The death penalty is not racist
Sharpjfa
Inevitably, with the racial history of the USA, the effect of race in the
application of the death penalty has become a central part of the death-penalty
discourse. This is particularly true as some politicians and death penalty
opponents are making the case for a death-penalty moratorium, in part to
consider whether the death penalty is inherently racist.
All too often, however, claims of racism are spurious. In the death penalty
debate, it should be the facts, and not the hype, that are in be black and
white.
Race of the defendant
Often such discussion begins with the obvious: the race of the defendant. The
leading anti-death penalty source for information, the Death Penalty
Information Center (DPIC), reports that black murderers represent 35% of those
executed, white murderers 56%. As the argument goes, this must be evidence of
systemic racism, as blacks represent 12% of the population, whites 74%.
Fortunately, the United States does not execute people based on their
population counts but on the murders they commit. As blacks represent 50% of
murderers and whites 38%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed
for committing murder as are their black counterparts. Furthermore, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics says that whites sentenced to death are executed 12
months more quickly than blacks so sentenced. In the past, that number has
averaged as high as 17 months.
With 98% of all head prosecutors in the United States being white, according to
DPIC, how is such a result possible? Maybe prosecutors, judges and juries are
focusing on the crimes and not the race of the defendant.
Race of the victim
Not so, say death penalty opponents who claim that it is the race of the victim
in capital cases which provides clear evidence of racial bias.
While blacks and whites comprise about an equal number of murder victims, the
ratio of white-to-black victims in death-penalty cases is 6-to-1. This has
given rise to the allegation that the "system" only cares about white murder
victims. Nonsense.
Most capital murder charges require that there be secondary aggravating
circumstances necessary for most capital murder charges -- that legal
foundation was established in the Furman (1972) and Greg (1976) vs Georgia
cases and is known as guided discretion. Such circumstances include rape,
robbery, car-jacking, burglary, police murders, serial/multiple murders, etc..
When those secondary aggravating factors are combined with murders, that crime
may be subject to capital murder charges. The ration of white to black victims
within those secondary aggravating circumstances is from 4-to-1 to 8-to-1 --
numbers consistent with the victim ratios on death row.
Based on these numbers, what ratio of white to black victims in capital cases
would death penalty opponents suggest is the "correct" ratio?
Statistical confusion
Death-penalty opponents note that the Supreme Court, in the famous race-based
challenge to the death penalty, McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), found that those who
murderer whites were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those
who murder blacks, under similar circumstances. Dr. David Baldus, who did the
statistical study on McCleskey's behalf, also completed a recent study in
Philadelphia (1997) where it is was reported to show that black murderers were
four times more likely to receive a death sentence than white murderers.
With such results, how can anyone dispute the racist application of the death
penalty? Quite easily. The Supreme Court, as well as many others, confused odds
with multiples. The data reflect odds of 4-to-1, not four times more likely.
What difference does it make? In Baldus' Philadelphia study, we find that if
only 2% more white murderers had been sentenced to death and only 2.5% fewer
black murderers had been sentenced to death, then each group would have been
sentenced to death by juries at the same rate -- a far cry from the 400%
differential stated within the incorrect interpretation of "four times"!
Reality finds that it would be hard to find a statistical evaluation less
suggestive of racial bias.
Interracial crimes
The final resting place for the racism charge lies within those cases where
blacks have been executed for murdering whites and whites have been executed
for murdering blacks. There have been 144 blacks and 10 whites executed under
such circumstances, or a ratio of 14-to-1. As blacks are about 2.5 times more
likely to murder whites than the other way around, there appears to be a huge
disparity in such executions. Is racism the reason?
Let's take a look at robbery, the aggravated crime which, when combined with
murder, is the most common capital crime. We find that when there is a robbery
with injury, the ratio of black robber/white victims versus white robbers/black
victims is 21-to-1. Again, when looking at the circumstances consistent with
capital crimes, we find no evidence of racial bias.
And again, we ask, what ratio within interracial capital cases, would death
penalty opponents suggest is the "correct" ratio?
Racial disparities do not equal racism
It appears that any racial variations present within the data are reflective of
the crimes themselves and not racial bias within the system.
The determining factor for sentencing in death-penalty cases is what it should
be -- the aggravating nature of the crimes. Both the Rand Corp. study of 1991
and the research presented by Smith College professors Stanley Rothman and
Stephen Powers in 1994 confirm that finding.
A review of those studies, as well as of criminal-justice statistics, within
the context of the aggravating circumstances present within capital murders and
the related statutes, produces the same conclusion.
