Rubin, a co-author of the study, told Cybercast News Service that there is "some level of thought" on the part of potential murders about the possible cost of their actions.

The Emory University study examined data from 3,054 counties throughout the country between 1976 and 1996, and factored in demographic variables that might impact the homicide rate such as age, gender, ethnicity and unemployment rates.

The authors said that because the county data allowed highly specific characteristics to be tabulated, they managed to avoid the imprecision of previous studies.

Using a statistical technique known as "multiple regression," the researchers were able to determine how many homicides would have occurred in a particular county in the absence of any executions and to compare this to the number of homicides that actually occurred, Rubin said.

He argued that the study's results demonstrate there are people alive today who would otherwise be dead in those states where the risk of paying the ultimate price is a credible threat.

Rubin stressed it is not enough for a state to have the death penalty on its statute books -- as New Jersey has had. It has to actually enforce it if the deterrence is to work.

In his testimony before the state commission, Scheidegger identified as evidence for the deterrence effect the situation in five states -- Delaware, Wyoming, Alabama, Florida and Georgia -- all of which "actively use the death penalty."

Other studies

Joanna Shepherd, another Emory economist, published a subsequent study showing that a certain threshold needs to be reached in terms of the number of executions before a deterrent effect can be established. Even so, she also demonstrated that an accelerated use of the death penalty would prevent a greater number of murders.

A 2006 study co-authored by Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado, and R. Kaj Gittings, an economist at Cornell University, supported statistical findings that show each execution results in fiver fewer murders.

"In the economic approach to crime, decades of empirical research has demonstrated that potential criminals indeed respond to incentives," they wrote.

Mocan and Gittings also challenged other analysts for accepting the premise of a deterrent effect in the case of some punishments, while dismissing such an effect in the case of the death penalty.

"...[i]t is sometimes claimed that because executions are infrequent events, they cannot possibly be strong enough signals to alter the behavior of people," they wrote. "Yet, the same analysts have no difficulty in believing that a prospective criminal observes correctly and accurately the extent of the increase in the number of arrests, and coupled with the information about the level of crime, he calculates the enhanced risk of getting caught, and changes his behavior."

But in New Jersey, death penalty opponents cited another study, released last year in the Stanford Law Review, that directly challenging the findings in the Emory study and similar reports.

Co-authors John Donohue and Justin Wolfers said they found "profound uncertainty" surrounding the question of deterrence and could see no tangible support for the notion of capital punishment exerting a major impact on homicide rates.

Rubin told Cybercast News Service that his team is preparing a rejoinder to the Stanford Law Review study. "It was a serious but flawed critique," he said, adding that Donohue and Wolfers "seem to cherry pick and manipulate our data."

The New Jersey commission also heard from Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington D.C, who cited data compiled by DPIC showing that murder rates were "consistently lower" in those states that did not use capital punishment.

In the end, the commission found that the arguments on deterrence were inconclusive.

"We were not persuaded one way or the other," Miles Winder, a commission member who represented the New Jersey State Bar Association, stated in an interview. He said the notion that some murder victims would be alive in New Jersey and elsewhere today if an active death penalty law were in place "is an interesting argument that does not hold any water."

"It wasn't convincing to me as a member of the commission," he added.

Winder said the "excessively expensive" cost of capital punishment and its incompatibility with "current standards of decency" also figured into the commission's decision.

'No balance'

In an interview, CJLF President Michael Rushford called the studies that identified a deterrence factor particularly noteworthy because they come from economists "who have no political axe to grind."

He noted, moreover, that at least one of the experts involved in the studies, Mocan of the University of Colorado, was viewed as opposing the death penalty, yet even so could not deny the findings.

By contrast, Rushford called into question the impartiality of commissions examining the use of capital punishment at the state level. They are not designed to look at both sides of the issue, he said, adding that the New Jersey commission's members were mostly opposed to the death penalty.

"It's like having Pat Robertson doing a study on abortion," he said. "There's no balance."

Despite vocal and well-organized opposition to capital punishment, Rushford said the public remains ardently supportive. He cited recent Gallup polling data showing that 66 percent of Americans view capital punishment as "morally acceptable" and 27 percent see it as "morally wrong."

"Support for the death penalty is fairly uniform across different age groups, political parties and between men and women," Gallup reported.

