Reuters turns a prolife word on its head.
The Reuters story referenced in my last post contained a wild misuse of a common word. Here's the citation:
While the prolific death chamber in the city of Huntsville, where 19 inmates have already been executed by lethal injection in 2007, makes Texas stand out, the state is also starting to follow national trends toward fewer death sentences.
"Prolific death chamber"? "Prolfiic" comes from a Latin word meaning "fruitful," which in turn is based on the Latin word for "offspring." The American Heritage Dictionary offers two definitions for the word:
1. Producing offspring or fruit in great abundance; fertile.
2. Producing abundant works or results: a prolific artist.
The Reuters writer has stood a pro-life word on its head, exchanging the idea of fruitfulness and fertility for sheer efficiency. Christian media critics have often criticized Reuters for uninformed handling of the religion factor in their reporting. But whatever they know or don't know about religion, Reuters editors should know their dictionaries.
Posted by David Neff on August 13, 2007 10:01AM
Comments
What Reuters also failed to do was explain whi there are fewer death sentences
Why the reduction in death sentences?
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
The evidence supports that the reduction is caused by:
--- the dramatic reduction in murders/capital murders
--- prosecutorial frustration
----SCOTUS decisions
1. Murders are down nearly 40%. While death sentences are down around 60%, from their all time high, There very well may have been around a 60% reduction in capital murders, since the all time high of death sentences. I have heard from a number of prosecutors that they have seen a dramatic reduction in the type of crimes that they would consider death eligible.
That is supported by Rosenthal's claim that the facts of the cases determine death penalty prosecutions.
This is the obvious reason for the large reduction in death sentences.
Career criminals, including career juvenile criminals, are being incarcerated much longer, and earlier, thereby curtailing their activities, including committing capital murders.
All categories of crime have been reduced. Because capital murders are a special type of crime, primarily murders accompanied by secondary crimes, such as robbery and rape, it is even more likely that capital murders have been reduced even more than murders.
2. a) SCOTUS decisions. Ring required a re writing of statutes in many death penalty states, causing a substantial reduction. the Atkins and Simmons decisions, exempting the mentally retarded and those under 18 when they committed the murder, respectively, have both had a reduction effect, as well.
This is an additional factual reason for a reduction in death sentences.
NOTE: There can be anywhere from a 1-3 year lag time between the murders and the death sentences given. Because of various SCOTUS cases.
b) Executions go up and down, a bit every year. Executions are dependent on court rulings, some of which effect more cases than others, such as those in 2a, as well as the national challenges to lethal injection, which have been quite active for some time, now.
3. Many prosecutors now know that appellate judges in their jurisdictions won't allow executions. Some of those prosecutors have become much more reluctant to seek death. I would call that realistic frustration with agenda driven judges -- such as Federal Judge Rakoff -- - not prosecutors deciding to be more selective on their own.
This, likely, has caused some small reduction in death sentences sought.
Of course, most prosecutors have always been very selective in pursuing death penalty cases.
Some false or speculative reasons for the reduction in death sentences.
-- Anti death penalty folks state that all those "innocents freed" from death row have caused prosecutors to be more wary in pursuing the death penalty. This is a false claim.
To the contrary, virtually all death penalty prosecutors now know that 70-83% of those anti death penalty "innocence" claims are false and that prosecutors are 99.7% accurate in convicting the actually guilty in death penalty cases and that the 0.3% actually innocent are released because of post conviction review.
That will give prosecutors more confidence in prosecuting these cases, not less.
-- Some prosecutors believe the "CSI effect" is responsible for a reduction in death sentences, because jurors are now demanding more scientific support for death sentences.
There is no evidence for this, that I know of.
-- Some speculate that the crime lab disasters have caused jurors to be more distrustful of lab results and prosecutors and that may explain some of the reduction. I can't say that hasn't happened, but I can't find evidentiary support for it either.
During this period of alleged distrust, a May, 2005 Gallup polling shows an increase in support for the death penalty -- to 74% -- and a majority believe that we don't impose the death penalty often enough. This 74% support is within the margin of error of the all time high for support.
An October 2005 Gallup poll showed 64% support - a 10% drop - even though there had been no major death penalty news to warrant the drop. A January 2005 poll found 81% of Connecticut citizens supported the execution of serial rapist murderer Michael Ross.
Historically, I am told, jurors give less than death in 2/3rds of death penalty trials. Is there any evidence that jurors are now even less likely to find for a death sentence? Not that I know of.
What of the reduction in executions? It is 1) the normal ebb and flow of cases, plus 2) SCOTUS cases, plus 3) crime lab problems 4) the lethal injection challenges.
Blind speculation is unnecessary. There are logical, factual reasons for the reduction in death sentences.
copyright 2004-2007
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
Posted by: dudley sharp at August 14, 2007
jygdqoev cxbkmwl gmsjlh yfudovprh ksrefo kdgln lxko
Posted by: cplmwkzdy pjnsyamh at December 4, 2007
riwzkpn vkfar akws qbdntwp ymdlct clbxshkvj dvqx [URL=http://www.yfqb.cbiw.com]jtzdxy omhfs[/URL]
Posted by: tkezsh aulpqgic at December 4, 2007
Post a comment