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

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.

Table 3A shows that even after case factors and jurisdictional differences are taken into account, those who kill whites
are still significantly more likely to have the state’s attorney file a notification to seek the death penalty. Table 3B reveals that the decision not to withdraw a death notification is also related to the race of the victim. After considering jurisdiction and case characteristics, state’s attorneys are significantly less likely to withdraw a death notification if a white victim is killed compared with a non-white victim.

pg. 27

The adjusted probability that a state’s attorney will seek a death notification when a white is killed is .266 and .169 when a black is killed. This means that the probability of a death notification in a white victim cases is 1.6 times higher than that for a black victim homicide, even after considering relevant case characteristics and the jurisdiction where the homicide occurred. The probability of a death notification “sticking” is 1.5 times higher in white victim than black victim cases again after taking into account case factors and jurisdiction.

pg. 28

And here’s what immediately precedes the sentence you quote from pg. 29:

In sum, we find a significant effect for the race of the victim in the way the prosecutor initially handles death eligible homicides. State’s attorneys in Maryland are more likely to file a notification to seek a death sentence and more likely to retain that notification when the race of the victim is white rather than black. Furthermore, this race of victim effect is not explained by case characteristics of white and non-white victims or by the jurisdiction where the homicide occurred. This initial disparity is not corrected at later stages of the capital sentencing process.

And finally, from pg. 30:

The probability that the state’s attorney will file a notification to seek the death penalty is highest in cases where a black offender kills a white victim (.355), and is twice as high as when a black slays another black (.174) or other racial combinations (.166), and 1.7 times higher than when a white kills a white. Even when case characteristics and jurisdiction are controlled, blacks who cross racial lines and kill whites are more likely to be death notified.

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.