Death Penalty Debate

Death Penalty Debate

Gallup Poll Reports: 74% Of Americans Support The Death Penalty - This Is In Spite Of The Steady Anti-Death Penalty Drumbeat Of The Main Stream Media

Gallup's latest update on the death penalty shows a continued high level of public support for the death penalty for those convicted of murder. Americans say the death penalty is not imposed enough rather than imposed too often. Support for the death penalty is high despite the belief of most Americans that innocent people have been put to death in the past five years, although most consider this a rare occurrence.

The poll, conducted May 5-7, finds 74% of Americans in favor of and 24% opposed to the "death penalty for a person convicted of murder." Gallup has asked this basic death-penalty-support question since the 1930's. Support has been above 70% over the last two years, after having been in the mid-to-high 60% range in 2000-2001. The current number is the highest support level Gallup has obtained on this measure since May 1995 when 77% supported the death penalty. The highest support level was 80% in 1994, and the lowest was 42% in 1966.

In the last couple of years, there has been a growing belief that the death penalty is applied fairly in this country, despite news reports that some individuals were incorrectly given death sentences. 60% now say the death penalty is applied fairly, while 37% disagree. In 2000, 51% said it was applied fairly, and 41% said it was not. During that year, Illinois became the first state to institute a moratorium on the death penalty, and the use of the death penalty in Texas under then-Governor George W. Bush was a major issue in the 2000 presidential election campaign.

Source: The Gallup Organization, May 19, 2003

Illinois Governor George Ryan Appears To Be Desperately Looking For Approval From Anyone These Last Days Of His Scandal-Plagued Term

Gov. George Ryan

Apparently, for a pat on the back, Illinois Governor George Ryan has turned to the only people left - death penalty opponents. In the process, he has chosen to shaft the surviving victims of these condemned killers. Atta-boy, George, what a legacy!

Other Death Penalty News:

	Missouri - William R. Jones This killer was executed for killing a man he met at a Kansas City park frequented by gay men. Prosecutors claimed that Jones plotted the killing after dating the victim after deciding that he wanted the victim's car. Jones shot the victim five times before dumping the body.
	Texas - William Wesley Chappell This killer was executed by lethal injection for multiple murder in 1988. Chappell broke into a home in Forth Worth, Texas in May of 1988 and began shooting people with a silencer-equipped gun as they slept. A woman, age 27, her mother, age 50, and stepfather, age 70, were killed. Police believed that Chappell missed his intended target, an ex-girlfriend who moved out of her parents home because she feared for her safety.
	Texas - Craig Ogan This killer was executed by lethal injection for the 1989 murder of a Houston police officer.

New York Jury Says Wendy's Restaurant Murderer Of 5 Innocent Employees Should Die by Lethal Injection

New York making good use of its recently enacted death penalty.

The man behind the robbery and massacre at a Wendy's Restaurant in New York was sentenced to death by a jury recently. John Taylor, 38, and an accomplice herded seven employees of the Wendy's Restaurant into a freezer and murdered five of them. Prosecutors proved that Taylor plotted the attack and directed his mentally retarded accomplice.

The sentence was handed down more than two years after the murders. Taylor will be executed by lethal injection.

Kevin Stanford - Condemned Robber, Rapist, Sodomizer and Murderer - Loses Last Appeal

Appeal of death sentence took more than 20 years, now he faces execution, unless commuted by Gov. Patton.

Kevin Stanford
(photo courtesy of http://web.chi.es/isidro/
humanismo/index.htm)

Kevin Stanford raped, sodomized and robbed 20-year-old Baerbel Poore, then murdered her by shooting her in the face, then in the back of the head. This innocent young mother worked as a gas station attendant so she could support her infant child.

Baerbel Poore

The U. S. Supreme Court refused to consider the last appeal of condemned killer Kevin Stanford. Now 39, Stanford was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery, sodomy and murder of 20-year-old Baerbel Poore, 20, who worked at a Checker Gas Station in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Stanford now faces execution.

Poore's sister, Mona Mills, said the decision by the Supreme Court "was the best news I have had in 20 years." In response to a question about the age of killer Stanford at the time he viciously took the life of the young mother of an 11-month-old baby, Mills said, "When you did what he did, that is not the act of a child."

Kentucky's Governor Paul Patton has been asked by the public defender to show mercy to Stanford and commute his sentence. They don't want Stanford treated the same way he treated Baerbel Poore.

Public Defender Asks Governor Paul Patton
To Give Vicious Killer A Free Pass Off Death Row!

Clemency request already made to Governor by Public Defender's Office.
Will Patton ignore the jury, crime victims, prosecutors and police?

Governor Paul Patton

Attorney General Ben Chandler will soon ask Governor Paul Patton to sign a death warrant ordering Kevin Stanford's execution. The Public Defender's Office has already asked the Governor to commute Stanford's death sentence.

Patton's spokesman, Dennis Fleming, has said previously that the Governor is philosophically opposed to the application of the death penalty for juveniles.

Death Penalty Clemency Hearings Backfire On Death Penalty Opponents And Their Leader, Illinois Governor George Ryan

Governor George Ryan, Illinois

Families of murder victims finally get their turn to describe the horror and brutality of the murder of their loved ones and newspapers hate it.

The hearings have become story after story of the bloody horror of senseless and brutal murders by death row inmates. The pain and passion of the families of the victims is so intense and overwhelming that Illinois Governor George Ryan himself has become the target of bitter attacks by the relatives of the murder victims.

So overwhelming is the brutality of the murders and intensity of the suffering and pain of the victims that even Chicago�s two major newspapers have urged Governor Ryan to halt the clemency hearings.

"Halt the anguish, Gov. Ryan," implored the Chicago Tribune. "Ryan�s hearings cruel and unusual," headlined the Chicago Sun-Times.

These liberal, anti-punishment newspapers who are so quick to condemn the death penalty and the court system apparently either can�t stand or are afraid of the real truth about what these condemned killers did to put themselves on death row. The juries knew and now the public is finding out, and the newspapers don�t like it.

The public heard the often painful accounts of the brutal murders committed by these condemned killers. For example, they heard about:

A couple who shot and killed a woman, cut her nearly full-term baby from her womb, and killed two of her other children;

Two brothers who beat a sleeping couple to death with baseball bats;

A father who tortured his mute, severely retarded stepdaughter for years until she died;

A man who killed a couple after telling them to have their last kiss;

A man who took eight women to remote locations and stripped, bound and murdered them.

"I can�t imagine the public has heard such a parade of horrors combined into such a short time period in American history," said John Gorman, a spokesman for the Cook County State�s Attorney�s Office.

Defense attorneys had hoped the hearings would focus on such problems as police brutality and unreliable jailhouse snitches. But it was clear almost from the beginning that the emphasis would be on the crimes themselves and the families they devastated.

Family members have transformed the hearing rooms into photo galleries of the dead. They have pointed to the infants in the audience who would never know their grandfathers, the sons and daughters who grew up without parents.

"You could not sit in that room without feeling human and without feeling how vulnerable it is to be human," said Arvin Boddie, a board member who was removed after criticizing the hearings and defense attorneys.

Source: Associated Press

Dick Devine's Letter To The Editor: Cook County State's Attorney Tells Gov. Ryan To Quit Blaming Victims

Give him Hell, Dick!

Chicago Sun-Times

Richard Devine, Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney

Gov. Ryan shouldn't blame victims

October 28, 2002

Gov. Ryan blamed prosecutors last week for creating the "drama" of the victims testifying in these clemency hearings and said that prosecutors could call them off, not him.

This is just another example of the governor's disregard for our state's criminal justice system. It is unconscionable for the governor who has invited everyone on Death Row to file these petitions, and who indicated he might grant blanket clemency, to blame prosecutors for demanding hearings and giving these families a chance to speak out. The victims' families would have been justifiably outraged if they were denied this chance. They have demanded the right to speak after learning of the governor's threat.

In one case, a mother who needed an oxygen tank at the hearing insisted on testifying despite our protestations that other family members could speak.

Prosecutors did not file these petitions; the defense bar did in unprecedented numbers after getting a wink and a nod from the governor. Family members have historically attended these hearings to oppose clemency. Maybe the governor forgets the clemency hearings held for Richard Speck and the anguish and the outrage voiced by the parents of the eight murdered student nurses.

These victims' families have had to sit mute during trials and countless post-conviction hearings. This is their chance to be heard, and they do not want to be denied that right. They want to tell the governor what they think of his blanket approach to justice.

We requested the hearings because the defendants did not. For the first time in modern history, the defendants did not request a hearing, and one wonders why. Perhaps they hoped that prosecutors and the families would be satisfied to have the cases considered quietly and without fuss and then have their decisions made on a wholesale basis. If they did, they were wrong.

The victims' families are the most forgotten people in the criminal justice system and yet have the most to lose in these hearings. Perhaps the governor is unaware of the constitutional right of the victims to be heard.

Clemency hearings are supposed to be held when all other appeals have been exhausted. But after getting the high sign from the governor, prisoners' lawyers have filed these petitions when there are still many appeals still pending or still possible. These families should only have to go through this once, but if the governor does not pardon these killers, these families will undoubtedly have to go through this again when all appeals fail.

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert has called these hearings obscene. The only thing more obscene would be for Gov. Ryan to follow through on his continuing threat to grant blanket commutation to these 160 convicted killers, or to create categories that give the appearance of a reason but are little more than cover for wholesale clemency. If the governor makes his decisions based on the merits of each case, there will be very few grants of clemency issued.

Dick Devine, Cook County state's attorney

Source: Chicago Sun-Times, October 28, 2002.

Louisville Courier-Journal Is Taken To Task For Errors & Faulty Liberal Logic In Its Latest Anti-Death Penalty Editorial

Larry Osborne was originally convicted and sentenced to death, largely on the sworn testimony of a witness who died prior to the first trial. The case was overturned because Osborne could not cross-examine the dead witness. Because the prosecution could not use that evidence in the second trial, Osborne was found not guilty.
The editorial writers for the Courier-Journal concluded, therefore, that Osborne was innocent. The C-J seem to conclude that legal innocence is the same as actual innocence. WRONG!

Dudley Sharp, Resource Director for Justice For All, in Houston, Texas, points out the faulty logic of the C-J latest anti-death penalty editorial and all of their errors in their latest rant.

The Courier-Journal made some significant errors within its newest rant against capital punishment ("Justice without death," Aug. 7).

Contrary to The C-J�s incorrect finding, the acquittal of Larry Osborne goes to the safety of the death penalty and to the extent the justice system goes in protecting defendants and inmates. Osborne was originally convicted and sentenced to death, largely on the sworn testimony of a witness who died prior to that first trial. That case was overturned because Osborne, obviously, could not cross-examine that witness.

It is very safe to say that Osborne�s acquittal in the second trial was due to the lack of that same evidence. This in no way indicates that Osborne was actually innocent. His second trial found him not guilty because the state could not prove his doubt. Yet, the C-J seems to conclude that legal innocence and actual innocence are the same. They are not.

The law recognizes these obvious distinctions; so does popular culture. Significant portions of the population believe that O.J. Simpson is actually guilty of murdering two people, even though he was found not guilty at his criminal trial. The C-J incorrectly implies that 101 actual innocents have previously been freed from death rows in the United States. That number is simply a fraud presented by death penalty opponents and repeated, without challenge, by many in the media, including the C-J.

Twenty-three of those 101 "innocents" are from Florida. Florida officially reviewed those claims through their Florida Commission on Capital Cases, which found that four of those 23 cases may have a credible claim of innocence. If those findings are consistent throughout the country, that would mean that 17 of those 101 cases may have a credible claim of innocence. That is 0.2 percent of the 7,300 sentenced to death since 1973. None of the 17 (or the 101) was executed.

It is unlikely that there is a more accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. And a complete review finds that the risk to the innocent will be much higher if we fail to execute known murderers.

Even Death Penalty Opponents Think This Latest U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Is Weird

"The Supremes ignored the Constitution...," said death penalty opponent Prof. Richard W. Garrett of Notre Dame Law School. "I oppose the death penalty. . . but accept that the death penalty can serve as a deterrent; and that retribution is the justification and proper purpose of punishment. . . . but I can only shake my head at the Supreme Court�s decision outlawing the execution of persons with severe developmental disabilities," he added.

"Seldom has an opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members."
Justice Antonin Scalia.

The slim majority of the U.S. Supreme Court simply ignored our constitution and law and did what they wanted. Is this the beginning of the end of the rule of law? We always thought we could count on the Supreme Court to uphold our Constitution. Not if they keep up these antics.

Of Course The Death Penalty Deters!

Some question whether the death penalty is a deterrent.
How can it not be !

Almost no one wants to die. Guilty murderers do everything to avoid being executed. They appeal their cases endlessly, accept plea bargains for life in prison.

Is there any reason to believe the death penalty deters murders?

Just look at the facts.

Before 1963, most states had capital punishment and used it. Executions tracked the murder rate fairly consistently. By the late 1950's, murders were declining and executions were rare, but focused public attention on particularly heinous murders.

By the early 1960's, however, liberal criminal justice policy-makers began to argue that, because murder rates were so low, the death penalty was no longer needed. Executions ground to a halt until the Supreme Court abolished them altogether in 1972.

Simultaneously, murders skyrocketed. In 1973, they reached their 1933 peak, and hit an all-time high in 1980. Not until executions of these murderers resumed in earnest after 1991, did the murder rates fall rapidly to the 1960's level.

Today almost half of all homicides are committed by strangers to the victim, and most of those are committed during another crime.

These zealots are always ready to accept the word of a killer. "It was just an accident," they say, or "we really didn�t mean to shoot the guy, we were just trying to rob him," and apologists believe them and argue that it is unfair to execute some unfortunate sole for such a "tragic mistake."

Yes, these naive elitists are very good at this type of thinking. Just don�t confuse them with the facts or history.

Source: Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, June 21, 2002.

Capital Punishment Saves Lives!
Moratorium on executions? We've been there and done that and it was a deadly disaster. Between 1965 and 1980, there was practically no death penalty in the United States. During that time (1965-80), murders in the United States doubled from 9,960 to 23,040 per year. Obviously, murder becomes more attractive to potential killers when they know that prison is the worst they can face.

Capital Punishment Saves Lives

By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe

DEATH PENALTY abolitionists don't usually mention it, but in promoting a moratorium on executions, they are urging us down a road we have taken before.

In the mid-1960s, as a number of legal challenges to capital punishment began working their way through the courts, executions in the United States came to a halt. From 56 in 1960, the number of killers put to death dropped to seven in 1965, to one in 1966, and to zero in 1967. There it stayed for the next 10 years, until the State of Utah executed Gary Gilmore in 1977. That was the only execution in 1977, and there were only two more during the next three years.

In sum, between 1965 and 1980, there was practically no death penalty in the United States, and for 10 of those 16 years - 1967-76 - there was literally no death penalty: a national moratorium.

What was the effect of making capital punishment unavailable for a decade and a half? Did a moratorium on executions save innocent lives - or cost them?

The data are brutal. Between 1965 and 1980, annual murders in the United States skyrocketed, rising from 9,960 to 23,040. The murder rate - homicides per 100,000 persons - doubled from 5.1 to 10.2.

Was it just a fluke that the steepest increase in murder in US history coincided with the years when the death penalty was not available to punish it? Perhaps. Or perhaps murder becomes more attractive when potential killers know that prison is the worst outcome they can face.

By contrast, common sense suggests that there are at least some people who will not commit murder if they think it might cost them their lives. Sure enough, as executions have become more numerous, murder has declined. ''From 1995 to 2000,'' notes Dudley Sharp of the victims rights group Justice For All, ''executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 - a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966.''

What is true nationally has been observed locally as well. There were 12,652 homicides in New York during the 25 years from 1940 to 1965, when New York regularly executed murderers. By contrast, during the 25 years from 1966 to 1991 there were no executions at all - and murders quadrupled to 51,638.

To be sure, murder rates fell in almost every state in the 1990s. But they fell the most in states that use capital punishment. The most striking protection of innocent life has been in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. In 1991, the Texas murder rate was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 - a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 - a 72 percent decrease.

Obviously, murder and the rate at which it occurs are affected by more than just the presence or absence of the death penalty. But even after taking that caveat into account, it seems irrefutably clear that when murderers are executed, innocent lives are saved. And when executions are stopped, innocent lives are lost.

Death penalty abolitionists (and a few death penalty supporters) claim that a moratorium on executions is warranted because the criminal justice system is ''broken'' and the death penalty is unfairly applied. But if that's true when the punishment is death, how much more so is it true when the punishment isn't death! Death penalty prosecutions typically undergo years of appeals, often attracting intense scrutiny and media attention. So painstaking is the super-due process of capital murder cases that for all the recent hype about innocent prisoners on death row, there is not a single proven case in modern times of an innocent person being executed in the United States.

But the due process in non-death penalty cases is not nearly as scrupulous. Everyone knows that there are innocent people behind bars today. If the legal system's flaws justify a moratorium on capital punishment, a fortiori they justify a moratorium on imprisonment. Those who call for a moratorium on executions should be calling just as vehemently for a moratorium on prison terms. Why don't they?

Because they know how ridiculous it would sound. If there are problems with the system, the system should be fixed, but refusing to punish criminals would succeed only in making society far less safe than it is today.

The same would be true of a moratorium on executions. If due process in capital murder cases can be made even more watertight, by all means let us do so. But not by keeping the worst of our murderers alive until perfection is achieved. We've been down the moratorium road before. We know how that experiment turns out. The results are written in wrenching detail on gravestones across the land.

Source: The Boston Globe, June 6, 2002.

Maryland Governor Glendening Halts Executions, Accused Of Playing Politics With Death Penalty
Governor refuses to meet with victim's family to explain why he ignored jury's sentence. His decision thrills death-penalty oppoents; infuriates families of murder victims.

Parris N. Glendening
Governor of Maryland

Sandra O'Connor, Baltimore County, Maryland State's Attorney, Applies Death Penalty Law Consistently.
	Sandra O'Connor

Sandra O'Connor, Baltimore County States Attorney, has an ironclad policy of seeking the death penalty in every case that qualifies for it under Maryland law, with two exceptions:

when the victim's relatives are against a death penalty; or
evidence is based solely on a co-defendant's testimony.

"She is intellectually honest. Any attempt to paint her with racial bias is outrageous," says self-described "liberal democrat" Gary Bernstein.

Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening, who claims to support capital punishment, stopped all executions in Maryland, including convicted killer Wesley Baker, who was scheduled to be executed.

Baker was convicted of First Degree Murder in the robbery and shooting of Jane Tyson in front of her two grandchildren as they all sat in her car outside of a Baltimore Mall in 1991.

Karen Sulewski, a daughter of the victim, is furious that the Governor refuses to meet with her to explain his decision. Sulewski accused Glendening of caving in to political pressure to help Lt. Governor Kennedy-Townsend in her effort to succeed him as Governor of Maryland.

Baltimore Sun Opinion Blasts Maryland Governor's Political Motives In Death Penalty Halt

Timing Of Death Penalty Halt Reveals Governor's True Motive

By Gregory Kane, Baltimore Sun

SO LET'S get this straight: On the evening of June 6, 1991, Wesley Baker walked up to Jane Frances Tyson as she sat in her car. Tyson had just finished shopping in the Westview Mall. Her grandchildren, a 6-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl, were with her in the car.

Baker demanded Tyson�s purse and then in full view of the little ones, shot her in the head. Baker grabbed Tyson�s purse and ran to a nearby Chevy Blazer driven by his co-hort, Gregory Lawrence.

Baltimore County police caught the pair a short time later. Lawrence was convicted of felony murder and a handgun violation and sentenced to life in prison, plus 20 years. Baker received a death sentence.

It is as cold-hearted and heinous a crime as has ever been committed in this neck of the woods. But to hear death penalty opponents and other bleeding hearts tell it, Baker - the killer, not Jane Tyson, is the victim. They somehow think that the killer, not Jane Tyson�s surviving relatives, deserve our sympathy.

Source: Baltimore Sun, May 15, 2002.

Well, the cold-blooded killer, Wesley Baker won�t get the sympathy of the voting public, but he sure got the sympathy of Maryland�s Governor. No wonder the public has such a low opinion of elected officials.

Governor Glendening's Maryland Is "Criminal-Friendly," According To Washington Times

Colorado woman raped and murdered by Maryland criminal who was released early from Maryland prison. Maryland Governor Glendening apologizes to Colorado Governor. Maryland pays $700,000 to the woman's family.

The C/J Eight (Louisville Courier-Journal Editorial Writers) Claim Cold-Blooded Killer "Too Young To Die"
They conveniently ignore the fact that he was not too young to murder a defenseless 63-year-old man, however.

The C-J Eight (the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board) are outraged that Napoleon Beazley was executed in Texas recently for the brutal murder of John Luttig eight years ago.

The opinion of The C-J Eight, titled "Too young to die," reveals their anguish when Beazley was executed. Of course, they show no concerns for 63-year-old John Luttig who Beazley shot twice in the head with a .45-caliber gun, and whose pockets were rifled for keys to his car which he stole for a one-block joyride.

Nope, the editorial tears of The C-J Eight are reserved for the killer, who was 3 months short of his 18th birthday.

Executing 'Children,' And Other Death-Penalty Myths

By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe

THERE WERE tears and sighs aplenty when Napoleon Beazley was put to death last week, eight years after he pumped two .45-caliber bullets into the head of a defenseless 63-year-old, rifled the dead man's pockets to get his keys, and then stole his car for a one-block joyride. But the tears and sighs weren't for Beazley's victim, John Luttig, or for Luttig's widow, who was nearly killed herself, or for their children and grandchildren, whose lives sustained a wound that night that will never fully heal.

The tears and sighs were for Beazley. And why? Because at the time he committed what even he called a "heinous" and "senseless" murder, his 18th birthday was still three months off. That was enough to send the anti-death penalty spin machine into overdrive.

"I am astounded," wrote Bishop Desmond Tutu, "that Texas [and other states] take *children* from their families and execute them."

"Texas must recognize," thundered Sue Gunawardena-Vaught of Amnesty International, "that the brutal practice of executing *children* is in complete and utter defiance of international law."

"Of those nations executing *children*," an aghast Jeannine Scott wrote in The New Abolitionist, "the United States is far in the lead."

It's hard to say which is more offensive - the pretence that giving a lethal injection to a 25-year-old convicted murderer amounts to "executing children," or the spectacle of people who never shed a tear for the innocent John Luttig weeping so noisily for his killer.

In any case, the age issue is a red herring. No state allows the death sentence for anyone younger than 16, and no one younger than 23 has been executed in modern times. Anti-execution activists seized on Beazley's age for the same reason they seized on Karla Faye Tucker's death row conversion to Christianity and Ricky McGinn's last-minute plea for DNA testing: They'll seize on any excuse to keep a murderer alive, no matter how lame the excuse or how obvious the murderer's guilt.

That is their right, of course -- in a way, it is even part of the super-due process the US criminal justice system affords capital defendants -- but it would be n ice if they sometimes acknowledge the truth: they aren't opposed to unjust or tainted executions, they are opposed to all executions, period. The Beazley brouhaha was simply one more skirmish in their ongoing (and very well-funded) campaign to wipe out capital punishment.

So is their call for a death-penalty moratorium.

Opponents of capital punishment loudly insist that death sentences are meted out unfairly and incompetently, that the criminal justice system is broken, and -- worst of all -- that scores of innocent defendants are being sent to death row. These are grotesque exaggerations, based mostly on a handful of anecdotes (didja hear the one about the lawyer who fell asleep?) or highly tortured statistics, like the phony claim that there is a 68 percent error rate in capital cases.

The truth is that capital punishment in America is the most accurate and carefully administered criminal sanction in the world, and the public has good reason to support it. The latest Gallup poll shows that 72 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for murderers, while only 25 percent oppose it. Indeed, nearly half of the public (47 percent) says that the death penalty isn't imposed often enough, more than double the 22 percent who think it is imposed too often.

Hence the call for a moratorium. Americans are being urged not to abolish executions but merely to suspend them long enough to identify and fix any problems. "Whether you support or oppose capital punishment," goes the ACLU's pitch, "we need a moratorium on executions to give us time to figure out why the system is not working."

It's a clever appeal, geared to Americans' sense of fair play, and there are signs that it is having an impact. Illinois and Maryland have adopted moratoriums. The idea is under construction in other states. Writing in The New Republic, Peter Beinart suggests that endorsing a national death-penalty moratorium could be a winning issue for a Democratic presidential candidate. With a largely anti-death penalty media cheering in the background, perhaps it could.

