In a message dated 5/23/2024 9:04:29 AM Central Daylight Time, sharpjfa@aol.com writes:
To: Submissions, All staff at Alabama Political Reporter
Re: Full Rebuttal: Opinion | Capital Punishment: A stain on Alabama’s justice system From public hangings to the nitrogen hypoxia controversy, the state exemplifies everything wrong with capital punishment. By BILL BRITT, Alabama Political Reporter, May 21, 2024
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
1350 words, absent all fn.
Preface
Bill Britt's column is an anti-death penalty norm. He parrots anti-death penalty nonsense (1), with no fact checking, nor vetting and no use of critical thinking, while evading all pro-death penalty research. Both are common journalism practices (1,2), as Britt exemplifies.
Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter (APR) and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics and he exemplifies everything wrong with journalism.
I supplied all fact checking and sources to APR and will do the same for any readers, at sharpjfa@aol.com
===
Britt is unaware that justice is the foundation for the death penalty, as it is for all sanctions, as Britt can find with Socrates, Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, C.S. Lewis and countless others of our greatest thinkers (3), inclusive of 2,000 years of pro death penalty teachings by the greatest of Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, biblical scholars and theologians (4), all and each of whom overwhelm the recent (2018), unreasoned, fact averse Catholic Church's decision to call the death penalty "inadmissible", when in fact, it is that change which is inadmissible, when reason and fact prevail (5).
Britt states:"Despite the overwhelming evidence highlighting the profound flaws and inherent injustices of capital punishment".
Following, near, normalized journalism practices (2), Britt "forgot" to fact check, vet and use critical thinking, with those bits of anti-death penalty "evidence", all rebutted, here (1).
Britt quotes "EJI founder Bryan Stevenson:“The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question is whether we deserve to kill." . . . a standard, unreasoned anti-death penalty bit of nonsense (1,2).
We define justice, within criminal justice, based upon sanctions which are just and deserved, those being a sanction not too lenient and not too harsh, based upon the circumstances of the crimes.
Britt and Stevenson have no clue that "the real, true and most important question is whether rape and murder victims (and all others) will get the justice they deserve?", and, if relying upon Stevenson's comment and Britt's column, they, completely, disagree with that, another, very sad, anti-death penalty norm (6).
I agree with Britt that "The most glaring issue with the death penalty is its irreversible nature."
As Britt only parrots anti-death penalty nonsense, he is unaware that the death penalty/executions helps to protect and save innocents, in four ways, better than does a life sentence: enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation, enhanced probability and enhanced deterrence (7,8), with the first three unchallenged, with enhanced deterrence being challenged, but prevailing by fact and reason (7, 8).
Britt is clueless, as he confesses, unaware that there have been, at least, 24 US based studies finding for death penalty deterrence, since 1996 (7,8), which are more credible than their critics, with this confirmation:
Nobel Prize Laureate (Economics) Gary Becker: “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” (NY Times, 11/18/07)
"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (NY Times, 5/5/14) (7,8).
Britt is unaware that murder rates, between states is not the way to measure deterrence, as has been known since . . . reason (7,8).
For example, if Iceland and its capital Reykjavik have the lowest crime and murder rates in the world, does that mean that laws, law enforcement and sanction deter none in every other city and country because all have higher rates of crime? Of course not. That would be ludicrous.
Britt is unaware, because, instead of thinking, he parrots anti-death penalty nonsense (1,7,8), as here:
It is, another, anti-death penalty norm to lie about the "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row, as has been known, since 1998 (13). Today, that fraud rate is 71-83%, depending upon study. After 50 years of the most intense scrutiny (1973-2024), we have a 99.6% rate of accuracy in guilty findings, with the 0.4% factually innocent being released (13), very likely, the most accurate of all sanctions.
Britt quotes Helen Prejean: “The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.”
Both Prejean (6,9) and Britt are unaware that the death penalty/execution is, only, used as a just and appropriate sanction for some of our worst crimes. It is the solution to the most just sanction, with some crimes, within criminal justice, as with all other sanctions for all other crimes. Britt and Prejean clueless (6,9).
Britt quotes: Albert Camus: “But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated, can be compared?”
Incredibly stupid, but Britt cannot see it, as he is blind to anti-death penalty nonsense.
The premeditation for execution, as for all sanctions, is known as the due process of law, which is the investigation, the indictment, all pre-trial motions, trial, appeals and the executive branch consideration of pardon or commutation (10).
