Friday, March 11, 2005

Death Penalty Archive

Texas Death Penalty Survey

Online Resources

Abolish List FAQ
Archives of Abolish - The Mailing List For People Working to Abolish the Death PenaltyAbolish List FAQ
Amnesty International - The Death Penalty
The Liebman Report: "A Broken System:Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995"
Paul G. Cassell - Drafts of Working Papers and Articles
Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty
Not to be confused with Campaign to End the Death Penalty.
Campaign to End the Death Penalty
Not to be confused with Campaign to Abolish the Death Penalty.
Capital Punishment and the Catholic Church
Clark County Prosecutor
Constitution Project
Critique of DPIC list
Death Penalty
Salon Magazine’s index of Death Penalty articles.
Death Penalty Debate
Death Penalty Issues
Deterrence and the Death Penalty:The Views of the Experts
Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers
Federal Death Penalty Biased Against Whites
Focus on the Death Penalty
The Justice Project
Looking at the Death Penalty
Professor David’s death penalty resources.
Religion and the Death Penalty
Southern Center for Human Rights
Stephen Bright’s defendant advocacy organization.
Spotlight on the Death Penalty
A libertarian anti-Death Penalty site.
Wesley Lowe's Pro Death Penalty Webpage
What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty
Richard C. Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center on the Death Penalty’s impact on public finance.
Yahoo! Full Coverage US Death Penalty

Debate Chronology /Meta-Narrative


The Second Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debate
SHAW: On behalf of the Commission on Presidential Debates, I am pleased to welcome you to the second presidential debate. I am Bernard Shaw of CNN, Cable News Network. My colleagues on the panel are Ann Compton of ABC NEWS; Margaret Warner of Newsweek magazine; and Andrea Mitchell of NBC NEWS. The candidates are Vice President George Bush, the Republican nominee; and Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. (Applause)

SHAW: For the next 90 minutes we will be questioning the candidates following a format designed and agreed to by representatives of the two campaigns. However, there are no restrictions on the questions that my colleagues and I can ask this evening, and the candidates have no prior knowledge of our questions. By agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to Gov. Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond. Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?

DUKAKIS: No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state. And it's one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America; why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. But we have work to do in this nation. We have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war, against drugs. And that's something I want to lead, something we haven't had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been at least allegedly in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war. But we also have to deal with drug education prevention here at home. And that's one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the President of the United States. We've had great success in my own state. And we've reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades. So we can fight this war, and we can win this war. And we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that support, and do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche of drugs that's pouring into the country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.

SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your one-minute rebuttal.

BUSH: Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me Bernie, goes to the question of values. And here I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent. You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous, so brutal, so outrageous, and I'd say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer, for those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty, and I think it is a deterrent, and I believe we need it. And I'm glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill and have finally called for that related to these narcotics drug kingpins. And so we just have an honest difference of opinion: I support it and he doesn't.

Danger of Executing the Innocent On the Rise
David Revola writes in the National Law Journal.
Dudley Sharp of
New Fervor For Death Penalty
Christian Science Monitor coverage of Death Penalty resurgence.


What do Murderers Deserve?
David Gelernter in Commentary.


Death by misadventure: the death penalty in America
Kristen Edwards on the Death Penalty.
Dartmouth Chance News: Liebman v. Cassell
Paul Cassell and the Goblet of Fire
Edward Cohn profiles death penalty advocate Paul Cassell in The American Prospect.


The New Abolitionism
Roger Parloff on the death penalty.


A Cognitive Scientist Looks At Daubert
George Lakoff:

Politically, trial lawyers tend to be liberals; the wealthy ones tend to use their wealth to support liberal causes. Since the highest moral imperative for conservatives is to support and defend Strict Father morality itself, trial lawyers doing tort law are anathema to conservatives on the following grounds: the cases that trial lawyers win tend to support a liberal world view, the Public Interest Perspective, while conservatives tend to hold the Corporate Interest Perspective; and trial lawyers contribute money that they earn through verdicts they win to liberal causes and to the defeat of conservative causes. Daubert thus has a direct political role: it supports a conservative worldview over a liberal one, and it takes a lot of money out of liberal coffers and keeps it in conservative coffers.

Technically, Daubert ought to apply beyond tort law to scientific and other experts in criminal cases. If it did, defendants in criminal cases (some facing the death penalty) could challenge the use of expert testimony (e.g., fingerprinting "experts") by the prosecution. If Daubert could be used in this way, it would work against application of the death penalty. But the vast majority of criminal cases are not federal cases, which is where Daubert applies. The actual effect once more is to spread the influence of Strict Father morality in society. Daubert, as applied, tends to protect the wealth and influence of corporations, to lessen the protection of ordinary citizens, and to forbid an important range of challenges to the death penalty.
Roper v Simmons[PDF]
Supreme Court decision banning capital punishment for juveniles.
Decision on Juvenile Death Penalty
Suite101 article.

No comments: