I seem to have a knack for these things. I post about something and the next day there’s some news on that subject (or it could just be coincidence – take your pick). After yesterday’s post on the death penalty, I was but a little surprised to see two interesting news items today. The first is this very thorough and deeply interesting report [pdf] from the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment. A legislatively created body, the Commission was charged in 2008, with evaluating the racial, socio-economic, geographic and other influences on the death penalty and to make a recommendation as to its continued viability.
In a 13-9 vote, the Commission today recommended abolition of the death penalty in Maryland. In preparing this report:
The Commission held five public hearings where testimony from experts and members of the public was presented. The Commission also held five additional meetings where the testimony and evidence presented to the Commission was discussed and later voted upon. The Commission has made a recommendation concerning the application and administration of capital punishment in the State so that they are free from bias and error and achieve fairness and accuracy.
So, let’s cut to the chase. The findings of the Commission are these:
- Racial disparities exist in Maryland’s capital sentencing system.
- Jurisdictional disparities exist in Maryland’s capital sentencing system.
- Due to a lack of research on socio-economic disparities in Maryland, the Commission does not reach a conclusion on this matter.
- The costs associated with cases in which a death sentence is sought are substantially higher than the costs associated with cases in which a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is sought.
- While both life without the possibility of parole and death penalty cases are extremely hard on families of victims, the Commission finds that the effects of capital cases are more detrimental to families than are life without the possibility of parole cases. The Commission recommends an increase of the services and resources already provided to families of victims as recommended by the Victims’ Subcommittee.
- Despite the advance of forensic sciences, particularly DNA testing, the risk of execution of an innocent person is a real possibility.
- While DNA testing has become a widely accepted method for determining guilt or innocence, it does not eliminate the risk of sentencing innocent persons to death since, in many cases, DNA evidence is not available and, even when it is available, is subject to contamination or error at the scene of the offense or in the laboratory.
- The Commission finds that there is no persuasive evidence that the death penalty deters homicides in Maryland.
- Ultimate Recommendation: The Commission recommends abolition of capital punishment in the state of Maryland.
Oddly, a lot of the individual findings were heavily supported, yet the overall recommendation was passed by a vote of only 13-9. For example, the “closest” vote was 16-5 in favor of the finding #7. The deterrence finding was supported 17-4. That goes to show that, for some, there is an inherent bias in favor of the death penalty and an inherent support of the death penalty in face of the many obvious problems associated with it.
Whether the legislature adopts this report and its conclusions remains to be seen. Undoubtedly, though, this is a big win for abolitionists. The momentum’s a-comin’.
NO BIAS IN DEATH SENTENCING: U of Maryland’s Death Penalty Study (1)
The following are direct quotes from the Executive Summary of the U of Maryland study.
Race of the victim
p 27
In other words, the victim’s race has no impact on seeking or giving death sentences.
page 29
In other words, the victim’s race has no impact on seeking or giving death sentences
page 35
In fact, the study fails to demonstrate that there is any race of the victim effect in death sentencing in Maryland.
page 32
In other words, when you look at the capital murder cases, from each, separate jurisdiction, individually, any alleged race of the victim effect cannot be found.
p 34
In other words, it is important to look at how each jurisdiction handles their capital cases, because each jurisdiction is different. And when that is done, no bias in death sentencing is found.
Race of victim and defendant
page 30
In other words, neither the race of the defendant nor the race of the victim have an impact on seeking or giving death sentences.
Race of the defendant
” . . . there is no evidence that the race of the defendant matters at any stage once case characteristics are controlled for.” page 26
” . . . we found no evidence that the race of the defendant matters in processing of capital cases in the state.” p 26
In other words, Maryland is not looking at race, but is concentrating on the nature of the murders.
[Ed. Note: Edited to make it more readable]
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF MARYLAND’S DEATH
SENTENCING SYSTEM WITH RESPECT TO THE
INFLUENCE OF RACE AND LEGAL JURISDICTION
In other words, Dudley Sharp is cherry picking quotes from a document published in 2003 that doesn’t actually support his contentions.
Pwned.
From that same 2003 study’s executive summary:
pg. 27
pg. 28
And here’s what immediately precedes the sentence you quote from pg. 29:
And finally, from pg. 30:
Dudley, this is your first, last and only warning. You do this again and I will have to ban you. I don’t mind comments from people who hold opposing viewpoints, but don’t pollute the thread with your intentionally misleading information.
Gideon,
I was not misleading at all.
All of my quotes, as you well know, dealt with stages past the ones you are quoting. That was obvious, in reviewing both my posts and yours.
All anyone has to do, is do what you and I did, which was read the executive summary, to see that such is true.