Britt and Camus seem to think it best that we abandon all that premeditation (10): "normal" anti-death penalty non thinking.
Camus is, also, unaware of the moral and legal distinctions between execution and murders, meaning that he, also, equates kidnapping and incarceration, fines and theft, community service and slavery, as well as equating guilty murderers with their innocent victims, all common anti-death penalty standards, (6) as with Britt: "By executing those who commit heinous acts, the state mirrors the very brutality it seeks to condemn." How and why? Here is the answer (6).
Grotesquely, both Prejean and Camus find that the just execution of guilty murderers is much worse than the unjust rape and murder of innocent children (6,9).
Dudley, as you've made patently aware, you have your own corner of the Internet. I'm happy to give a fairly generous amount of access for your rebuttal to what I've said about you, but I am not going to host your debate with Bill Britt and Albert Camus in my comments section. This is your sole warning to stay on topic.
You attacked me both personally and professionally with, at least, these two:
"Sharp, however, approaches this lack of education without a trace of epistemic humility. He’s an expert in whatever capital punishment needs him to be1, apparently including my line of work."
and
"presents outdated and dishonest arguments in its defense"
As I detailed herein those are either false and/or you have not detailed my dishonesty.
I would never call someone dishonest without confirming it first and identifying what the dishonesty is when speaking to that person. More so in a public forum.
Calling someone a liar is quite a charge and should never be used without absolute confirmation. As far as I can see, you have done none of that.
What I am trying to do within these comments, it to establish how thorough I am, in response to your comments. I did consider, only, entering my Smith comments, but decided "no", based upon that calculus.
I believed I was sticking, precisely to the topic you introduced.
Britt's non thinking continues: "Racial disparities in Alabama’s application of the death penalty are particularly stark. African Americans are disproportionately represented on death row, and cases with white victims are far more likely to result in death sentences."
I suspect Britt is, completely, unaware, via no fact checking, no vetting and no critical thinking those anti-death penalty claims and no research into pro-death penalty research and reasoning (1, 11).
For anti-death penalty claims of "racial disparity" in death penalty sentencing, their norm is to use population counts, as opposed to the, only, relevant count, which is the population count of murderers, as detailed:
These are national:
For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault.
As robbery/murder and rape/murder are, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murders, the multiples may be even greater.
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers
From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively.
"There is no race of the offender/victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." (all within fn 11).
Britt: "The recent execution of Kenneth Smith using nitrogen hypoxia, despite claims of it being painless, turned into a nightmarish scene of convulsions and gasps. This grotesque spectacle is a blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment."
It was nightmarish journalism. Possibly, Britt may want to read up on death by nitrogen hypoxia. There is a very well documented, 60 year history of the quick and painless deaths by nitrogen hypoxia (12), within industrial accidents and suicides, with non-lethal experiments finding 20 seconds to unconsciousness with 100% nitrogen gas, as used in Alabama.
If Britt contemplates fact checking, vetting and critical thinking, here ya go (12).
Smith held his breath and fought his restraints for two minutes, took some deep breaths, passed out, with no breathing observed after 8 minutes. Convulsions and gasps are normal when one has no oxygen.
Britt is, somehow, unaware!?
If Britt knew anything about nitrogen hypoxia, the 8th amendment and US Supreme Court jurisprudence, with regard to execution methods, which he, apparently, does not, he would know there is zero chance of nitrogen hypoxia being found cruel and unusual.
Britt is clueless, throughout? Can journalists not fact check, not vet and not use critical thinking, accidentally? Of course not.
========
FN
1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and , then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
1) " . . . the fact that interest in botched lethal injections hit critical mass with the 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, it’s strange that he doesn’t seem to think readers deserve to know this."
AB refuses to fact check. All he had to do was enter "Clayton Lockett" In my blog search engine, which "voila":
2) "Heath testified he’d never seen a reliably humane lethal injection protocol."
It was a ridiculous comment. There would be no reason to respond to it. Anyone knowing the overdosing properties of the drugs, individually and collectively, used would know that.
I did not promise, and never intend, to exhaustively search for your every rumination on lethal injection. I evaluated the article *you sent me*, with the categorical title of "Lethal Injection & Nitrogen Gas Asphyxiation—Controversies Resolved."
When *your* piece fails to mention something, it is not the reader's responsibility to find some other place you *might* have.
