Religious Leaders Want Dale Leo Bishop Execution Halted

i understand there is a meeting tomorrow 17JULY regarding the plight of leo dale bishop. can anyone tell me where and the time. i believe the meeting may be held by mesj.info

thank you

oonagh+

The Revd. oonagh Ryann-King
The Inclusive Celtic Church

Fr Tobin up there seems to have some anger issues himself. "Blood Soaked World", indeed.

You'd like Fr. Tobin, IG, and I hope you get a chance to meet him sometime soon. He's a good guy.

It really is a blood-soaked world. Those of us who buy our meat at the butcher shop might not realize what's going on in the slaughterhouse, but that doesn't mean there isn't a slaughterhouse. And the same applies to war, to crime, to domestic violence, and to every other form of common violence, normal violence, everyday violence, that fills our world. We may not want to know how the sausage is made, but the sausage is definitely being made.

You don't have to be angry to see this, though it probably helps. You just have to pay attention to who we are as a species and what our species has done and what our nation has done.

We live in a country whose land was conquered through forced relocation and other genocidal policies, that achieved economic viability through a white supremacist caste hierarchy, that achieved independence through violent revolt, and that became the global superpower by creating and using the most destructive weapons in the history of the human species. And we're one of the more civilized nations.

The death penalty is a very small small part of that from where I sit, but it's one of the easiest policies to change; we lose absolutely nothing by abolishing capital punishment, and it would be a nice way of saying that maybe we mean it when we say killing is wrong. Leaving it intact, and waging elective wars on the side, sends the message that maybe we don't mean it when we say killing is wrong--that maybe all we really mean is that we just want to be the ones in charge of the killing. Well, there's nothing new or noble about that. Everybody wants to be in charge of the killing.

But the only way we can stop soaking our world with blood is to practice nonviolence--or at least to limit our use of violence to legitimate self-defense. Our government isn't ready for that yet, and I'm not even sure I'm ready for that yet. But if we have to all develop anger issues to stop endorsing homicide, then by God, let's develop some anger issues. Anger isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's better to be angry about injustice than it is to be indifferent about it.

I am a usual critic of many Baptist followers and many ministers that criticize abortion as murder but support the death penalty without thought.

Stan Wilson, like the Catholic Church, is consistent and I give them both a great deal of credit. Their argument that all life is precious and only God can decide life and death is consistent. I respect their views. I may not agree with but I GREATLY respect Pastor Wilson for his unwaivering and logically consistent views. Nothing angers me more than a person screaming all life is precious 'ban abortion' and then advocate the death penalty. Is all like precious or not if a fetus is even life, but I digress

While I disagree with some of his beliefs, I can respectfully disagree, for his views are thought out and logically consistent.

I respect those that oppose my beliefs as long as they are thought out. I am impressed with him and I must now challenge a stereotype I had. His work has made me think and that is the job of a minister.

"Thou shall not kill" - the Holy Bible. "Two wrongs don't make a right" - a burglar caught burglarizing a home before the homeowner shot him repeatedly.

Glad to see the preachers take a vocal and bold stand. If the government believed thou shall not kill, the government wouldn't do it either in these cases.

i'm deeply appreciative of the Pastor Stans and the Fr. Jeremys of MS. (I would agree, it IS a blood-soaked world. We live on one of the most blood-soaked and haunted pieces of ground in the world, MS--almost awful in its incredible Beauty) I'm glad to see and hear when other clergy-types speak up, speak out, and act.

I'm planning on driving to Parchman for the planned execution on the 23rd. I understand one has to be there before 4PM. I don't know if my husband (an Episcopal priest, unemployed and canonically resident in the Diocese of CA) will be able to go with me, even though he is against the death penalty, but family matters MIGHT prevent his traveling that day. All this to say, if anyone who's planning to go or wants to go to Parchman, I'm happy to offer carpool. We could also caravan if others wish to go. I am hoping that on this weekend, the homilies and sermons from the pulpits, ambos, places of holy interpretation of the Sacred Texts of ALL traditions will be speaking out against the death penalty and that there will be prayers for Mr. Bishop, his family& friends, and the family & friends of the victim.

I ask all rabbis, imams, priests, pastors, cast-ers of sacred spells & circles under sacred groves or beside sacred bodies of water, ALL religious leaders and ALL groups meeting to pray, sit, honour the Earth speak out and invite others to join the vigil at Parchman. (Smith Park, too, of course, but I believe it important to bear witness AT THE ACTUAL SITE of the planned execution).

If anyone is interested in caravan-ing and carpooling contact me or Lori Bell at

The best way to reach me is via email as my husband and I are sharing one cell phone and both of us are often in areas without cell phone reception.

We have recently returned to MS after being away since 96 & don't know all the religious communities around. If there are Quakers and Buddhists, I hope they will be a part of the vigil. I know there is a large Muslim community in the JXN-Metro area; I don't know about Hindus here, though.

Pace e Bene
oonagh+


The Revd. oonagh Ryan-King
The Inclusive Celtic Church

oops, sorry.


EMAILS



oonagh+

The comments in the article are the standard anti death penalty nonsense.

On racial issues, they forgot to mention:

White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.

It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.

Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.

Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.


On class issues, they forgot to mention:

No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups? Not to my knowledge.

On religious, issues, they forgot to mention nearly 2000 years of solid Christian biblical, theological, traditional and historical support.

Some references:

(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider and expert theologian. The essay is a thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment.

http://www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007

(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx


(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective", by Emmanuel Valenza (Br. Augustine) at
http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm


(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 200
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

(5) "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).

(6) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.

I ain't buying any of that, dudley! Perhaps, someone else will. Good luck and thanks for the imput.

Dudley, it is very easy to match and up your religious references, so that argument is hollow. This conversation is about URLs.

Also, be sure to check out race of victims when you examine the racial components of the death penalty. And in Mississippi, until 1989, the state overwhelmingly killed black prisoners in the gas chamber. Since lethal injection started, we've killed only five white prisoners, although death row is about half and half race-wise. I suspect it is important to state executioners enforcers to get several white people out of the way first to help equalize the way it's doled out.

Finally, be sure to examine the economic realities of people who are executed, as well as their mental capacities. It is very easy to argue that people executed just don't know *how* to keep themselves off death row, or can afford attorneys who know how.

And your argument about capital murder is very hollow, considering that it is often lawyering and connections that determine what is a capital murder, not to mention who the victim is.

dudley writes:
"On religious, issues, they forgot to mention nearly 2000 years of solid Christian biblical, theological, traditional and historical support."

Sorry, but no.

I appreciate the comments, but is is clear that you folks didn't read the references.

It would be very difficult for you to match up any comparable references to the contrary.

Many of the current religious campaigns against the death penalty reflect a fairly standard anti death penalty message, routed in secular arguments.

When they do address  religious issues, they often neglect solid theological foundations, choosing, instead, select biblical sound bites which do not impact the solid basis of death penalty support.

I appreciate the comments, but is is clear that you folks didn't read the references.

