Brendan Byrne Gubernatorial Election presser, Debate on Death Penalty -League of Women Voters ; Byrne Election 1977, Gibbons on Death Penalty

Milk. Will.

People.

Process. And I'd love to see it. I think actually a lot of parents would sign on for that.

I would. It's OK with me. I have a 15 year old daughter against students rights. Against people's rights. I think as long as it's held not intrusive to bring. The child where it's not a. Scarlet Letter. I think it's a good thing. The federation is that new rule is at all likely to respond to any supposed to be terror and the fact. That the availability of the death penalty might get. Note however that in general rather than specific to Terence as a pin a logical ject it would be as well sure. Why the execution of both mentally retarded and juvenile

offenders. Indeed the execution of persons who were actually innocent. Of the offenses of which you were charged would also serve any general Peter be a logical object. It is the example of the execution that is supposed to deter at least the fully competent from homicide. Still I think it would take a rather bold utilitarian to argue that we should not worry too much about executing retarded these juveniles are they actually innocent because I say you should serve us higher social purpose. And certainly Professor Blecker clearly is not such a utilitarian as he made perfectly plain. What Professor Blecker focuses on his what he calls retribution and what I

call vengeance against criminals who as he puts it are the worst of the worst so bad that they do not deserve to live. Let me suggest that he is focusing on the wrong question. No one. In death row. No one in prison and no one in this room deserves the gift of life. In the sense that we have it because of our own moral worth. Life is a priceless gift of God that none of us has earned. Some of us make better use of that gift than do others but we do not thereby earn the right to life. Nor does the state confer that right. The question is not who deserves to live but

rather when can the state. Acting on behalf of you and me terminate God's gift to another person. The answer to that question can I suggest be that the state can do so in order to fulfill the atavistic desires of some among us for what is in fact vengeance. It cannot be it. I should say it can only be that the state can take a life when doing so is necessary to protect other lives from harm. With life without parole as a safe alternative to AC. There is no such necessity. I find most of the thought that my state would take a life on my behalf. For the sake of vengeance rather than for the protection

of our lives. I refer to this desire of atavistic and I think that's a perfectly accurate term in this context. Remember that Henry the Fifth after his great victory that. Howdy. Are having. Right. Took him. Back to. France. Women and women and children in slavery our ancestors thought that was appropriate vengeance against the French for not recognizing his right to the. Sovereignty over Normandy. I don't suppose any of us would argue that we should in vengeance. Take women and children descendants of Al-Queda terrorists as slaves. This reference

back to the ancestors of fire. For. Vengeance. Is. The exact kind of history. Nevertheless. Ranjoor acknowledged that in New Jersey retribution will be recognized as a valid appealing logical goal. But neither the Joseph majority opinion nor justice for dissent addresses the point lead in the weakest curiae brief case. Assuming that retribution is a legitimate people logical purpose. Can it be exercised by the state in an entirely arbitrary and standard English manner. Consider

that between 1984 and 1998 nationally there was an average of two hundred eighty seven admissions to death row each year where the average number of homicides each year was about twenty one thousand. Thus the retribution of the death penalty is imposed in only about three tenths of one percent of us. There are no national standards for the identification of the less than 1 percent of a murderer is worthy of the retribution of execution. The picture in New Jersey is similar. The administrative office of the courts identifies statutory death eligible defendants. This is the restoration of the death penalty. There had been four hundred fifty five such cases. Only 52 cases resulted in the death penalty and there are only

fourteen persons in the Trenton State Death Row. Less than 3 percent of the statutory eligible defendants. That is 3 percent of statutory death eligible. Not 3 percent. Thousands of homicides that have occurred since restauration death but. Consider that both nationally and in New Jersey there is far more death penalty retribution for the murder of white people and for the murder of. Black people. Consider that the retribution of the death penalty is imposed far more frequently on black defendants than on what defenders. Consider the retribution of the death penalty is imposed far more frequently for defendants that are well off defendants. There is a consistent correlation between

successful defense of a capital case and experience of the trial lawyer and you can bet who can afford the experienced trial lawyer. Consider that the retribution of the death penalty is imposed far more frequently in some states and in others and that in New Jersey is imposed far more frequently in some counties that in other selection among persons who commit homicide for the retribution of execution. By a life or by designating it temporarily. Congress defended for execution would be at least as legitimate as the present arbitrary system of exacting retribution. Fifteen years ago the Ranstorp

were called the Supreme Court decision in Great Britain Georgia or cited that decision for the legitimacy of retribution as a valid appeal logical purpose and with no for. Discussion. State. Then you Jersey had executed anybody in this century. I hope you know. Thank you. Rose much to reply to but I would like to take to the central state and suspend the rebut them because they are regrettable. First is this emphasis on to tell us the actions of General Charles by the latest specific the terrorists being misused Pacific deterrence is the fact that punishment has a future here. It was because of the drugs really in the presentation and that held these the great incapacitated.

