Above: Side View of Crowd Attending the Rally

Hundreds of supporters of Stan Tookie Williams, a Nobel-nominated activist and author working to end gang violence and counsel troubled youth, rallied Saturday, December 3rd, 2005 in South Los Angeles' Leimert Park. Mr. Williams is a death row inmate at San Quentin who is scheduled to be executed on December 13th, just ten days from the date of the rally, unless Governor Schwarzenegger intervenes to commute his sentence to life without parole.

Speakers included a broad array of youth workers, former gang members, ministers of local churches, anti-death penalty activists and others. The mood was positive but urgent.

Speaker after speaker placed the onus of Mr. WIlliams' life or death squarely upon the shoulders of Governor Schwarzenegger, who is meeting with Mr. WIlliams' representatives this December 8tth, a mere 5 days prior to his scheduled date of execution. Schwarzenegger has not revealed anything regarding his present thinking on the subject, stating only that he takes it seriously and plans to consider it carefully.

It is indeed the case that the Governor now holds the power of life or death over Mr. Williams, and the consequences of his decision will be laid squarely at his feet, whatever he decides. Attendees were urged to keep up the pressure on the Governor, whos phone number is 916-445-4633 (apparently only actually answered by humans during business hours), and whose email address is governor@governor.ca.gov (available 24 horurs). Full contact incormation can be found at http://www.toookie.com and also at http://www.savetookie.org.

Commentary:
-------------------

The case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams raises serious questions regarding the fundamental goals of our criminal justice system. Central among these is whether that system exists to protect society, or is instead a means for
carrying out vengeance against those who, at some time in their lives, have caused harm to others.

It is generally acknowledged that Williams is not, at the present time, any threat to society. It is also beyond dispute that Williams has, for the past eleven years, encouraged young people to reject the nihilism of gang life, and has, through his published writings, provided valuable
and intimate insights into the forces that propel so many young people, especially those from poor communities of color, into gangs. For this work, he has been nominated for the Nobel Prize--not once, but seven times.

To say that our present system neglects the task of rehabilitation would be a phenomenal understatement. But the fact that a prisoner who has somehow managed to rehabilitate himself within this unsupportive environment nonetheless remains on a path toward imminent execution shows the degree to which this system has strayed from
any concern that its actions be of real benefit to society, and instead has embraced a crude and unthinking retribution.

Williams' writings are not just addressed to at-risk youth; when he writes about the conditions that lead youth into gangs, and that make incarceration such a thoroughly unredeeming experience for all but the most remarkable inmates, he is talking directly to all of us. These are conditions of poverty, unemployment and racism that we can usefully address with social programs, education, and police and prison reform, if only we would stop blaming those caught up in them long enough to take a good look at what needs to be done.

There are thousands of others languishing in our prisons who lack the determination and eloquence to communicate the roots of their dilemma to the public. When a rare voice arises among them that brings this human crisis to our attention, should our first impulse be to silence it? Such
a response can only encourage denial and lead to the further disintegration of our communities.

Williams' main hope of avoiding death is a clemency order from Governor Schwarzenegger. I would urge readers to contact the governor regarding such an order at governor@governor.ca.gov. Additional contact and other information can be found at http://www.tookie.com and http://www.savetookie.org.

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

This group was described as a youth organization with an anti-gang orientation. They have attended a number of rallies in support of Tookie Williams.

error

error

error

I see that this interview has been posted to the Indymedia site.

error

Article should have read "Activist working to end gang violence and counsel troubled youth," not "anti-gang youth activist," which allows for an ambiguous interpretation. Please forgive my clumsy wording. There is certainly nothing about Mr. Williams that is against gang youth - far from it! He is one of the most significant persons in assisting youth who are in or at risk of joining gangs.

--C.

There is no way for me to make a correction once an article has been posted here, but if it is not against Indymedia policy, I would appreciate it if an Indymedia editor would correct the first sentence of my article to read as follows:

"Hundreds of supporters of Stan Tookie Williams, a Nobel-nominated activist and author working to end gang violence and counsel troubled youth, rallied Saturday, December 3rd, 2005 in South Los Angeles' Leimert Park. "

My original first sentence contains the phrase "anti-gang youth activist," which could be incorrectly interpreted as describing Mr. Williams as being against gang youth, when in fact he is against gang activity, but very much in support of the youth who are in gangs. I had intended this to mean that he is against gang activity, and also is an activist involved with youth, but expressed this very badly.

--Carl

Thank you very much for the article and the photos.

Really appreciate the prompt action; that was a really significant error. Thanks.

You describe Tookie Williams as "social sewage." Sewage is something to be disposed of because of the possibility that it will contaminate or otherwise harm us. But tell me truthfully what threat of harm you believe Tookie Williams presently represents? His influence for the last eleven years has been to turn youth away from violence and toward education and constructive engagement with one another and with society. How is that harmful?

Why is it that all of the Nobel Laureates who signed the full page ad in yesterday's L.A. Times in support of clemency can see the value of this man, but you can only see "sewage?" It must be because you see something that they don't see. Something that they don't see because it isn't there. Something that comes from inside you, a hatred that originates within you and which is therefore self-hatred, because it is not directed at anything actually in the outside world, but only at your own projections onto that world.

This kind of self-hatred is, ironically, also at the heart of why young people join gangs. To quote Tookie's book "Blue Rage, Black Redemption:"

"In desperation, you're trying to obliterate that negative image to rid yourself of this self-hate monster that subconsciously stalks you."

You then say:

"He wrote some childrens books, so that means he should get off the hook. "

When someone is "on the hook" for something, that means that they have a debt that needs to be repaid. You assume that Tookie Williams should pay the debt he owes to society with blood.

Unfortunately, killing Tookie does not help society in the slightest; in fact, it would prevent him from addressing and repairing the damage that he helped to create as a youth by founding the Crips. And those children's books to which you cavalierly refer have saved thousands of children from entering into gang activities and becoming as destructive as Tookie was as a young man.

So Tookie *is* in the process of repaying his debt in a constructive and useful manner, and all you can think about is how to interrupt that process and leave all of those kids hanging by killing Tookie in cold blood, a defenseless man in a prison cell with his research and his writing, who would never harm anyone even if he were released, and who only wants to do good and make amends.

So, who is the murderous one--Tookie, or you? Who is the danger to society--Tookie, or you? Judge not, lest ye also be judged, as you are being judged right now. Clean up your life. Read Tookie, learn not to kill.

You then say:

"If he had any guts he'd admit his guilt (of which there is no doubt), apologize to the victims families and then take his punishment like a man. Unfortunately he's too much of a little girl and a coward to do that."

You are wrong that there is no doubt regarding Tookie's guilt in the murders for which he was convicted. None of the physical evidence pointed to Tookie. The prosecution relied entirely upon second-hand information from witnesses who were themselves under threat of prosecution and received leniency in exchange for their testimony. The star witness was provided access to the file for the case and was placed in a cell next to Tookie's for one night, after which he claimed to have received a confession from Tookie which Tookie denies ever having provided, and which could have been invented based upon the information in the case file. The prosecution did not reveal these irregularities to the jury. For additional information, see this document:

http://www.tookie.com/tookie_fact_sheet_10.18.05.pdf

So, your statement that there "is no doubt" of Tookie's guilt once again comes from your own internal reality, not from the reality that most of us share in this world out here.

Calling Tookie a "little girl and a coward," by the way, shows your contempt for women. There is nothing cowardly about women as a gender. Men can be cowardly, too. Take, for example, your call for the murder of a defenseless man in a prison cell.

Another example of your alternate reality is your characterization of Tookie's supporters as "the Left." This is the first time I have heard that the Black churches, or the National or Islam, or counselors working with troubled youth to keep them out of gangs, or the Nobel Laureates in yesterday's ad, were a part of "the Left." Take a look at the pictures and then wake up to the evidence of your senses. Let the sun shine in on your cramped little internal reality, clean out some of the hateful dreck in there and get your life on track.

Schwarzenegger will be meeting in private with families of the victims and with lawyers for both sides on Dec. 8 to determine if he will grant clemency.

Since my original post was deleted (read: censored) by Indymedia I feel no special compunction to respond to you other than to note that your idiotic attempt at pop psychology only makes your position weaker.

"self hatred" and "contempt for women" ... That's funny!


Stanley did the crime, time for him to pay. He's had his day in court, repeatedly.

Lights out, Carl.

Amazing that so many people will spend their time to defend a multiple murderer. Stanley needs to meet his fate.

Has anyone said, "Tookie is a man who was convicted for murdering four people and no matter what good he has done it wil never overcome that, but, I do not agree with the death penalty?"

THE neighborhood in which I was born is decked out in red, white and blue — but there's nothing patriotic about it. The red, as seen on a gang assessment map, is Bloods territory. The white signifies "neutral" areas. And the swaths of blue designate Crips turf.