Dudley, I know you're new on this site—and signed up just to tell off us little dumbasses because you're such a huge proponent of the government killing prisoners—but you've brought your condescension to the wrong place.

People here are perfectly able to read your links and then counter then with very strong arguments. My advice to you to try to engage on the issues, and leave the condescension in your part of the Internet.

Oh, and from where I sit, it seems clear to me that you are cherrypicking religion for your own very immoral purposes. You are also cherrypicking racial and class components of government executions -- or just ignoring the parts that don't fit your bloody agenda.

And, I remind you, my opinion isn't any less valid than yours.

Ladd, I know the people here can read links. I said it appeared they hadn't. Big difference.

All opinions are not equal.

For example, a cops opinion on being a cop are a lot more valid than someone who has never been a cop. A physics professor will likely have a much more valid opinion on physics than someone who has never studied physics.

I specifically addressed the race of the victim issue.

You claim that I cherrypicked. I did not.

Religious positions in favor of capital punishment are neither necessary not needed to justify that sanction.

However, the biblical and theological record is very supportive of the death penalty.
 
Many of the current religious campaigns against the death penalty reflect a fairly standard anti death penalty message, routed in secular arguments. When they do address  religious issues, they often neglect solid theological foundations, choosing, instead, select biblical sound bites which do not impact the solid basis of death penalty support.

My references support that statement. You gave no references.

The problem with your argument, Mr. Sharp, is that you assume erroneously that anyone reading your links would then automatically agree with them or you.

Er, no. That is stankin'-thankin' logic, with due respect. And
you are cherrypicking, and it's doesn't matter to me whether you believe that. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to seek out information on this subject.

There is just as much religious "authority" that argues very differently from you (and arguably much more). We can all find links to support our views; it is extremely arrogant to assume that others are going to believe them simply because they clicked and read them. Come on, now. Surely you've been challenged on trying to argue in such a fashion.

I realize that you seem to be dedicating your life, or a good chunk of it, to convincing people to support state executions. I find that very sad, considering how much is to be done for the living (and, no, I do not believe that the death penalty is good for the living, either). But there is a basic problem here: you believe it is not only "right," but a high religious ideal; I disagree with you and believe it is immoral.

So, considering that neither of us can really know what God thinks, whose side wins?

If yours does, more people die, and the country spends more money trying to defend certain murderers (usually those who can't afford good counsel) than they would imprisoning them, even as no real deterrent value is proved.

If mine wins, we spend less money over all, and we don't run the risk of executing innocent people, making state employees into killers, and we don't play God and judge who lives or dies -- you know, just in case the religious foundations I believe in end up engraved higher on the pearly gates than yours.

If you're wrong, more people die.
If I'm wrong, they don't.

No doubt, not all opinions are created equal. And not all end up in the same place.

add writes: The problem with your argument, Mr. Sharp, is that you assume erroneously that anyone reading your links would then automatically agree with them or you.

Reply: I never argue that way, I don't assume. I never stated nor expected automatic agreement. You, Ladd,, wrongly presumes. I can only hope that folks will read the links. Few people change their minds on the death penalty (I did). My only hope is that people will read the material, give it the weight which it may deserve, and note that there is a solid pro death penalty position. My only intent was to show the strength of that pro position.


Ladd writes: There is just as much religious "authority" that argues very differently from you (and arguably much more).

Reply: I have read a great deal of that material. I don't believe it stands up to the brief lnks I supplied. I would be happy to review any of your references.

Ladd writes: We can all find links to support our views; it is extremely arrogant to assume that others are going to believe them simply because they clicked and read them. Come on, now. Surely you've been challenged on trying to argue in such a fashion.

Reply: I never have and never will. You wrongly presume.

Ladd: writes: you believe it is not only "right," but a high religious ideal.

Reply: You wrongly presume. As I wrote: Religious positions in favor of capital punishment are neither necessary not needed to justify that sanction. I neither use it or need it for my death penalty support. However, the strong support it there. My only point.

Ladd: So, considering that neither of us can really know what God thinks, whose side wins?

Reply: There are religious and biblical foundations, not just loose personal opinions. You have presented none. I presented some pretty good ones.

Ladd, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Living murderers, in prison, after release or escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
 
Although this is, obviously a truism, it is surprising how often  folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
 
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
 
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
 
That is. logically, conclusive.
 
16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
 
A surprise? No.
 
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
 
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
 
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
 
Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it's a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
 
Reality paints a very different picture.
 
What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
 
What percentage of convicted capital??murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
 
What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
 
This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
 
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life
 
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, you have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
 

Dudley, you're moving the goal post, buddy.

In your first post in this thread, you put a lot of weight on religious arguments in favor of the death penalty. You were called on that, so you said the religious argument isn't really important.

Now you're saying the death penalty saves lives as a deterrent. Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that it does. How far are you willing to go to create deterrents for capital murder? Right now we're going with humane execution. But what if we tortured prisoners to death? Or decapitated them in the middle of the town square, like in Saudi Arabia? Or slaughtered them after torturing their families in front of them? Stronger deterrents to murder, I would think, and deterrents that would almost certainly save lives in the aggregate--but do you really want your government doing those things?

I blogged about that very question, of killing people to create a deterrent that in the aggregate saves lives, here:
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2007/11/18/what-if-the-death-penalty-saves-lives.htm

We have to draw the "it's a deterrent" line somewhere. And if we're not going to draw the line at killing people, where should we draw it and why? That's something death penalty proponents have never been able to tell me to my satisfaction. I don't think there is a satisfactory answer, and I think that's why, in time, Americans will reject the death penalty as a relic of a more vindictive time. We do not have to murder prisoners to prevent people other than the prisoners from murdering people. That is not our role. That is not our right.

And this is independent of the fact that the evidence supporting the death penalty as a deterrent is not, in fact, conclusive. It's entirely possible that the death penalty saves no lives at all.

Tom:

If you follow the posts, you see I respond to specific comments. The first of which, including the article, were religious in nature. I responed in context. Offerring references and rebuttal, in that context.

Then Ladd talked about innocents at risk. In tht context I responded. When the subject is redirected, it is best, in discussion, to follow it.

I never said the religious arguement wasn't important. I said I don't use religion as my basis for death penalty support. However, It is an important part of the debate. I recognize that and researched it, thereby providing evidence that I do think it is important.

Regarding deterrence, I am pretty clear. I believe that all negative prospects deter some folks. When speaking of criminal sanctions, the moral foundation begins with a finding that the sanction must be deserved for the wrongful act. Deterrence, saving innocent lives, etc., must be secondary to the person deserving the punishment.

With criminal sanction, the most severe sanction which I support is execution.

Certainly, there are many extreme things which people can think of which may increase deterrence value. I don't support them.

There are many foundations for criminal sanction: justice, balanced sanction, upholding the social contract, reform, deterrence, etc.

There are also many things, other than criminal sanction, which deter bad behavior.

Nice voice too, Queen. Hot grits are supposed to be eaten only after they cool down. However, I've also heard they, like hot grease mixed with devil lie, works wonders in improving a one-sided relationship. I don't advocate it unless no other options.

