According to CSPAN.org, "The Whip is a Senator elected by his/her party to count potential votes and promote unity in voting."
So what did the good Senator do on December 7, just a single day later?
He missed the cloture motion on HR6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.
Thanks go out to Senator Kyl for serving that one up. :)
...The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) joined the senior staff of the state's three universities (including ASU President Michael Crow) in saying 'up yours' to the students of the state when it approved a sharp tuition increase (7% - 14%, depending on which school and other factors) this week.
Umm, from article 11, section 6 of the Arizona State Constitution (emphasis mine) -
The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.
The tuition hike comes in the same year that Crow was given a 5-year contract extension at $720K per year (a 25% raise) plus hundreds of thousands in bonuses. [ASU State Press story here]
It looks an awful lot like ABOR wants the students of Arizona to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility. When the universities come around with their hands out, the legislature can always decline to budget more for public higher education; students and their families don't have that option.
How about this - freeze the pay of all university presidents and any employees earning over a set amount (say $100K) and eliminate all bonuses for such employees, all for a period of 5 years.
The 5 year period matches up nicely with Crow's contract, doesn't it?
After that, tie pay raises and bonuses for university management and senior staff to increases in state funding, with total of the raises not to exceed the percentage of increased state funding.
(i.e. - If the lege appropriates 10% more to the universities, the raises max out at 10%.)
Furthermore, bar any raises or bonuses in years with any tuition or fee hikes.
In other words, no more soaking the students and their families.
Yeah, I know it'll never happen.
...Congrats to LD17's Representative David Schapira on being recognized by Governor's Celebration of Innovation as one of the "Tech 10," ten legislators demonstrating "a clear understanding of the role technology can and will play inArizona's economic development."
...Another note on Rep. Schapira - in response to the tuition hike, he will sponsor legislation required a 2/3 vote from ABOR to raise tuition more than 5% or fees more than $200. (See that article on this hike)
Nice idea, but far too gentle. The best way to keep these guys out of students' wallets is to hit them in theirs.
...Bad News/Good News Department -
On Friday, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit brought the state's new employer-sanctions (anti-immigration) law. He said that the plaintiffs should not have brought action against the Governor and state attorney general. Instead, they should have targeted the state's county attorneys who will be responsible for enforcing the law.
Also on Friday, another court, this one in Maricopa County, ordered Sheriff Joe Arpaio to restore full visiting hours for attorneys and court personnel at the county jail. Arpaio had ordered limitations on such visits as a cost-cutting move. The affected attorneys objected because the hours that he left open for visits, 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., conflicted with their court hours.
...The "Potentially Very Good News Department" -
This coming week, both of the chambers of the New Jersey legislature should vote on a proposal there to abolish the death penalty.
This is great news, but everyone should remember that New Jersey isn't exactly Texas when it comes to applying capital punishment - it hasn't carried out an execution since 1963.
Still, it's a great start.
Have a good weekend...
2 comments:
To: All New Jersey State Legislators
Media throughout New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania
All members, NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
REPORT: NJ Death Penalty Commission Made Significant Errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
from http://www.hallnj.org/cm/listing.jsp?cId=3
Summary
The New Jersey Death Penalty Commission made significant errors within their findings. The evidence, contrary to the Commissions findings, was so easy to obtain that it appears either willful ignorance or deception guided their report.
A brief review.
Below, are the 7 points made within the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report, January, 2007. The RUBUTTAL presents the obvious points avoided by the Commission and discussed by this author, a death penalty expert.
I was invited to be a presenter, before the NJDPSC, but my time didn't fit their schedule.
1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.
REBUTTAL:
- The reason that 81% of Americans found that Timothy McVeigh should be executed was justice - the most profound concept in criminal justice, as in many other aspects of life. It is the same reason that New Jersey citizens, 12 jurors, put all those on death row.
- Although the Commission and the NJ Supreme Court both attempt to discount deterrence, logically, they cannot.
First, all prospects for a negative outcome deter some. This is not, logically or historically rebutted. It cannot be. Secondly, those studies which don't find for deterrence, do not say that it doesn't exist, only that their study didn't find it. Those studies which find for deterrence did. 16 recent studies do.