The fathers of the Crips were Raymond Washington, killed in a 1979 gang shooting, and Stanley "Tookie" Williams, who now sits on death row in California for four 1979 murders: those of convenience-store clerk Albert Owens, and motel owners Tsai-Shai Yang and Yen I-Yang and their daughter Yee-Chen Lin.

As death-penalty foes gear up for Williams' looming Dec. 13 execution date, and the focus shifts onto the clemency decision faced by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Williams' legacy rages on in South Los Angeles and well beyond.

Williams ruled by terror, brought impressionable youths into his flock, inspired copycat groups and exported his terror across the nation and past borders. The Bloods formed in response to Crips killings, sparking no less than inner-city warfare. Williams helped create a Los Angeles where the evening news barely blinks an eye at the latest gang shooting.

The California Attorney General's Office estimates 10,000 deaths statewide from gang warfare from 1981 to 2001, 75 percent of those in Los Angeles. In a letter discouraging clemency for Williams, L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley said the Crips have "been responsible for literally thousands of murders in Los Angeles County alone."

What were suburban neighborhoods were turned into battlegrounds, and to this day low-income families often have little choice but to subject their children to these infested streets. Elderly residents become virtual prisoners in their homes, as rows and rows of houses look more like jails, with bars covering all windows and doors. As Williams has been at San Quentin, the neighborhoods he left behind festered as violence-plagued lockups of their own.

The campaign to spare Williams has quickly meshed into the current hodgepodge of left-wing causes celebre. Williams' spokeswoman, Barbara Becnel, spoke along with anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, the Green Party's Peter Camejo and Todd Chretien of the International Socialist Organization at a University of California at Berkeley rally on Nov. 18. The "Save Tookie" crew has gathered 32,000 petition signatures in hopes of stopping the execution.

They either claim he's an innocent man, or a changed man.

It's easy to declare oneself a changed man when you're behind bars, no longer faced with the temptations of the street and your remorse — though Williams has not confessed to the murders — may be your only ticket out of a date with death.

Yes, Williams has written children's books dealing with gangs. The Tookie Protocol for Peace, also hailed by his supporters, blames the "social vacuum (for spawning) urban nihilists like the Crips, the Bloods and many other street gangs." Williams points blame at growing up with "police tyranny" in addition to myriad "other social injustices." Law enforcement is conspicuously absent from his peace proposal, except to wipe up the blood after a shooting has occurred.

Another argument raised by Williams' defense is that the convicting jury lacked African-Americans. One wonders just how much sympathy the Crips founder would find, though, before an all-black jury gathered from neighborhoods decimated by gang violence.

In a mock funeral procession protesting violence that wound through 26 miles of gang-ridden L.A. streets earlier this month, some participants told a writer for www.BlackAmericaWeb.com that they feared a violent Crips reaction should Williams be executed: "If they go off, they'll go off in our neighborhoods," said one mother of a murdered son.

This should not influence Schwarzenegger's clemency decision, but is another reminder of Williams' lasting legacy in the community.

Whether Williams is truly reformed will never be known. It's hard to judge whether he regrets his actions, or regrets that those actions landed him in San Quentin. What is known is the blue and red turf that has dyed our streets in blood.

If Williams is denied clemency, his advocates will weep. Regardless, many of us will be weeping for his four nearly forgotten victims, as well as for a Los Angeles forever marred by the Crips. I've heard about a more peaceful time on my native turf from older generations. I would have liked to have seen it myself.
__

See my columns in the Los Angeles Daily News.

Tookie's useful. His writing resonates with young people in gangs. It probably connects with people who are in total gang families, where violence is totally normal, and hatred is the primary emotion.

Cops, teachers, and others official people are going to have a hard time convincing at-risk kids to listen to their good advice. That's because the cops, teachers, and other system people are *already* the *enemy* of their older peers, and perhaps their parents too. These influential people might as well be space aliens.

------------------------
Also, regarding Johnson's "good old days" of South Central before the Crips... wasn't that the period between 1930 and 1970, when the area went from being the *ONLY* place in LA where Black people could live, to a location where police and white vigilante gangs would violently "defend" the borders between the white and black communities, to eventually become the site of riots?

This linked article is fascinating. It covers the history of gangs in Los Angeles, specifically in the area Tookie's from.

It's interesting, because there were no "good old days" at all. The first significant gangs were white gangs that would prevent minorities from leaving their ghettos and housing projects. Black self-defense clubs formed to deal with these attacks. Gangs developed that engaged in petty crimes (theft, mugging). They warred, and things got bad unti 1965 with the Watt's Riots.

The post-65 era was marked by a lack of violence, when gangs stopped fighting each other and focused on politics and fighting the LAPD.

(Kind of like the middle east!)

As the political power of these people increased, and as they connected more with radical groups, they became a threat to the political order. Police repression, in the form of COINTELPRO, assasintated key leaders. Bereft of experienced leadership, politicization of gangs ended.

That's the time frame of when the Crips, a youth gang, were formed. Their initial incarnation was as a kind of self-defense group against other gangs, and a political movement inspired by the Black Panther Party (who by that time, had been effectively neutralized via the assasination of leader Ralph Carter).

Within a few years, however, the Crips had turned to crime, and carried on rivalries with other gangs. (Something tells me they weren't reading any Mao or selling red books.)

From the mid 70s to the early 90s saw a dramatic increase in the number of black gangs, from 18 in 1972, to 60 in 1978. Not coincidentally, the gangs got heavily involved in the drug trade, and are to this day. By the late 80s, to deal with the gang fighting, people were trying to organize a gang truce.

Anyway, the linked article is interesting.

Lets have justice for the victims


==================================

Albert Owens
Yen-Yi Yang (66 yrs old, Husband Tsai-Shai Yang, Father to Ye-Chen-Lin)
Tsai-Shai Yang (63 yrs old, Wife to Yen-Ti Yang, mother to Ye-Chen-Lin)
Ye-Chen Lin (43 yrs old)

http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams.pdf
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Response to Clemency Petition

If someone burns your house down, can you get a court order that results in a Sheriff coming in to burn their house down? And if your could, would that be justice? Does it accomplish anything positive? Is society richer and better for doing that?

The answer to all of the above questions is no, and the reason is that a house has value, and so instead of burning their house down, they should instead be forced to surrender their house to you to compensate you for your loss.

If a house has value enough to be preserved from vengeful so-called "justice," then how much value should we place upon a human life? And if a standing house is more useful for compensating a victim of arson than a burned-down one, then isn't a living human being more useful for purposes of making amends than a dead one?

It is true that no one can bring back the dead. But the actions of a dedicated person can prevent *other* deaths that would otherwise have occurred, and that can repay a debt to *society*, even if the harm to a particular individual or individuals can never be fully undone. In any case, it is quite clear that killing the perpetrator has absolutely no positive social effect. None.

From this we can see what is missing from all of the narrow-minded formulations of justice through revenge: the notion of the common good. We are at a difficult and dangerous juncture as a society, in which centrifugal forces threaten to tear the social fabric apart, just as has happened before, twice, so far in this city's history. We need people who can focus on keeping the whole thing together, rather than on some petty hatred and revenge for what has already gone down.

And, I must add, with all respect that is due to the victims of crimes as human beings who have been harmed, if their minds have been turned away from the social good toward revenge as a result of their own personal loss, then they are not a good source of advice for those in government and elsewhere whose responsibility it is to hold this society together.

At least such victims have an excuse for the warping of their judgement that has led to the making of such destructive demands. But what is your excuse for calling for such destruction? Is it possible that, far from caring for the victims, you are using their anguish to justify your own destructive impulses? Search your own heart and see if that rings true.

"The post-65 era was marked by a lack of violence, when gangs stopped fighting each other and focused on politics and fighting the LAPD.

(Kind of like the middle east!) "


I guess your right John, if by your post you mean that the gangs, like the arabs who decided to branch out from beheading each other and their women to attacking the civilized world (Israel) on the whole, made the move to attacking the very people (LAPD) who were trying to protect their neighbors from hem in the first place.

Quite a good analogy.

Crips and Bloods. The "palestinians" of the West.
Brothers in savagery.

I like it. It has a nice ring to it.

>If someone burns your house down, can you get a court order that results in a Sheriff coming in to >burn their house down? And if your could, would that be justice? Does it accomplish anything >positive? Is society richer and better for doing that?

Yes, I would burn that house down along with him or her in it, or i would execute the arsonist and keep the house for myself. You may not see it as justice, yet you also failed to mention any penalty for the arsonist. You are probably the type that would slap his wrist and tell him/her not to do it again.

>If a house has value enough to be preserved from vengeful so-called "justice," then how much value >should we place upon a human life? And if a standing house is more useful for compensating a victim >of arson than a burned-down one, then isn't a living human being more useful for purposes of making >amends than a dead one?
Tookie stopped being a human being long ago, and became a cold blooded opportunistic killer. These childrens books cited in the article are nothing but another con game played against society. Letting him live is like giving kindness to a rabid animal, stick your hand out and you too will become infected.