Where are the pictures although I'm likely to be gone all week and won't see them?

Dudley, why do you draw the line at humane execution? Why not execution by torture, or the other alternatives I mentioned?

See, this is really where the death penalty argument falls apart--because you're not really saying that the government should do whatever it takes to save lives. You're saying that the government should kill people if it might save lives, even occasionally kill innocent people if it might save lives, even occasionally botch an execution if it might save lives--but the execution procedures must be designed for painless execution, the execution should be done in a private and relatively dignified way, the prisoner should have a last meal, etc. Why? Why draw the line right after execution instead of right before it?

a point of this issue that has not been specifically addressed is violence vs liberating, creative, ACTIVE non-violence. the US is THE or one of THE most violent places on earth. And MS is an extraordinarily violent place. And by violence, I mean more than murder, rape, racism, sexism, heterosexism--all the obvious. I mean economic violence and educational violence and educational violence--the "Powers and Principalites" to quote Stringfellow and Wink. It is an act of violence that we cannot provide adequate health care for ALL in the US and especially in places of such great poverty as MS. I consider it an act of violence that nurse midwives were stopped from practicing by a chair of a major department (If this has changed, I owe a thousand apologies and WANT to be wrong). It is an act of violence that our school systemS are tragic, ESPECIALLY for poorer folk. What have fear and white flight done to some of THE most gorgeous Land in ALL of Creation except to create greater fear behind gated communities built with non-green materials, not using solar, etc? Must we continue to build endless "ticky tacky" mega expensive, energy-consuming and UGLY bunny warrens all over this beautiful place? Strip malls should be banned just because they are so damned ugly! And farming in MS scares me to death--big farming--what about the atrocities of Tyson and MS Chemical. We show NO respect for Earth and ourselves with mega chemicals, horrendous labor practices (is Union such an ugly word here because someone still thinks in terms of Confederacy/Union? And how can soo many poor poor and middle-class people possibly vote Republican and oppose unions? Do we just need to deny many of us are one paycheck from the streets or what? Even our churches are places of violence when we are not-welcoming of ALL, when we have "outreach programs TO" versus inviting ALL kinds of people inside? Why are soo many MS religious leaders seemingly afraid to speak up and speak out against violence and injustice and oppression? And for that matter, why do mega churches sit empty most of the week? Cannot those rooms be used by someone else? Can we not share our spaces? Can we not share our pews and floors of parish halls to sleep and feed and clothe and bathe homeless folk during the winter and brutally hot summers? Shouldn't churches HAVE to be green and solar? MSans, solar and hybrid is sexy. We have no car pool lanes, no reliable bus system, not even green taxis or taxis period. There are miles and miles of train tracks in MS--cannot some of those be used for commuters? Sure, our trains are not energy efficient but we could certainly work towards that; it beats one person per car sitting in the Lakeland Dr parking lot for hours.

And I won't even get started on war, another form of acceptable and glorified murder, rape, environmental destruction, and vehemently denied homoerotica? Why aren't religious leaders out on the streets daily or at least weekly protesting this war--not against homoerotica, though, but for the cost of lives of people and non-human creatures, and soil-water-air? Not to mention that money that could be used for education, Katrina SAFE and GREEN rebuilding, health services, green construction companies. Are we not raising our children to say Peace Corps and conscientious objector? MILLIONS of people were in the streets protesting this war and there are STILL people out there protesting and we cannot impeach a man and a group of very powerful people who betrayed our Bill of Rights and our Constitution and us and our children and our children's future by INSISTING there WOULD be war that would kill youth and children, maim and mentally/emotionally impair those youth and soldiers FOR LIFE!.

Did we learn nothing from Vietnam or MLK or Gandhi or Dorothy Day or Oscar Romero or Cesar Chavez or Harvey Milk or Henri Nouwen or Thomas Merton or Rosa Parks or Mother Jones? or even Jesus, for X's sakes. Our preaching/teaching could become that of social JUSTICE (not social WORKS, although that is needed, too) instead of "pretty words and poetry" or "hellsapopping & that's where you're going." A religious leader's job, as the old saying goes, is to "comfort the afflicted & to afflict the comfortable." We are all sacred & we are ALL wounded. & we are ALL capable of any & every atrocity known to humankind.

And I promise I wont' tirade onto the number of guns per household & non-green vehicles.

This is a violent state in a violent country. ANYTHING anyone can do to stop each & every form of violence is a good thing. Prisons COULD be productive if we all didn't have such scary bad punitive Protestant theology? It is KNOWN that cold de-escalates violence; works in psychiatric hospitals; why aren't we solarly cooling prisons? (Oh, of course, we can't pamper people in prison. God forbid they might be comfortable or productive. You know, some people because of DNA & environment & who knows? simply canNOT live & be productive outside a structured environment. And I'm no advocate for locking people up forever a la "old Whitfield mentality" & institutionalising folks. Besides, the BEST, most successful mental health care in this country was by Mennonites--or so I understand; I could be wrong about this. But folks could do something productive while in prison, even if prison for life. I'm not talking Old Angola farm; I'm talking opportunities with structured environments. I know. It's a Utopian-sounding dream & it's much more complicated than any of us can begin to comprehend. But we COULD feed our children good food, grown locally. We COULD feed prisoners decent, clean, good food. & here's my real complaint: have you ever thought how ANYONE could possibly heal & get well with hospital food, CYSCO'd & chemicalised & shipped & fried & fatted & carbohydrate loaded. We COULD say NO to fast food chains. We COULD say no to the evil WalMarts. We could say NO to the gaps, Nikes, Chiquitas, & Doles of the world.

Yes, the death penalty is important. & we grieve for victims & victims' families & friends. That's easy, actually. But what's difficult & challenging & "Jesus work" (no offense to folk of any other faiths; I am speaking of MS religious culture & out of my own language) & Gandhi work, Rumi work, Starhawk work, NAACP work & aboriginal people's work--but since most of us talk "Jesus" around here, why can't we begin the hard, challenging quest for a better world with those few men & fewer women on OUR OWN Death Row. At the very least, we could include the FIRST names of death row prisoners on our prayerlists. We could be discerning with our votes AND our taxes. There ARE people so wounded by life that their violence IS over-the-top and overwhelming &, yes, awful & horrible to even consider. And I do not believe that murdering murderers is the answer. For soo many reasons, stated here and around the world. How can we not have such violent people when our society's leaders are themselves so violent? (War, US economic policy) How can we not ALL be affected by our environment? And we are. We anguish over sex scenes in movies & buy violent video games for our beloved grandchildren. I vote for the sex.

I'm a big reader of Rene Girard & his scapegoating/mimetic violence theory. Maybe we ALL need to look in our own mirrors. The prisoners on our death rows are people who really really need our prayers & we really REALLY need theirs. Desmond Tutu is Dale Bishop & Dale Bishop is Desmond Tutu. codepink is the KKK just as the KKK is codepink.

....But by the Grace of God & a complicated mix of everything in society & DNA, go I.... or you..
--oonagh+

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life

If this is true, why do inmates commit suicide, and why do some people kill themselves after committing a murder?

That's also called a vast generalization, L.W. And extremely passive at that, further watering down the point. . ;-)

The truth is that many people who commit heinous crimes do not value life -- theirs or anyone else's. That's why the death penalty is severely misapplied to the very people who won't be deterred by it in the first place. It's a vicious, morally vacant cycle.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, you have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

Bullsh!t, Dudley. You're arguing yourself into a paper bag here. Backward while standing on your head. You're blinded by bloodthird, friend. Which is your right, but it is so not convincing. Just the opposite, in fact. You've made me *more* against the death penalty just since you've been here. Good job.

"Valuing life" is not, and cannot, be measured by how many appeals a death-row inmate wages. Especially a mentally retarded one (the kind Mississippi prefers to execute, especially if they had crappy defense counsel).

Thomas Merton? On my nightstand right this second, vicar. ;-)

Let's see: Dorothy Day or Dudley Kill-Em-NOW?

No contest.

I dunno, Donna, Dudley Kill-Em-NOW was a really good stand-up comic in New Jersey. If it hadn't been for his unfortunate birth name (as the son of John NOW and Martha Kill-Em), he might be hosting the Tonight Show. ;o)

"The comments in the article are the standard anti death penalty nonsense."

Um... like the commandment, "You shall not kill?" Or perhaps ""Vengeance is mine,' says the Lord?" Is that the kind of nonsense you mean, sir?

Biblical scholars will tell you that the Bible is full of archaic rules and regulations that contradict one another, advocating one position (and eye for an eye) in one book, and the opposite (love for all) in another. Let me suggest that anyone choosing to use the Bible--a book derived from numerous sources and compiled by committee--should take great care in applying its selected tenets. They are just too easy to contradict.

But surely, if we as a society value religious teachings and their teachers, there are innumerable religious leaders--including the late Pope John Paul II and Mohandas K. Gandhi--who oppose (or have opposed) the death penalty. Let's start here: http://www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/, and then add http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm, http://www.godweb.org/deathpenalty.htm, http://www.cacp.org/vaticandocuments.html, http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/death_penalty.html, http://www.abc-usa.org/resources/resol/cappun.htm, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2074, http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1665&pge_prg_id=8089&pge_id=2396, http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2006/10-12/58-63_punishment.shtml ... shall I go on?

"Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups?"

Dudley, that's a specious question. Please, show me a wealthy death row inmate. If there are some, what percentage of the 3,350 inmates on death row do they constitute?

As Ladd implied, "economic realities" for the wealthy don't often put them in the desperate and stupid situations that dictate capital punishment. The wealthy generally get treatment for mental disease and deficiencies. If addicted, they don't need to commit crimes to support their habits. And then, of course wealthy defendants have the ability to pay good lawyers as you pointed out.

People in prison, and, by extension, on death row are overwhelmingly poor, uneducated and/or have learning disabilities and mental problems, and I'd wager that many of them have fairly low IQs as well. That's not to say that ignorance or stupidity are excuses for crime, but these people don't have the same options as intelligent, educated people. Surely you can make the connection between ignorance, poverty and crime. It's not much of stretch.

"...folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration."

Yes, indead. Dead people can't kill. $10 words for a truly sophomoric statement.

"Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life."

Woo hoo... let me write down that piece of wisdom. You do have a talent for stating the obvious. The statement and your supporting statistics shed no light on whether the death penalty deters crime, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, or at least that there's insufficient data to support either stance. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901476.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns. In fact, states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=168.

Let me also address the oft-quoted "need for closure" on the part of victims' families. Usually, this is mis-interpreted as meaning an execution will provide comfort and peace, but "closure" does no such thing. Kruglanski, who defined the "Need for Closure Construct" defines closure (1989, p. 14) as “the desire for a definite answer on some topic, any answer compared with confusion and ambiguity.” Closure, therefore, is just an answer; the killer is dead. Comfort and peace, as any social worker, priest, psychologist, psychiatrist, or other mental expert will tell you, must come from within. It cannot be provided by an external circumstance. Like expecting money to buy love, peace can't come as the result of a vengeful act.

Mr. Sharp, one cannot compare raw data without context and draw conclusions from them like they represent any kind of reality. For example: Yes, there are roughly the same amount of white and black inmates on death row, which, taken out of context would point to no discrimination in the system. But in context, blacks make up only 16 percent of the total U.S. population. Do the math. Current Bureau of Justice stats state that overall, blacks were three times more likely to be in jail than hispanics and five times more likely than whites. Also, In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office reviewed the research on this issue and found that in 82% of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving a death sentence, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.

You and I can certainly do a google search contest for materials that would support each others' points. The term "anti death penalty" brings up 4,320,000 hits; "pro death penalty" brings up 697,000. Oh, ooops, I win if we're measuring by volume.

Ultimately, whether you are anti- or pro-death-penalty, you cannot argue that our policy of execution has killed innocent people. How do I know that? Because 218 wrongfully imprisoned people--most on death row--have been exonerated (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/) since 1989. For me, that's 218 too many. And please, don't bother to tell me that there's no proof of executing innocents. It would be a freaking miracle of astronomical proportions that those 218 represent anomalies in the system and not the norm. See http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall97/deathpen.html and http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=292&scid;for various points of view on the subject.

Mr. Sharp, you and your organization, Justice for All, is on the record as believing that state-sanctioned killing is a good idea. Good luck with that. I hope you're never in a position to be wrongfully accused and indigent at the same time.

The world's eye must turn to peaceful resolution of its violent problems. To date, meeting violence with violence has not made a damn bit of difference.

Ronni M, both logically and reasonably, all of the evidence I present supports deterrence.

Let's look at the stat I provided for non deterred murderers, who, when facing the death penalty prefer life sentences over death by about 99% to 1%. It is logical to assume that people more rational than murderers may also fear death more than life. In fact, with the exception of those in extraordinary pain and those who commit sucide, virtually all of us, including you, would agree all others will admit preferring life over death.

Ronni M:

I have two responses to your two links:

The first, a response to the Washington Post article

found as the last entry, as
Posted by: Dudley Sharp | Jun 30, 2008 5:15:46 PM
at
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/06/a-sunsteinian-d.html

Your second link, regarding deterrence and murder rates

http://www.dpinfo.com/death_penalty_and_deterrence.htm

Ronni M writes:"Mr. Sharp, one cannot compare raw data without context and draw conclusions from them like they represent any kind of reality. "

I agree, however, if you really believed that, you wouldn't have written: "blacks make up only 16 percent of the total U.S. population. Do the math."

Reply: I have done the math. Population counts are irrelevant to those on death row. All that matters is the population that commits capital murder. Thankfully, we execute based upon commission of capital crimes, not population counts.

When properly analyzing the data, in the context of capital murder, there is no racial bias. Please review:

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/25/race-a-death-penalty-primer.aspx

Ronni M writes: "Because 218 wrongfully imprisoned people--most on death row--have been exonerated (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/) since 1989. For me, that's 218 too many. "

You misread the data. The 218 are DNA exonerations. Of those 6 were released from death row.