- The Commission had ample opportunity and, more importantly, the responsibility to read and contact the authors of those many studies which have, recently, found for deterrence. There seems to be no evidence that they did so. On such an important factor as saving innocent lives, why didn't they? The testimony before the Commission, critical of those studies, would not withstand a review by the authors of those studies. That should be an important issue that the Commission should have investigated, but did not.
- LIFE WITHOU PAROLE: The Commission considered the risk of innocents executed and concluded that it wasn't worth the risk and that a life sentence would serve sufficiently without that risk to innocents.
Again, the Commission avoided both fact and reason. The risk to innocents is greater with a life sentence than with the death penalty.
First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after improper release, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - an obvious truism ignored by the Commission.
Secondly, no knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, there has been a recent explosion of studies finding for death penalty deterrence. The criticism of those studies has, itself, been rebutted.
- Therefore, in choosing a life without parole and calling for the end of the death penalty, the Commission has made the choice to put more innocents at risk - the opposite of their stated rationale.
2) The costs of the death penalty are greater than the costs of life in prison without parole, but it is not possible to measure these costs with any degree of precision.
REBUTTAL:
- For the amount of time and resources allegedly expended by the Commission, this section of their review was unconscionable in its lack of responsibility to the Commission's directive.
- The Commission concludes that the current system in New Jersey is very expensive, without noting the obvious ways in which those issues can be addressed to lessen those costs. Why?
One example, they find that proportionality review cost $93, 000 per case. Why didn't the Commission recommend doing away with proportionality review? There is no reason, legally, to have it and it has been a disaster, cost wise, with no benefit.
Secondly, the Commission states: "Nevertheless, consistent with the Commission's findings, recent studies in states such as Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, Florida and North Carolina have all concluded that the costs associated with death penalty cases are significantly higher than those associated with life without parole cases. These studies can be accessed through the Death Penalty Information Center." (Report, page 33).
On many topics the Death Penalty Information Center has been one of the most deceptive or one sided anti death penalty groups in the country. While it is not surprising that the Commission would give them as a reference, multiple times, it doesn't speak well of the Commission.
Did the Commission read any of the studies referenced by the DPIC? It appears doubtful, or the Commission would not have referenced them.
For example, let's look at the North Carolina (Duke University) study. That cost study compared the cost of only a twenty year "life sentence" to the death penalty. Based upon that study, a true life without parole sentence would be more costly than the death penalty. Somehow the Commission missed that rather important fact.
These types of irresponsible and misleading references by the Commission do nothing to inspire any confidence in their findings, but do reinforce the opinion that their conclusions were predetermined.
Please see "Cost Comparisons: Death Penalty Cases Vs Equivalent Life Sentence Cases", to follow.
3) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.
REBUTTAL:
The Commission uses several references to prove their point. None of them succeeded.
- The first was based upon polling in New Jersey. The data showed strong support for executions in NJ, except when asking those polled to choose between a life sentence or a death sentence, for which life gets greater support. The major problem with this long standing and misleading polling question is that it has nothing to do with the legal reality of sentencing. Secondly, that poll shows broad support for BOTH sanctions, not a call to abandon either. The Commission, somehow, overlooked that obvious point.
Jurors have the choice of both sentences in states with the death penalty and life without parole. Therefore, a proper polling question for NJ would be,
A) should we eliminate the death penalty and ONLY have life without parole? or
B) should we give jurors the OPTION of choosing life or death in capital murder cases?
Based upon other polls, I suspect B would be the resounding winner of this poll in NJ.
Secondly, the Commissions polling speaker avoided the most obvious and reliable polling question on this topic - asking about the punishment for a specific crime, just as jurors have to decide. For example, 81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross.
Thirdly, poll New Jersey citizens with the following questions. Is life without parole or the death penalty the most appropriate punishment for those who rape and murder children? Or should NJ remove the death penalty as a jury option for those who rape and murder children?
- Two religious speakers spoke against execution. Both are easily rebutted by religious scholars holding different views.
- Another alleged example of this evolving standard is based upon the fact there has been a reduction in death sentences. Such reduction is easily explained by a number of factors, other than some imagined "evolving standard of decency".