Statement of Kent Scheidegger
Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Before the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission
October 24, 2006
I thank the commission for the opportunity to testify today. The correct identification and
sufficient punishment of murderers is a matter of the greatest importance. Indeed, there is no
more important function of the state government than the protection of their citizens from
murder. Regrettably, that function is not being properly performed in New Jersey today.
In recent years, we have seen a sea change in the scholarship on deterrence and the death
penalty. The availability of data for the 30 years since the restoration of capital punishment as
well as improved methods of econometrics have produced a new generation of studies. While
the studies are not unanimous and absolute proof is not possible, a preponderance of studies
published in peer-reviewed journals confirms what common sense has always told us. The death
penalty does have a deterrent effect and does save innocent lives if it is actually enforced.1
I will not attempt to explain the math behind these studies or pretend that I completely
understand it myself. To illustrate deterrence in more understandable terms, I have computed the
change in the murder rate for each state using as a base the moratorium period from 1968 to 1975
when there were no executions in the United States and it was doubtful there ever would be any
again. This gives us a basis to compare states at a time when none of them had an effective death
penalty and see how they changed when the death penalty was restored. In 2004, the State of
Delaware had the greatest drop since the moratorium period of any state in the nation, and
Delaware has also had the most effective death penalty of any state by a wide margin. I do not
believe this is a coincidence. Of the five states with the best improvements in their homicide
rates, all five are states actively using the death penalty. Over 11,000 people were murdered in
New Jersey between 1977 and 2004, and I believe it is probable that some of them would be
alive today if the state had an effective death penalty during this time.
So why doesn’t New Jersey have an effective death penalty? Thirty years of experience
in 38 states has demonstrated one truth beyond question. You cannot have an effective death
penalty in a state if your court of last resort is determined to block it and willing to twist the law
to do so. Regrettably, that appears to be the case in New Jersey.
To see this, one need only look at the decision last July in the case of Anthony DiFrisco.2
DiFrisco was a hired killer, a hit man, who committed murder in 1986. In 1994, the New Jersey
Supreme Court reviewed all his claims of procedural error and decided by a majority vote that no
reversible error had occurred in his case. The next year, the court reviewed his claim that his
sentence was disproportionate and decided 5-2 that it was not. Eleven years after that second
decision and 20 years after the crime, the New Jersey Supreme Court went back, counted noses
in its two previous decisions, decided it could put together a majority for reversal in those two
decisions, and on that basis alone overturned the death sentence. Not only was the decision on
the merits an outrage, but to reopen this eleven-year-old case, the court had to brush aside and
effectively nullify a rule of court placing a five-year limit on collateral review of final judgments.
After 20 years of litigating these matters, I thought I had seen it all. But this is beyond belief.
This is not law in any meaningful sense of the word. This is pure obstruction of the enforcement
of the law simply because a majority of the judges disagree with it, and they are willing to make
up new rules without limit to impose their preference on the state.
Nor is the DiFrisco case the only outrage by any means. Earlier, you heard the poignant
testimony of Sandra Place. Her elderly mother was strangled by a man who broke into her house
and who then cut off her clothing and sexually violated her. The New Jersey Supreme Court held
that the death penalty for this offense was disproportionate and struck it down.3 To reach this
bizarre result, the court decided that for any disputed fact not conclusively resolved by the jury’s
verdict, it would presume that the defendant’s version was the truth. This is diametrically
opposed to the long-standing and universal rule of appellate practice throughout the United
States. In reviewing jury verdicts, American courts have uniformly assumed the version of the
facts most favorable to the verdict. Nothing but pure hostility to the death penalty and a desire to
block its enforcement can explain the gratuitous and unprecedented adoption of the opposite
presumption.
The primary question before this commission and the Legislature and people of New
Jersey is whether you are going to value the lives of the innocent above the lives of the guilty and
do what it takes to actually have an effective death penalty in this state. Several measures
suggest themselves.
First, get rid of proportionality review. It is not constitutionally required,4 and it is not
needed as a practical matter. The criteria to be eligible for the death penalty, the jury’s decision
informed by every mitigating fact the defendant chooses to offer, and the final backstop of
executive clemency make this additional level of review unnecessary. The New Jersey Supreme
Court wastes resources trying to quantify a fundamentally unquantifiable decision, and the case
of the murder of Mildred Place demonstrates that the court cannot be trusted to do this correctly.
Second, enact some strong limits on collateral review. Every capital defendant should be
entitled to a direct appeal and one post-conviction proceeding, and there should be no further
reviews of any issue that does not raise a substantial doubt of the identity of the perpetrator. The
execution of a person who is in fact guilty of murder and is in fact eligible for the death penalty is
not an injustice warranting multiple reviews over a period of 20 years.
Finally, though, nothing will achieve the goal unless you fix the New Jersey Supreme
Court. We hear a lot about judicial independence. But the other, equally important side of that
coin is judicial responsibility. Judges must use their power for its proper purpose of enforcing
the Constitution and not for the improper purpose of imposing their policy preferences on thepeople of the state. Unfortunately, life tenure tempts too many judges to do exactly that. I
suggest that New Jersey amend its Constitution so that Justices of the Supreme Court must go
before the people for a yes or no confirmation at regular intervals, as is done in California. The
experience in California demonstrates that this system comes as close as possible to the
optimum, providing effective life tenure in most cases while still providing a safety valve to
remove the most egregious abusers of judicial power.
Thank you again for inviting me to speak to you today, and I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
Notes:
1. Articles finding a deterrent effect include Dale O. Cloninger & Roberto Marchesini,
Execution and Deterrence: A Quasicontrolled Group Experiment, Applied Economics, vol. 33,
no. 5, pp. 569-576 (2001); James A. Yunker, A New Statistical Analysis of Capital Punishment
Incorporating U.S. Postmoratorium Data, Social Science Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 297-311
(2002); Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, & Joanna M. Shepherd, Does Capital Punishment
Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data, American Law &
Economics Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 344-376 (Fall 2003); H. Naci Mocan & R. Kaj Gittings,
Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment,
Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 453-478 (October 2003); Zhiqiang Liu,
Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence,
Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 237 (Spring 2004); Paul R. Zimmerman, State
Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder, Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 7, no.
1, pp. 163-193 (May 2004); Joanna M. Shepherd, Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the
Deterrence of Capital Punishment, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 283-322 (June
2004); Dale O. Cloninger & Roberto Marchesini, Execution Moratoriums, Commutations andDeterrence: the case of Illinois, Applied Economics, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 967-973 (May 20, 2006).
A list of articles with abstracts, both pro and con, is maintained on CJLF’s Web site at
CJLF- Listing of articles on death penalty deterrence.2. State v. DiFrisco, 187 N.J. 156, 900 A.2d 820 (2006).
3. State v. Papasavvas, 170 N.J. 462, 790 A.2d 798798 (2002).
4. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984).