There will always be some variables of race, ethnicity and class within any
study of criminal-justice practices, and based on historic, as well as current
prejudices, we can never lower our guard. Because all studies are subject to
poor protocols, bias and misinterpretation, we must make reasoned judgments
based on as many respected considerations as we may have at our disposal.
And even if criminal-justice statistics did not show the obvious correlation
between crimes and the application of the death penalty, we should note what
the Supreme Court stated in McCleskey: "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."
Good advice.
NOTE: This is an amended version of an article, "Pro & Con: The Death Penalty
in Black and White ", by Dudley Sharp, published at IntellectualCapital.com,
Thursday, June 24, 1999, located at
www.speakout.com/Content/ICArticle/4010/
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
tenwheels
> Racial Issues and the Death Penalty
[...]
> Race of the defendant
>
> Often such discussion begins with the obvious: the race of the defendant. The
> leading anti-death penalty source for information, the Death Penalty
> Information Center (DPIC), reports that black murderers represent 35% of those
> executed, white murderers 56%. As the argument goes, this must be evidence of
> systemic racism, as blacks represent 12% of the population, whites 74%.
Racism is apparent in the decisions to pursue the dp, not just in the
results obtained after trial. I've yet to read a exposition which
explains the disparity satisfactorily.
> Fortunately, the United States does not execute people based on their
> population counts but on the murders they commit. As blacks represent 50% of
> murderers and whites 38%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed
> for committing murder as are their black counterparts.
Dudley presumes we've identified all murderers, but police data show
that 35% of murders are never resolved. Given access to better
resources, it can easily be posited that the 35% unresolved are such
because white murderers are suspected less often than black suspects.
Furthermore, the Bureau
> of Justice Statistics says that whites sentenced to death are executed 12
> months more quickly than blacks so sentenced. In the past, that number has
> averaged as high as 17 months.
Yep - we're killing them all faster. This helps ensure unsatisfactory
appellate review, supported by the failure to provide funding for
capital appeals. Nice.
> With 98% of all head prosecutors in the United States being white, according to
> DPIC, how is such a result possible? Maybe prosecutors, judges and juries are
> focusing on the crimes and not the race of the defendant.
It isn't how fast we kill them, it's whether or not we choose to kill
them in the first place. And the data show clearly that blacks are
selected for capital prosecution at rates far above that for whites.
It isn't coincidence that 98% of "head prosecutors" are white. I
doubt their racism is especially blatant, but covert, unacknowledged
racism is just as deadly.
> Race of the victim
>
> Not so, say death penalty opponents who claim that it is the race of the victim
> in capital cases which provides clear evidence of racial bias.
>
> While blacks and whites comprise about an equal number of murder victims, the
> ratio of white-to-black victims in death-penalty cases is 6-to-1. This has
> given rise to the allegation that the "system" only cares about white murder
> victims. Nonsense.
Just saying it's nonsense is meaningless. Dudley isn't an authority,
he's a mouthpiece.
> Most capital murder charges require that there be secondary aggravating
> circumstances necessary for most capital murder charges -- that legal
> foundation was established in the Furman (1972) and Greg (1976) vs Georgia
> cases and is known as guided discretion. Such circumstances include rape,
> robbery, car-jacking, burglary, police murders, serial/multiple murders, etc..
> When those secondary aggravating factors are combined with murders, that crime
> may be subject to capital murder charges. The ration of white to black victims
> within those secondary aggravating circumstances is from 4-to-1 to 8-to-1 --
> numbers consistent with the victim ratios on death row.
What does this mean?
> Based on these numbers, what ratio of white to black victims in capital cases
> would death penalty opponents suggest is the "correct" ratio?
The ratio isn't important. What is important is that the decision
whether or not to pursue a case as capital be made on objectively
verifiable factors, not on the basis of how horrified the prosecutor
is today. How the selection for capital prosecution is made is not
discussed except to note that there was no racism or other immaterial
factors. Methinks they protest when no one has castigated them - an
obvious indication of suspect decisions.
> Statistical confusion
>
> Death-penalty opponents note that the Supreme Court, in the famous race-based
> challenge to the death penalty, McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), found that those who
> murderer whites were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those
> who murder blacks, under similar circumstances. Dr. David Baldus, who did the
> statistical study on McCleskey's behalf, also completed a recent study in
> Philadelphia (1997) where it is was reported to show that black murderers were
> four times more likely to receive a death sentence than white murderers.