>It is true that no one can bring back the dead. But the actions of a dedicated person can prevent >*other* deaths that would otherwise have occurred, and that can repay a debt to *society*, even if the >harm to a particular individual or individuals can never be fully undone. In any case, it is quite clear >that killing the perpetrator has absolutely no positive social effect. None.

One it demonstrates the execution of justice. One can argue that the death penalty has no dererant value, but the same arguments can be made against life in prison. What is accomplished is that this piece of trash will never ever carry out another crime against society. If you feel that he is incapable of doing anything behind bars, you are only fooling yourself. There is ample evidence of murders being ordered behind prison walls.



>And, I must add, with all respect that is due to the victims of crimes as human beings who have been >harmed, if their minds have been turned away from the social good toward revenge as a result of their >own personal loss, then they are not a good source of advice for those in government and elsewhere >whose responsibility it is to hold this society together.

Thats sick inferring that the victims of crime are selfish.


>At least such victims have an excuse for the warping of their judgement that has led to the making of >such destructive demands. But what is your excuse for calling for such destruction? Is it possible that, >far from caring for the victims, you are using their anguish to justify your own destructive impulses? >Search your own heart and see if that rings true.
Having grown up in a crime infested neighborhood, instead of the rich lily white neighborhood you grew up in, has probably has tainted my viewpoint. The luxury of a gated community is beyond many members of society, so please stick your head out of the sand. When scum is released back among the people, how often do they placed in your neighborhood.



For the following individuals
==================================

Albert Owens
Yen-Yi Yang (66 yrs old, Husband Tsai-Shai Yang, Father to Ye-Chen-Lin)
Tsai-Shai Yang (63 yrs old, Wife to Yen-Ti Yang, mother to Ye-Chen-Lin)
Ye-Chen Lin (43 yrs old)


Tookie must die

I am against the death penalty no matter the crime. Tookie Williams seems to have changed his ways. I know many Christians who favor the death penalty. I, as a non-Christian, seem to have a more forgiving (and Christ-like) attitude toward my fellow man.
I do not believe he should be released from prison, but he has become quite productive. The man speaks out against gangs, writes books for children, and deserves to live. Who are we to say he should die? Our president has sentenced our own and Iraqi men and women to death. No one is putting him on death row and I don't see him doing anything productive.
LET THE MAN LIVE Gov. Schwartzenagger! He has proven that people can change. Save the money on Tookie's execution and put it toward educating tomorrow's potential gang members. That will surely be a far better investment.

This is a googled article about the group, from the Worker's World website. They are a self-described revolutionary group. They are a step in the right direction.

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

'Black Riders show resistance is possible'

Revolutionary Greetings!

I'm Comrade Aryana, Minister of Public Relations for the Black Riders Liberation Party -- a revolutionary communist organization out of South Central L.A.

The Black Riders Liberation Party was formed in 1996 by Bloods and Crips in the California Youth Authority college class. As their political understanding grew, especially being inside the belly of the beast, they were able to see up close how oppressive and dehumanizing the system of capitalism is. They recognized the need for a political party that was going to represent the needs and desires of Black people inside Amerikkka's neocolonies, the ghettoes.

In late 1996, Chairman Taco was released from prison. Immediately he began to recruit and organize, working especially in areas like South Central and the Jordan Downs in Watts.

Because the Party recognizes that historically the ones with nothing to lose have been the ones to move first, we put emphasis on revolutionizing Bloods and Crips. Realistically, who's going to get up and fight first? The man who's comfortable and warm in his bed or that man that's uncomfortable and cold on the floor?

One thing we have to realize is that the gangs are already soldiers, and already have a war-like mentality from years of gang warfare. We just have to turn all that anger and rage at the real enemy, the oppressive state, instead of at each other!

On Saturday, Nov. 17, 1997, the police from the 108th Precinct were called into the Jordan Downs housing project to help save a man's life. Instead of helping to save his life, they helped to take his life.

He had been feeling suicidal by recent deaths in his family. They shot him over 11 times in the chest and legs because they said he lunged at them with a butter knife.

After the murder of Daryl "Chubby" Hood we initiated the Watch a Pig program, which is standing a legal distance from the pigs and making sure they don't brutalize the people.

The whole idea of the Watch a Pig program is to show the people that resistance is possible. Which is one of the many programs we do in the community. Because of the confrontational politics Black Riders practice, we experience extreme repression. Which we welcome. Because it lets us know we're doing our job.

Comrade George Jackson said concerning repression that "repression is indeed a part of revolution, a natural aspect of antithesis."

Can power be seriously challenged without a response? Will the robber baron, the tycoon, the fuehrer allow us to seize his privilege without resistance? Can we steal it away from the greatest bandit of all time with sleight of hand alone?

The Black revolutionaries are doomed men and women. We are the ones who've been criminalized and dehumanized. As Frantz Fanon would say, considered the wretched of the earth.

When the pigs see us they shoot first and ask questions later. Historically, Black revolutionaries have always received the most repression. They assassinated Malcolm X.

And in the 1960s and 1970s when the whole country was enthralled with the movement and there were revolutionary groups everywhere, it was the Black Panther Party who was labeled Amerikka's number one threat. And eventually, through fascist programs like COINTELPRO, it was smashed.

In 1971, they assassinated Comrade George Jackson and the list goes on and on.

We as revolutionaries, especially Black revolutionaries, are in a position where we are getting hit. We can't allow this oppressive capitalistic system to keep hitting us and not get hit back. We are not dealing with nice people who will throw down their guns and submit because we outnumber them from the vantage point of history and established power. They know one armed man can control a thousand.

People's war is not polite and is anything but proper.

What the Black Riders Liberation Party is asking of Workers World and the rest of the movement is to recognize that we are under direct fire in the ghettoes and to support the Black Riders, to not let the state isolate and alienate us like they have other Black revolutionaries in the past.

This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.

Death Penalty Information Center
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

Death Penalty site at MSU
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

The death penalty is cruel and inhuman. Therefore the death penalty is abolished in civilized states. Why not in the USA? Since 1976 1000 people are killed by death penalty in the USA and more than 3000 are waiting for execution at time (for further information see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States> and:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment>).

This is a contradiction in a global world based on human rights, civilization and solidarity. It is time to abolish worldwide cruel and inhuman punishment and treatment in general. Why shall it be not possible, to go a step in this direction now? Why we shall not discuss now about the sence of punishment (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment), the sense of prisons (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison) and the necessarity of a general reform of the existing justice-system?

DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION
In the United States 10/1/97
By Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty Resources Director, Justice For All

The death penalty debate in the U.S. is dominated by the fraudulent voice of the anti-death penalty movement. The culture of lies and deceit so dominates that movement that many of the falsehoods are now wrongly accepted as fact, by both advocates and opponents of capital punishment. The following report presents the true facts of the death penalty in America. If you are even casually aware of this public debate, you will note that every category contradicts the well-worn frauds presented by the anti-death penalty movement. The anti-death penalty movement specializes in the abolition of truth.

Imposition of the death penalty is extraordinarily rare. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1600 murders, or 0.06%. There have been approximately 560,000 murders and 358 executions from 1967-1996 FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) & Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
Approximately 5900 persons have been sentenced to death and 358 executed (from 1973-96). An average of 0.2% of those were executed every year during that time. 56 murderers were executed in 1995, a record number for the modern death penalty. This represented 1.8% of those on death row. The average time on death row for those 56 executed - 11 years, 2 months ("Capital Punishment 1995", BJS, 1996), an all time record of longevity, breaking the 1994 record of 10 years, 2 months.
Death penalty opponents ("opponents") state that "Those who support the death penalty see it as a solution to violent crime." Opponents, hereby, present one of many fabrications. In reality, executions are seen as the appropriate punishment for certain criminals committing specific crimes. So says the U.S. Supreme Court and so say most death penalty supporters ("advocates").
Opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnaping and legal incarceration the same? Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Are rape and making love the same? Both may result in sexual intercourse. How absurd. Opponents’ flawed logic and moral confusion mirror their "factual" arguments - there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral confusion of some opponents is astounding. Some equate the American death penalty with the Nazi holocaust. Opponents see no moral distinction between the slaughter of 12 million totally innocent men, women and children and the just execution of society's worst human rights violators.

A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT
B. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS
C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY
D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY
E. DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES
F. CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT

Great effort has been made in pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of an innocent being convicted, sentenced to death or executed. Since 1973, legal protections have been so extraordinary that 37% of all death row cases have been overturned for due process reasons or commuted. Indeed, inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals than by execution. (“Capital Punishment 1995", BJS, 1996). And, in fact, many of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases.

