Does Guinness World Records have an entry for the greatest number of false or misleading factual assertions in a single newspaper editorial? Apparently not, but if they wish to start one, this death penalty editorial in the San Jose Mercury News is a credible candidate.
Some of the statements in the editorial are opinion, and of course the paper is perfectly entitled to its opinion, as is everyone else. As the saying goes, though, while they are entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. Some of the statements supporting the opinion are misleading and some are outright false.
Some of the statements in the editorial are opinion, and of course the paper is perfectly entitled to its opinion, as is everyone else. As the saying goes, though, while they are entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. Some of the statements supporting the opinion are misleading and some are outright false.
"California
taxpayers pay an extra $90,000 for every inmate on death row...." That
number is doubtful. It comes from the majority report of the stacked
anti-death-penalty commission, which cited a newspaper article which
quoted a spokesman for the Department of Corrections. However, the
folks in charge of such estimates at the department today are unable to
confirm the number and don't know where it came from. If an originally
shaky number gets repeated enough, people start repeating it without
checking as an established fact. Professional journalists are supposed
to know better.
"A survey last fall by UC-Santa Cruz professor Craig Haney shows support for the death penalty in California has dropped from 79 percent to 66 percent. Why the change in attitude? Haney cites public fears that innocent men are being convicted." Misleading. Did it occur to them to ask anyone on the other side for another explanation of this figure? As we have pointed out on this blog more than once, death penalty opponents crow about a "drop" by choosing a point near the all-time high as their point of reference. If we were equally dishonest, we could claim a dramatic increase by choosing as our reference the all-time low. As the polling pros at Gallup have noted more than once, support in recent years is remarkably steady.
"There is growing consensus that Texas executed an innocent man in 2004 when it gave Cameron Todd Willingham a lethal injection after convicting him of killing three children by arson in a 1991 house fire." Baloney. There is no consensus about Willingham. The case remains hotly disputed.
"Officials now believe the fire was not arson." There has not been any official conclusion. There are multiple experts who opine that arson is not proven by the forensic evidence, and they apply a presumption that a fire is presumed accidental until proven arson. But that is vastly different from saying arson is affirmatively disproven by the forensic evidence. Other evidence in the case still points to guilt.
"Thanks to DNA testing and other forensic advances, more than 100 people have been freed from death row in the past 35 years, including five just last year." This is an evident reference to the notorious "innocence list," which has been debunked repeatedly. Even on its face, the keepers of "innocence list" do not claim that the list is comprised of people freed from death row due to forensic advances. Only a handful of the cases involved DNA. Did the Mercury-News do any fact checking for this editorial at all?
"No fewer than 33 different kinds of special circumstances, including every felony that leads to a murder, call for capital punishment." Every felony? No, Penal Code section 190.2 lists a limited number of specific felonies. With apologies for being repetitive, did the Mercury-News do any fact checking for this editorial at all?
"For example, Orange County invoked [the death penalty] 10 times more often than San Francisco." Yes, the people of San Francisco have chosen to elect DAs who never seek it, even in cop killings. That is local democracy operating as designed. When the last of the pre-Harris, pre-Hallinan San Francisco cases drops off the radar screen, the ratio the Mercury-News computes will go to infinity, and stating the fact that way will be even more misleading.
"Racial disparities add further reason to question the fairness of capital punishment. The proportion of blacks on California's death row is five times their proportion of the state population." The second sentence is true but misleading, because it omits the other half of the truth that the proportion of blacks among those who commit murder is similarly out of proportion to the general population. Numerous studies, most of them conducted by opponents of the death penalty, show no race-of-defendant bias. We must not confuse the masses with that inconvenient truth. More on this here.
"The newly proposed lethal injection procedures, replacing an old regimen declared to be inhumane...." Judge Fogel's rulings in the Morales case predate the Supreme Court's decision in Baze. Whether the ruling would have been the same under the correct standard is doubtful. Even the dissent in Baze cited California's method as better than the one the Court upheld in that case. We will never know, because the post-Baze litigation will be under the new standard. The Supreme Court said that it is error to grant a stay if the state's protocol is at least as good as Kentucky's, which our new one clearly is.
The primary problem with California's death penalty is our failure to enforce it in a timely manner. Virginia showed in the D.C. Sniper case that it can be done. What we need is for our Legislature to get off their glutes and pass the procedural reforms we need in the state courts and for our Attorney General to get off his and apply for federal fast-track certification.
It would also help if editorial writers would do their homework.
"A survey last fall by UC-Santa Cruz professor Craig Haney shows support for the death penalty in California has dropped from 79 percent to 66 percent. Why the change in attitude? Haney cites public fears that innocent men are being convicted." Misleading. Did it occur to them to ask anyone on the other side for another explanation of this figure? As we have pointed out on this blog more than once, death penalty opponents crow about a "drop" by choosing a point near the all-time high as their point of reference. If we were equally dishonest, we could claim a dramatic increase by choosing as our reference the all-time low. As the polling pros at Gallup have noted more than once, support in recent years is remarkably steady.
"There is growing consensus that Texas executed an innocent man in 2004 when it gave Cameron Todd Willingham a lethal injection after convicting him of killing three children by arson in a 1991 house fire." Baloney. There is no consensus about Willingham. The case remains hotly disputed.
"Officials now believe the fire was not arson." There has not been any official conclusion. There are multiple experts who opine that arson is not proven by the forensic evidence, and they apply a presumption that a fire is presumed accidental until proven arson. But that is vastly different from saying arson is affirmatively disproven by the forensic evidence. Other evidence in the case still points to guilt.
"Thanks to DNA testing and other forensic advances, more than 100 people have been freed from death row in the past 35 years, including five just last year." This is an evident reference to the notorious "innocence list," which has been debunked repeatedly. Even on its face, the keepers of "innocence list" do not claim that the list is comprised of people freed from death row due to forensic advances. Only a handful of the cases involved DNA. Did the Mercury-News do any fact checking for this editorial at all?
"No fewer than 33 different kinds of special circumstances, including every felony that leads to a murder, call for capital punishment." Every felony? No, Penal Code section 190.2 lists a limited number of specific felonies. With apologies for being repetitive, did the Mercury-News do any fact checking for this editorial at all?
"For example, Orange County invoked [the death penalty] 10 times more often than San Francisco." Yes, the people of San Francisco have chosen to elect DAs who never seek it, even in cop killings. That is local democracy operating as designed. When the last of the pre-Harris, pre-Hallinan San Francisco cases drops off the radar screen, the ratio the Mercury-News computes will go to infinity, and stating the fact that way will be even more misleading.
"Racial disparities add further reason to question the fairness of capital punishment. The proportion of blacks on California's death row is five times their proportion of the state population." The second sentence is true but misleading, because it omits the other half of the truth that the proportion of blacks among those who commit murder is similarly out of proportion to the general population. Numerous studies, most of them conducted by opponents of the death penalty, show no race-of-defendant bias. We must not confuse the masses with that inconvenient truth. More on this here.
"The newly proposed lethal injection procedures, replacing an old regimen declared to be inhumane...." Judge Fogel's rulings in the Morales case predate the Supreme Court's decision in Baze. Whether the ruling would have been the same under the correct standard is doubtful. Even the dissent in Baze cited California's method as better than the one the Court upheld in that case. We will never know, because the post-Baze litigation will be under the new standard. The Supreme Court said that it is error to grant a stay if the state's protocol is at least as good as Kentucky's, which our new one clearly is.
The primary problem with California's death penalty is our failure to enforce it in a timely manner. Virginia showed in the D.C. Sniper case that it can be done. What we need is for our Legislature to get off their glutes and pass the procedural reforms we need in the state courts and for our Attorney General to get off his and apply for federal fast-track certification.
It would also help if editorial writers would do their homework.
Leave a comment