[...]When Is It Ok To Kill? | Brad Ruggles[...]…

1) Gov. Bill Richardson states: “Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe.” (1)

REBUTTAL: There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US since 1900. There is overwhelming proof that many thousands of innocents have been murdered because of the lack of perfection in parole, probation, early release, prison/jail management etc.

Why did the Governor choose to end that criminal justice practice – the death penalty – which may be the least likely to result in innocent deaths?

Lack of perfection had nothing to do with his decision.

In addition, the death penalty protects innocents at a higher level than does a life sentence. (FOOTNOTE: “Death penalty repeal arguments are false” paragraph 2 & 3).

No one disputes that the death penalty has greater due process than lesser sentences – meaning that actual innocents, serving life, are more likely to die in prison than are actual innocents likely to be executed.

2) Governor Richardson stated: “The bill I am signing today .. . replaces the death penalty with true life without the possibility of parole – a sentence that ensures violent criminals are locked away from society forever .. . .” . (1)

REBUTTAL: Governor Richardson knows that there is no such thing as true life without “possibility” of parole.

The only absolute with sentencing is that the executive branch, a Governor or President, can commute any sentence and release criminals, early – as Governor Richardson did, in Nov. 2004, when he commuted Janet Vigil’s “life” case. (2)

How quickly he “forgot”.

Gov. Richardson’s buddy, former New Mexico Gov. Toney Anaya, commuted William Wayne Gilbert’s death sentence in 1986.

Gilbert led a 7 inmate prison escape, a few months later, where Gilbert shot a guard. (3)

Gilbert had previously murdered ” . . . his wife, Carol; a newlywed couple, Kenn and Noel Johnson, and a young model, Barbara McMullen. He bragged of other murders, as well. ‘It was very easy to kill,” he said. “It’s almost like it’s the night before Christmas when you’re 5 years old.’ ”

Hardly a great candidate for commutation. But, this commutation wasn’t about the criminal or about the citizens of New Mexico. It was all about Gov. Anaya. His commutations of all death row, had nothing to do with allegations of protecting innocents – it did just the opposite, of course – he just didn’t like the death penalty and he takes no responsibility for the outcome.

In addition, legislatures can write new laws which, retroactively, reduce sentences already given.

Gov. Richardson is aware that states around the US are, now, doing just that, as more consider reducing life sentences to save money by releasing lifers, early.

3) The Governor stated: “More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans – a fact I cannot ignore.” (1)

REBUTTAL: The Governor has been informed, repeatedly, that the 130 exonerated is a complete fraud, as has been well documented by many and presented to the Governor, often (FOOTNOTE, paragraph 3). Not only is he not ignoring this deception, he is advancing it, even when it is so easy to disprove. Governor, how many innocents were harmed and murdered because of the lack of perfection in parole, probation, early release, prison/jail management etc.?
———

4) What about law enforcements’ concerns?

“The New Mexico Sheriffs’ and Police Association opposed repeal, saying capital punishment deters violence against police officers, jailers and prison guards. District attorneys also opposed the legislation, arguing that the death penalty was a useful prosecutorial tool.” (4)

They told the Governor that the death penalty saves lives and helped solve cases.

The Governor conceded that “the death penalty may be a deterrent”(1), thereby telling us that the death penalty is more likely to save innocent lives than it is to take them.

He also conceded that by repealing the death penalty he was taken away a tool for law enforcement. (1) He didn’t speculate how many innocent lives he was sacrificing by ending that tool.

We may never know why he really ended the death penalty. We do know that it had nothing to do with saving innocent lives.

“Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White said law enforcement officers have ‘lost a layer of protection and it’s a sad day in New Mexico.’ ” (4)

(1) Gov. Bill Richardson’s statement on signing the repeal of New Mexico’s death penalty (3/18/09)

(2) ” In Loving Memory of Estevan Vigil”, http://www.nmsoh.org/vigil_estevan_mem.htm

(3) “Let Loose by the Governor”, The Justice Story, The New York Daily News, 3/11/07
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/03/11/2007-03-11_let_loose_by_the_governor.html

(4) “New Mexico governor signs measure to abolish death penalty”
DEBORAH BAKER, Associated Press Writer, Originally published Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM

—————————————–

FOOTNOTE: “Death penalty repeal arguments are false”

In a message dated 3/17/2009 4:37:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Sharpjfa writes:

To: Governor Richardson, staff and cabinet and
Corrections Department and Police Agencies and media throughout New Mexico

From: Dudley Sharp, contact info, below

Dear Honorable Governor Richardson:

In addition to all of the pro-repeal arguments being weak or false (see below), the death penalty should remain as the just sanction for some of the worst crimes.