Opponents claim that 69 "innocent" death row inmates have been released since 1973. ("Innocence and the Death Penalty", Death Penalty Information Center, July, 1997). Just a casual review, using the DPIC’s own case descriptions, reveals that of 39 cases reviewed (Sec. A, B, & C, pg. 12-21), that the DPIC offers no evidence of innocence in 29, or 78%, of those cases. Incredibly, the DPIC reviews "Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions" (p 23-24), wherein they list the cases of Roger Keith Coleman, Leonel Herrera, and Jesse Jacobs - 3 cases which helped solidify the anti-death penalty movements penchant for lack of full disclosure and/or fraud. For the fourth case, therein, that of Coleman Wayne Gray, the DPIC makes no effort to claim innocence.

Furthermore, the DPIC and most opponents fail to review that the role of clemency and appeals in such cases is to judge the merits of death row inmates claims regarding innocence and/or additional trial error. Indeed, the release of those 69 inmates proves that such procedures worked precisely, and often generously, as intended. Also contrary to opponents claims, clemency is used generously to grant mercy to death row murderers and to spare inmates whose guilt has come into question. In fact, 135 death row inmates have been spared by clemency or commutation from 1973-95 (ibid.). This represents 43% of the total of those executed during that time - a remarkable record of consideration and mercy.

In reviewing the DPIC’s original 1993 study, finding 48 (of the 69) "innocent" defendants on death row, the DPIC states its debt for the " . . . ground breaking work done by . . . Professors Michael Radelet and Hugo Bedau"(p 1) in their "Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases". See below.

The most significant study conducted to evaluate the evidence of the "innocent executed" is the Bedau-Radelet Study ("Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases," 40, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/87). The study concluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the study's methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt. Bedau & Radelet, both opponents, "consistently presented incomplete and misleading accounts of the evidence." (Markman, Stephen J. & Cassell, Paul G., "Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau-Radelet Study" 41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88). The remaining 11 cases represent 0.14% of the 7,800 executions which have taken place since 1900. And, there is, in fact, no proof that those 11 executed were innocent. In addition, the "innocents executed" group was extracted from a Bedau & Radelet imagined pool of 350 persons who were, supposedly, wrongly convicted of capital or "potentially" capital crimes. Not only were they at least 50% in error with their 23 "innocents executed" claim, but 211 of those 350 cases, or 60%, were not sentenced to death. Bedau and Radelet already knew that plea bargains, the juries, the evidence, the prosecutors, judicial review and/or the legal statutes had put these crimes in the "no capital punishment" category. Indeed, their claims of innocence, regarding the remaining 139 of those 350 cases, should be suspect, given this study’s poor level of accuracy. Calling their work misleading hardly does this "academic" study justice. Had a high school student presented such a report, where 50-60% of the material was either false or misleading, a grade of F would be a likely result.

Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that " . . . the Bedau-Radelet study is remarkable not (as retired Supreme Court Judge Harry Blackmun seems to believe) for demonstrating that mistakes involving the death penalty are common, but rather for demonstrating how uncommon they are . . . This study - the most thorough and painstaking analysis ever on the subject - fails to prove that a single such mistake has occurred in the United States during the twentieth century." Presumably, Bedau and Radelet would have selected the most compelling 23 cases of the innocent executed to prove their proposition. "Yet, in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are eyewitnesses, confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of the defendant’s guilt. Bedau has written elsewhere that it is ‘false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record fails to disclose that such cases exist.’ . . . (T)he Bedau and Radelet study . . . speaks eloquently about the extraordinary rarity of error in capital punishment." ("Innocents on Death Row?", National Review, September 12, 1994).

Another significant oversight by that study was not differentiating between the risk of executing innocent persons before and after Furman v Georgia (1972). There is, in fact, no proof that an innocent has been executed since 1900. And the probability of such a tragedy occurring has been lowered significantly more since Furman. In the context that hundreds of thousands of innocents have been murdered or seriously injured, since 1900, by criminals improperly released by the U.S. criminal justice system (or not incarcerated at all!), the relevant question is: Is the risk of executing the innocent, however slight, worth the justifications for the death penalty - those being retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, required punishment, deterrence, escalating punishments, religious mandates, cost savings, the moral imperative, just punishment and the saving of innocent lives?

Predictably, opponents still continue to fraudulently claim, even today*, that this study has proven that 23 "innocent" people have been executed, even though Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988).

One of opponents most blatant frauds is their claim that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Herrera v. Collins (113 S. Ct. 853, 870{1993}), found that the Herrera "decision would allow the states to execute a defendant for a crime that he did not commit. Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion makes clear that Herrera does not stand for that proposition. Justice O’Connor stated, ‘I cannot disagree with the fundamental legal principal that executing the innocent is inconsistent with the Constitution’ and ‘the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event.’ As Justice O’Connor stated, the Court assumed for the sake of argument ‘that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim.’ Id., at 874. That is the holding in Herrera, and any claim to the contrary is simply not correct."

"Moreover, Herrera’s claim of innocence was weak at best, seeking to blame his dead brother for the crimes Herrera was found guilty of committing. When the evidence against Herrera is considered against the proffered evidence of innocence, it is not surprising that none of the federal judges to hear this claim, including the dissenters in the Supreme Court, have ever expressed any doubt as to Herrera’s guilt." Kenneth S. Nunnelley in Congressional testimony, July 23, 1993

*Example: Stephen Bright, Director, Southern Center For Human Rights (Atlanta, Ga.). claims that Aubrey Adams of Florida represents a case of the “innocent” executed. (Cochran & Grace, Court TV, 3/ 25/97). Since neither JFA nor the Death Penalty Information Center could locate an Aubrey Adams for which such claims had been made, JFA assumes that Mr. Bright meant the well known case of James Adams of Florida.

The James Adams case is particularly worthy of review. Not only is the Adams case one of those alleged 23 "innocent" executed, but his is the only post-Furman case cited by Bedau and Radelet. Bedau and Radelet’s claims and "evidence" are too lengthy to review here. A short review is all that is required to discredit such claims. They "proved" Adams’ innocence by a review, not of the case facts, but of Adams’ own claims from his clemency hearing! This dishonest review was presented as an objective evaluation of the case when, in fact, it was completely biased, with only one goal - to present the case facts in the light most favorable to Adams and to neglect or suppress the voluminous evidence of Adams’ guilt. Cassell and Markman exposed this academic fraud and presented the case facts from the full record, as Bedau and Radelet should have. The case for Adams’ guilt is solid. Mr. Bright is a leading spokesperson in the anti-death penalty movement

Both Bedau and Radelet refused to claim that Adams was innocent. Yet, this does not prevent opponents from making false claims to the contrary. If Mr. Bright was discussing the James Adams case, this is a classic, standard example of the type of anti-death penalty fraud found every day.

Irresponsible editors, publishers and authors are common within this debate. Two examples: Punishment and the Death Penalty, Baird, Robert & Rosenbaum, Stuart, Prometheus, 1996 and Capital Punishment: the death penalty debate, Gottfried, Ted, Enslow, 1997. Both still claim that 23 "innocents" have been executed!

B. THE INCAPACITATION AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTS

SUMMARY - The incapacitation effect saves lives - that is, that by executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent life (B.1-4, 7, 9, 10 & 15). The evidence of this is conclusive and incontrovertible. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect also proves that executions save innocent life (B.7-9 & 11-18). This effect represents those potential murderers who did not murder under specific circumstances because of their fear of execution. There are many, perhaps thousands, of such documented cases, representing many innocent lives saved by the fear of execution. Circumstances dictate that the majority of these cases will never be documented and that the number of innocent lives saved by individual deterrence will be, and has been, much greater than we will ever be able to calculate. Finally, there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies which reveal a general, or systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders (B. 7-9 & 11-18). However, such studies are inconclusive because there are also studies that find no such effect - not surprising, as the U.S. has executed only 0.08% of their murderers since 1973. Because such studies are inconclusive, we must choose the option that may save innocent lives. For, if there is a general deterrent effect, and we do execute, then we are saving innocent lives. But, if there is a general deterrent effect and we don’t execute murderers, we are sacrificing innocent lives. If our judgement is in error regarding general deterrence, then such error must be made on the side of saving innocent lives and not on the side of sacrificing innocent lives. This is a moral imperative. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect could not exist without the general deterrent effect bring present. The individual deterrent effect is proven. Therefore, even though it may be statistically elusive, the general deterrent effect is proven by individual deterrence. Individually and collectively, these three effects present a strong morale argument for executions. Executions save lives. Period. Our choice is to spare the lives of the murderers and to, thereby, sacrifice the lives of the innocent or to execute those murderers and to, thereby, spare the lives of the innocent. What do you choose?

The test for deterrence is not whether executions produce lower murder rates, but that executions produce fewer murders than if the death penalty did not exist. For example, the fact that the state of Delaware executes more people per capita (1/87,500) than any other state and has a murder rate 16 times lower than Washington, D.C. (5/100,000 vs 78.5/100,000) is not proof, per se, that the death penalty deters murder in Delaware or that the lack of the death penalty escalates murders and violent crime in Washington, D.C., which has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the U.S. Be careful how you explain and understand deterrence.