To be sure, some moratorium proponents are in fact death penalty supporters who sincerely believe that there are correctable problems with the way it is currently administered. That was the thinking behind the moratorium in Illinois, a state where judges and policemen have been convicted of corruption and where a number of capital defendants were wrongly convicted.

But most of those calling for a national moratorium see it as a prelude to ending executions for good. As usual, they are not being straightforward about their motives -- or about what we could expect if they get their way.

Source: The Boston Globe, June 2, 2002.

Gallup Poll Shows Support For Death Penalty Higher Than In Recent Years

A recent Gallup poll shows Americans tend to believe the death penalty is applied fairly in the United States. 72% favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while only 25% are opposed. Support has risen by almost 5%.

A poll conducted by The Gallup Organization during May, 2002 shows that support for the death penalty is rising. Some of the significant findings include:

1.	Americans tend to believe that the death-penalty is applied fairly in the United States.
2.	When asked about the frequency with which the death-penalty is imposed:
		447%	not imposed enough (up from 38%)
		24%	the right amount of times.
		22%	too often
3.	When asked if they favor the death-penalty for persons convicted of murder:
		72%	favor
		25%	oppose
4.	When asked if the death penalty is morally acceptable:
		67% say it is
		28% say it is not
5.	When asked if they supported using the death-penalty for women:
		68% say yes
		29% say no

The Death Penalty Abolitionists Seek State Funds For Study In Hopes Of Repealing Kentucky's Death Penalty Law

Rep. Rob Wilkie

According to the April 26, 2002 edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Rep. Rob Wilkie, D-Franklin, and other death penalty abolitionists will seek funds from the Legislative Research Commission to help finance a study which they hope will lead to the repeal of Kentucky�s death penalty law.

On April 22, 2002 The Lexington Herald-Leader reported:

"Frankfort - Foes of capital punishment can�t seem to win in this town, but they hope a $100,000 study of the death penalty will change some people�s minds."

The abolitionists hope to receive $25,000 in state funds to match $75,000 in grant funds for the study, which they say will determine whether death sentences are fairly given and carried out in Kentucky. Rep. Rob Wilkie said he hopes to tap the Legislative Research Commission, which regularly funds studies.

Source: Article by John Cheves in the April 26, 2002 edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The Public's Support For Capital Punishment Remains Strong
Even after non-stop media screeching against the death penalty by liberal newspapers like New York Times and Washington Post, a recent poll showed support for capital punishment is at 82%.

Josh Marquis

Oregon prosecutor Josh Marquis is a frequent spokesperson for the prosecution perspective on death penalty issues.

The American public possesses a deep-seated sense of right and wrong. It seems that no matter how hard the liberal media and the anti-death penalty elitists try, average citizens continue to believe that those who commit the most heinous murders should face the possibility of the most serious punishment.

America�s prosecutors feel that people who violate our laws should suffer the consequences of those acts, and they will continue to do all they can to see that law-breakers are held responsible for their criminal acts. The safety of the public is job # 1 for prosecutors.

That is what the public expects and wants.

Kentucky Supreme Court Restores Death Sentence
Excerpted from a Louisville Courier-Journal article by Joseph Gerth, dated 3/22/02.

Supreme Court Justice Donald Wintersheimer

Judge Mary Noble

A Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion, written by Justice Donald Wintersheimer, reverses a decision by Fayette Circuit Judge Mary Noble to give a condemned murderer a third trial for a 1983 murder.

The Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated the murder convictions and death sentence of Eugene Frank Tamme in the slayings of two men in a Washington County marijuana field in 1983.

Eugene Frank Tamme

Reason For Death Sentence:

This killer had an accomplice bring the two victims to a field where marijuana was being grown in Washington County in 1983. After the men arrived at the field, Tamme surprised the men and shot them both, killing them. Tamme then buried the two men in a ravine. He later dug up the bodies, burned them, and then dumped their ashes and bones in a creek.

Tamme was first convicted of killing Harold Southerland and Neal Maddox in 1985, but that finding was set aside by the state Supreme Court. He was convicted again in 1994.

Fayette Circuit Judge Mary C. Noble ruled in August, 2000 that Tamme's second conviction should be overturned, in part because of new evidence that defense lawyers said cast doubt on Tamme's guilt.

On appeal, the lawyers argued that Tamme's trial lawyers weren't allowed to present evidence that two prosecution witnesses were involved in the drug trade with Tamme and that they had shot the victims during a drug deal gone bad.

Noble sided with Tamme, but the state Supreme Court disagreed with her.

In two separate opinions, all seven justices said Tamme's conviction should stand.

Writing the majority decision, Justice Donald Wintersheimer said that Noble was not supported by case law when she ruled that the new evidence was sufficient to warrant a new trial.

Noble ruled that the new evidence could "reasonably" result in a different verdict, but Wintersheimer noted that Kentucky appellate courts have held that judges could overturn convictions based on new evidence only if there is "reasonable certainty" that a jury would reach a different decision.

"Such is a more liberal standard at variance with the requirements of this court," he said.

Wintersheimer also said that Noble misapplied the law when she ruled that Tamme didn't get effective legal assistance and that he was barred from presenting a defense. Both arguments stemmed from Tamme not being allowed to present evidence of the drug trade.

The Supreme Court overturned Tamme's first conviction after his lawyers agrued that allowing the jury to hear evidence of his involvement in drugs prejudiced jurors against him.

Following the second trial, the lawyers argued just the opposite.

"The argument that the original decision of this Court was intended to limit any inference to drug activities only to the prosecution, but permit the defense to impeach the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses with evidence of involvement in the drug operation is absurd," Wintersheimer wrote.

The fact that Tamme's lawyers didn't push to introduce the drug evidence doesn't warrant a new trial, either, the court ruled. Wintersheimer quoted a decision from a 2000 case when he said a verdict should be overturned for ineffective legal help only when "counsel was so thoroughly ineffective that defeat was snatched from the hands of probable victory."

Executions Deter Murders, According To Two Major University Studies

"The execution of each offender seems to save, on the average, the lives of 18 potential victims," according to Emory University researchers.

Executions called deterrent

New Studies dispute earlier data

By Frank Green

Times-dispatch staff writer

It's long been held by death penalty opponents and accepted by most criminologists - and some capital punishment proponents - that executions do not deter murders.

But detailed studies released in the past year by economists at two universities concluded that the penalty has saved lives in jurisdictions that have it. The two recent studies contradict numbers that show no deterrent effects.

"Our results suggest that the legal change allowing executions beginning in 1977 has been met with significant reductions in homicides," write three researchers at Emory University in Atlanta.

The U.S. Supreme Court stopped executions in 1972 but allowed their resumption in 1967. Of the states with the death penalty, Virginia ranks second in the number of executions during that time. As of the end of last year, Texas led with 255 executions, while Virginia had put 83 killers to death.

According to Emory researchers, "The execution of each offender seems to save, on average, lives of 18 potential victims. "The estimate, they say, has a margin of error of plus or minus ten."

A separate study by H. Naci Mocan, economics department chairman at the University of Denver, and graduate student R. Kaj Gittings came to much the same conclusion. Mocan concluded that each additional execution means five or six fewer homicides.

Mocan said that economists are looking at crime because "criminal activity is really not different from other economic decision." A potential criminal looks at the expected costs and benefits and makes her decision and behaves accordingly.

"As a result, economics and economists have something to contribute to this analysis." he explained.

The University of Colorado study looked at the 6,143 death sentences imposed between. The Emory study examined data covering 3,054 counties with and without the death penalty through 1992 to scrutinize the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

Mocan proclaimed, "A common argument against the deterrent effect is that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states without it."

But he said "such a simple correlation" does not mean there is a cause-and effect relation between homicide rates and the death penalty. The higher homicide rate could have led to the enactment of the death penalty in those states, he said.

The Colorado study found that the presence of capital punishment in a state meant 65 fewer homicides in the state. From 1977 to 1997, after taking into account numerous factors, Mocan stated the major finding was that "for every three pardons in a state, there were one to 1 and a half additional homicides."

Both studies conclude by cautioning that their results must be balanced by unfairness and discrimination in the justice system. "Given these concerns, a stand for or against capital punishment [based solely on the study] should not be taken with confidence," Mocan writes.

Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, says "the approach taken by these studies differs from those taken by many other researchers who have found no deterrent effects."

"I think deterrence is almost an impossible thing to measure. It's trying to measure why people commit murder or other crimes. There are so many reasons, it's hard to isolate out "where do you determine that it's the death penalty that's motivating people not to commit crime?"

Source: The Washington Times, February 28, 2002, excerpted.

Thomas Sowell Tells It Like It Is: The IQ Exemption For Killers

Thomas Sowell

The never-ending battle of the left to keep people from being held responsible for their acts is now in the U. S. Supreme Court. The justices are being urged to exempt murderers from the death penalty if they score below some number on the IQ scale. Psychology and psychiatry are not sciences, though some courts pretend they are. Click here for story.

"Lexington Herald-Leader Supports The Death Penalty," Says Editor Amanda Bennett
The daily newspaper's support of Kentucky's death penalty proclaimed during WVLK radio program "Front-Page," hosted by Sue Wylie.

Amanda Bennett
Editor, Lexington Herald-Leader

The Lexington Herald-Leader supports the death penalty. That's what Amanda Bennett, the newly appointed Editor of Lexington's daily newspaper, said while she was a guest on the February 5, 2002 Edition of WVLK radio program "Front-Page," hosted by Sue Wylie.

Ms. Bennett's proclamation of support for the death penalty echoes the same position stated by her predecessor, Pam Luecke, who left the Lexington Herald-Leader to become a professor of journalism at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. Before Luecke left the newspaper, she also stated, in an interview with Wood Simpson which appeared in the Chevy Chaser Magazine, that the Herald-Leader supported the death penalty.

BUSTED! "The Great 'Browser-Cookie' Conspiracy" Uncovered

Death Penalty Opponents Conspire
To Rig Web-Poll Results!

Death penalty opponents voted overwhelmingly to abolish the death penalty for 16 and 17 year old killers who commit the most heinous murders. (621 against DP for juveniles - 120 for). However, thanks to good "cyber" citizens, we now know how they did it!

Last week’s web question was:

"Should 16 and 17 year old juveniles who commit the most heinous murders be eligible for the death penalty?"

Normally our web poll attracts between 100 - 200 Web-Voters. However, recently several hundred votes were cast in just one night. The next day we received several emails from good cyber-citizens from around the United States, reporting dirty tricks in last week’s web poll.

One email read:

"Just thought you might like to know that your poll results are being skewed by anti-death penalty activists who are suggesting on their mailing list that everyone turn off their ‘cookies’ so they can vote multiple times." from C.

That good cyber-citizen forwarded the following emails which confirmed "the great browser-cookie conspiracy:"

"There is an easy way of beating most online polls on the death penalty. Most polls permit you to vote only once and they do this by depositing a ‘cookie’ into your browser that basically tells their website that you voted in the poll."

"You can beat this and vote as many times as you want if you turn the cookies off in your browser. Here’s how to turn off your browser’s ‘cookies.’ " from K.

"INSTRUCTIONS TO DISABLE ‘COOKIES’."
(Specific instructions followed).

After the secret instructions on how to "vote as many times as you want," were published by the anti-D/P bunch, the following emails were sent to other anti-death penalty conspirators throughout the United States:

Email #1

"The current tabulation is 65% YES . . . . . I hate these things, but at the moment, why the hell not vote? Let’s turn it around." From A

Email #2

"Will everyone now revisit www.lexingtonprosecutor.com and use this procedure to vote against the death penalty for juvenile offenders in Larson’s pole (sic.)?? Please!" From E.

Email #3

"Please vote at this site (lexingtonprosecutor.com), and as Karl suggested, if you turn your cookies off, you will be able to vote more than once."

Email #4

"Ray Larson, Commonwealth’s Attorney for Fayette County and champion of the death penalty, maintains a web site loaded with pro-dp stuff. He has a poll running there on the juvenile issue. If we all cast a vote, maybe that would get his attention." From Patrick Delahanty

Email #5

"Folks: So far, about 190 people or so have voted and our side is winning with 75% of the vote! But the pro-DPs will probably learn of this poll soon enough, so please forward this to all of your listservs."

"Together, as a movement, we have connections to labor, feminists, the gay and lesbian community, peace activists and so, so much more. Let’s WIN THIS THING! ! ! !"

It was just two months ago that the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Catholic Priest, and head of the Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Patrick Delahanty admitted he had done the very same thing earlier in an effort to rig the lexingtonprosecutor.com voter poll results by voting numerous times to try to skew the results.

A Clear Voice From The Hollywood Wilderness

John Malkovich

Independent thinking John Malkovich recently gave the death penalty opponent, Chicago Tribune the benefit of his thoughts about our criminal justice system.

"America’s left wing wants criminals coddled, and no one wants anyone punished," he said. "I would have no problem pushing the switch while having dinner."

He further tweaked the anti-death penalty bunch by saying, "We’re all going to die, so it should be called the early death penalty."

The Gallup Poll Reports: Support For The Death Penalty Has Increased Since The September 11th Terrorist Attack On The World Trade Center

The Gallup Organization asked adults the following question:

Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?

Editor’s comment: the question should have been:

"Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person who has committed an aggravated murder?"

Because not every murder is eligible for the death penalty, only the worst ones.

Prior to the September 11th terrorist attack on New York’s World Trade Center, 65 % of those polled said they favored the death penalty for a person convicted of murder. 27% said no, and 8% had no opinion.

After the attack, support for the death penalty rose and opposition declined. 68% favored the death penalty, 26% opposed it, and those who had no opinion declined to 6%.

	For	Against	No Opinion
2001 Oct 11-14	68	26	6
2001 May 10-14	65	27	8

"IQ Testing In Death Penalty Cases Has Become A Charade. . . Honesty Went Out Of The Death Penalty A Long Time Ago"
Regrettably, defense cases often attract examiners who are such zealots to 'save the life' of the accused murderer that they toss all professional ethics to the wind. . ." says Dr. Michael Welner, Chairman of The Forensic Panel, New York, NY.

Michael Welner, M.D.

Attention Death Row: Button up your shirt to the top, get those coke bottle glasses on the internet, you know, the ones with the black frames, and get a dorky haircut from Officer Bob. Retardation is in. In the continuing battleground over the death penalty, the ability to appear retarded has emerged as the most powerful weapon in the new psychiatric mitigation arsenal. The impact threatens the credibility of American neuropsychology.

Several recent cases have highlighted the question of whether a mentally retarded person can be executed. John Paul Penry of Texas (now known as Johnny-the more juvenile appellation adopted for purposes of his makeover) reportedly has an IQ ranging from 51 to 63. Ernest McGarver, who killed his boss in North Carolina and whose case will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, recently dipped to 67 from an IQ ranging from 70 to 88 in earlier years. Seventy, by the way, is traditionally regarded as the IQ below which one can be possibly considered as retarded, depending on function.

What the United States Supreme Court and other courts, and even prosecution agencies, have not yet factored in is the pervasiveness of professional expert witness malingering that infests capital defendant examinations today. IQ is but one component of the assessment of retardation; but the number continues to eclipse awareness that other important criteria must also be factored into whether a person is genuinely retarded.

This becomes especially significant when one considers how easy it is to fake a bad performance on an IQ test. Can examiners pick up faking on an IQ test? Sure. But they have to want to know the truth of his idiocy or intelligence.

How else to explain the curious phenomenon of how Mr. McGarver has lost IQ points, which defies understanding of IQ? Such shaving to get under the retardation Mendozaa Line to suit the adversarial system has as much credibility as the East German trainers who got jiggy with steroids to help their athletes win at the Olympics. Do the American people realize what a charade IQ testing in the capital-eligible has become?

Regrettably, defense cases often attract examiners who are such zealots to "save the life" of the accused murderer that they toss all professional ethics to the wind like the therapist who falls in love and elopes with his patient. In our experience working on cases for both defense and prosecution, we too often see tests conducted for the purpose of distorting the incapacity of the examinee as much as possible.

In one example, from a case recently referred to The Forensic Panel, a well-credentialed neuropsychologist, who has even written about testing the Spanish speaking, conducted tests on such a defendant even though those measures had not even been normed properly. One colleague familiar with his work asserts this examiner does not even speak Spanish fluently.

Perhaps the retarded shouldn't be executed. That question absolutely deserves the consideration it gets. However, honesty went out of the death penalty debate a long time ago. Let the Supreme Court beware that the science they pass judgment on is all too often of the order of the medical disqualification from service in Vietnam. How sad that the professional's role in the death penalty debate has so degenerated, and that scientific colleagues are often responsible. A claim of retardation, for them, is no eligible defense.

Source: The Forensic Panel Letter, http://echo.forensicpanel.com/

Commonwealth's Attorneys Association Supports Death Penalty Before Legislative Committee

George Moore, President of the Kentucky Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, addressed the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee of the Kentucky General Assembly concerning the position of Kentucky's prosecutors on the death penalty.

The following are the remarks made by President Moore to the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee:

George Moore, President, Commonwealth's Attorneys Association

"Chairman Lindsey, Chairman Stivers, members of the Committee, on behalf of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys Association I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. We recognize that you are committed to a full and complete hearing on the issues surrounding the death penalty; and that you are seeking to serve your constituents in the best possible manner.

The Public Overwhelmingly Supports The Death Penalty, According To Polls

The Gallup Organization shows that in May of this year 65% of the American public believed in the death penalty. There are no figures that I found in the public domain following the events of September 11, but I have a high degree of confidence that the number will have gone even higher at this point. Despite the claims of the organized anti death penalty groups, the vast majority of the American Public continues to support the availability of this punishment.

I share that belief and I submit to you that there are those citizens in our midst who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. It is my belief that all life is sacred, but that does not mean that society can or should be denied the opportunity to protect the public from individuals who have killed, and may well kill again. There is no adequate substitute for the death penalty. When we have a society that produces Tim McVeigh within our own boundaries, and committed terrorists from without our boundaries, our basic survival is at risk.

Death Penalties Are Imposed By Juries Made Up By Average Citizens

However, as I stated a second ago, the death penalty is only one of several punishment options that are available in particularly brutal or egregious cases. It is important to note that one reason the public supports the death penalty is because it is administered in the best judicial system that the world has to offer. We have been shown this stark contrast on the national news within the past month. This is not a system where some select group of individuals, or one despot holding onto power, can condemn another citizen to a death before thousands of cheering people in a sports stadium. Rather, the American public in general, and the population of Kentucky in particular know this penalty is subject to the most rigorous review, and imposed by their fellow citizens.

Death Penalty Opponents Make False Claims To Support Their Positions

This picture is in stark contrast to the negative image projected by the opponents of the death penalty. To hear them tell it, citizens are being put to death by a vengeful government motivated by evil principles and which operates in a most careless manner. All of those claims are false when viewed in the light of objective evidence. If you would allow me, I would like to address just a few.

We are told that the death penalty is administered in a way that is prejudicial to the poor of our society and to racial minorities. That is simply not the case in Kentucky. I believe that almost eight percent of the individuals on death row in Kentucky are white. On a national level there is no vast discrepancy between the number of individuals who receive the death penalty and the statistical profile of the criminal population. There may well be social and or racial issues that could be addressed at the root level, but that does not invalidate either the imposition of the punishment for particular crimes that have been committed, or the compelling need for public protection.

Similar arguments are put forth contending that our society is guilty of executing our mentally ill population. This is also false, and calls into question the real motives of the opponents in this debate. As most of you are aware there are significant procedural protections in place in Kentucky to insure that no person may be brought to trial who does not have the mental capacity to participate in his or her own defense. There are similar inquiries made to insure that the person had the mental capacity to understand their obligations to society at the time they committed the crime. If you have monitored any court proceedings you know that these factual determinations are often the subject of very intensive proceedings, and are subject to thorough review by the appellate courts. Finally, Kentucky is in the lead on the national front with legislation prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded.

Perhaps one of the straw men set up by opponents of the Death Penalty in Kentucky that I find the most amusing and aggravating is the claim that these defendants are represented by incompetent attorneys. In Kentucky that is utterly untrue. The state funded Department of Public Advocacy provides consistently superior legal representation to the states indigent defendants, and this is particularly true for those subject to the death penalty. This General Assembly has been very generous in providing not only the basic needs, but also the best of resources to the Public Advocates.

The defendant facing the death penalty is provided not one, but two attorneys at the trial level. Additional resource personnel are at the beckon call of the assigned counsel. These resource people include investigators, mitigation experts and witnesses, and additional resource people skilled at trial level representation. An equally skilled level of representation is then in place for the exhaustive appeals. Ladies and Gentlemen, death penalty defendants in Kentucky are afforded the very best in representation from the time of arrest to the time of imposition of the sentence.

Capping many of these claims put forth by the opposition is that the innocent are being executed. I am not aware of any credible claim that an innocent individual has been executed since the time the death penalty was reinstated in this country. It is interesting to note that most defendants on death row do not claim their actual innocence, but rather base their decades of defense and appellate review on procedural issues. Additionally since the revival of the death penalty I have been unable to find a single instance of a death sentence being reversed on the issue of innocence. The procedural safeguards that are in place, combined with the thorough appeal offer the highest level of protection to the defendant.

As Usual, Death Penalty Opponents Ignore Innocent Victims Who Have Been Brutally Murdered

I find it significant that throughout these remarks I have been addressing the rights of the defendant, with little or no mention of the victims. We must remember that as the elected representatives of the hard-working, law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth, both you and we, owe our highest obligations to this folk. They have a right to expect us to provide them with a law enforcement system that provides them with both the best protection available and the most predictable level of deterrence. Those obligations are met by retaining and improving the statutory scheme including the death penalty.

Another False Claim By Death Penalty Opponents

I say that because we are misinformed by the opponents of the death penalty when they tell us that it is more expensive to have execution than life without parole. Our association will be happy to provide written material which documents the fallacy of that claim. Suffice it to say for purposes of this presentation that they cook the books when they make that claim. For example in most studies that proffer that opinion, they include the costs of appeal in death penalty cases, but assume that those individuals who receive life without parole do not appeal their convictions. Similar statistical games give renewed credence to the observations of Mark Twain concerning the temptation to use numbers to bolster ones position.

Death Penalty Is A Deterrent

Similar inaccuracies pop up when the opponents contend that there is no deterrence effect from the death penalty. One example of the falsehood of that statement is drawn from the scientifically valid conclusions of Samuel Cameron in the Journal of Socioeconomic. He concluded that each execution prevents seven murders. In point of fact we know from personal experience in Kentucky that paroled killers do in fact come back into the system and can end up on the death row for multiple murders.

Members of the Committee, you see sitting before you men and women who strive to give our best to this Commonwealth in the prosecution of violent criminals. We know that in the present environment we are prosecuting individuals who are willing to kill us for doing our jobs, and even engage in conspiracies to kill our families. These are examples of the kind of individuals who live in our communities, both yours and mine. We owe the citizens of this Commonwealth the best possible criminal justice system. That includes the best administered, unquestionably fair, most justly administered death penalty statute possible.

Kentucky's Prosecutors Support Use Of DNA Technology, Especially For Pretrial Testing And Full Funding Of The Kentucky State Police Crime Laboratory

In that spirit, we do have a few suggestions that would improve our present statute. First we need to take a comprehensive look at the science of DNA and make sure all available assets are directed to the system of collection and testing of DNA evidence. I know from our meeting last month that you are moving to do your very best in that area.

Prosecutors Want Additional Crimes Eligible For Death Penalty

We also need to address the aggravating circumstances that make an individual eligible for the imposition of the death sentence. We would suggest three additional facts that would allow us to seek the death penalty. Those would be hate crimes causing death, acts of terrorism causing death, premeditated murder, and finally the intentional murder of a child under twelve years of age. The law should also be clarified to be specific that a person paying an actor to cause a death could be eligible for the death penalty.

Prosecutors Support Unified Appeal Process To Shorten Lengthy Death Penalty Appeals

Finally, Kentucky should adopt a unified appeal process that would consolidate all of the claims of error into one proceeding.

I am fortunate to have a group of highly qualified and dedicated prosecutors with me this morning who would be pleased to answer questions from the members of the committee. We appreciate this opportunity to present our thoughts.