>
> With such results, how can anyone dispute the racist application of the death
> penalty? Quite easily. The Supreme Court, as well as many others, confused odds
> with multiples. The data reflect odds of 4-to-1, not four times more likely.
>
> What difference does it make? In Baldus' Philadelphia study, we find that if
> only 2% more white murderers had been sentenced to death and only 2.5% fewer
> black murderers had been sentenced to death, then each group would have been
> sentenced to death by juries at the same rate -- a far cry from the 400%
> differential stated within the incorrect interpretation of "four times"!
> Reality finds that it would be hard to find a statistical evaluation less
> suggestive of racial bias.
Reality finds that Dudley and his ilk play upon the general public's
ignorance of statistics to make their case. In any event, Dudley must
manipulate the data to reach his conclusion. If, if, if - well, if
doesn't get it, Dud. The facts remain that the likelihood of
conviction for blacks is far higher than for whites. Maybe you'd
support providing competent lawyers. That would mean you are changing
your position, but hey, living up to your words is something ya'll
brag about, so just do it.
> Interracial crimes
>
> The final resting place for the racism charge lies within those cases where
> blacks have been executed for murdering whites and whites have been executed
> for murdering blacks. There have been 144 blacks and 10 whites executed under
> such circumstances, or a ratio of 14-to-1. As blacks are about 2.5 times more
> likely to murder whites than the other way around, there appears to be a huge
> disparity in such executions. Is racism the reason?
>
> Let's take a look at robbery, the aggravated crime which, when combined with
> murder, is the most common capital crime. We find that when there is a robbery
> with injury, the ratio of black robber/white victims versus white robbers/black
> victims is 21-to-1. Again, when looking at the circumstances consistent with
> capital crimes, we find no evidence of racial bias.
>
> And again, we ask, what ratio within interracial capital cases, would death
> penalty opponents suggest is the "correct" ratio?
>
> Racial disparities do not equal racism
You just excuse them. That speaks volume about Dudley's own
perspective. What can we expect from a guy who writes "blacks are
about 2.5 times more likely to murder whites"?
> It appears that any racial variations present within the data are reflective of
> the crimes themselves and not racial bias within the system.
It only appears that way to dp deniers, who've taken a page from the
Holocaust deniers.
> The determining factor for sentencing in death-penalty cases is what it should
> be -- the aggravating nature of the crimes. Both the Rand Corp. study of 1991
> and the research presented by Smith College professors Stanley Rothman and
> Stephen Powers in 1994 confirm that finding.
The determining factor is the decision to pursue a capital
prosecution. Why isn't that decision reviewable?
> A review of those studies, as well as of criminal-justice statistics, within
> the context of the aggravating circumstances present within capital murders and
> the related statutes, produces the same conclusion.
>
> There will always be some variables of race, ethnicity and class within any
> study of criminal-justice practices, and based on historic, as well as current
> prejudices, we can never lower our guard. Because all studies are subject to
> poor protocols, bias and misinterpretation, we must make reasoned judgments
> based on as many respected considerations as we may have at our disposal.
>
> And even if criminal-justice statistics did not show the obvious correlation
> between crimes and the application of the death penalty, we should note what
> the Supreme Court stated in McCleskey: "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."
But we don't even address the fundamental issues which drive dp
convictions. By the time the courts review the results, such
decisions have taken hold but receded into memory. Very conveniently
for those prosecutors, except when, like John Kitchens, they are
exposed. Kitchens attempted to prosecute a juvenile for a capital
crime in which the admitted triggerman offered to testify in exchange
for a lighter sentence. The judge found this behavior too egregious
to tolerate.
> Good advice.
>
> NOTE: This is an amended version of an article, "Pro & Con: The Death Penalty
> in Black and White ", by Dudley Sharp
As usual, Dudley adds little to the discussion, merely repetitively
posting his own drivel.
David Smith
be to this. I don't believe there are any.
shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote in message news:<20010613082830...@ng-mb1.aol.com>...
> [long message snipped]
John Rennie
"David Smith" <david....@farmersinsurance.com> wrote in message
news:98bf16f9.01061...@posting.google.com...
> I will be interested in seeing what, if any, rebuttals there will
> be to this. I don't believe there are any.
What's the point of rebuttals? Sharpe never responds to them.
tenwheels
The only real point of rebutting Dudley's trash is that his
misstatements later find their way into other posts and reinforces
misconceptions.
Dudley used to interact with posters until he found he couldn't hold
his own on the facts. It's a common tactic he uses - to state his
opinion authoritatively to try to cover up his mangling of data. (You
might want to ask him if he's learned the difference between the mean
and the median.)