The argument that murderers are the least likely of all criminals to repeat their crimes is not only irrelevant, but also increasingly false. 6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release. ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS). Murderers have so violated the human rights of their victims and of society that it should be a moral imperative that they never again have that opportunity.

Obviously, those executed can’t murder again. "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153) Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA). See B.5.

Death penalty opponents spend millions of dollars and countless man hours fighting the legal execution of, at most, 56 of our worst human rights violators per year, when they do nothing to fight for the end of those inhumane parole and probation release policies which result in the needless injury and slaughter of the innocent. "The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision". Where is the compassion in honoring the previous victim’s suffering and in protecting the human rights of future victims? Opponents’ actions show virtually no compassion for the victims of violent crime or concern for future victims, yet, they exhibit overwhelming support for those who violate our human rights and murder our loved ones.

9-15% of those on death row committed, at least, one additional murder, prior to that murder (or those murders) which has currently put them on death row; 67% had a prior felony conviction; 42% had an active criminal justice status when they committed their capital offense; 14% of those sentenced to death from 1988-94, had received two or more death sentences ("Capital Punishment 1994", BJS 1995 & JFA). Should we err on the side of caution and protect the innocent and honor the memories of those murdered or should we give murderers the opportunity to harm again? Should we put prison personnel and other prisoners at any additional risk from known murderers? Prisoners on death row are 250% more likely to murder, in prison, than are prisoners in the general population. Lester, D., "Suicide and Homicide on Death Row", American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 559, 1986.

The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in the U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997). Expected punishment is calculated by measuring the probability of being caught, incarcerated, and time served. Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims? See B. 2.

For a criminal justice system to have credibility and deterrent value, two factors are required: (1) a high rate of arrest and (2) punishment which reflects the severity of the crime, the criminal’s record and the demand for justice. The U.S. system has neither. Of the 10.3 million violent crimes in 1993, only 100,000 of those victimizations, or 1%, resulted in an actual jail sentence. Only 6.2% of all violent crimes result in arrest. (Prof. John J. DiIulio, Jr., Princeton Univ. 1995, The State of Violent Crime in America, 1/96 and Criminal Victimization 1993 , BJS, 1995.) The human rights of victims and future victims are consistently ignored.

With no death penalty and only life without parole (LWOP), there is no deterrent for LWOP inmates killing others while in prison or after escape. Indeed, there is actually a positive incentive to murder if a criminal has committed a LWOP offense and had not yet been captured. Currently, there are a number of inmates who have killed numerous people in prison or after escape. Their punishment could not be increased because there is no death penalty in those states. Therefore, they will never be punished for those crimes. Never. Totally unacceptable, by any standard. Not surprisingly, death penalty opponents believe that LWOP is more severe than the death penalty. Hamilton, V., & Rakin, L.: "Interpreting the 8th Amendment", Bedau, H., & Pierce, C., ed., Capital Punishment in the United States, New York, AMS, 1976. This absurd belief, which has now become the newest mantra of opponents, is contradicted by all other surveyed groups, including prisoners (B.11 & 16).

Death Penalty opponents claim that there is a "brutalization effect" with executions, meaning, that executions show a low regard for human life and do, thereby, cause an increase in the murder rate. If the brutalization effect is real, it would be the only known legal sanction to cause an increase in wrongful behavior. Why would criminals become more likely to engage in illegal activities because the punishments for those activities become more severe? How absurd. Have dramatic increases in the rates of incarceration resulted in dramatic increases in kidnappings? Just the opposite. Further denouncing the brutalization effect is the fact that many respected studies show that executions do produce an individual and a general deterrent effect. And, there is, of course, common sense.

There are four rational conclusions one can make regarding general, or systemic, deterrence. (1) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing our worst human rights violators. (2) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing those criminals and saving innocent lives. (3) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are not sacrificing innocent lives. (4) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are sacrificing innocent lives. Regarding deterrence, it is necessary to err on the side of saving innocent life and not to err on the side of sacrificing innocent life. These are moral imperatives.

There are two mistakes we can make with those convicted of violent crimes. First, we can misjudge their character and keep them incarcerated too long, when they could have become constructive free persons, repaying even more their debt to society and to their victim(s). Secondly, we can misjudge their character and release them too soon, so that they further destroy the lives of our children, our brothers and sisters, our spouses and our parents, creating additional economic, physical, emotional and spiritual loss. For far too long, the U.S. has chosen to err on the side of those who have violated our human rights and has, thereby, expanded the river of blood and tears for victims and their survivors (See B.3). No more. Not in our name. We demand that the memories and suffering of crime victims be honored by justice - that is by a just punishment which reflects the severity of the crime. And, we must always err on the side of caution and compassion for those not yet harmed.

The most conclusive evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole is provided by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys. 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial. When the death penalty becomes real, murderers fear it the most. While it is obvious that the fear of execution did not deter those murderers from committing a capital crime, it is also clear that such fear is reduced because executions are neither swift nor sure in the U.S. However, as the probability of that punishment rises for those murderers, even they show a great fear of the death penalty. Although you will never deter all murderers, the effect of deterrence will rise as the probability of executions rise. Because, as the probability of executions rises, the fear of that punishment will also rise. And, that which we fear the most deters the most. Indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty as the most feared punishment, much more so than life without parole. Sehba, L. & Nathan, G., "Further Explorations in the Scale of Penalties", British Journal of Criminology, 24:221-249, 1984.

Opponents proclaim that the death penalty is a barbaric act so dreadful in its implications that we can hardly bear to contemplate the horrors of its terrible character. On the other hand, they also assert that potential murderers, when confronted with the horrors of execution, will not be deterred by its infliction upon them. That proposition is, of course, absurd on the face of it (Revised from M. Stanton Evans, Clear and Present Danger).

Assume that all murderers would instantly die upon murdering. Murderers would then kill only if they wished to die themselves. Murder/suicide is an extremely small component of all murders. Therefore, if a swift and sure death penalty was universally applied to our worst criminals, it is logically conclusive that the death penalty would be a significant deterrent and that many innocent lives would be saved. In fact, swift and sure executions do result in deterrence: (A) The greater the publicity surrounding executions, the greater the deterrent effect. Phillips, D. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment". American Journal of Sociology, 86;139-158, 1980: Philipps, D. & Hensley, J., "When Violence is Rewarded or Punished". J. Commun., 34(3); 101-116, 1984; and the various studies by Prof. Steven Stack, Wayne St. U.(1988-1995) and (B) The higher the rate of execution, the greater the deterrent effect. Lester, D. "Executions As A Deterrent To Homicide", 44:562,1979a and "Deterring Effect of Executions on Murder as a Function of Number and Proportion of Executions", 45:598, 1979b, both from Psychol. Rep. and Wasserman, L.: "Non-deterrent Effect of Executions on Homicide Rates", Psychol. Rep., 58:137-138, 1981. The State of Delaware has the highest execution rate per capita and low homicide rates.

The individual deterrent effect is proven by many, perhaps thousands, of individual, fully documented cases where criminals have admitted that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them and/or others from committing murder. Indeed, one study showed that criminals, by a 5:1 ratio, believed that capital punishment was a significant enough deterrent to prevent them and/or others from murdering their victims (People vs Love, 56 Cal 2d 720 (1961), McComb, J. dissenting. see also: (A) "Controversy Over Capital Punishment", Congressional Digest, Jan.,’73, p. 13; (B) L.A.P.D. study within Aikens vs Ca., No. 68-5027, Oct. Term, 1971, U.S. Supreme Court; ( C ) Carol Vance, "The Death Penalty After Furman", The Prosecutor, vol. 9, no. 4 (1973), p. 703; (D) Carrington, F., Neither Cruel Nor Unusual, Pgs. 92-100(1978); (E) Don Hooloschultz, "Gunman Slain, Hostages O.K.", Washington Star News, 8/23/73, p.A-1; (F) Jim Landers, "4 Guilty in Holdup Sentence", Washington Post, 12/8/73,p.B-1; (G) Larry Derryberry, "It Is The Fear That Death May Be The Punishment That Deters", Police Digest, Spring/Summer 1973, p.27, col.2. ; (H) "Langley says Texas death penalty affected his actions during escape", by Stephen Martin, The Daily Democrat (Ft. Madison, Iowa), 1/8/97, pg 1. Indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty as a much more severe penalty than they do life without parole (B.12).While it is difficult to prove a negative, i.e. "How many murders does the death penalty cause not to occur?", there is absolute evidence that the individual deterrent effect of executions saves innocent lives. Extensive worldwide research on individual deterrence would, undoubtedly, reveal significant general deterrent effect.

Regarding the deterrent affect of the death penalty, poet Hyam Barshay made the following observation, "The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down." Prof. Ernest van den Haag, "On Deterrence and The Death Penalty", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, vol. 60, no.2 (1969).