The reality is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

The proof is overwhelming, and unchallenged, that living murderers harm and murder, again. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

Ronni M, I completely agree with you on closure.

Mr. Sharp, it is logical for me to assume that no human being would ever kill another human being.

So much for naive logic.

Beyond meaningless rhetoric, I haven't seen anything you've posted that indicates that the death penalty deters the murders that actually bring the death penalty (which, uh, logic dictates would be the only kind that are relevant to this conversation).

Certainly, if we executed people who had drunk-driving accidents and killed people, I suspect we'd see much less drunk driving. But that doesn't help your case any. You've got a very severe logic problem. I take it that you tend to preach to your own choir, which tends to be easier to convince with your kinds of arguments.

Do you want to remind us why, according to your deterrence argument, it would be true that countries that do not execute tend to have lower violence rates than those that do? How in the world are those countries without state-sponsored killings deterring murders? There couldn't possibly be any other way than bloodthirst, right?

When properly analyzing the data, in the context of capital murder, there is no racial bias.

Bullsh!t. And who is going to "properly" analyze that data—a man who spends much of his time twisting and twirling data in order to fit his thesis that the U.S. should be one of the few non-third-world countries that engage in state killings?

Please.

Ladd: Some more good persons for you to read

St. Augustine, Jesus, St. Aquinas, etc. etc

(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at

http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

Mr. Sharp, surely *you* are not telling me who to read. Thanks for mentioning those names; of course, I haven't heard of them.

Should we assume that the Catholics you quote trump the Catholics that Ronnie and others might quotes ... beause ... wait for it ... THEY AGREE WITH YOU!?!

You're a piece of work. I guess this is what obsession with killing people gets you.

I just read this line you wrote in one of your responses:

negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior.

You should take a Persuasian 101 class: You can't convince people not already with you of something when you throw around words like "always"—any person with any sliver of a brain (or who have been, or have, a child) knows, for instance, that "negative consequences" do not "always have an effect on behavior."

And the biggest problem with your sprawling argument is of your own creation: if your thesis were correct, then the fact that the death penalty exists would "always" deter the murders that it is then used for. So, in your own paradigm, there would have to be no murders at all in death-penalty states to prove your argument.

You lose, even (or especially) using the parameters you set up. Which, frankly, is how most people lost arguments and support for their viewpoints.

Mr. Sharp, I don't understand the point of your first post responding to me. You seem to be caught in a logic fallacy.

How does saying that murderers prefer life over death prove that the death penalty is a deterrent? They've already killed. Furthermore, you say that they were "non deterred." I'm not sure what that means, but if they were not deterred (by punishment, which seems to include death) to murder, how can you include that stat as proof that the death penalty is a deterrent? In your example, what, exactly, is the threat of death deterring? The murderer's own deaths? Of course they don't want to die!

Being afraid of death is a nearly universal human fear (there are exceptions amongst many who believe in reincarnation, for example). However, murderers usually fall in one of three broad categories:

1. They're insane, in which case no deterrent will stop them from killing when the voices tell them to.

2. They kill in the midst of passion, in which case they are technically insane (as I understand the term) in the moment, and not thinking of possible consequences. Again, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

3. They kill as a result of planning and weighing the possible outcomes. These killers don't expect to be caught. They've considered the consequences and deemed the other reasons and/or outcomes of their killing to be more important, profitable or advantageous. In other words, it's not a deterrent for them either.

Surely there are exceptions to those three categories. In Dale Bishop's case, he was apparently on a two-day drug binge and mentally unstable (bi-polar): hardly someone in his right mind. But I doubt he once thought about the death penalty during the commission of the crime.

Here's a study by Columbia University on the subject of deterrence: http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/capital_punishment.html.

Finally, Mr. Sharp, I am going to stop this "URL" contest with you on this subject. It would be a waste of our and our readers time. I am not a researcher by trade, but pointing me to your own writings on the subject, as you've done in your second post, above, seems particularly lazy.

Can you not understand that your opinion is only, in the end, an opinion? You're not going to convince anyone on this site that it's the right one, any more than I'm going to convince you that you're wrong. I consider that a shame.

Bishop was on a two-day drug binge, mentally unstable, and wasn't even the guy responsible for the murder in question. Very sad that our state would execute somebody under those circumstances.

By the way, Dudley, I've run across a little of your stuff elsewhere and know that you can write in a skilled, focused way. You're definitely not doing that here. Frankly, you sound a little bored with the whole idea of advocating capital punishment (I know I'd be), and the thousands of words you've contributed to this thread come across like some sort of weird contractual obligation, like you're not really getting anything out of this at all. Maybe it's time for you to find a new subject to write about and broaden your horizons a little bit. Maybe poker? Bowling? Pet care?

It is tragic. Both Jim Hood and Haley Barbour should stand up against this execution, even if not against some others.

Hell, even The Clarion-Ledger is questioning this one, and they are big fans of "riding the needle."

That's another really good point, Donna. Why doesn't it bother these two that we're putting a mentally unstable non-murderer to death for being present at a crime when he was under the influence of drugs to begin with?

And why all the sudden interest in human death from statewide politicians? I would have been very surprised (albeit pleasantly surprised) to see Haley Barbour express much reticence on the death penalty issue, considering the views of his party, but why's Jim Hood on a kill-em-all streak these days? Not just pushing for these executions, but also putting out these celebratory press releases and going on TV and generally building up ghoulish PR around them. No sense of "well, this is my solemn duty, I hate it"; I don't see Hood show up on TV with hunched shoulders to sadly report that the obligations of his office have forced him to seek another execution. Nothing like that.

And we're having, what, an execution every six months now? If the current pace continues, our state will have executed as many people (8) between 2007 and 2011 as it did between 1976 and 2006. Is there some imaginary vast protest movement made up of people who don't think we're killing folks fast enough, sort of like the imaginary vast protest movement made up of people Phil Bryant thought he heard demanding that we pass a law requiring all undocumented immigrants in Mississippi to stop going to work? I don't get it. Is there some undiscovered planet of Mississippi culture out in rural areas of the state that just doesn't register on the Jackson cultural radar, or is it just that all the dead Klansmen are allowed to rise from their graves just long enough to answer polls and vote?

Personally, I think he should look for some other arguments outside the catholic church.

The proof is overwhelming, and unchallenged, that living murderers harm and murder, again.

Where is this overwhelming and unchallenged numbers about murderers who kill again? No one is disputing the fact that there are those who do kill again after release. But how many of them actually do?

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

And how do you know that no innocents have been executed in the U.S. since 1900? Given that the state of Illinois came quite close to executing a few innocents a few years ago, that to me tells me that there are too red flags to allow the death penalty to continue. What if even one of the Illinois inmates was executed? Or do you even think about that? You hear people all the time say that we need to speed up executions? What if that happened to one of the innocents in Illinois or in another state? The fact is that our justice system, while better than most in the world, doesn't always get it right. Because of that, how can we put absolute trust in a system that metes out the ultimate justice? Jackson's very own Cedric Willis was in jail for twelve years for crimes he didn't commit, including murder. What if, in a zeal for speeding up executing, Cedric was executed five years later?