Murders have dropped some 40%, capital murders have likely dropped by even a greater number, based upon other factors. This, by itself, explains the overwhelming percentage of the drop in death sentences.
In addition, many prosecutors, such as those in NJ, know that their courts will not allow executions, leading to prosecutorial frustration as a contributing factor in any reduction - not an evolving standard of decency, but an evolving and increasing frustration.
Please review: "Why the reduction in death sentences?", to follow.
4) The available data do not support a finding of invidious racial bias in the application of the death penalty in New Jersey.
CLARIFICATION:
In fact, there is no data to support any racial bias, invidious or otherwise. The Commission must have read the series of NJ studies.
5) Abolition of the death penalty will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in capital sentencing.
REBUTTAL:
Yes, Commission, and the abolition of all criminal sentences will eliminate the risk of disproportionality in all sentences, as well. This is hardly a rational reason to get rid of any sentence. Get rid of the expensive and unnecessary proportionality review.
6) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible error.
REBUTTAL:
- The risk to innocents is greater with life without parole than with the death penalty. See (1), above LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.
7) The alternative of Life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.
REBUTTAL:
This Commission statement is quite simply, false.
- Life imprisonment puts more innocents at risk than does the death penalty.
- Justice, just punishment, retribution and/or saving innocent lives, among others, are all legitimate social and penological interests all served by the death penalty.
- 81% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. 85% of Connecticut citizens polled supported the execution of serial, rapist/murderer Michael Ross.
The overwhelming majority of those polled did not have family members murdered.
Is the Commission trying to tell us that a poll of NJ murder victim survivors would show a majority opposed to the death penalty? Of course not, that would be as absurd as the Commissions conclusions in this section.
Conclusion:
Almost without exception, The Commission accepted the standard anti death penalty position, without presenting the easily accessible rebuttal to that position.
Enough said.
-----------------------
NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
It is alleged that the Commission had fair hearings, with both sides adequately presented.
Alleged fair hearings mean nothing, if decisions are predetermined, as this one was.
11 of the 13 committee members were either known or leaning anti death penalty. The contempt for and discounting of pro death penalty positions in both the hearings and final report confirm that.
All the prosecutors on the Commission were up for reappointment - by the staunchly anti death penalty Governor. Would any of them sacrifice their livelihood to fight for the death penalty? Of course not and they did not.
One committee member - one - was confirmable as pro death penalty.
Most, if not all, of Committee Chairman Rev. Howard's previous affiliations were anti death penalty.
Rev. Howard's fairness is best shown by the Commission's final report, which was laughable in its exclusion of pro death penalty positions, positions which would have either overwhelmed or neutralized the anti death penalty, predetermined conclusions of the panel, had those pro death penalty positions been given a fair showing in that report - which they weren't.
The Commission hearings and final report were, as all show trials, a farce.
copyright 2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Based Upon Budget Report, LWOP may increase costs in New Jersey
UPDATE
To: All New Jersey State Legislators
Media throughout New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania
All members, NJ Death Penalty Study Commission
Based Upon Budget Report, LWOP may increase costs in New Jersey
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info, below
SUMMARY
Based primarily upon The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) report(1), the fiscal impact of replacing the death penalty with life without parole (LWOP) may cause a rise in cost for New Jersey, the opposite of what many believe. There is no confirmable cost savings for replacing the death penalty as concluded by the state's budget review.
OLS review
1) The OLS finds that death row incarceration costs $32,481 more per year, than general population prisoners. (1)
First, there is no reason to have a death row. Missouri doesn't. So, the $32, 481 excess goes away. If maximum security is required for some death sentenced inmates, it would be the same maximum security required for some of those given LWOP. No cost differential
Secondly, the OLS says that if NJ starts to execute death sentenced prisoners, there would be an obvious cost savings over a life sentenced prisoner - at least a $32,481 benefit per year for executions. The only thing stopping executions, now, is the Governor and the legislature, thereby raising the costs for NJ.
Thirdly, the OLS failed to note studies that find a $70,000 per prisoner per year cost for geriatric prisoners. Therefore, there would be a huge incarceration cost savings for imposing the death penalty and a huge cost penalty for LWOP cases.