30 years of studies suggest that the death penalty is a general, or systemic, deterrent. (See works by Profs. D. Cloninger, S. Cameron, I. Ehrlich, W. Bailey, D. Lester, S. Layson, K. I. Wolpin, L. Phillips, S. C. Ray, S. Stack, etc.) Examples: a) A 1967-68 study revealed 27 states showed a deterrent effect (Bailey, W.,1974); b) The 1960's showed a rapid rise in all crimes, including murder, while both prison terms and executions declined (Passell, P. & Taylor, T., 1977; Bowers, W. & Pierce, G., 1975); c) Murder increased 100% during the U.S.’s moratorium on executions (Carrington, F., Neither Cruel Nor Unusual); d) 14 nations that abolished the death penalty showed that murder rates increased 7% from the 5 year pre-abolition period to the 5 year post abolition period (Archer, et al, 1977); e) A 37 state study showed that 24 states showed a deterrent effect, 8 states showed a brutalization effect and 5 states showed no effect (Bailey, W., 1979-80); and f) econometric studies indicate that each execution may deter 8 or more murders ( Cameron, S., 1994). Although these studies have been produced by respected social scientists, there are also studies which show no general deterrent effect. Indeed, with the complexity of these studies and with the number of variables required to accurately measure the general deterrent effect of executions on murder rates, it is arguable if there ever will be a statistical consensus with general deterrence studies. With so few executions and so many murders, the general deterrent effect may remain statistically elusive. However, it is that very inconclusive nature of general deterrence which provides the two reasons which require executions. First, we must choose to use executions because they may save innocent life. Whereas, if we choose not to use executions and there is a general deterrent effect, we would be sacrificing innocent lives. Therefore, a moral imperative exists to choose executions (see B. 9). Secondly, the individual deterrent effect would not exist but for the presence of general deterrence. And because the individual deterrent effect is proven and cannot be contradicted, we know that the general deterrent effect must exist, even though its existence may remain inconclusive by statistical analysis.

Opponents state that if the death penalty was a deterrent then states that have the death penalty would have a reduced homicide rate. Delaware, which executes more murderers per capita than any other state in the U.S.A., also has low homicide rates. Furthermore, general or systemic deterrence is not necessarily measured by low or reduced homicide rates, but by rates that are lower than they otherwise would be if the death penalty was not present. Additionally, some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have swift and sure executions and very low violent crime rates. It is not surprising that the U.S., which has executed only 0.06% of its murderers since 1967, does not overtly show a general deterrent effect. While most in the U.S. would not advocate criminal justice systems like that of Saudi Arabia, it is also very clear that the American criminal justice system fosters the additional slaughter of its own innocent citizens.

The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg. 31A).

C. RACE, SENTENCING AND THE DEATH PENALTY

1) The most vile strategy of death penalty opponents is their use of propaganda to nurture hatreds and mistrust between race and class. Bryan Stevenson, a well known opposition spokesman and attorney with Equal Justice Initiative (Montgomery, Al.), claims that the death penalty reflects the middle class’ desire to strike out at the poor and racial minorities ("A Matter of Life and Death", Christianity Today, 8/14/95). Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) joins this hideous chorus, proclaiming that "(m)iddle-class and upper middle-class white people...are so much for the death penalty (to) ‘Keep those dangerous people (the poor and minorities) in their place.’ " ("Opposing the Death Penalty", AMERICA, 11/9/96. pg.12.) Clearly, these statements reveal only their prejudice. Prejean continues "It didn’t take long to see that for poor people, especially poor black people, there was a greased track to prison and death row." (The Progressive, 1/96, p. 32(4) 60,1). Is Sister Prejean saying that poor minorities are incapable of stopping themselves from committing capital murder!? Not only are Sister Prejean’s statements false, they are also grossly insulting to the poor and to minorities. Over 99% of all persons, including poor minorities, restrain themselves from committing capital murder. And there is, of course, no excuse for anyone that commits capital murder. Stevenson and Prejean do hereby reflect either their unbelievable ignorance or their willful and foul deception. Based on their active involvement in the death penalty debate, both Stevenson and Prejean should (must?) be aware that (1) In the most extensive study of the economics of death row inmates, it was shown that, while 74% of Georgia murderers were poor, only 38% of those on Georgia’s death row were poor (C.13).; (2) there is no consensus in statistical analysis which proves that wealthy capital murders are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk. In fact, statistics indicate that wealthy capital murderers may be more likely to be executed. (C.13); (3) the majority of those on death row are white (NAACP LDF, 1996); (4) the majority of those executed are white (C.2); (5) since 1929, white murderers have been more likely to have been executed than black murderers (C.10); (6) "...white murderers, no matter who they kill, are more likely to get the death penalty than black murderers (11.1% to 7.3%). Furthermore, whites who kill whites are slightly more likely to be on death row than blacks who kill whites. Finally, whites who kill blacks are slightly more likely to be on death row than blacks who kill whites." (Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 40-41,Carroll & Graf Pub.,1992; (7) whites are executed 15 months quicker than blacks ("Capital Punishment, 1995", BJS 1996); (8) Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in murder. Blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in murder. (C.2); and finally, (9) Murderers are put to death, not based on the race or economic status of the victim or the murderer, but based upon death penalty statutes, the aggravated nature of and all specific circumstances of the crime, the criminal background of the murderer, and the other specific factors mandated by Supreme Court decisions. Since 1973, there is absolutely no credible evidence to support any other conclusion. Despicably, opponents cry "RACISM!" to further their agenda, knowing, full well, that such claims are false.

2) One of opponents’ popular false claims is that it is the race of the victim which determines who is on death row. 82% of the murder victims in death penalty cases are white, 13% are black, a 6:1 ratio (NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), 1996). Opponents, such as Kica Matos, NAACP LDF, Steven Hawkins, Exec. Dir., National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) and Sister Prejean, longtime Chairperson of the NCADP and author, Dead Man Walking, present this fact as evidence that the "system" values white lives more than black lives. If true, then we must wonder why whites represent 56% of those executed, and blacks 38% (NAACP LDF, Summer 1996) when blacks have committed 47% of all murders, and whites 38%. Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in murder, blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in murder. From 1991-94, 34% of murderers have been white, 54% black (Special run 1980-94 BJS data, 1/13/97, for non-Hispanic whites and blacks. JFA calculations for known race/ethnicity.).

Could it be that we just hate white murderers more? Or that we only care about white capital murder victims? Or should we conclude that the "system" focuses its benevolence toward black murderers, but its racism against black victims? How absurd. Such perverse conclusions, by opponents, are expected and serve only to further undermine their quickly eroding credibility. Successful capital prosecutions have nothing to do with the race of the victim or of the defendant and everything to do with the nature of the crimes. The most thorough evaluation of this subject was presented in McCleskey v. Georgia (Zant/Kemp), wherein Federal District Judge Owen Forester accurately found that "the best models which (McCleskey expert) Baldus was able to devise...produce no statistically significant evidence that race (of the victim or of the defendant) plays a part in either (the prosecution’s or the jury’s capital decisions)." (580 Federal Supplement 338, p 368, 2/1/84).

Could it be that whites are, overwhelmingly, the victims in death row cases because whites are, overwhelmingly, the victims in capital crimes? What is the ratio of white to black victims under the relevant, but non-homicide circumstances, which, when combined with homicide, become capital crimes? (A) The most relevant economic violent crime is robbery with injury, which shows a 4:1 ratio of white victims to black victims (C.5); (B) By a 5:1 ratio, whites are more likely to be victims of rape/sexual assault than are blacks (BJS, 1977-1984); ( C ) For all property crimes (theft, burglary, auto theft), there is a 7:1 ratio of white to black victims ("Sourcebook, 1994," BJS 1995, tables 3.21,3.25); (D) A comparison of only black and white perpetrators and victims reveal that whites are five times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than are blacks, or 7.5 v 1.5 million, a 5:1 ratio ("Criminal Victimization, 1993" BJS 1995); and, for homicides, which by themselves, qualify for the death penalty: (E) In death penalty states, police victim murders are capital crimes. From 1985-1994, 87% of murdered officers were white, 12% black, or 7:1 (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, FBI:UCR, 1994); (F) Whites make up a dominant percentage of multiple/serial murderers, whose victims are overwhelmingly white, thereby disproportionately and correctly raising the number of white victims in execution cases. In such death row cases, 87% of the victims are white, 13% black, or 7:1 (NAACP LDF data, 1996); (G) Many death row cases involve stranger murders. There is a 7:1 ratio of white to black strangers (US Census, avg. 1970-80-90); and (H) Research and appellate courts (through McCleskey) have confirmed that white victim murders are the most aggravated, thus, by statute, enhancing the likelihood of a death sentence in those cases (C. 1-5 & 9-12). These factors, and others within this section, are consistent with the 6:1 ratio of white to black victims in capital cases.