I believe the ultimate test in support of the death penalty is when it is revealed that an innocent man or woman was executed for a murder he or she didn't commit. It's going to happen and, perhaps, in my lifetime. With the right amount of coverage, I believe support for the death penalty will start to plummet.

Northwestern University maintains a database of 39 post-execution exoneration candidates; the actual number of innocent people executed is almost certainly much higher.

How do we know this? Because the Innocence Project has documented 218 cases in which a death row inmate was exonerated in the United States based on DNA evidence, and because DNA evidence is not available in the vast majority of capital cases. If we look at the cases where DNA evidence was available as a sample group, look at the 218 exonerations, and then apply the same ratio of innocence to cases in which DNA evidence is not available, we end up with a system of capital punishment that is almost as likely to execute an innocent person as it is to execute a guilty one.

In short, anyone who claims that the United States hasn't executed an innocent person since 1976, because there is no "proof" of innocence, is using an evidentiary standard so high that if it were applied to the criminal cases themselves, very few people would ever be convicted of anything.

Personally, I wouldn't be against the death penalty if the system wasn't broken, and it so obviously is. If we could be certain that the people up for the death penality were actually GUILTY.

But, on Bishop, I'm seeing something really strange in the timing. I read that his clemency plea was on Barbour's desk. What I'm wondering is how he is going to justify not giving clemency to a mentally disabled man who didn't actually DO the killing himself right on the heels of commuting the sentence of a stone-killer who stalked his ex-wife and killed her in cold blood. I'm weighing these two things, and the scale is tipping in the wrong direction. This is the man who ought to be riding the needle.

What's the message here? Better to track down and kill your ex-wife with a shotgun than to be an accessory to a murder? That if Bishop's victim had been a woman, he could have gotten an easy sentence and maybe someone would have taken pity on him and commuted even that?

I agree. I wouldn't want this blood on my record if I was Barbour.

Anyway, our team saved another person from death row yesterday, or more appropriately the victim's and defendant's family jointly saved another person from facing the possibility of death row. Before the trial started the victim's family asked to talk to the defendant's family. I've never seen so much hugging and crying before by strangers. During the meeting the victim's family expressed their deep hurt but also their wishes to spare the defendant's life as long as he was locked up forever, and afterward the family of the defendant begged and convinced the defendant to take a plea to lwop instead of risking getting the death penalty. I can't thank God enough for the outcome and I told the defendant several days ago that he could free everyone - himself, the victim's family, his family, the lawyers, the citizens forced to be jurors and the smaller and larger community by not forcing me to trial. These clients think I can move mountains, but I know better despite great success in the past. LW, thanks for your prayers. This was the first case in years that I regretted having to try. For whatever unknown reasons, my usual arrogance and invincibility in the face of such unlikelihood of succeeding weren't present.

At the conclusion of the plea, the victim's sister and mother told the defendant how much he hurt him, and the defendant asked them to forgive him but for themselves not for him.

I don't beleive a greater outcome could have been achieved as this was an interracial dating and murder case. I'm happy to say, I didn't see any evidence of racism in the victim's family or the defendant's. Racism, prejudice and ugly passion were the things I feared and dreaded having to deal with the most. But I would have done what had to be done.

And now I can finally get some rest and relief.

Bless you, Walt. Thank you for all you do.

To: Tom Head:

The Northwestern University 39 post execution exoneration candidates are nothing more than just that - candidates, which means even NU agrees innocence has not been established.

Note, that the media would go wild over a solid case of actual innocence. None of these 39 cases qualify.

I have to check, but I suspect that a wrongful death suite can be filed against the state in such cases, IF they could prove their case by a preponderence of the evidence, a much lower standard than in criminal cases.

I don't believe that has been done in any of these cases. Is it legally barred?

A plea bargain to LWOP cannot exist without the death penalty.

I don't know that this is true. I don't know that he did it entirely to avoid facing death, as he wasn't personally afraid to risk his life. He plead mostly to spare the hurt the trial would cause everyone else. Neither I nor the prosecution know that the prosecution would have succedded in getting death at trial. Getting death against some lawyers isn't the the easiet gig in town. There is a reason death isn't eagerly sought when we're on the other side of the case. We do know how to do a few things, Dudley.

sharp: Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life

LW asks: If this is true, why do inmates commit suicide, and why do some people kill themselves after committing a murder?

The life and death comparison was specifically referenced in a life sentence vs a death sentence context. I thought that was obvious. About 99% vs 1% preferreed life in that context. So, even then, there were minor exceptions.

But, even if we include suicide, we find very few death row inmates commit suicide as compared to those who don't, further giving evidence that death row inmates would much rather live on death row or receive life sentences than to die. Also, very few murderers commit suicide after committing murder.

I suspect, but do not know, that if you look at murderers who commit suicide vs murderers who do not commit suicide, you would likely find that about 99% do not commit suicide, further supporting my position, although in a different context.

None of this should be surprising, if we just look at the general population, very likely the overwhelming percentage of people who do commit sucicide are depression suicides and extreme pain illness suicides, both, thankfully, making up a very small percentage of folks.

No one disputes that many people would rather die than live. But, those many people, are an extremely small percentage of the general population, giving obvious, across the board, support that life is much preferred over death.

If you read my email on this topic, I, specifically, had exceptions to the rule.

My favorite reply from Ladd:

dudley sharp wreites:

Ladd: Some more good persons for you to read

St. Augustine, Jesus, St. Aquinas, etc. etc

Ladd responds:


Mr. Sharp, surely *you* are not telling me who to read. Thanks for mentioning those names; of course, I haven't heard of them.

Should we assume that the Catholics you quote trump the Catholics that Ronnie and others might quotes ... beause ... wait for it ... THEY AGREE WITH YOU!?!

dudleysharp replied

Yep, you should

The 218 are DNA exonerations. Of those 6 were released from death row.

Actually, we were both wrong. Of the 218, 16 were on death row when DNA proved them innocent.

Regardless, 16 or 218, how many innocent people on death row, wrongfully imprisoned or executed constitute "too many"? 17? 36? 4? 1?

Population counts are irrelevant to those on death row. All that matters is the population that commits capital murder.

Wrong and wrong, dudley. Human beings--prosecutors and judges--have discretion over charges and sentences. Once again, you're choosing to narrow your statistics until they suit your purposes (i.e., cherry picking).

When more than 80 percent of death row murders have white victims (when white victims account for 50 percent of murders), that points to evidence of race bias in the application of capital charges and the death penalty. In addition, numerous studies point to the arbitrary application of the death penalty, including race, gender and quality of representation among other factors.

When a man (Bishop) can get the death penalty for participating in a crime, while the man who actually killed the victim gets life (Johnson), that's a textbook example of arbitrary application.