I can find awhole lot more if you want to see it!

Good to meet you, playfullheart.
Please count me among the 27% cited above.

As you may know, W. is one of the biggest supporters of the death penalty, having sent 152 people to their deaths while he was governor of Texas.
Death Penalty: Bush: 152 - Perry: 151 and counting ...

As president, though, any time the talk turns to stem cell research, abortion, or Terri Schiavo, he talks about how he and his party "protects life" and supports "a culture of life."
Bush Hails Progress Toward 'Culture of Life' (washingtonpost.com)

How can anyone reconcile those two points of view, especially given other policy decisions he has made over the last 7 years?

The following is a little something I wrote on the subject of "the culture of life" the first couple times Bush used that phrase, but it seems to apply here. I admit that it is sarcastic in tone, but every bit of it is true... and I have provided supporting links.

Imagine Bush giving this speech, and telling us the truth for a change.

"We protect life, from conception to...birth.1

After that, you are on your own.

Don't expect:
- your mom to be insured, so she can afford to have you in a hospital.2
- decent public schools to teach you the basics.3
- any help with a college loan, so you can prepare for a career.4
- a decent job that wont get shipped to China or India.5
- social security to be there when you retire.6

Hey, we fought to get you into the world.
What more do you want?
Good luck out there!

And don't mess up.
We are still in favor of the death penalty."




1(Bush and his most fervent supporters want Roe v Wade repealed)
How George Bush will ban abortion - Salon

2(Bush refuses to entertain national healthcare, even as the percentage of uninsured grows each year)
Bush scales back healthcare initiatives - Proposals for health savings accounts and electronic health records take center stage - Managed Healthcare Executive

3(No Child Left Behind is underfunded and has proven to be deeply flawed)
NEA: No Child Left Behind - NCLB/ESEA - NEA Position

4(Budget cuts and stricter qualification requirements)
College Loan Crunch - Forbes.com

5(Bush talks often about how shipping jobs outside the country is good for us... but this is only true if you are a CEO)
AlterNet: Globalization: Bush's Challenge: Globalization Good for The Poor

6(Luckily, on this one, Bush's plan to destroy Social Security has failed)
Bush's Impossible Social Security Plan - Mises Institute

Death penalty broke, but Texas Legislature won't fix it
Only solution now is to abolish flawed system

By DAVID ATWOOD

TOOLS
Email
Get section feed
Print
Subscribe NOW
Comments
if (MCP_PLUCK) { gSiteLife.Recommend("ExternalResource",PluckItemID ); } Recommend