But, instead of making those obvious and important distinctions, you threaten to ban me.
now you’re leading me to question your reading comprehension. C’mon man, anyone who read the executive summary (from which I quoted) can see as plain as day that it does not support your tortured reading of it. Your quotes were completely out of context.
and the “In other words” summations were deceptive.
No, Gideon, they were in the specific context of later stages, where no bias was found.
That shouldn’t be surprising.to anyone,
Study 1: Drs. Stephen Klein and John Rolph
“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 . . . “.
“Relationship of Offender and Victim Race to Death Penalty Sentences in California”(Jurimetrics Journal, 32, Fall 1991, aka The Rand Corporation Study)
Study 2: Smith College Professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers 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.
“Execution by Quota?”, The Public Interest, Summer 1994
Study 4: No Racial Bias in the New Jersey Death Penalty System
New Jersey
For release: February 11, 2003
For further information contact
Winnie Comfort, AOC
(609) 292-9580
Report on Proportionality Released
Trenton, N.J.
The 2002 report essentially mirrors the findings contained in the 2001 report, and may be summarized as follows:
–There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that the race of the defendant affects which cases advance to penalty trial. Although bivariate analysis reveals that a greater proportion of death-eligible white defendants than African-American defendants advance to the penalty phase, that finding is not supported by regression studies and application of case-sorting techniques. There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that the race of the defendant affects which cases result in imposition of the death penalty. Again, although bivariate analysis reveals that a greater proportion of death-eligible white defendants are sentenced to death than African-American defendants, that finding is not supported by regression studies and application of case-sorting techniques.
–There is statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than African-American victim cases to advance to penalty trial, but that finding is eradicated when county variability is taken into account. A disproportionate number of minority victim cases are tried in counties with the lowest overall rates of progression to penalty trial, while less urban counties with a high concentration of white victim cases have higher rates of capital prosecutions. Although Judge Baime notes that county variability may itself be a problem, he offers no opinion on the subject because that issue is well beyond the contours of his report.
–There is no sustained, statistically significant evidence that white victim cases are more likely than minority victim cases to result in imposition of the death penalty
The New Jersey Supreme Court has accepted the 2002 annual report prepared by Judge David S. Baime, a retired Appellate Division judge, on the monitoring of proportionality review in capital punishment cases in New Jersey. The Supreme Court adopted a monitoring system in 2000 to determine whether racial discrimination played a role in the administration of New Jersey’s capital cases.
In his capacity as a “special master,” a role that requires extrajudicial expertise and work with court-appointed experts, Judge Baime prepared the “Report to the New Jersey Supreme Court: Systemic Proportionality Review Project 2001-2002 Term.” .
Judge Baime was assisted by statistical analysts David Weisburd, a professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The University of Maryland, College Park, and Joseph Naus, a professor at Rutgers University. In an effort to provide the most accurate analysis possible, the monitoring system approved by the Court consists of three different statistical strategies: bivariate analyses, regression studies and case-sorting techniques. In order to establish systemic disproportionality, a defendant must relentlessly document the risk of racial disparity. This requires that the outcomes produced by the three modes of analysis substantially converge, or lead to the conclusion that racial discrimination plays a part in capital sentencing.
The three modes of analysis were applied to three separate decision points: death outcomes at penalty trials, death outcomes among all death-eligible cases, as determined by Judge Baime and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and advancement of death-eligible cases to penalty trials. Three identifiable groups–African-Americans, whites and Hispanics–were examined, and possible disparities in terms of the race or ethnicity of the defendant and the race or ethnicity of the victim were considered.
Study 6: Death Penalty Opponents Distortions are the Real Story
“To properly protect the people in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions like it, we must restore public confidence in and support of capital punishment, so that prosecutors can seek it in appropriate cases, and jurors will impose it. The first step toward that end is to debunk the myth that capital punishment is imposed discriminatorily. The numbers are there, in the opponents’s own studies, once we cut through the spin and look at the facts.”
Smoke and Mirrors on Race and the Death Penalty, Kent Scheidegger, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Engage Magazine, Volume 4, Issue 2, 10/2003 www(DOT)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/EngageArticle.pdf
Fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me twice, shame on me
Perhaps as an experiment you could do a post on
Avocados and see if they show up in the news the day?
Yeah, I’ve noticed your posting on something tends to generate news stories about it. Please never, ever post on the possibility of a Lucifer’s Hammer event; I’d be interested on what you have to say on the subject, but not interested enough to risk having all life on the planet end as a consequence.
Pingback: Blawg Review #190 - Bill of Rights Day « The Legal Satyricon
I can’t believe someone pwned Dudley before I could. Seriously, Gideon, the self-related (other than me) shouldn’t be permitted to post.
Pingback: Beyond a reasonable doubt…