Large Majority Of Public Consistently Favors The Death Penalty For The Worst Murderers

Public Opinion

Gallup Polls

Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?
	For	Against	No Opinion
2001, May 10-14	65%	27%	08%
2001, Feb. 19-21	67%	25%	08%
2001, Aug. 29-Sep. 5	67%	28%	05%
2000, Jun. 23-25	66%	26%	08%
2000, Feb. 14-15	66%	28%	06%
1999, Feb. 8-9	71%	22%	07%
1995, May 11-14	77%	13%	10%
1994, Sep. 6-7	80%	16%	04%
1991, June 13-16	76%	18%	06%
1988, Sept. 25-Oct. 1	79%	16%	05%
1988, Sept. 9-11	79%	16%	05%
1986, Jan. 10-13	70%	22%	08%
1985, Jan. 11-14	72%	20%	08%
1985, Nov. 11-18	75%	17%	08%
1981, Jan. 30-Feb. 2	66%	25%	09%
1978, Mar. 3-6	62%	27%	11%
1976, April 9-12	66%	26%	08%

ABC News/Washington Post

Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?
	For	Against	Don't Know
2001, April	63%	28%	09%
2000, June	63%	27%	10%

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll

Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of premeditated murder?
	For	Against	Not Sure
2001, June	68%	22%	10%

"The Anti-Death Penalty Movement Has Failed" Says Prominent English Death Penalty Opponent

Andrew Hammel, a prominent defense attorney and opponent of the death penalty, has recently written that the movement to abolish the death penalty ". . . is making almost no headway."

Some of the comments contained in his article, "The Anti-DP Movement Has Failed", include:

"As a social policy, the death penalty now enjoys unprecedented popularity among Americans."

"It (the death penalty) is gaining in popularity among groups, such as Jews (72%) and Democrats (67%), which used to lag significantly behind the population as a whole in terms of support for capital punishment."

"Support for the death penalty among African Americans is now as high as 56%."

Hammel suggests that death penalty opponents should admit failure and take responsibility for it. They should "avoid bogus claims of innocence," he says. He further writes:

"Here are two stark, unpleasant facts.

1. Most death row inmates are guilty;

2. Many of them will falsely protest their innocence."

Cases of death row "inmates, whose supporters earnestly proclaim their innocence, but who are later shown to have been guilty all along, do astounding damage to the credibility of death penalty opponents."

"The results of a 1995 poll demonstrated that, nationwide, 74 % of Americans who favored the death penalty would still favor it even when told to assume that 1 of 100 death row inmates is actually innocent."

"I think part of the explanation for those results is public weariness toward the repeated bogus claims of innocence that some death penalty opponents have put forward."

"People in the anti-death penalty movement must begin to realize that many of the innocence claims of people on death row are false."

"A majority of the of populations in many European countries and American States, which have abolished the death penalty, favor the death penalty."

Editor’s Comment: No comment seems necessary. Mr. Hammel appears to understand the issue. He seems to have hit the nail on the head.

"Death Penalty Opponents" Increase Their Numbers
The latest death penalty opponents seek ban on "execution" of chickens.

The United Poultry Concerns (UPC) says chickens are the most-abused species on earth. The organization reports that nine billion animals are killed in the United States for food, eight billion of which are chickens, and that it's unjust and unfair.

At a recent UPC protest in Maryland, signs were displayed that read "Sentenced To Death" and "Imagine How They Feel." The UPC believes it is wrong to kill animals for our taste buds.

Source: Lexington Herald-Leader, Frank E. Lockwood, 7/30/01

The Mainstream Media Tried To Convince Us That Europe Universally Rejects Capital Punishment As Barbaric. That's Not True!
Opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians favor the death penalty almost as much as Americans. Maybe the media should report all the facts.

The New York Times, in a recent editorial, wrote that as President Bush visits Europe he will discover that America’s moral authority as a global champion of human rights is being undermined by its continued imposition of the death penalty.

Others of the "mainstream-media" claim that the issue about which Europe’s leaders are mostly strongly critical of the United States is capital punishment. Notice they say European "leaders," not European "people."

Before they make such statements perhaps they should consult the recent survey of European public opinion about the death penalty by Joshua Micah Marshall, which appeared in the New Republic last year.

"In fact, according to Marshall, opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians want aggravated murderers executed almost as much as Americans do. It's just that their politicians don’t listen to them. There is barely a country in Europe where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion, rather it was abolished in spite of public opinion."

Canada - Public support for the death penalty in Canada consistently show that between 60% and 70% of Canadians want it reinstated.

Marshall wrote:

"Even if you ask Europeans:

'Do you support the death penalty for aggravated murder?'

You will find every few European countries where the public clearly opposes it, and there are a number where support is very strong."

Britain - (The world headquarters of Amnesty International), opinion polls have shown that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the population favors the death penalty -- about the same as the United States.

Italy - Which has led the international fight against capital punishment for much of the last decade, roughly half of the population wants it reinstated.

France - Clear majorities continued to back the death penalty long after it was abolished in 1981; only last year did a poll show that less than half wanted it restored.

"There is barely a country in Europe where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion, rather than in spite of it."

So, when European "leaders" start lecturing President Bush about the evils of capital punishment, maybe he should tell them to try listening to the European "people" for a change. Maybe the media should report all the facts.

The Death Penalty: A Careful Response To Heinous Acts
Phil Patton, Past President of the Kentucky Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, writes in support of Capital Punishment in Kentucky.
This column appeared in the Saturday, June 2, 2001 Edition of the Louisville Courier-Journal.

The Death Penalty in Kentucky: A Careful Response To Heinous Acts.

By Phil Patton.

Here in Kentucky, we have killers still awaiting execution for murders they committed in the 1970s. Families of murder victims wait for justice as years turn into decades. In the debate surrounding the death penalty, the victims and their families are forgotten. Justice is denied.

Like most Kentuckians, I favor the death penalty. There are murders so heinous that death is the deserved and appropriate punishment. Currently, there are some 40 residents on Kentucky’s death row, guilty of killing a total of more than 70 victims. People of good will can disagree on the morality of capital punishment. What concerns me are the factual arguments advanced by death penalty opponents that are just plain wrong.

The Deterrent Effect. Opponents claim that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder.

However, deterrence studies have been published in the Journal of Socio-economics. Samuel Cameron found the deterrent effect to be substantial and estimated that each execution prevents seven murders. It is certain that an executed killer will not kill again. Kentucky death row inmate Robert Foley was paroled from a murder conviction only to kill six more people.

The Cost. Opponents argue that it is cheaper to hold a murderer for life than to execute him.

This argument compares the cost of litigation and years of appeals to the cost of housing a prisoner for life. The argument falsely assumes that killers facing life without parole simply plead guilty and do not appeal their convictions. The fact is murderers sentenced to life engage in the same rounds of repeated appeals with the same arguments as prisoners on death row.

Innocence. Capital punishment opponents want you to believe that death row inmates repeatedly appeal their convictions because they are innocent.

Few prisoners even claim innocence. Their repeated appeals are based upon procedural and evidence suppression issues unrelated to innocence. Since death was reinstated, I recall no Kentucky death sentence reversed due to innocence. When a new trial is ordered based upon a technicality, the result has been a new conviction for the homicide.

I strongly favor the use of DNA evidence to further the fairness and accuracy of jury verdicts.

Racism. Opponents argue that the death penalty is imposed in a racist manner.

Hearing these arguments, one might assume that the majority of Kentucky death row residents are black. The fact is that 80 percent are white.

Commonwealth's Attorney Phil Patton
Phil Patton
is Commonwealth's Attorney for Barren and Metcalfe counties and is immediate past president of the Kentucky Commonwealth's Attorneys Association.

Opponents then claim that whites are not sentenced to death for murdering blacks. However, just last year, two white defendants were sentenced to death for the murder of an African-American woman. In my own district, the only person to die in the electric chair was a white man for the murder of an elderly black man.

The Poor. Opponents claim that defendants are sentenced to death because they are poor.

The fact is capital punishment applies only to a small percentage of murders. In Kentucky, premeditated murder does not carry the death penalty. A murder must be coupled with another specified felony to be death eligible. The most common aggravator is armed robbery. While the rich commit murder, they rarely rob convenience stores, killing the clerk.

The Mentally Ill. Opponents claim the death penalty is frequently imposed on the mentally ill, retarded or insane.

The truly retarded or insane are unlikely even to go to trial. They must first be found competent to stand trial by mental health experts and the trial judge. Kentucky is one of a handful of states that bars the mentally retarded from being sentenced to death.

Incompetent Attorneys. Opponents argue that defendants are sentenced to death because they are represented by court-appointed public defenders.

In Kentucky, the state-funded Department of Public Advocacy (DPA) furnishes attorneys who are expert in the defense of capital cases. The defendant is provided not one, but at least two attorneys. The DPA also uses investigators, mental health experts and mitigation specialists in the trial-level defense. The DPA also handles appeals and ties cases up for more than 20 years.

A Moratorium. Opponents have a fall-back position, calling for a moratorium. They claim they simply want to make sure those on death row are really guilty.

We already have a moratorium in Kentucky: It is the 20 plus years of appeals. This is double the average time taken for death row appeals in other states.

Kentucky should join other states and require a unified appeal to replace the fragmented appeals by DPA that serve only to delay justice endlessly.

Our sympathies should be with the families of the innocent victims instead of with Kentucky’s most violent criminals.

Justice Department Study Concludes No Racial Or Ethnic Bias In The Federal Application Of Death Penalty
"The fact that more blacks and Hispanics end up on death row is the result...of the reality that more minorities are convicted of crimes that carry the potential of capital punishment. Opponents of death penalty should quit ignoring facts that refute claims of racial bias and work instead to determine why minorities are over-represented in the commission of crimes."
Opinion of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), June 8, 2001

The United States Justice Department released its much-anticipated report which concluded ("proved" in the opinion of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that there is no evidence of racial or ethnic bias in the way the federal government applies the death penalty.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) accurately described both the Justice Department Report and the anti-death penalty gang, when it wrote:

"No objective and fair-minded person can seriously argue that the system used to determine which federal cases merit death-penalty prosecution is biased.

No amount of evidence, of course, will ever satisfy those who simply oppose capital punishment altogether and seize on supposed racial bias as a tool to use against the death penalty itself.

But for people to whom facts are important, this study offers considerable reassurance that the federal criminal justice system is not driven by racism, but in fact bends over backward to be certain that each stage of the process is fair.

If the critics really want to be useful, why don’t they turn their efforts to determining why minorities are over-represented in the commission of crimes, and see if they can find a cure for that."

The report found that the death penalty was sought for proportionally fewer minorities.

38%	white defendants
25%	black defendants
20%	Hispanic defendants

Of the 21 men now facing execution on federal death row, 17 are black or Hispanic. The Justice Department report explains:

"these figures unfortunately reflect the reality that the majority of defendants charged with the certain crimes for which the federal death penalty may be sought are minorities."

"The offenses that may lead to homicides and capital charges are not evenly distributed across all population groups."

The AJC agrees. "The fact that more blacks and Hispanics end up on death row is the result . . . of the reality that more minorities are convicted of crimes that carry the potential of capital punishment."

The reaction from anti-death penalty gang was sadly predictable: Don’t confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up.

The American Bar Association, which increasingly represents only the positions of criminal defense lawyers in criminal justice matters, and has become part of that gang, was particularly shrill in its criticism of the Justice Department study and report.

Is Capital Punishment A Deterrent? A New Study Says YES!
Excerpts from Does The Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?, by Stuart Taylor, Jr., National Journal, Tuesday, May 29, 2001.

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

During his presidential campaign, President George W. Bush justified his support of the death penalty on the ground that it saves innocent lives by deterring killings.

"Capital punishment fails to deter." At least that’s what Boston Globe writer Richard Cohen, and most of the main stream media, thinks and writes. Stuart Taylor, Jr., of the National Journal, agreed when he wrote, "there is no convincing evidence" that the death penalty deters murders - - at least, not "at the current pace."

Wait a minute!
Not so fast!
Hold the presses!

Taylor, a death penalty opponent, is also honest enough to point out a new and major study by three Emory University economists, who, according to Taylor, have respectable professional credentials. Their analysis, Taylor says, is based on more-recent and detailed data and more sophisticated statistical techniques than any previous study. Those Emory University economists concluded:

"Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect . . . . In particular, each execution results on average, in 18 fewer murders – with a margin of error of plus and minus 10."

A real-life statistic is also provided by Dudley Sharp, Resource Director of Justice for All.

"The major U.S. jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County, Texas (Houston), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982."

The question is not whether most potential killers can be deterred. The real question is whether any can be.

If every armed robber who chose not to just take the money, but to kill the witnesses as well, expected, that if caught, he would be tried, convicted and executed in short order, many, if not most, would have second thoughts.

It is undeniable that the death penalty does save lives. Think of prison guards and other inmates who would otherwise be murdered by those serving life without parole sentences. Or what of those killed by escapees.

So to those who want to abolish the death penalty, Taylor says we must face the very real possibility that abolishing it could lead to the violent deaths of unknown numbers of innocent men, women and children.

It’s not that tough a call for Marquette University political scientist John McAdams, who said:

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

It’s not that tough a call for most of the rest of us either.

Death Penalty Debate: "The Myth Of Racism In Death Penalty"
Despite claims of death penalty opponents, there is little evidence that biased prosecutors are more zealous about seeking the death penalty against African-Americans . . . or that juries are sending blacks to death row more often.

Despite the claims of death penalty opponents, there is little evidence that biased prosecutors are more zealous about seeking the death penalty against African-Americans, say legal observers, or that juries are sending blacks to death row more often.

The evidence indicates black murder defendants are no more likely to get death sentences than are whites, although at the end of 1996, 42 percent of death row inmates were African-Americans.

That is because in 43.2 percent of violent crime cases in 1996, and 54.9 percent of all murder cases, the perpetrators were African-Americans according to federal statistics -- mostly because young black males commit a disproportionate number of crimes, mostly against other blacks.

Whites arrested for murder or manslaughter (other than negligent manslaughter) are more prone to be sentenced to death than blacks -- 1.6 percent of whites versus 1.2 percent of blacks, according to the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics.

And white death-row prisoners are more likely to be executed: from 1977 to 1996, 7.2 percent of white prisoners were executed, compared to 5.9 percent of blacks.

In fact, say observers, blacks death-row tend to be repeat offenders more often than whites: black death row prisoners are 10 percent more likely than whites to have had previous felony convictions and 20 percent more likely to have prior homicide convictions.

Some death penalty opponents claim killers of whites are more likely to get a death sentence than killers of blacks. But a statistical study by Stephen Klein of the RAND Corporation found neither the race of the victim nor that of the killer appeared to affect death-penalty sentencing in California.

Source: David Andrew Price, "Death Penalty Is a Black and White Issue," USA Today.

"Death Penalty Opponents Apply Flawed Logic," says Armstrong Williams

"A criminal makes a conscious choice to commit a crime. He considers the risk of getting caught and punished, and chooses to proceed anyway. When the legal system demands that a criminal take responsibility for a capital crime, it is not the legal system showing disregard for the sanctity of life. Rather it is the criminal who showed disregard for the sanctity of his own life when he chose to commit a crime that carried the death penalty."

The morality of applying the death penalty and the flawed nature of our legal system are separate issues. The latter deals with prejudices in the machinery of the court system . . . . The former deals with whether it is actually moral for the state to take another’s life.

If we say that the system is so flawed that we cannot trust it to administer the death penalty, then by that same logic, we should place a moratorium on jail time - at least until we rethink our entire legal system. GET IT?

Placing a moratorium on the death penalty does little to address the actual flaws in the legal process. Increased DNA testing, not a death penalty moratorium, would go a long way toward accomplishing this.

As for the actual morality of the death penalty, the decision to end a criminal’s life is perhaps the most solemn decision the state can make. . . . We apply the death penalty as a final punishment, hoping the very existence of the death penalty will form some deterrence to capital crimes. In this sense, the death penalty is not only a final testament to the sanctity of innocent life, but to the sanctity of our social order.

Of course, there are those who will argue that the government is violating the sanctity of life when it administers a toxic gas to kill a criminal. What this argument fails to consider is that a criminal makes a conscious choice to commit a crime. He considers the risk of getting caught and punished, and chooses to proceed anyway. When the legal system demands that a criminal take responsibility for a capital crime, it is not the legal system showing disregard for the sanctity of life. Rather it is the criminal who showed disregard for the sanctity of his own life when he chose to commit a crime that carried the death penalty.

Source: Armstrong Williams, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

Jefferson County Jury Says Murderer Of Two Deserves Death Penalty
The jury, made up of a diverse group of citizens (men and women, black and white, takes only 5 hours to determine that killer should be sentenced to death.

Roger Wheeler, 40 brutally murdered a pregnant woman and her boyfriend. Both of the victims, Nairobi Warfield, 21, and her boyfriend, Nigel Malone, 24, had been stabbed repeatedly. Malone died of his stab wounds and Warfield was strangled as well. A subsequent autopsy revealed that she was pregnant.

The Jefferson County jury was a diverse group of citizens. It contained both black and white, men and women. The jury was given the options of sentencing the killer to either:

life without parole, or
a death sentence.

It only took the jury five hours to determine that the killer deserved to be sentenced to death for his brutal and vicious crimes.

10% Of Kentucky's Death Row Inmates Murdered African-American Victims

The demographics of Kentucky's death row are changing. For years, death penalty opponents shouted that no one was on Kentucky's death row for murdering an African-American. No more. Now four killers who murdered African-Americans are on Kentucky's death row. That's almost 10%.

Roger L. Wheeler's murder conviction in Louisville last week marks the second time in the past two months that a death sentence has been recommended by a Jefferson County jury. Last month Melvin Lee Parrish was sentenced to death for the murder of his cousin and her 8 year-old-son.

In both Jefferson County cases the killers and their victims were all African-American. In addition, the juries in each case were diverse in both race and gender.

For years, death penalty opponents shouted that no one has been sentenced to death for killing an African-American victim. No more. That ended in 2000, when Jonathan Goforth and Virginia Caudill, both white, were sentenced to death in Lexington for the robbery and brutal beating murder of Lonetta White, an African-American.

Now, four killers who murdered African-American victims are on Kentucky's death row. That's almost 10%.

Death Row Inmates Offered DNA Tests In Ohio. Not Many Takers, So Far
Prosecutors say lack of requests show strength of murder convictions.

Ohio offered to pay for DNA testing for death row inmates. So far none of them have applied for the test. The Ohio DNA policy was modeled on laws in Illinois, Minnesota, New York and Washington.

In order to be eligible for the DNA test, death row inmates must meet the following criteria:

DNA tests were not available during an inmates’ trial. (The results of DNA tests first appeared in Court in 1986).
Original samples of DNA material to be tested must have been kept secure over the years, and not contaminated.
The inmate must show that there is a possibility that DNA testing would exonerate him by eliminating him as a suspect.

Requiring that convicted inmates meet these simple requirements at least insures that there be some basis for making the request for DNA testing.

Prosecutors say that the lack of applicants shows the strength of the convictions. Of course, defense attorneys claim that the criteria are stacked against defendants and in favor of the prosecution.

Capital Punishment In America - 1999 National Review -- Part I

The Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics has recently completed its review of 1999 statistics concerning capital punishment in the United States. Highlights of that review are contained in the following charts.

Virginia The Latest State To Kill Attempts To Abolish Death Penalty And Declare Moratorium On Executions

Richmond, VA - Two anti-death penalty bills were handily defeated in a committee of the Virginia Legislature recently.

The first, a bill to abolish the death penalty in Virginia, was defeated 22 - 0.

The second, a bill to impose a moratorium on executions pending a study, was defeated 16 - 6.

These legislative attempts appear to be one of the latest attempts by the death penalty opponents to abolish the death penalty. This, despite intensive negative campaigns by the main-stream media. Legislatures appear to be aware that average citizens, who comprise juries across America, know best when a murderer deserves the death penalty.

Recent polls agree. They show that nearly 70% of Americans support the death penalty for aggravated murders.

A recent Gallup Poll found support for the death penalty now stands at 67%

In August, 2000 a Washington Post Poll found 69% support the death penalty.

Benetton Death Row Author Sued By Missouri Attorney General For "Exploiting Prison & Death Row Inmates For Advertising Campaign"

Ken Shulman, a free-lance writer from Boston, is preparing for an October 18, 2001 civil trial in Missouri for unspecified punitive and actual damages as a result of the work on "We, On Death Row," a Benetton campaign that ran from January to April, 2000 and appeared in Talk, Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone.

The death row piece featured close-up photographs of inmates, as well as interviews that asked many personal questions aimed at humanizing the death row inmates. The campaign omitted the brutal details of the murders for which the featured killers were convicted and sentenced to death by juries across America.

On February 9, 2000, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon filed a civil lawsuit against Ken Shulman, Oliviero Toscani, and Thomas Rice. Nixon claimed that the project exploited the prison and the inmates for the Benetton advertising campaign.

Prison officials say that they thought they were participating in a photo essay, and were outraged to see the death row inmates featured in Benetton ads. One inmate was paid $1,000 for working as a model.

Source: Columbia Journalism Review

Evidence Continues To Mount:
Liebman's Death Penalty "Study" Not Accurate
However, the media apparently accepted Liebman's "claims" as true without question.

Nevada Attorney General says Liebman review of Nevada death sentences "just plain wrong." See Liebman Death Penalty Study.

New Jersey Attorney General finds Liebman study is not accurate about New Jersey death sentences.

Preeminent Professor James Q. Wilson criticizes Liebman "study."

The more scrutiny the so-called Liebman "study" of the death penalty receives, the more it appears to be nothing more than an "anti-death penalty position paper" by an anti-death penalty zealot.

Ron Eisenberg, Deputy District Attorney in Philadelphia and Vice President of the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation commented recently on Liebman's alleged findings and what others have discovered about not only Liebman himself, but his increasingly questioned claims. (See Eisenberg's comments in The Prosecutor, January/February, 2001). His comments are excerpted below.

"When the so-called Liebman study was released last year, claiming two thirds of all death penalties are overturned as a result of appellate review, the media reported it with great fanfare and as established fact."

The media made little or no attempt to determine the credibility of Liebman or the truth of his claims. As it turns out, they probably should have.

However, an objective examination of Liebman's "study" was conducted by Professor Barry Latzer, at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and James N. G. Cauthen Assistant Professor of Government at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. According to Eisenberg, they found:

1.	Liebman overstated the death penalty reversal rate by 25%.
2.	Liebman refused to give Latzer & Cauthen his underlying data, so his accuracy in counting reversals could be verified.
3.	Reports from Florida and Utah prove that Liebman mislabeled cases as reversals when they were not. (Anecdotal evidence from other states suggests additional problems.)
4.	The media misrepresented Liebman as a neutral professor heading the Columbia University study.

Liebman maintains an active criminal defense practice;

Liebman has been litigating against the death penalty since long before he became a professor;

Liebman's "study" was funded by death penalty opponent Soros Foundation with the stated purpose of "finding effective ways to curb the death penalty's use." (See "Who Is Behind The Decriminalization Of Drugs Push?"

Juries Should Decide Whether Murderers Deserve Death Penalty - - - Not The Death Penalty Opponents Who Seem To Think They "Know What's Best For Everyone Else"

Prosecutors are confident that juries, made up of average citizens, are perfectly capable of determining the appropriate punishment for aggravated murderers.

Death penalty opponents apparently don't trust their fellow citizens to reach a fair decision.

Once again the usual suspects lined up in Frankfort last week to launch their latest attempt to convince Kentucky’s Legislators, and the rest of us, that, just because they don’t like the death penalty for aggravated murderers, no one else should either.

They seem to be trying to tell the rest of us again, that they know what’s best for everyone. The rest of us may not be as "enlightened," as the "we know best" group, but we do have a strong sense of right and wrong. Most Kentuckians believe that men and women who are convicted of the worst aggravated murders sometimes deserve to be sentenced to death. They also believe that those killers put themselves in the position to face a death sentence, not the rest of us.

That attitude is consistent with recent polls by reputable national pollsters.

Despite an intense negative campaign by the main-stream media, two-thirds of Americans continue to support the death penalty.

A recent Gallup Poll found support for the death penalty now stands at 67%.

In August, a Washington Post poll found 69% support the death penalty.

Source: Sean Higgins, "Death Penalty Is Still Popular in U.S., Despite Growing Campaign To End It," Investor’s Business Daily, December 29, 2000.

Kentucky’s Prosecutors have great confidence that the average citizens, who make up our juries can and will make appropriate decisions in serious cases.

When it comes to whether an aggravated murderer deserves to be sentenced to death or not, it should be a jury, made up of average citizens, that makes that decision, not the "enlightened" group, who think they know better than everyone else.