Another legislative session in Texas has come and gone without any significant improvements to the seriously flawed death penalty system. In fact, a bill to expand the death penalty was passed in the last session despite objections of some prosecutors. This is going in the wrong direction.
How do we know the death penalty system is flawed?
For one thing, several people who were sent to death row were later exonerated and released. Included in those numbers were people like Randall Dale Adams and Clarence Brandley. These were the "lucky ones."
Secondly, in the past year, newspaper investigations have revealed that Texas executed three people who were probably innocent: Ruben Cantu, Cameron Todd Willingham and Carlos DeLuna.
Thirdly, police and prosecutorial misconduct have been documented in several cases. The reality is that we have several people on death row now who should not be there — some are innocent and some should have received a life sentence or life without parole.
Several cases of innocent people being sent to prison have been discovered in Dallas as a result of DNA testing. With the numerous problems reported with the Houston crime laboratory, should we expect different results in Houston or other cities?
Problems with the Texas death penalty system were clearly pointed out in a 2005 report titled "Minimizing Risk: A Blueprint for Death Penalty Reform in Texas." This report by the Texas Defender Service recommended many improvements to the criminal justice system. However, few, if any, have been acted on by the Texas Legislature.
In the 2007 legislative session, several bills were introduced to improve the criminal justice system, including bills to establish:
• A Study Commission to identify where improvements to the death penalty system could be made.
• An Innocence Commission to examine cases where innocent people have been sent to prison so that we can avoid doing that in the future;
• An Office of Capital Writs to improve legal defense during appeals.
These improvements should be "no-brainers" for anyone truly interested in justice. However, legislators who want the flawed system to continue blocked these initiatives as they have in past legislative sessions. They want executions to continue even if we execute the wrong person.
This mentality is beyond comprehension.
Since our legislators have refused to improve the system, the only answer left to ensure that we don't execute innocent people is to abolish the death penalty altogether. We now have life without parole as an alternative punishment, so society can be protected without the death penalty.
If we abolish the death penalty, we would also save the state a lot of money that could be used to improve victims' services, community policing and other crime-prevention programs.
Atwood is president of the Houston Peace and Justice Center.

Death penalty broke, but Legislature won't fix it | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Deciding if your country should support the death penalty should be based less on if it is an effective deterrent and more on if you think it is ever acceptable to kill another human.

hear hear!

Yes it is acceptable to kill another human. There are plenty of them that deserve to be put to death.

Before arguing FOR the death penalty we must dismiss several counterarguments immediately. By arguing for the death penalty is not to say that I am arguing for the means of the death penalty as well. In other words because I am for the death penalty does not mean I am for lethal injection, electrocution, etc. I am not supporting these particular means of the death penalty. So we can eliminate any counterarguments against the death penalty that use cruel and inhumane practices as the basis for their argument. We must likewise dismiss counterarguments that deal with expense or arguments that claim the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes. For the expense, we cannot place a price tag on justice. In other words many claim that it is more expensive to execute the death penalty than it is to keep a criminal in prison for life. This is a lame argument as it places a cap on our capacity to exercise justice. Justice is bigger than money so we cannot judge a practice based on how expensive it is. There's more to say on this but I think you get the point. Some people claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent and so we should not practice it. They show facts that show places where the crime rate has risen where the death penalty is exercised. This too is a lame argument. Justice is good in itself. It is an end to itself. We do not practice justice to get something out of it. We practice justice because it is the right thing to do. Justice is not a vehicle which drives us to a location. Justice is the location. So we can dismiss all these arguments as well. Let us now set up the argument in favor of the death penalty.

Take this statement as an absolute fact: Man A kills Man B

Do not look at that statement as, "The jury has convicted Man A for murder," for then we get into all the arguments about the trust and consistency of the legal system; an argument for which we are not concerned with. We are looking at the question, "If Man A kills Man B, does Man A deserve the death penalty?"

So this is the question we are going to answer in the following argument to come. Here is my thesis:

Because there is a distinction between Crimes against Society and Crimes against Humanity, a crime committed against Society deems punishment which does not allow the criminal from contributing to Society, and a crime committed against Humanity deems punishment which does not allow the murderer from contributing to Humanity.

In my thesis there are two distinctions: Crimes against Society and Crimes against Humanity. Let me show you how I can rightfully claim these two distinctions.