Fourth, the OLS should not be comparing incarceration costs of death penalty cases to general population cases, but to LWOP cases, only, as LWOP is the sentence proposed to replace the death sentence.
Death penalty cost savings for incarceration: Huge.
2) The OLS finds that proportionality review costs $93,000 per death penalty case. (1) The evidence is conclusive that proportionality review has been a huge waste of both time and money. It is not constitutionally required or morally inspired. Get rid of it.
Cost savings for abolishing proportionality review: $93,000 per inmate.
3) Plea bargains: The OLS discussed plea bargains, but, somehow missed a huge death penalty cost benefit. The death penalty is the ONLY sentence possible which allows a plea bargain to LWOP. Therefore, absent the death penalty, to receive LWOP, all cases would have to go to trial and no plea bargains would be possible in such cases. The cost savings of having the death penalty in such cases is likely near $1 million dollars per case, which would reflect the cost saving of not having a trial and not having life long appeals, when plea bargaining to LWOP - an option which only exists when the death penalty is present.
Death Penalty plea bargain for LWOP cost benefit: estimate of $1 million per case, as cost savings of trial and life long appeals. This benefit will go away without the death penalty and all subsequent plea bargains would result in "life" cases with a parole option.
4) Office of the Attorney General - Through interviews with NJ Attorney General personnel, it was concluded that, ending the death penalty and solely implementing LWOP, ". . . "there would be little savings during the trial phase."
Cost differential between death penalty and LWOP: Little. Indeterminate if it will save any money. With actual imposition of the death penalty and geriatric care costs for LWOP, the death penalty would be significantly less expensive.
5) Public Defender's Office (PDO) - Suspiciously, the PDO calculates that it will cost $76,926 per case more to defend death penalty cases than "non death penalty cases". Suspicious because the PDO states that there will be a zero cost for court reporters, appellate attorneys and miscellaneous costs for "non death penalty cases". Of course, everyone knows that is absurd. For death penalty cases, the PDO found those same costs to be $192,000, or about $10, 000 per case. Importantly, the PDO used a category of "non death penalty cases" as opposed to LWOP, which is the alleged "substitute" punishment for a death sentence. A LWOP trial will, of course, require court reporters, appellate attorneys for life long appeals and will incur miscellaneous expenses, which could easily reach an additional $20, 000 per case, or more, or at least $10,000 more than a death case. What is remarkable, is how staggering low the PDO's cost differential is between the death penalty and "non death penalty cases", even with the absurd zero cost nonsense. Even the PDO, which could reasonably be presumed as anti death penalty, has concluded that there is virtually no cost differential between death cases and LWOP cases. Just as remarkable is how the OLS could have allowed this obviously bizarre and inaccurate "cost analysis" into their report, without commenting on the obvious problems.
Cost differential between death penalty and LWOP. Indeterminate. But, based upon the PDO's number, LWOP may be more expensive. But, it doesn't seem reasonable to accept the PDO's numbers.
6) The NJ Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) cannot determine if NJ will spend more or less by replacing the death penalty with LWOP.
So much for any cost savings by abandoning the death penalty.
The Governor's Big Lie
This brings one of the big lies of the Governor, et al, to the forefront. Having the death penalty guarantees a higher probability that murderers will receive a LWOP sentence. Doing away with the death penalty guarantees that there will be less probability of murderers getting LWOP. In fact, with the death penalty gone, it is guaranteed that it will be more expensive to impose a true, LWOP life sentence, as all plea bargains will be done away with, and trials and life long appeals will be the exclusive rule. In addition, the probability rises, that more murderers will be subject to early release because all plea bargains in LWOP cases can only result in parole eligible sentences for murderers.
-----------------------------
Based upon the state's own review, there may be no cost saving for NJ abandoning the death penalty and LWOP may actually increase costs.
This does not include the huge death penalty cost benefit of enhanced deterrence, in terms of the moral and fiscal savings. Priceless.
(1) Legislative Fiscal Estimate: Senate Committee Substitute For Senate, Nos 171 and 2471, State of New Jersey, 212th Legislature, 11/21/07
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S0500/171_E1.PDF
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
copyright 2007
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
Post a Comment