DEATH PENALTY DEBATE: Want To Know Why Newspaper Credibility Is Dropping With Average Citizens?
Look no further than newspaper Writer Richard Cohen's Recent Anti-Death Penalty Column.

As I read "Legacy of Death", a column by Washington Post writer Richard Cohen in the December 7, 2000 issue of washingtonpost.com, I was reminded of all of the stories and studies of the past few years that describe the decline in the credibility of newspapers, and explain why it has occurred.

Cohen's column practically demands that Bill Clinton commute the death sentence of Juan Raul Garza, a marijuana trafficker, and multiple murderer. He committed one murder and ordered two others. Garza was scheduled to be executed on Dec. 12^th.

Cohen wrote, "unless Clinton acts otherwise, it will be the first federal execution since 1963, a state sanctioned murder, the wholly useless taking of a human life that will not make anyone safer but will, in an ugly way, give Clinton something he supposedly seeks: a legacy."

He then goes on to name George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein and the rulers of China as competitors for the world lead in executions.

Cohen, like Benetton and the rest of the anti-death penalty gang, choose not to discuss the innocent lives brutally snuffed out by these killers. No, they seem concerned only about the welfare of these killers who have been found guilty and sentenced to death by juries in communities across America. Those juries were made up of average citizens, who know right from wrong, and believe that people who commit aggravated murder like Garza sometimes deserve the death penalty, whether Mr. Cohen likes it or not.

Before I get too exercised over the Richard Cohen/Benetton types, I just remember the following.

John Leo, in his April 24, 2000 in U.S. News And World Report, said "The gap between reporters and the general public is huge." Leo referred to a poll conducted by Peter Brown, an editor at the Orlando Sentinel who had sent questionnaires to reporters in five small cities and the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. Brown discovered that those journalists surveyed "simply do not share political, religious or monetary values with the general population."

A 1998 study released by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found more than half of those surveyed believe the press is "out of touch with mainstream Americans." In addition:

78% agree with the assessment that there is bias in the news media;

73% have become more skeptical about news accuracy.

Jack Nelson reported in the March 27, 1997 edition of the Los Angeles Times: "The American public, fed up with what it increasingly views as unfair, inaccurate and sensational journalism, is paying less attention to mainstream news media. . . according to a Pew Research Center survey."

Finally, Wesley Pruden, editor of the Washington Times, in a column explaining why newspaper readership is declining said:

As journalists, "we've developed a distinctly holier-than-thou tone in our voices, painting the very people we're trying to persuade to read our newspapers as irredeemable racists, depicting businessmen as crooks, our religious heritage as bigotry, and the culture of the democratic West as evil."

So when the Richard Cohen-type journalists take off on another one of those holier-than-thou, I-know-better-than-you kind of tirades, like Legacy of Death, we must all remember that it is only the opinion of one who mocks the beliefs of average citizens, and no doubt believes that we just aren't as enlightened as he is. He clearly doesn't share the values of most Americans. Besides, he probably shops at some enlightened place like Benetton anyway.

Nuns To Ring Church Bells When Murderers Executed.
As usual, no bells for the innocent victims. Instead, why not ring the bells every time an innocent victim is murdered by these killers?

This latest protest of the death penalty started in Springfield, Kentucky by the nuns of the Springfield-based order, Dominicans of St. Catherine Kentucky. The plan is to ring church bells for two minutes at 6:00pm on the day of any execution anywhere in the nation to protest the death penalty. They hope this campaign will be an "attention-getter."

It's the same old anti-death penalty song, just another verse. Once again death penalty opponents are doing all they can to make martyrs out of convicted and condemned murderers. Just like all the rest, however, they express no concern whatsoever for the thousands of innocent victims these murderers chose to viciously kill. Only for the killers.

Suggestion: Why not ring the bells for two minutes every time an innocent victim is executed by a murderer anywhere in the United States? The only problem is, the bells might never stop ringing.

Source: "Springfield nuns battle executions", by Peter Smith, The Courier-Journal, October 28, 2000.

The Innocence Argument Is Just Plain Bogus!

The following is excerpted from a National Review Online article by Robert Pambianco, chief policy counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.

"Michael Kelly wrote not too long ago that with the exception of 13-year-old girls, there is no group more prone to group-think than the press. Confirmation of that statement can be found in the ongoing stampede of news stories about the death penalty, which stand in sharp contrast to the public's lack of concern for the issue.

The innocence argument is just plain bogus. Innocent people are not being put to death. Can anyone guarantee that an innocent execution could never happen or that it has never happened? But the death penalty is as close to a sure bet as you're going to get anywhere in the law. While imperfect, the system bends over backward to ensure the guilt of those executed, and people can be more certain about capital punishment than most else in life.

Judges love to overturn death sentences. Appeals courts make these decisions all the time not because the system is hopelessly flawed, but because the system is super cautious about executions. As it should be.

In the case of capital punishment, if there was some reason to believe that innocent people were regularly being executed, then the innocence question would be relevant. However, nobody seriously believes that. In the overwhelming majority of capital cases, there is no credible issue of innocence, and most death-row appeals are not even based on a claim of factual innocence.

Boiled down, the argument about innocence is an argument for abolishing the criminal-justice system. In essence, opponents are saying that unless someone can guarantee with absolute certitude that no innocent person will ever be put to death -- in other words unless the system can be shown to be infallible -- it should not be allowed to operate.

If supporters of capital punishment who believe it's a deterrent are wrong about the deterrent, the result is that people convicted of horrible brutal crimes will be executed. If opponents are wrong about deterrence and prevail in eliminating capital sentences, the result will be the murders of some number of really innocent people. That risk seems much more intolerable than the extremely remote possibility than an innocent person could be executed.

The focus on innocence is a smokescreen, which trivializes and diverts attention from the real question.

Are there some crimes that are so heinous that it would be an injustice to impose less than the ultimate punishment? The answer is yes, but why is it that so many opponents of capital punishment want to avoid such questions?"

Anti-Death Penalty Activists Never Mention The Murdered Victims, They Only Focus On The Condemned Killers
Murdered Victims - We Will Not Forget Them

Anti-Death Penalty Activists Never Mention The Murdered
Victims, They Only Focus On The Condemned Killers
Murdered Victims - We Will Not Forget Them

Death Row Inmate

Murder Victims

Thomas Bowling

Thomas C. Bowling

Tina and Eddie Earley
(use of photograph permitted by the Earley family).

In Fayette County in 1990, this killer rammed the victims' car.

He got out and shot all three victims as they sat inside their car. He then returned to his car, but walked back to the victims' car to make sure they were dead, and then drove away.

The following is an excerpt from the Victim Impact Statements that were submitted to the Court in December, 1990.

"It broke our hearts. Eddie was our youngest child and our only son. We are a close family and Eddie was there anytime we needed him. We don't know how to put into words the void it left in our lives. We now have another small child to raise and explain to him why his mother and father can't come home."
....LeeRoy and Rosie Earley (Eddie's parents)

"It was and still is as if our hearts were torn out. We will never heal inside."
....Billie Morgan (Tina's mother)

note: Tina and Eddie's son was only 2 years old at the time of their murder.

Death Row Inmates

Murder Victim

Caudill (5241 bytes)

Virginia Caudill and Johnathon Goforth

Lonetta White
(use of photograph permitted by the White family).

On March 24, 2000, these defendants were sentenced to death for the beating death of Lonetta White in Fayette County, Kentucky. The evidence at trial revealed that after Mrs. White was beaten to death, her body was placed in the trunk of her car and taken out into the county where it was burned. Mrs. White's body had to be identified through dental records.

The following is an excerpt from the Victim Impact Statements that were submitted to the Court in March, 2000.

"These two people left my mother in such a distorted, dismembered, and ashened state that she was identifiable only by her dental record. My life has been ripped apart at the seams - left broken down and unstable. My life is unmanageable, it's just a chaotic mess."
....Steve White (Lonetta White's son)

"It was tragic and it is very hard to handle. The death is one thing in life we will never get over. It was so very horrible and brutal. I cannot get that crushed brain description out of my head. When you sleep all you hear is 'bloody scrambled eggs.' It is so horrible."
....Darlene Ward (Lonetta White's niece)

Hardly a day goes by that some newspaper story, editorial or television report appears about some anti-death penalty group’s attempt to keep some killer, who has been sentenced to death, from being executed. Others claim that the death penalty is too cruel and unfair to murderers, and should be abolished.

The essence of most of these reports or opinions in Kentucky is that, because the killer had a hard life or a sad childhood, he shouldn’t have to face a death sentence for slaying another innocent human being.

Over and over we are told by these anti-death penalty activists that a grim upbringing somehow excuses a vicious, brutal and senseless murder. They tell us if we don’t feel compassion for these condemned killers, that we are somehow not as righteous as them.

We never hear one word from them about the innocent victims of these killers; only that we should show sympathy and understanding for the murderer, or that we should agree that the death penalty should be abolished.

Where is their compassion for the lost life of their victims, or the families and friends whose lives have been permanently shattered by the murderer?

They appear to believe that we, as a society, should show more concern for the killer than the person they murdered. They somehow feel that the lives of the killers are worth more than the lives they snuffed out.

"Executioners Who Walk Among Us"
by Bob Greene, Chicago Tribune

The following is excerpted from "THE EXECUTIONERS WHO WALK AMONG US," by Bob Greene, and which appeared in the July 16, 2000 edition of the Chicago Tribune.

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – I am a strong proponent of the death penalty. I think for certain crimes, taking the criminal’s life is a just and fitting response by society.

I believe that, rather than eliminating the death penalty, it should be expanded to encompass some crimes that are currently not considered capital offenses -- I think of some of the cases of the systematic torture of helpless children I have covered, and I see no reason why the torturers should be shown any mercy at all by society.

* * * * *

Rather than talk about all of this in theory, though, let us look at a case that has unfolded this summer in the small north-central Ohio town of New Philadelphia.

* * * * *

On the evening of May 23, two girls from the area – Elizabeth Reiser, 17, and Brandi Hicks, 18 – were at a video-rental store in New Philadelphia. A man named Matthew Vaca, 27, told them that he had no way to get to his home. He said he would pay them $20 if they would give him a ride.

The girls were members of a church group that taught that they should always help others in need. So they agreed to give Vaca the ride.

In the car, Vaca provided varying directions on where he wanted to be dropped off. The girls, sensing something wrong, stopped the car and asked Vaca to leave.

He pulled out a gun. He pointed the gun at the girls and ordered Brandi Hicks to drive her car to an isolated field.

He tied her to the steering wheel of the car. Then he led her friend Elizabeth Reiser into the field.

Using a linoleum-cutting knife, he slashed Reiser’s neck at least three times. He took the blade and cut a 10-inch long, 21/2-inch-deep wound across her throat, severing her trachea. He stabbed her in the neck, the back, and – five times – in the scalp.

Vaca then got Brandi Hicks from the car, walked her into the woods, and made her see for herself that her best friend was dead.

Vaca led Hicks back to her car. He drove to a railroad car on a track near New Philadelphia. He made her carry a six-pack of beer for him. In the railroad car he attempted to sexually assault her. On the trestle above the Tuscarawas River, Vaca attempted to snap the girl’s neck.

Brandi Hicks passed out – and then pretended that she was dead. Vaca pushed her off the trestle and into the river. She floated in the water, not wanting Vaca to believe that she was still alive. She could see him on the trestle, kicking stones into the water and smoking cigarettes. After Vaca left the trestle, Hicks waited to make certain he was gone, then crawled up on a river bank and managed to motion for help to a car that was passing by.

* * * * *

EXECUTIONS? They go on everyday in this country. They are carried out by people like Matthew Vaca – executioners like Vaca who administer the death penalty just because they choose to. And for their victims – for Elizabeth Reiser, and all the innocent people like her – there are no candlelight vigils before they are killed. They are not offered their choice of a last meal."

Nevada Claims Liebman Study Of Death Penalty In Nevada Is Just Wrong !

The closer people look at the "Liebman Death Penalty 'Study'" the more it appears to be a position paper by a death penalty opponent named James Liebman. All you have to do is look at the in-depth review of the author's claims about Nevada and the death penalty by the Nevada Attorney General's Office.