Let us compare and contrast George Bush and an orphan child in Africa. Are these two individuals equal? Yes and No. They are not equal on their societal status. George Bush is one of the most powerful people in the world. The African orphan is one of the most feeble. George Bush can change the lives of billions of people with his decisions. The African orphan probably changes few if any lives. George Bush is honored and respected by many institutions. The African orphan is honored and respected by none. So on a societal level, George Bush and the African orphan are quite unequal. But there is also a grand similarity between George Bush and the African orphan in that George Bush is as human as the African orphan. George Bush is not more human than the African orphan or anyone else for that matter. The African orphan must eat and drink to survive and eventually will die. Likewise, George Bush must eat and drink and eventually he will die. So on a Societal level the two are different, but on the Human level the two are equal.

What does this have to do with the death penalty argument? Well, looking at crime in general since we have these two circles (Social and Human) we must fit crime into one of these two categories. A crime is either a crime against Society or a crime against Humanity. Let us dissect these two types of crimes.

Crime: An intended, execution of harm, which conflicts with law

Crimes against Society:
A crime against society is that crime which is afflicted on a person which hinders them in any way from contributing to Society as he had done before. For example if a man steals money from a woman, that woman is hindered from contributing to society in the same intensity as before. She cannot go out and purchase an item planning on purchasing, etc, etc. If a man assaults a lawyer, that lawyer is not going to be able to contribute to society in the same intensity as before because the lawyer will be in pain and fear. If a man rapes a woman, she is hindered from her contribution to society because she will be in constant fear, suspicion, and paranoia. The list goes on and on and can be applied to every crime except one: murder. Although if a man murders a banker that banker can no longer contribute to society and so it qualifies as a Crime against Society, this criminal action goes much deeper.

Crimes against Humanity:
A crime against humanity is that crime which prohibits a person from contributing to humanity. If a man murders a banker that banker can longer contribute to humanity, for the banker is dead. If a woman is raped by a man, that woman is still as human as ever before. She does not lose her position as a human. But a woman who is killed by a man does lose her position as a human for she is no longer alive. A crime against humanity destroys the victim's contribution and/or position as a human because he no longer is. Furthermore, the only crime which can fall under the umbrella of a crime against humanity is that crime which prohibits another person from contributing to humanity: murder.

The Death Penalty:
We have now split crime into two categories and have examined what determines a certain crime from being categorized in a certain way. Let us now talk about punishment and justice to these distinctive crimes. Justice is a balancing act. Justice is fair. Justice is handing a guy on the street $5 and him taking $5 dollars out of his pocket and giving it to you. So when it comes to punishment we must be fair.
We must punish the criminal in the appropriate manner depending on which Crime he has committed. If a man commits a Crime against Society then we must punish him by hindering him from contributing to society. Since the criminal has hindered the victim from contributing to society, the criminal must also be hindered from contributing to society. This does not mean, however, that we assault the assaulter, rape the rapist, burn the arson, etc. This simply means that we remove the criminal from society and thus hinder/prohibit him from contributing to society in the intensity he had done before. This is what our jails are for. They remove the criminals from society. So in order to keep justice in this balancing act when a criminal commits a crime against Society, we punish him in a "Society manner." We remove him from Society.
However, when a man commits a crime against humanity (murder) it is not sufficient to remove him from Society. A further step must be executed. If Man A kills Man B, then Man A must be removed from humanity. Just as we saw, when a man commits a crime against Society, we remove him from Society, when a man commits a crime against humanity we must remove him from humanity. Again, it is a balancing act. If we do not remove the murderer from humanity and continue to allow him to contribute to his human position, whereas his victim cannot, it is like giving the man on the street $5 and the man giving me $1. It destroys the balance.
Therefore, to sum up, we have seen that there are these two distinctive groups (Social and Human). We have seen that a crime is committed in one of these two groups: either a Crime against Society or a Crime against Humanity. We have also seen that justice is a balancing act and so a criminal committing a crime in one of these groups must be dealt with in an appropriate way depending on which group violated (if committed a Crime against Society, then remove him from Society, if committed a Crime against Humanity, then remove him from Humanity). Thus, the death penalty MUST be executed only when there has been a Crime against Humanity. Remember, I am only arguing for the fact: If Man A kills Man B, Man A deserves to die.

Therefore, the Death Penalty is appropriate and just within its due execution.

If you change this sentence:
As president, though, any time the talk turns to stem cell research, abortion, or Terri Schiavo, he talks about how he and his party "protects life" and supports "a culture of life."

To:
As president, though, any time the talk turns to stem cell research, abortion, or Terri Schiavo, he talks about how he and his party "protects innocent life" and supports "a culture of life."


Those who take life from another do no deserve their own life.