JUSTICE: The death penalty should remain in New Mexico because of justice. New Mexico is currently investigating serial murders which, to date, have reached 14 victims. Leave the death penalty option up to New Mexico jurors, for such cases as this, as well as the rape/murder of children and the murder of police officers and correction workers and other crimes.

1) COST SAVINGS

The LFC’s (New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee) fiscal evaluation wrongly found the North Carolina death penalty more expensive than a 20 year “life” sentence. It wasn’t. The was the only study cited (1)

Reasonable and responsible protocols, currently in use, will produce a death penalty which will cost less or no more than LWOP. (2)

Example: Virginia executes in 5-7 years; 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed; 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. With the high costs of long term imprisonment, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol. (2)

Most cost studies suffer from major problems, such as a) not crediting the death penalty for allowing plea bargains to a true life sentence ( $300,000 to $1 million savings or more, for each plea); 2) not including geriatric care for life sentences (cost of $60,000-$90, 000/year/inmate); c) deceptively inflating costs of executions, based upon putting all the costs of every death penalty case into those executed (see Florida); d) many more such problems, or even worse. (2)

2) MORE PROTECTION FOR INNOCENTS

Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

Innocents are more protected because of enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation and enhanced deterrence. (3)

Anti death penalty folks claim that 130 “innocents” have been released from death row, nationally. Fact checking easily uncovers this as a scam. Study reviews have found that 70-83% of those claims are not credible. Possibly 25 “actual” innocents have been identified and released from death row. (4)

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

There is overwhelming proof that living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed ones don’t.

3) 16 recent studies find for DETERRENCE

16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. No surprise. Life is preferred over death, death is feared more than life. (5)

There is a constant within all jurisdictions — negative consequences will always deter some – a truism.

NOTE: Repeal proponents bring up that many death penalty states have higher murder rates than non death penalty states. That has nothing to do with the deterrent effect failing, as fully explained to them and you in a previous email. (6)

Whether a jurisdiction has high murder rates or low ones, rather rising or lowering rates, the presence of the death penalty will produce fewer net murders, the absence of the death penalty will produce more net murders.

An analogy. Consider smoking. Whether a jurisdiction has high smoking rates or low ones, or rising or lowering rates, the knowledge of medical problems from smoking will produce fewer net smokers, the absence of any medical problems from smoking would produce more net smokers.

4. STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT

80% death penalty support, for specific capital murders, such as mass murder, serial murders, rape/murders, terrorism, etc. (6)

– 82% in the US favor executing Saddam Hussein, In Great Britain: 69%, France: 58%, Germany: 53%, Spain: 51%, Italy: 46%. , Le Monde (France) , 12/06
– 81% support Timothy McVeigh’s execution – “the consensus of all major groups, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, “liberals” and “conservatives.” 16% oppose (Gallup 5/2/01).
– 85% of liberal Connecticut supported serial/rapist murderer Michael Ross’ “voluntary” execution. (Quinnipiac 1/12/05)
— 79% support death penalty for terrorists (4/26/2007 New York State poll)
— 78% of Nebraskans support death penalty for “heinous crimes.” 16% opposed. 76% opposed legislation to abolish. MPB Public Affairs Poll, 2/14/08)

Most quoted polls wrongly poll for murder, not capital murders. The death penalty is only an option in capital cases. Possibly, 10% of all murder cases are death eligible. Those are the only cases relevant to death penalty polling.

5) THE LEAST ARBITARY PUNISHMENT

The US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the US. About 60,000 murders qualified for a death penalty eligible trial, since 1973. 8000 murderers were so sentenced or 13% of those eligible. Based upon pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities and that high percentage (13%) of receiving the maximum sentence (absent mandatory sentences) the death penalty must be the least arbitrary and capricious sanction.