Some of the findings of the Nevada review of the claims of that "study" are as follows:

1.	The author "got his (death penalty information) from defense attorneys (who apparently reported their wins but not their losses), and the NAACP Capital Punishment Project (whose agenda is the abolition of the death penalty)."
2.	"It appears the author picked and chose his cases, tailoring the study to get certain results."
	a.	he took some cases from 1973 - 1995 - for some results 1993 - 1995 - for some results 1973 - 2000 - for some results
	b.	he excluded killers who discontinued their appeals.
	c.	he didn't even count the 8 men executed since 1977.
3.	The author reported 38% of Nevada's death sentences were reversed by lower Courts.
	a.	a careful review of all of the records show only 19% reversal rate.
4.	The author creates the impression that all reversals are due to the innocence of the killer.
	a.	most are attorney or judge procedural errors.
	b.	or change in law by U. S. Supreme Court that must be applied to all death sentences retroactively.
5.	The author failed to report the results of new trials after a reversal.
	a.	12 of 31 defendants were sentenced to death again.
	b.	13 of 31 defendants got "life without parole."
	They were not found "innocent" of murder - as the author implies.

Contact: Nevada Attorney General's Office, Dorothy Nash Holmes, Capital Case Coordinator, (775) 684-1267.

Death Penalty - Still Guilty
By Peter Bronson, Editorial Page Editor of The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Peter Bronson

Pretend the death penalty is a toaster that is tested for 10 years, in 24 inspections by an army of toaster testers -- to make sure nobody gets electrocuted by mistake.

Sound safe enough?

Not to opponents of capital punishment. Their new argument is that we should unplug every toaster because some did not pass inspection.

I'm no death-penalty fanatic. I've seen good arguments in favor, and the shattered victims they left behind. The best case against it is moral, but the worst opponents are not ethical.

They ignore victims and make martyrs of murderers. They sabotage the system at taxpayer expense, then say executions are too costly. Defense lawyers salt the record with deliberate mistakes, then say the killer had a lousy defense.

The latest twist looks like more of the same. "Investigative reports spring condemned prisoners," a headline boasts in Editor & Publisher. The story asks, "Are newspapers writing the death penalty's obit?"

Many are trying, by creating the impression that innocent men are getting toasted.

"Death sentences overturned in two of three appeals," the headlines said last week. But some stories did not say the study was done by a death-penalty defense lawyer. Also unmentioned or buried was that 93 percent of the "reversals" were still found guilty. The rest were not "innocent," but escaped execution because of procedural errors by judges, prosecutors, police -- and most often, their own lawyers.

When the Chicago Tribune reported 127 reversals among 285 cases, Illinois Gov. George Ryan halted executions. But the Tribune was wrong by 40 percent, according to a review by the National District Attorneys Association. And those who say Illinois is exhibit A for a national moratorium are dead wrong.

"Illinois' "actual innocence' cases appear to involve an unprecedented degree of police, prosecutorial and judicial corruption," Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery said. "It is reasonable to assume that the problem is related to the absence of professional standards and the limited availability of defense resources in capital cases."

"By contrast, in Ohio, capital trial attorneys are certified by court rule and have the benefit of services and assistance from the State Public Defender's Office."

She says more reversals in Ohio mean less risk of executing innocents: "In sum, all kinds of incidents seen in Illinois would seem improbable in Ohio."

Ohio Treasurer Joe Deters filled 22 bunks on death row as Hamilton County prosecutor. "I'm very confident they are guilty," he said.

Nationally, a handful of death-row inmates have been found innocent by DNA testing. But Mr. Deters says most are more like William Zuern, who stabbed a guard in the heart in the Cincinnati Workhouse in 1984. Witnesses had no doubt who killed Deputy Phillip Pence.

Yet, "For seven years, Judge Rice sat on it in Dayton, and now he says Zuern needs a new trial," Mr. Deters said.

U.S. District Judge Walter Rice's opposition to the death penalty is not unusual. "Unfortunately, we still see widespread delays that are unexplainable and often inexcusable," Mrs. Montgomery said.

Her report marks time on death row: Michael Webb, murdered his wife and four children in Clermont County in 1990, 3,090 days; David Steffen, raped and murdered a Cincinnati girl in 1982, 6,064 days; Darryl Gumm, raped and beat to death a 10-year-old boy in 1992, 2,592 days.

There are 203 strong arguments for capital punishment sitting on death row in Ohio. Bring on the DNA tests. They will prove that an innocent person is less likely to get killed by the death penalty than by opponents who "spring condemned killers" to block executions.

Source: June 18, 2000 Edition of The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Miguel Soto Becomes 41st Condemned Killer On Kentucky's Death Row
Judge says killer a threat not only to public but also to prison staff and inmates.

LaGrange, KY. On Thursday, August 17, 2000, Oldham Circuit Judge Dennis Fritz followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Miguel Angel Soto to death for the 1999 murder of his former in-laws, Armott and Edna Porter.

Judge Fritz called Soto a "threat not only to public but prison staff and other inmates." In sentencing Soto, Fritz also said, "I have an obligation to offer some protection" to society. "Society has a right to protect itself from violent criminals. And in my opinion, Miguel Soto is a violent criminal. This violence will continue...against anybody else he gets upset with."

Soto admitted shooting Armott Porter in a shed behind the Porter home, then entering the house and shooting Edna Porter. According to prosecutors, he then lay in wait for his ex-wife, Armotta Porter, to arrive.

She testified that Soto shot her in the back as she ran away from him. She sought refuge in a laundry room. As she struggled to lock the door, Soto fired through the door, hitting her in the knee.

Soto becomes the 41^st person on Kentucky’s Death Row.

He will be sent to the Kentucky State Penitentiary in Eddyville, where all but one of the death row inmates are housed. One, a woman, is at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women in Pee Wee Valley.

Source: Information obtained from the August 18, 2000 Edition of the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Defendants Are Not Railroaded To Electric Chair, Says Murder Case Juror, Who Also Happens To Be A Journalist

Charlotte Observer community columnist, Paul Valone, served as the foreperson of a jury in a North Carolina murder case. He wrote an article, which appeared in the Observer, in which he described his observations of that murder trial from his perspective as a jury.

Valone writes that in spite of the media's anti-death penalty obsession, such as:

Media reports that the capital punishment system was "too broken to fix."

Reports calling Texas Gov. George W. Bush a "murderer" because Texas has executed over 135 condemned murderers.

Massive media coverage of a study by anti-death penalty researcher James Liebman in which he claims that death sentence reversals are evidence that the capital punishment system is "collapsing under the weight of its own mistakes."

And Ken Rose, of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, who insists that the number of North Carolina death sentences overturned demonstrates "the unfairness and the arbitrariness of the process."

Valone reported that, as a juror in a murder trial, he did not find the process to be either arbitrary or unfair. On the contrary, he said:

"...the weeks I spent being scrutinized as a prospective juror, and instructed in the law as foreman of the jury in a murder case, impressed me that the process is anything but 'arbitrary'."

"While death penalty opponents claim overturned sentences represent the reversal of 'mistakes', I saw a system so deliberately - and deservedly - biased in favor of defendants that reversals are inevitable."

"The questions should not be how many death sentences are overturned, but rather how many of the indigent and innocent are being railroaded to 'Old Sparky'." The answer is ZERO according the Stu VanMeveren, of the National District Attorneys Association. Even the anti-death penalty Columbia study failed to find a single execution of an innocent defendant."

"What I took from experience was best summarized by the presiding judge, who, after sentencing, congratulated us on our careful deliberations: 'As you can see from the process,' he said, 'defendants aren't being railroaded to the electric chair'."

In Spite Of Massive Anti-Death Penalty Campaign By Media, Oldham County Jury (Average Citizens) Still Believes Death Sentence Is Deserved In Murder Case

LaGrange, KY. Once again average citizens showed that they believe that there are crimes for which the death penalty is an appropriate punishment, in spite of the anti-death penalty obsession of the media lately.

On Tuesday, July 18, 2000, a jury made up of Oldham County citizens recommended that Miguel Angel Soto, 29, be sentenced to death for killing both of his former in-laws. Soto confessed to these horrible crimes.

The jury deliberated only about 2 hours before recommending two death sentences for the June, 1999 murders of Armott and Edna Porter, and a 20-year sentence for trying to kill his ex-wife Armotta Porter.

According to Oldham Circuit Judge Dennis Fritz, Soto will be sentenced within 30 days. If Fritz follows the jury's recommendation, Soto will become the 41^st person on Kentucky’s Death Row.

Source: Louisville Courier-Journal, July 19, 2000 Edition

A Press Obsession With The Death Penalty"
A WashingtonPost.com article by Michael Kelly, Editor In Chief of National Journal.

The following contains excerpts from Mr. Kelly’s article:

"A newcomer to this country, reading the mainstream press and watching television would believe that one of the issues of greatest concern to voters in this election year is the death penalty.

What those newcomers would not learn from the media, is that polls show that the question of the death penalty itself was not of the slightest interest to the great majority of voters.

Journalists like to think that they think and write without bias. But everyone knows that that is absurd. What journalists and editors choose as issues and how they frame them inescapably arises out of what journalists believe. And, as a group, journalists believe in liberalism and in opposition to the death penalty, and it shows."

While The Enemies Of The Death Penalty Seek To Avoid The Execution Of Convicted And Condemned Murderers - 15 Murders Are Committed Each Day By Criminals Released Early From Jails And Prisons

Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe, drove a stake directly into the heart of the latest tactic of the anti-death penalty group in his June 9^th column. He said,

"Is it the threat to innocent life that truly galvanizes the death penalty abolitionists, or is it simply their visceral dislike for capital punishment?"

"No one who genuinely worries about the legal system putting innocent people at risk can afford to waste time denouncing the death penalty. Not when probation and parole are costing so many lives."

"In one 17-month period, the U.S. Department of Justice calculated in 1995, criminals released under supervision committed 13,200 murders (and 200,000 other violent crimes)."

"Why is it that the enemies of capital punishment never have a word to say about those innocent victims?"

Moreover, Morgan Reynolds, an economist at Texas A&M University, recently reported that presently 4.1 million people are "under government supervision," and a majority of them are convicted felons on probation or parole.

According to Reynolds,

"Criminals under government supervision commit 15 murders a day."

Where is the outrage by the enemies of capital punishment at these frightening statistics? Why don’t we hear them railing against releasing these violent convicted felons back on our streets to endanger the lives of so many innocent citizens?

They only seem concerned about murderers who have been sentenced to die by juries. Obviously, they believe that only murderers should be able to impose a death sentence on their innocent victims. When it come to real innocent people, their silence is not only deafening, but telling.

Jacoby continued, "we have a duty to proclaim that murder is evil and will not be tolerated. That it is the worst of all crimes and deserves the worst of all punishments. That while we will bend over backward not to hurt the innocent, we will not let it paralyze us from punishing the guilty."

Don’t you wonder why the enemies of capital punishment aren’t as concerned about the lives of innocent victims murdered by probationers or parolees, as they are about convicted murderers who have been sentenced to death by Kentucky juries?

Oops! They Did It Again - Death Penalty Opponents Get It Wrong Again

Once again the record has to be set straight after the latest "study" by the enemies of the death penalty.

Last week the avowed opponents of the death penalty released a report which they claim demonstrates that the nation's capital punishment is "collapsing under the weight of its own mistakes."

They claim a 68% "error" rate in capital cases. Because they say it, they hope the public will believe that the wrong man was put to death in 68% of the executions. Wrong! A serious look at the facts reveals the opposite.

This "study," like the others, was unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. After reviewing 23 years of capital sentences the authors of the latest study – like other researchers – were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed.
This "study" relied on newspaper articles and secondhand sources for their "facts" to an extent not ordinarily found in academic research. This approach causes some jarring mistakes.

The numerous appeals shows the extraordinary adherence to due process and protection of rights in death penalty cases, not "evidence of mistakes" as the study’s authors attempt to argue.

Critics of the "study" claim that it uses cases which are several decades old, covering 1973 to 1995 – a period during which the U.S. Supreme Court handed down many cases setting constitutional procedures for capital cases.

As a result, decades old reversals have no relevance to contemporary death-penalty issues. Studies which have focused on more recent trends have found that reversal rates have declined sharply as the law has become settled.

Source: Paul G. Cassell (University of Utah), "We’re Not Executing the Innocent," Wall Street Journal, June 16,2000. National Center For Policy Analysis, Daily Policy Digest, June 16, 2000.