I do suspect you think it exhaustive to place two words in a search engine, when, instead you writes: "it’s strange that (Sharp) doesn’t seem to think readers deserve to know this."
It's exhaustive for you because you don't do it.
I fact check and vet prior to making statements about other peoples work. Yet, AB finds it exhaustive to enter two words in a search engine, therefore making an, intentionally, ignorant statement, when such could have been avoided.
Folks, that it what you are dealing with, with AB.
If you think I have made an error, state what it is and I will respond. Errors, if identified, do not make me dishonest, but that it is possible I have made an error, if asserted I will fact check and vet such claim and respond.
My intro into the death penalty debate, began
1) with a full review of the Gary Graham cases, inclusive of the trial transcript, all appeals and fact checking and vetting of media and pro and anti-death penalty claims, within that case:
HOLLYWOOD, MURDER AND TEXAS
DEATH ROW INMATE GARY GRAHAM and THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY MOVEMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF LIES, HALF-TRUTHS AND INTIMIDATION
2) a two year review of all sides in the death penalty debate, inclusive of 40-50 books, many related journals, original research, all of which were fact checked and vetted, inclusive of speaking to the authors, when possible, resulting in this:
DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION, In the United States, 10/1/97,
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and, then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts, for decades. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Regarding Kenneth Smith:
In a message dated 5/23/2024 9:04:29 AM Central Daylight Time, sharpjfa@aol.com writes:
To: Submissions, All staff at Alabama Political Reporter
Re: Full Rebuttal: Opinion | Capital Punishment: A stain on Alabama’s justice system From public hangings to the nitrogen hypoxia controversy, the state exemplifies everything wrong with capital punishment. By BILL BRITT, Alabama Political Reporter, May 21, 2024
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
1350 words, absent all fn.
Preface
Bill Britt's column is an anti-death penalty norm. He parrots anti-death penalty nonsense (1), with no fact checking, nor vetting and no use of critical thinking, while evading all pro-death penalty research. Both are common journalism practices (1,2), as Britt exemplifies.
Britt is editor-in-chief at the Alabama Political Reporter (APR) and host of The Voice of Alabama Politics and he exemplifies everything wrong with journalism.
I supplied all fact checking and sources to APR and will do the same for any readers, at sharpjfa@aol.com
===
Britt is unaware that justice is the foundation for the death penalty, as it is for all sanctions, as Britt can find with Socrates, Plato, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, C.S. Lewis and countless others of our greatest thinkers (3), inclusive of 2,000 years of pro death penalty teachings by the greatest of Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, biblical scholars and theologians (4), all and each of whom overwhelm the recent (2018), unreasoned, fact averse Catholic Church's decision to call the death penalty "inadmissible", when in fact, it is that change which is inadmissible, when reason and fact prevail (5).
Britt states:"Despite the overwhelming evidence highlighting the profound flaws and inherent injustices of capital punishment".
Following, near, normalized journalism practices (2), Britt "forgot" to fact check, vet and use critical thinking, with those bits of anti-death penalty "evidence", all rebutted, here (1).
Britt quotes "EJI founder Bryan Stevenson:“The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question is whether we deserve to kill." . . . a standard, unreasoned anti-death penalty bit of nonsense (1,2).
We define justice, within criminal justice, based upon sanctions which are just and deserved, those being a sanction not too lenient and not too harsh, based upon the circumstances of the crimes.
Britt and Stevenson have no clue that "the real, true and most important question is whether rape and murder victims (and all others) will get the justice they deserve?", and, if relying upon Stevenson's comment and Britt's column, they, completely, disagree with that, another, very sad, anti-death penalty norm (6).
I agree with Britt that "The most glaring issue with the death penalty is its irreversible nature."
As Britt only parrots anti-death penalty nonsense, he is unaware that the death penalty/executions helps to protect and save innocents, in four ways, better than does a life sentence: enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation, enhanced probability and enhanced deterrence (7,8), with the first three unchallenged, with enhanced deterrence being challenged, but prevailing by fact and reason (7, 8).
Britt is clueless, as he confesses, unaware that there have been, at least, 24 US based studies finding for death penalty deterrence, since 1996 (7,8), which are more credible than their critics, with this confirmation:
Nobel Prize Laureate (Economics) Gary Becker: “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” (NY Times, 11/18/07)
"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (NY Times, 5/5/14) (7,8).
Britt is unaware that murder rates, between states is not the way to measure deterrence, as has been known since . . . reason (7,8).
For example, if Iceland and its capital Reykjavik have the lowest crime and murder rates in the world, does that mean that laws, law enforcement and sanction deter none in every other city and country because all have higher rates of crime? Of course not. That would be ludicrous.
Britt is unaware, because, instead of thinking, he parrots anti-death penalty nonsense (1,7,8), as here:
It is, another, anti-death penalty norm to lie about the "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row, as has been known, since 1998 (13). Today, that fraud rate is 71-83%, depending upon study. After 50 years of the most intense scrutiny (1973-2024), we have a 99.6% rate of accuracy in guilty findings, with the 0.4% factually innocent being released (13), very likely, the most accurate of all sanctions.
Britt quotes Helen Prejean: “The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.”
Both Prejean (6,9) and Britt are unaware that the death penalty/execution is, only, used as a just and appropriate sanction for some of our worst crimes. It is the solution to the most just sanction, with some crimes, within criminal justice, as with all other sanctions for all other crimes. Britt and Prejean clueless (6,9).
Britt quotes: Albert Camus: “But what then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated, can be compared?”
Incredibly stupid, but Britt cannot see it, as he is blind to anti-death penalty nonsense.
The premeditation for execution, as for all sanctions, is known as the due process of law, which is the investigation, the indictment, all pre-trial motions, trial, appeals and the executive branch consideration of pardon or commutation (10).
Britt and Camus seem to think it best that we abandon all that premeditation (10): "normal" anti-death penalty non thinking.
Camus is, also, unaware of the moral and legal distinctions between execution and murders, meaning that he, also, equates kidnapping and incarceration, fines and theft, community service and slavery, as well as equating guilty murderers with their innocent victims, all common anti-death penalty standards, (6) as with Britt: "By executing those who commit heinous acts, the state mirrors the very brutality it seeks to condemn." How and why? Here is the answer (6).
Grotesquely, both Prejean and Camus find that the just execution of guilty murderers is much worse than the unjust rape and murder of innocent children (6,9).
contd
Dudley, as you've made patently aware, you have your own corner of the Internet. I'm happy to give a fairly generous amount of access for your rebuttal to what I've said about you, but I am not going to host your debate with Bill Britt and Albert Camus in my comments section. This is your sole warning to stay on topic.
AB:
Is this fair?
You attacked me both personally and professionally with, at least, these two:
"Sharp, however, approaches this lack of education without a trace of epistemic humility. He’s an expert in whatever capital punishment needs him to be1, apparently including my line of work."
and
"presents outdated and dishonest arguments in its defense"
As I detailed herein those are either false and/or you have not detailed my dishonesty.
I would never call someone dishonest without confirming it first and identifying what the dishonesty is when speaking to that person. More so in a public forum.
Calling someone a liar is quite a charge and should never be used without absolute confirmation. As far as I can see, you have done none of that.
What I am trying to do within these comments, it to establish how thorough I am, in response to your comments. I did consider, only, entering my Smith comments, but decided "no", based upon that calculus.
I believed I was sticking, precisely to the topic you introduced.
Is that fair and rational?
If you think not, It is your site, Erase both.
contd
Britt's non thinking continues: "Racial disparities in Alabama’s application of the death penalty are particularly stark. African Americans are disproportionately represented on death row, and cases with white victims are far more likely to result in death sentences."
I suspect Britt is, completely, unaware, via no fact checking, no vetting and no critical thinking those anti-death penalty claims and no research into pro-death penalty research and reasoning (1, 11).
For anti-death penalty claims of "racial disparity" in death penalty sentencing, their norm is to use population counts, as opposed to the, only, relevant count, which is the population count of murderers, as detailed:
These are national:
For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault.
As robbery/murder and rape/murder are, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murders, the multiples may be even greater.
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers
From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively.
"There is no race of the offender/victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." (all within fn 11).
Britt: "The recent execution of Kenneth Smith using nitrogen hypoxia, despite claims of it being painless, turned into a nightmarish scene of convulsions and gasps. This grotesque spectacle is a blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment."
It was nightmarish journalism. Possibly, Britt may want to read up on death by nitrogen hypoxia. There is a very well documented, 60 year history of the quick and painless deaths by nitrogen hypoxia (12), within industrial accidents and suicides, with non-lethal experiments finding 20 seconds to unconsciousness with 100% nitrogen gas, as used in Alabama.
If Britt contemplates fact checking, vetting and critical thinking, here ya go (12).
Smith held his breath and fought his restraints for two minutes, took some deep breaths, passed out, with no breathing observed after 8 minutes. Convulsions and gasps are normal when one has no oxygen.
Britt is, somehow, unaware!?
If Britt knew anything about nitrogen hypoxia, the 8th amendment and US Supreme Court jurisprudence, with regard to execution methods, which he, apparently, does not, he would know there is zero chance of nitrogen hypoxia being found cruel and unusual.
Britt is clueless, throughout? Can journalists not fact check, not vet and not use critical thinking, accidentally? Of course not.
========
FN
1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and , then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html
2) The Death Penalty: A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists? https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/11/media-disaster-repudiation-of.html
3) 600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/
4) Religion and The Death Penalty
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/03/religion-death-penalty.html
5) The Catholic Church & The Death Penalty 12 (14) Factual Errors: 2018 CCC 2267 amendment https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/02/7-factual-errors-2018-ccc-2267-amendment.html
6) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/full-rebuttal-of-sir-richard-branson.html
7) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
8) Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/deterrence-death-penalties-executions.html
9) Sister Helen Prejean: Her Lies, Deceptions . . . and/or Astounding Willful Ignorance? - A Compilation https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/sister-helen-prejean-her-lies_15.html
10) Texas Death Penalty Procedures
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/texas-death-penalty-procedures.html
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: LEAST ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS:
Both the guilty & the innocent have the greatest protections
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-death-penalty-neither-arbitrary-nor.html
11) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html
12) a) Nitrogen Gas; Flawless, proven, peaceful, unrestricted method of execution
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/09/nitrogen-gas-flawless-peaceful.html
b) Rebuttal: Botched Executions
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/01/rebuttal-botched-executions.html
c) Lethal Injection & Nitrogen Hypoxia: Controversies Resolved
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2024/01/lethal-injection-controversies-resolved.html
13) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-exoneratedinnocent-frauds.html
======
Victim Services
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/victim-services.html
Victims' Voices
https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices
======
Partial CV
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html
Audience:
AB writes:
1) " . . . the fact that interest in botched lethal injections hit critical mass with the 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, it’s strange that he doesn’t seem to think readers deserve to know this."
AB refuses to fact check. All he had to do was enter "Clayton Lockett" In my blog search engine, which "voila":
Clayton Lockett: The Case for Execution
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/06/clayton-lockett-case-for-execution.html
2) "Heath testified he’d never seen a reliably humane lethal injection protocol."
It was a ridiculous comment. There would be no reason to respond to it. Anyone knowing the overdosing properties of the drugs, individually and collectively, used would know that.
I did not promise, and never intend, to exhaustively search for your every rumination on lethal injection. I evaluated the article *you sent me*, with the categorical title of "Lethal Injection & Nitrogen Gas Asphyxiation—Controversies Resolved."
When *your* piece fails to mention something, it is not the reader's responsibility to find some other place you *might* have.
I do suspect you think it exhaustive to place two words in a search engine, when, instead you writes: "it’s strange that (Sharp) doesn’t seem to think readers deserve to know this."
It's exhaustive for you because you don't do it.
I fact check and vet prior to making statements about other peoples work. Yet, AB finds it exhaustive to enter two words in a search engine, therefore making an, intentionally, ignorant statement, when such could have been avoided.
Folks, that it what you are dealing with, with AB.
AB, do better.
If you think I have made an error, state what it is and I will respond. Errors, if identified, do not make me dishonest, but that it is possible I have made an error, if asserted I will fact check and vet such claim and respond.
My intro into the death penalty debate, began
1) with a full review of the Gary Graham cases, inclusive of the trial transcript, all appeals and fact checking and vetting of media and pro and anti-death penalty claims, within that case:
HOLLYWOOD, MURDER AND TEXAS
DEATH ROW INMATE GARY GRAHAM and THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY MOVEMENT:
A CASE STUDY OF LIES, HALF-TRUTHS AND INTIMIDATION
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/11/gary-graham-hollywood-murder-and-texas.html
and
2) a two year review of all sides in the death penalty debate, inclusive of 40-50 books, many related journals, original research, all of which were fact checked and vetted, inclusive of speaking to the authors, when possible, resulting in this:
DEATH PENALTY AND SENTENCING INFORMATION, In the United States, 10/1/97,
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/04/death-penalty-and-sentencing.html
constantly updated, here:
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and, then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts, for decades. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/