———————–

Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

Respectfully submitted, Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally

1) “LFC Fiscal Error: Death Penalty Repeal – For Senate Judiciary Committee Record”
email to Senate, 3/9/2009 6:11:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time
2) “Cost Savings: The Death Penalty: For Senate Judiciary Committee Record”, email to Senate, 3/9/2009 4:45:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time
3) “Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents” NM, email to Governor Richardson, legislature and media, 3/4/2009 2:49:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time
4) “The death row 130 “innocents” scam” NM, email to Governor Richardson, legislature and media, 3/4/2009 1:36:11 P.M. Central Standard Time
5) “The Death Penalty is a Deterrent – 16 Recent Studies”, NM, email to Governor Richardson, legislature and media on 3/4/2009 1:31:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time
6) “Death Penalty and Deterrence: Let’s be clear” NM, email to Governor Richardson, legislators and media on 3/4/2009 1:52:09 P.M. Central Standard Time

Jared Woodard’s last blog post..Gmail:Mail Goggles

Death Penalty as a crime deterrent
I don’t think you can really justify the death penalty as a crime deterrent argument. Studies have shown that criminals who commit the types of crimes requiring the death penalty or life in prison simply aren’t thinking about the consequences. These criminals are in a different class from your “everyday criminal” and are motivated by their own desire to inflict pain or take lives.

Shouldn’t we extend the same grace to these individuals that God extended to us? What about “Do not kill” or “love your enemies?”
Justice in God’s eyes requires that the response to an offense – whether against God or against humanity – be proportionate. The lex talionis, the “law of the talion,” served as a restraint, a limitation, that punishment would be no greater than the crime. Yet, implied therein is a standard that the punishment should be at least as great as the crime.

A common belief among Christians is that Jesus’ so-called “love-ethic” sets aside the “law of of the talion.” To the contrary, Jesus affirms the divine basis of Old Testament ethics. Nowhere does Jesus set aside the requirements of civil law.

It leads to a perversion of legal justice to confuse the sphere of private relations (what Jesus talked about in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7) with that of civil law(Romans 13).

While the thief on the cross found pardon in the sight of God (“Today you will be with me in Paradise”), that pardon did not extend to eliminating the consequences of his crime (“We are being justly punished, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds”).

What about mercy?
To quote Chuck Colson…

“There can be no mercy where justice is not satisfied. Justice entails receiving what we in fact deserve; we did in fact know better. Mercy is not receiving what we in truth deserve. To be punished, however severely, because we indeed deserve it, as C.S. Lewis observed, is to be treated with dignity as human beings created in the image of God. Conversely, to abandon the criteria of righteous and just punishment, as Lewis also pointed out, is to abandon all criteria for punishment.

It is for eminently social reasons that “the authorities” are to wield the sword, the ius gladii: due to human depravity and the need for moral-social order the civil magistrate punishes criminal behavior. The implication of Romans 13 is that by not punishing moral evil the authorities are not performing their God-appointed responsibility in society. Paul’s teaching in Romans 13 squares with his personal experience. Testifying before Festus, the Apostle certifies: “If…I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.”

My conclusion…
I see two different codes of conduct talked about in the Bible. The first is a social code (Love your enemy, turn the other cheek) and the second is a civil code (as clearly laid out in Romans 13). In our sinful, broken world, there is no way that governments could survive according to the Beatitudes. That is why God established civil law to “wield the sword” and establish justice.

Is the death penalty always the best punishment? I don’t think so. In my opinion the justice system needs some serious re-examination. The last thing we need to do is sentence an innocent man to death. However, in cases where the criminal has knowingly and willfully committed heinous acts of malice against his fellow man, there are times where, in my opinion, the death sentence is appropriate and necessary.

For a much more detailed perspective on Capital Punishment as it relates to the Christian worldview, read this article by Chuck Colson.

with hitler and saddam and bin laden and whoever else you want to talk about. i believe that punishment is necessary. but why would we not want to give them every opportunity to find salvation? the scriptures say that God wants all to come to salvation. that includes the worst of the worst. if we kill then we decide that they have had enough chances and they don’t get another.

romans 12:19-21
19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.