But, wait, don’t blacks and whites represent about an equal number of murder victims? Yes, but, make no mistake, murder victims and capital murder victims are two very distinct groups. And only capital murders are relevant to death penalty cases. Capital crimes are very unique, combining murder with specific circumstance, such as subsets A-H. IF homicide rates are statistically consistent within subsets A-D, as McCleskey and additional studies indicate (C. 1-5 & 9-12), then it is subsets A-H, with additional required factors such as the murderer’s criminal history, capital procedures (see F), capital statutes, crime statistics, aggravating factors and other specific facts of the case (hereinafter McCleskey et al), which result in the distribution of victims in these cases.

Should we balance the scales of justice and execute equally the killers of blacks and whites? Only if you wish to increase the number of black murderers executed. 93% of all black murder victims are murdered by blacks. The overwhelming majority of black on black murders have mitigating circumstances, thereby reducing the numbers of blacks who might otherwise be executed.

3) The U.S. General Accounting Office Report "DEATH PENALTY SENTENCING: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities" (GAO/GGD-90-57, 2/90) is cited by opponents as proof that the "race of the victim" effect has been proven. Not quite. First, some of the studies which the GAO included in their analysis included non-capital murders. This certainly impairs the integrity of the results because only capital murders should have been included. Secondly, Drs. Stephen Klein and John Rolph, "Relationship of Offender and Victim Race to Death Penalty Sentences in California"(Jurimetrics Journal, 32, Fall 1991), found that, "After accounting for some of the many factors that may influence penalty decisions, neither race of the defendant nor race of the victim appreciably improved prediction of who was sentenced to death . . . ". Thirdly, Smith College Professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers ("Execution by Quota?", The Public Interest, Summer 1994), found that legal variables, such as prior criminal history and the aggravated nature of the murder, are the proven basis for imposition of the death penalty. The black/white variation in sentencing has generally been reduced to zero when such legal variables are introduced as controls. Fourth, crime statistics show a 4:1 to a 7:1 ratio of white to black victims in circumstances relevant to death penalty cases.. Such ratios are consistent with the 6:1 ratio of white to black victims in death row cases (C.1,2,4,5). Fifth, any affirmative conclusions regarding the GAO study disregards the findings in McCleskey, that an empirical/statistical study cannot separate the causal effect of legitimate factors influencing jury decisions from the effects of possible racial biases, whereby The Court found "Where the discretion that is fundamental to our criminal justice process is involved, we decline to assume that what is unexplained [by measured factors] is invidious."(481 US at 313). See Dr. Joseph Katz’ enforcement of the McCleskey majority: "Statement to the Senate Subcommittee on the Judiciary Concerning the Relationship Between Race and the Death Penalty" 10/2/89.

4) Based on a study conducted by Profs. Baldus, Woodward and Pulaski, McCleskey argued that the death penalty was racist. In August, 1983 Federal District Court Judge J. Owen Forester found that the study's conclusions of racial bias were without merit. In 1985, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 9-3 vote, stated "Viewed broadly, it would seem that the statistical evidence presented here...confirms rather than condemns the ( death penalty) system." In April 1987, the Supreme Court (5-4) stated that the referenced study did not establish that capital punishment discriminates against black defendants or killers of white victims. "At most, the Baldus study indicates a statistical discrepancy that appears to correlate with race. Apparent disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system. The discrepancy indicated by the Baldus study is ‘a far cry from any major systemic defects". "McCleskey offers no evidence...that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence". "...the Baldus study is clearly insufficient to support an inference that any of the decision-makers in McCleskey’s case acted with discriminatory purpose." "Even Professor Baldus does not contend that his statistics prove that race enters into any capital sentencing decisions or that race was a factor in McCleskey’s particular case."

5) From 1976-1995, 5 white murderers have been put to death for the murder of black persons and 101 black murderers have been put to death for the murder of white persons (NAACP LDF, 1996). Opponents falsely contend that this is evidence of racism in the "system". That 101:5 ratio, or 20:1, is consistent with statistics that show aggravated crimes (those crimes committed with the murder which may make a crime eligible for the death penalty) are committed by blacks against whites in far greater numbers than by whites against blacks. For all violent crimes, there are ten times as many black offenders (2,016,939) involved in white victim violent crimes as there are white offenders (210,869) involved in black victim violent crimes, or a 10:1 ratio. (The State of Violent Crime in America, pg. 12,1/96, data derived from Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1993, BJS forthcoming, tables 42 and 48. JFA has assumed multiple offenders to be two offenders for calculation purposes.) In addition, blacks are nearly three times as likely to murder whites (849), as whites are to murder blacks (304), or 3:1 (Sourcebook 1994, BJS 1995, table 3.123). IF murder rates are statistically consistent within the violent crime category, as McCleskey et al indicate, then blacks are, statistically, by a 30:1 (10:1 X 3:1) ratio, more likely to murder whites, than whites are to murder blacks, in those circumstances where an additional aggravating factor is present (see C2). These are those crimes most eligible for the death penalty. That statistically projected ratio of 30:1 is hardly inconsistent with the 20:1 ratio for black offender(s)/white victim vs white offender(s)/black victim executions. The most relevant aggravated crime is robbery with injury, wherein blacks are 21 times more likely to be involved in such crimes as are whites. This 21:1 ratio represents 1.4 million black offender(s)/white victim vs. 68,000 white offender(s)/black victim for robbery with injury crimes (JFA, using BJS, 1977-84 data). IF overall murder statistics are consistent, within this crime category, as McCleskey et al suggests, then there is a 30-60:1 ratio of black on white vs white on black murders within this robbery/murder category. (From 1977-1984).

6) 75% of blacks and 35% of whites believe that blacks are treated more harshly than whites by the criminal justice system. This is a deserved reputation, particularly in the South. Blacks have suffered some 400 years of slavery and blatantly racist criminal justice practices. From the practices of punishing blacks, who rape whites, with death and whites, who rape blacks, with a slap on the wrist, to the three trials needed to convict Byron de la Beckwith for the murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers, generations of black Americans cannot and must not forget.

7) In 1994, in northeastern states, 36% of those on death row were white, 59% black. In southern states, 57% were white, 41% black ("Capital Punishment 1994",BJS, 1995).

8) In 1994, death row inmates median level of education was the 12th grade.("Cap.Pun.‘94",BJS 1995)

9) After examining 42,500 criminal files in the nations 75 largest counties, Patrick Langan (BJS) concluded that there was no evidence"...that, in the places where blacks in the U. S. have most of their contacts with the judicial system, that (the) system treats them more harshly than whites." (John DiIulio, Jr.,"White Lies About Black Crime", The Public Interest, 1995. See concurring support within "Research on Sentencing", National Research Council, 1983.)

10)No evidence of system wide discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty exists beyond the 1950's. From 1929-66, white murderers were more likely to be executed than black murderers (10.4 vs 9.7/1000). This trend continues today.(C.2) (Gary Kleck, "Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty", American Sociological Review, 12/81.)

11) A study of the death penalty, as imposed by Harris County (Houston, Texas, USA) juries, since 1982, found that the death penalty was imposed on white and black murderers in proportion to the capital offenses committed by those race classifications (The Houston Post, 10/16/94).

12) Although blacks make up 12% of the US population, they comprise 44% of the prison population. (BJS, Prisoners in 1994). Researchers find a close relationship between the racial distribution in arrest and prison statistics and the race of offenders as described by crime victims. In other words, according to the reports from victims, racial groups are represented in prison according to their involvement in criminal activity. (Patrick Langan, Racism on Trial; New Evidence to Explain the Racial Composition of Prisons in the U.S., 1985). Overwhelmingly, sentencing studies show that the offender’s prior criminal record and the aggravated nature of the crime are the key factors in making imprisonment decisions (See also Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, A Source Book of Arrest and Sentencing By Race, 1994; Al Blumstein, On The Racial Disproportionalness of U.S. Prison Populations, (1982); M. Hindelang, Crime Victimization (1976) and Race and Involvement (1978);); U.S. General Accounting Office, Racial Differences in Arrests, 1/20/94.)Nevertheless, the racial aspects of crime and punishment should be continuously scrutinized. For example, Langan also finds that in 1979 and 1982, blacks were over represented in prison by 16% and 15%, respectively.