Let's focus on general terms it's it's a astounding to hear this statement that the proposition of the death penalty is in. The general deterrent effect is implausible. That's consistent judge Gibbs has made a statement that there is no evidence or no significant evidence of a general deterrable factor that melted first what overstates it makes is his life too difficult the abolitionist does not have to show that there is no general time effect the abolitionist merely has to show that there is no greater general time effect than life without parole. Of course the death penalty deters but so is life. So the issue really is does the death penalty have any greater deterrent effect than the threat of imprisonment for life. And here the answer is most certainly yes. Not most certainly no. Which is what you heard first of all the logic of the times is irrefutable the threat of death and only the first threat of death will prevent most people from doing things that nothing else will. Secondly as has been observed 50 years ago by the British commission the world commission which was itself I was just commission is that we can quote We can number its failures but we can NEVER number it successes as we never know how many

people were actually deterred who who didn't who would have otherwise committed murder. But more than that to hear that there is no significant evidence is to just afford the general term effect. The death penalty is simply to fly in the face of the last six years that is the goal. Studies that are not decided either by Judge Givens or the United States Supreme Court and its and its footnote. In 2001 the Emory study and from the economics department which analyzed all death penalties from 1977 to 1996 concluded quote each execution result on average an 83 were murders plus or minus 10. This is a very sophisticated study. 2001 University of Colorado Denver economics department. Each additional execution reduces homicides by five to six they analyzed the entire sixty one hundred forty three good census between 1970 79 city 2001 University of Houston moratoriums contribute to more homicides 2001 SUNY Buffalo. Capital punishment adds to the term impact of other punishment. 2003 Clinton.

Each execution is also an average of five fewer murders. It deters all kinds of murders including crimes of passion and and incidents. And finally the most recent one 2003 we kind of pulls a ribbon for the FCC. Quote each state execution deters an average of 14 murders per year. These studies have not been refuted but they are very sophisticated. They are six out of the last six. In some logically psychologically anecdotally which I can go through in the question answered from talking for 12 years with murders and statistically the death penalty is by and large the most effective deterrent for murder. That's number one. Number two to judge Givens talks about the racially disparate disparate effect that black defendants are more likely to get the death penalty than white defendants and that the killers of black victims are less likely to get into the clothes of white victims. That is directly contradicted in both New Jersey and the last 14 studies to come out in New Jersey the special master judge being at the behest of the new Supreme Court made the study and issued the report and I quote from that report from last year

we found no statistically reliable evidence supporting the thesis that race or ethnicity of defendant affects whether or not his her case advances the penalty phase and whether the death sentence is returned. We the ethnicity and race of the victim had no impact on whether the defendant was sentenced to death for you. Again more than reported no statistically reliable evidence that the race of the victim affects whether or not the death penalty is imposed. The only race is a victim effect there was no race of defendant affect the only recent victim effect that showed up was whether the death that whether the woman was whether the whether it fancies to the death penalty phase and in that case to explain why it is more likely that white victims will result in death penalty prosecutions. The report concluded that if you take into account. The fact that that county by county difference will discuss this. The question to answer then that period then the whole finding of the race of victim effect this quarter eradicated when the county variability is taken into account. The short of the matter is that

this is simply a false statement. There is no race of defending a fact that has been shown anywhere in the United States except for one small part of one phase in 1907 Philadelphia study as a whole this insult concludes. And there is no race to victim effect shown in New Jersey. Once one takes into account prosecutorial and county variability. Which. Which behavioral science scientists. Are. Correct in the study. Something I think the police might well answer. Time and place a study. Of a study for example. In New Jersey explains away some very disturbing. Figures about.

Race on the basis of county variability. What is county variability any less. NJ actionable as a basis for imposing retribution. Than race. Why is that less arbitrary. And one of the things I didn't mention in my. Earlier remarks. Is. The. Total of the reliability I can see but strong unreliability of the process of determining who should be executed. Today we know that over a hundred twelve deaths in mates awaiting execution have been found to be actually innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted. No one has been released from death row in New Jersey. On that basis

but a number of people in New Jersey who were convicted of. Very serious crimes during the period when the we had were later found to be actually innocent. So it's quite clear that there's a significant risk. That unless the New Jersey method of selecting people prosecute. Death. Cases true we will inevitably execute people who are actually innocent. What we didn't know a number of years ago because there had been no sign no in-depth study of the way the death penalty system was actually working for it. Was how

effective it is in operation. But under the leadership of Jane Leeves Minot Columbia University study of all appeals in death penalty cases over a period of 20 years since the restoration establishes that the reversal rate in death penalty cases is a staggering 68 percent compared to the normal reversal rate in criminal cases or something less than 15 percent. The reversal rate which is so much higher than the ordinary criminal process is just that some very bad things are happening during the investigation. The charges in the trial fact faces murder cases. Now it might be years that this highly personal rape is an assurance that actually innocent persons are not to be convicted.

But plainly it's not because we have the irrefutable evidence that one hundred twelve innocent persons have actually been released from death row long after their appellate process is in their cases was completed. Recently Georgetown University Constitution provides Penalty Initiative and title mandatory justice 18 reforms for the death written by a group who are both. Death penalty proponents and Death penalty opponents proposed 18 stands. For. The death penalty that would assure that innocent persons were not wrongfully charged executed that would assure that even among the guilty only those persons truly worthy of execution should be

executed. That would assure that the defendants in all capital cases receive adequate representation and trial. And that would assure that constitutionally mandated substantive and procedural safeguards were followed in the trial. Of the case. In fairness it can be said that New Jersey compared to the rest of the country stacks up fairly decently but not completely and with respect to the 85 recommendations issue.