And I still don't know what your point is regarding "death is feared more than life." To prove your assertion--that the death penalty acts as a deterrent--you would have to present statistics about the state of mind of killers BEFORE they kill. Any idiot would choose life over execution after they've been caught.

A plea bargain to LWOP cannot exist without the death penalty.

Of course it can. All it takes is a defendant unwilling to go to trial.

The Northwestern University 39 post execution exoneration candidates are nothing more than just that - candidates, which means even NU agrees innocence has not been established.

Not so fast, dudley. According to Northwestern: "... [A]t least 39 executions have been carried out in the United States in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. While innocence has not been proven in any specific case, there is no reasonable doubt that some of the executed prisoners were innocent."

Even some pre-execution death-row inmates cannot provide incontrovertible evidence of innocence, especially when, as in Mississippi, there is no requirement to retain evidence after a trial. In other words, where DNA could prove innocence, if the evidence no longer exists, a defendant has no hope in hell. In some cases, even when it exists, defendants are not able to get the evidence to have it tested because prosecutors and judges suppress it and will not allow access. See the case of Cedric Willis for an example of the latter.

Ronni M. Thank you

RM asks: Mr. Sharp, I don't understand the point of your first post responding to me. You seem to be caught in a logic fallacy.

How does saying that murderers prefer life over death prove that the death penalty is a deterrent? They've already killed.

REPLY: The context was, speicifically, whihc is feared most. The follow up is that (with rare exceptions) death is always feared more than life, therefore the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over lesser sanctions

RM writes: Furthermore, you say that they were "non deterred." I'm not sure what that means, but if they were not deterred (by punishment, which seems to include death) to murder, how can you include that stat as proof that the death penalty is a deterrent? In your example, what, exactly, is the threat of death deterring? The murderer's own deaths? Of course they don't want to die!

REPLY: some are deterrered some are not deterred. Of course, murderers would rather live than die. Non murderers also follow that exact rule. My point.


RM writes: Being afraid of death is a nearly universal human fear (there are exceptions amongst many who believe in reincarnation, for example). However, murderers usually fall in one of three broad categories:

1. They're insane, in which case no deterrent will stop them from killing when the voices tell them to.

REPLY: Even the insane are reluctant to murder, but hard to qualify why.

2. They kill in the midst of passion, in which case they are technically insane (as I understand the term) in the moment, and not thinking of possible consequences. Again, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

REPLY: Recent studies find for deterrence in preventing murders. Not surprising. Passions are often stopped when consequences enter the mind. There are different levels of passion. Uncontrollable passion is quite rare.

3. They kill as a result of planning and weighing the possible outcomes. These killers don't expect to be caught. They've considered the consequences and deemed the other reasons and/or outcomes of their killing to be more important, profitable or advantageous. In other words, it's not a deterrent for them either.

REPLY: you omit when planning and weighing possible outcome that some will decide to stop the plan, precisely because of possible outcomes. In fact, that is why many plans, throughout the ages have been dumped.

Thank you for the thoughtful exchange

Yep, you should

That about says it all. Hubris is you, Mr. Sharp.

But that kind of arrogance won't get you any further on this site than monopoly money does.

Walt, I didn't know you were dealing with something like this. I am so glad that it turned out as well as it could. Bless you, I'm glad you're sleeping well tonight. The defendant and the victims family probably are as well.

Good work, fella

AGAIN, if anyone wants to go to Parchman tomorrow in PROTEST of the Death Penalty, I am leaving from Madison around noon.

oonagh+

The Revd. oonagh Ryan-King
The Inclusive Celtic Church

sharp: The 218 are DNA exonerations. Of those 6 were released from death row.

RM: Actually, we were both wrong. Of the 218, 16 were on death row when DNA proved them innocent.

Sharp: No. 6 were on death row when DNA exclusion was discovered. An additonal 9 were serving prison sentences, not on death rwo, but at one time were on death row, but had their sentences reduced. ( Ithought there were 6 and 9, respectively. Therefore, you are listing an additional one that I may have missed.)

RM:Regardless, 16 or 218, how many innocent people on death row, wrongfully imprisoned or executed constitute "too many"? 17? 36? 4? 1?

Sharp: Accuracy and number both matter. Possibly 25 actual innocents have been released and none of those was executed. Very different than 218 and a few innocents executed.

sharp:Population counts are irrelevant to those on death row. All that matters is the population that commits capital murder.

RM replies: Wrong and wrong, dudley. Human beings--prosecutors and judges--have discretion over charges and sentences. Once again, you're choosing to narrow your statistics until they suit your purposes (i.e., cherry picking).

sharp: We are dealing with capital murderers, capital murder victims, death row and executions. If cherry picking is keeping to the topic - I AM GUILTY!!!

RM:When more than 80 percent of death row murders have white victims (when white victims account for 50 percent of murders), that points to evidence of race bias in the application of capital charges and the death penalty.

sharp replies: capital murder is very different than all murders, Overwhelmingly, the victims in capital murders are white, in nearly the exact ratios found on death row.URL upon request _ RM said no more URL's

"The race of the victim effect does not hold up, however, at the decision of the state's attorney to advance a case to penalty trial and at the decision of the judge or jury to impose a death sentence given that a penalty trial has occurred." p 27

In other words, the victim's race has no impact on seeking or
giving death sentences.

"The race of the victim does not appear to matter when the decision is to advance a case to the penalty phase or to sentence a defendant to death after a penalty phase
hearing." page 29

In other words, the victim's race has no impact on seeking or
giving death sentences

"Among the subset of cases where the case actually does reach a penalty trial, the victim's race does not have a significant impact on the imposition of a death sentence." page 35

In fact, the study fails to demonstrate that there is any race of the victim effect in death sentencing in Maryland.

"When the prosecuting jurisdiction is added to the model the effect for the victims race diminishes substantially, and is no longer statistically significant." page 32

In other words, when you look at the capital murder cases, from each, separate jurisdiction, individually, any alleged race of the victim effect cannot be found."The race of the victim effect does not hold up, however, at the decision of the state's attorney to advance a case to penalty trial and at the decision of the judge or jury to impose a death sentence given that a penalty trial has occurred." p 27

In other words, the victim's race has no impact on seeking or
giving death sentences.

"The race of the victim does not appear to matter when the decision is to advance a case to the penalty phase or to sentence a defendant to death after a penalty phase
hearing." page 29

In other words, the victim's race has no impact on seeking or
giving death sentences

"Among the subset of cases where the case actually does reach a penalty trial, the victim's race does not have a significant impact on the imposition of a death sentence." page 35

In fact, the study fails to demonstrate that there is any race of the victim effect in death sentencing in Maryland.

"When the prosecuting jurisdiction is added to the model the effect for the victims race diminishes substantially, and is no longer statistically significant." page 32

In other words, when you look at the capital murder cases, from each, separate jurisdiction, individually, any alleged race of the victim effect cannot be found.

URL upon request- RM said no more URL's

RM writes: In addition, numerous studies point to the arbitrary application of the death penalty, including race, gender and quality of representation among other factors.

sharp replies: About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8000 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible. I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available. Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the US.

RM writes: When a man (Bishop) can get the death penalty for participating in a crime, while the man who actually killed the victim gets life (Johnson), that's a textbook example of arbitrary application.

sharp: Or a textbook example of what cases handled individually and separately. Did Johnson plea bargain? Is the unfairness that Bishop got death or that Johnson didn't? Is it the alleged sentence unfairness, or just that you oppose the death penalty. Would any protest exist if Bishop got LWOP and Johnson got life with parole? Of course not.

RM: And I still don't know what your point is regarding "death is feared more than life." To prove your assertion--that the death penalty acts as a deterrent--you would have to present statistics about the state of mind of killers BEFORE they kill. Any idiot would choose life over execution after they've been caught.

sharp: No, you wouldn't. Read the current studies. URL upon request. Also, almost no one actually questions that people fear death more than life. All criminals who evade or attempt to evade capture are scared of punishment. Hardly a stretch to say that some potential criminals consider sanction and because of it don't commit crimes. As death is feared more than life, death is an enhanced deterrent. URL, which much more detail, upon request

sharp:A plea bargain to LWOP cannot exist without the death penalty.

RM: Of course it can. All it takes is a defendant unwilling to go to trial.

sharp: a plea bargain, is just that a bargain, which in criminal sanction, requires a lesser sentence be taken. A guilty plea can be made but a death sentence must be given by a judge or jury, even if the defendant wants it. Can't plea your way into a death sentence. There has to be a punishment phase of the trial.

sharp:The Northwestern University 39 post execution exoneration candidates are nothing more than just that - candidates, which means even NU agrees innocence has not been established.

RM:Not so fast, dudley. According to Northwestern: "... [A]t least 39 executions have been carried out in the United States in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. While innocence has not been proven in any specific case, there is no reasonable doubt that some of the executed prisoners were innocent."

Sharp: Love to see their "some" cases. I bet there is lots of reasonable doubt. Ask for the "some" names. Please. Also ask them if the prosecutors and judges agree.

RM:Even some pre-execution death-row inmates cannot provide incontrovertible evidence of innocence, especially when, as in Mississippi, there is no requirement to retain evidence after a trial. In other words, where DNA could prove innocence, if the evidence no longer exists, a defendant has no hope in hell. In some cases, even when it exists, defendants are not able to get the evidence to have it tested because prosecutors and judges suppress it and will not allow access. See the case of Cedric Willis for an example of the latter.

sharp: RM, I am not saying you are wrong, but I hope you are. Please check current law. Evidence has to be preserved, both for appeals and for possible retrial.

Thank you.

okay, folks, time to cease arguments and ACT... NOW

Go to the Clarion Ledger website, click on the opinon page, scroll to the bottom and vote. The question is Should Dale Bishop be executed. 65% say NO. We CAN win this poll. Help us get 75% by midnight! Please vote and forward this information to everyone on your address list who supports clemency. VOTE NOW. Tomorrow will be too late! VOTE NOW!

The Revd. oonagh Ryan-King
The Inclusive Celtic Church

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION

Clarion Ledger opinion poll site:
VOTE

oonagh+

Despite the C-L's poll being in our favor (thus of us who oppose the d.p.), I don't take stock in unscientific polls. But it would be great to see more people come to our side, though.

Dudley, you can provide links to material you cite; just present it in the form of a hyperlink. Here's how to do one in case you don't know how:

["url=www.whatever.com]text[/url"]

Don't use quotation marks, however. I just put them there so it won't come up as an actual link.

I don't take stock in unscientific polls. But it would be great to see more people come to our side, though.


Dear goldeneagle

I agree about the poll thing AND having people "speak up" and vote.

However there are not enough of us organised to hit the streets in front of the gov's mansion or SOMETHING

Thanks for your support in those of us making SOME action, at this point.

I just feel sick.

oonagh+

Dudley is nuts if he thinks race doesn't matter to white judges and prosecutors in seeking death sentences. Race likely even matter to judges of other races too. I'm generalizing though and have met some judges and prosecutors who I doubt race matters to them. I can send Dudley busloads of evidence to the contrary, but I'm not interested in doing so at this time. We need Dudley to show us why the death penalty is unnecessary. He's doing a good job at that despite not knowing or caring that he is.

I take it Dudley is quoting from sources unfamiliar with the intricate working of the system. I too would like to know where he gets his information. I'd like to have the Death Penalty Information Center take a look at it in order to find out if Dudley or the author(s) of the material he's using is smarter than we are. I bet they're prosecutors, ex-prosecutors or law enforcement oriented people.

I know others who feel the way Dudley does, but I haven't met one yet who maintains that position when the killer is their child, love one, close relative, or a friend of theirs. When Dudley can do that, I can respect his personal opinion on the matter even if I can't agree with it.

Thanks Ronni and CW. In that case I discussed earlier I knew I would in all likelihood wind up with an all white jury deciding the fate of a black man who had killed a white woman. On the first panel there were only 8 blacks of the whole list of hundreds. In the group empaneled this Monday there were 18 of nearly 200 with nearly half of the 18 saying they could never vote for death which means they were unqualified to serve. Surely several others would have disqualified themselves via their answers to other questions.

My great worry in such circumstances is that the facts and social history of the defendant won't matter at all and that race will trump all evidence and mitigation against death. There weren't any residual doubt as to whether the defendant killed her. Without residual doubt as to guilt I question whether the average southern white juror could vote for life in such a case no matter how strong and meritorious the mitigation is. I have heard too many of the same say mitigation is mere excuses to them and they cannot give it value, meaning, weight and consideration which the law demands it be given.

It's one thing to look at these cases abstractly but a whole nother level to have the play this dangerous game of chess and russian roulette with someone's life hanging in the balance.

Here's a new twist in the story: The sister of Dale Bishop's victim has sent an e-mail to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal that outlines her side of the story.

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=276485&pub=1&div=News

For the record, I think the death penalty is a bad idea as it exists today, but this e-mail puts a human face on the story. I think it's important to set aside esoteric arguments and take a look at what the parties involved have to say. It certainly put things in perspective for me.

This is a sad story no matter which political angle you approach it from.

Brad, the email is awesome to say the least. There is no easy answer or way to deal with this issue. I often think we're nuts as lawyers and advocates to even do this kind of work.

"Mr. Bishop's acts alone may not have caused the death, but he was certainly a main player in the death of Mr. Gentry. There's no question in my mind about it," the sheriff said. "And that was not only my opinion, that was the opinion of 12 jurors."

The attack began in Gentry's car after a night of drinking and drug use and continued on a dirt road near Saltillo in north Mississippi, according to court records. Bishop held Gentry while Jessie Johnson hit the 22-year-old victim with the hammer.

"Mr. Gentry was able to jump up and flee the scene. Dale Bishop, under his own admission, chased him down by himself, drug him back in front of the headlights because it was dark at night, and then they began delivering blows again to the head with this hammer," Sheriff Johnson said.