13) THE WEALTHY AND DEATH ROW - Contrary to opponents claims, there is no systemic evidence that wealthy capital murderers are less likely to be executed that their poorer ilk. Drawing only on personal knowledge, we found that since 1973, in Texas, alone, at least seven middle class to wealthy murderers have been put on death row. Four, Markum Duff Smith, George Lott, Robert Black, Jr., and Ronald O'Bryan have been executed. Three additional await execution. Extensive, objective research would, undoubtedly, reveal many more. Don’t forget John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy. Furthermore, Dr. Joseph Katz found that, while 74% of all Georgia murder defendants were poor, only 38% of those on death row were poor (McCleskey). Informed Speculation: 5% of the U.S. population (12 million) can afford to pay the $400,000* cost for their capital trial and appeals. Because financial need can be excluded, the category of wealthy capital murderer can be assumed to murder at a rate 10 times less than their poorer ilk. Fact: 0.20% of the U.S. population commits murder. 1.3% of those are sentenced to death. Only 6% of those have been executed. Therefore, the projected number of wealthy executed from 1976-1996 is 2 , or 12 million x .1 x .0020 x .013 x .06. Using 1973-1996 data. *conservative estimate based on opponents’ high cost claims (see E)

14) SEXISM AND THE DEATH PENALTY - Some claim that the death penalty is sexist. The ratio of men to women on death row (and executed) is 68:1, or 3400:50 (NAACP LDF, Spring 1996). Men committed 476,937 rapes, robberies and burglaries, women 47,357 or a 10:1 ratio. From 1976-94, men committed 7 times as many murders as women, or 7:1. (Sourcebook ‘94, BJS ‘95, tb.4.9 and 3.22). Therefore, it may be statistically predictable that men are, by a 70:1 ratio (10:1 X 7:1), more likely to be on death row than are women. Women appear to be on death row in numbers that would be expected. However, one would expect that 5 women would have been executed since 1976, when only 1 has been executed.

D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY

Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.


Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases
Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases Cost of Death Penalty Cases
1. $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), at
a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$75,000 (4) for trial & appeals = $3.01 million $60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5), at
a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$1.5 million (4) for trial & appeals = $1.88 million
2. Same, except 3% (3) = $4.04 million Same, except 3% (3) = $1.89 million
3. Same, except 4% (3) = $5.53 million Same, except 4% (3) = $1.91 million

There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.
(1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

(2) U.S. Vital Statistics Abstract, 1994 and Capital Punishment 1995, BJS 1996.

(3) Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions, and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society.

(4) $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases, assumes that the DP is not an option. We believe this cost estimate is very low. We have over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on average, or $1.5 million. Our exaggerated estimate states that the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost, including voir dire, court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though we have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.

(5) 6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years (Capital Punishment 1994, BJS, 1995). Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual increase).

One of the USA’s largest death rows is in Texas, with 442 inmates, of which 229, or 52%, have been on death row over 6 years - 44, or 10%, have been on for over 15 years, 8 for over 20 years. 60 inmates, nationwide, have been on death row over 18 years. (as of 12/96).

NOTE - 10/19/00 - We received a post which located a flaw within our cost evaluation. The reader stated that we should "present value" all the costs of both a life sentence and the death penalty and that, if we do so, a life sentence is cheaper than a death sentence. Using the numbers in our analysis, such is a good point.

It should be noted that we were intentionally generous in minimizing life costs within our analysis. Please review we have not included

1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner in today's dollars , or

2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison system, or

3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum life sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the death penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty, and

4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of which either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost credit to the death penalty, and

5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty position with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average life without parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for all pre-trial, trial and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in our study.

Those omissions should not be considered a balancing, because accuracy is paramount. There is no cost study which fully evaluates all of those issues. We hope to update the data at some point with a more thorough review.

E. DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES

There are at least 28 procedures necessary in reaching a death sentence. They are: (1) The crime must be one listed as a capital crime in the penal code; (2) a suspect must be identified and arrested; (3) Beginning with the Bill of Rights, the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rules, U.S. criminal defendants and those convicted have, by far, the most extensive protections ever devised and implemented; (4) in Harris County (Houston), Texas a panel of district attorneys determines if the case merits the death penalty as prescribed by the Penal Code (See 12-19); (5) a grand jury must indict the suspect for capital murder; (6) the suspect is presumed innocent; (7) the prosecution must prove to the judge that the evidence, upon which the prosecution will rely, is admissible; (8) the defendant is assigned two attorneys. County funds are provided to defense counsel for investigation and trial; (9) it takes 3-12 weeks to select a jury; (10) trial is conducted; (11) the burden of proof is on the state; (12) all 12 jury members must find for guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases, the jury knows nothing of the defendant's previous criminal acts, at this stage. If found guilty, then, the punishment phase of the trial begins; (13) the prosecution presents additional damning evidence against the murderer, i.e., other crimes, victims, victims’ or survivors’ testimony, police reports, etc; (14) In order to find for death, the issues to be resolved by the jury are {a}(14) did the defendant not only act willfully in causing the death, but act deliberately, as well, {b}(15) does the evidence show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a likelihood that the defendant will be dangerous in the future, {c}(16) if there was provocation on the part of the victim, were the defendant's actions unreasonable in response to the provocations and {d}(17) is there something about the defendant that diminishes moral responsibility or in some way mitigates against the imposition of death for the defendant in this case, whereby, (18) the defense presents all mitigating circumstance, which may lesson the probability of the jury imposing death , i.e., family problems, substance abuse, age, no prior criminal record, mental disability, parental abuse, poverty, etc. Witnesses, such as family, friends, co-workers, etc., are presented to speak and offer the positive qualities of the defendant; (19) the jury must take into consideration those mitigating circumstances (Penry decision) and, if only 1 juror believes that the perpetrator deserves leniency because of any mitigating circumstances, then the jury cannot impose the death penalty; and (20) when the death sentence is imposed, the perpetrator receives an automatic appeal. (21& 22) the death row inmate is provided an attorney, or attorneys, to handle the direct appeal, at county expense, through both the state and federal courts; (23 & 24) the state pays attorneys for the inmate's habeas corpus appeals, at both the state and federal level; (25 & 26) death row inmates may be granted a hearing, in both state and federal court, to present post conviction claims of innocence. The burden of proof for these claims of innocence mirrors that used by the Federal courts; and (27 & 28) Convictions and sentences are subject to pardon or sentence reduction through the executive branch of government, at both the state level (Governor) and federal level (President).

These 28 procedures represent the broad categories of defendant and inmate protections. Within these 28 procedures, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of additional procedures and protections.

In some jurisdictions, the defense must prove mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence and the prosecution must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a huge advantage for the defendant and a major disadvantage for the prosecution.

To punish with death, each one of the 12 jurors must agree with the prosecution in each of five specific areas ( 12, 14, (a)14, (b)15, (c)16, and (d)17 (with 18 & 19). A death sentence requires that the prosecution must prevail in 60 out of those 60 considerations, or 100%. To avoid death, the defendant must prevail in only 1 out of those 60 considerations, or 1.67%. If convicted and sentenced to death, the inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 23 years, 60 appeals and over 200 individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates claims. The average time on death row for those executed from 1977-1995 was 9 years. For the 56 executed in 1995, the average time on death row was 11 years, 2 months - a new record of longevity, surpassing the old rec

They shouldn't put him in the chair, because of the simple fact that their are so many other people that did murder.Like, those guys who killed two cops,and they weren't sentenced for the death penalty. I think that is truly wrong what they are doing to Tookie. Give him life in prison, and let him teach these other kids out here who are trying to become like these other tuff guys in this world today. Let him live.these kids are having a chance to know what the world would be like if they become one of those killers, and hatred people out there who don't care about life.

Why kill someone that is stopping murders? I live in Canada and heard that Arnold was going through with the death penatly. I was shocked that they were goin to do so. This man has change lives of younger gang members and showed them the way out. I think if this is carried out that Arnold will hear from people and notice more problems in 'his' state. I don't agree with any of this stuff and hope that Arnold makes the right decission.

I don't know if Tookie really killed all those people, but in my opinion, it's beside the point. What I'm upset about is the following:
1) the man changed his life and had something to give back to society
2) our governor didn't even visit him on death row to judge for himself the character of Mr. Williams
3) our governor didn't even write the denial for clemency - i'm positive one of his legal aides did it
4) the death penalty should be reserved for the Most Vicious criminals in society - Tookie is not a vicious man - he's a children's book writer
5) There was more evidence in the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake trials to suggest they committed murder than in Tookie's trial, and because they had money, they got away with it

I'm tired of unfair judgments...it's time for a revolution.

well black people after all thats happend to this case it really goes to show one simple thing black people if you are poor youre gonna die or do along time in prison we must remember that money talks and bullshit walks its just the way it is and black people another thing this case let me know to come closer to my people also because they gave us freedom they feel we dont get nothin else but alot of poor blacks dont realize that were not even free they just let us get our foot in the door a little threw us a bone and thats it black people after seeing this innocent man die it sends a message to us all and thats come togther or their will be more innocent blacks killed just like this man for no reason racism will always remain alive they didnt investagate any further because they felt they had their man and thats it its ashame those peple lost their lives for no reason but i truley dont think tookie williams was responsible for their deaths they had to get him off the streets so they locked him up and waited 24 years to kill him if he was so guilty the way they say he was then why not kill him right their and then and get it over with smells fishey to me if cops get away with murder charles mansons still alive bragging about what he did then why not kill him also our country isnt over racism and never will be wake up black people and put down youre guns and hug or hold hands with the man or woman next to you take care of the ones you dont know take care of youre own people first before you start loveing other races because nigger is just another word for guilty.