THE
DETERRENT EFFECT OF THE DEATH PENALTY
by Dudley Sharp
last update 10/29/03
(contact info, below)
". . . (E)ach execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders . .
. ".
Deterrence
The potential for negative consequences deters some behavior. The most
severe criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding.
Reason, common sense, history and the weight of the studies support the
deterrent effect of the death penalty. The death penalty protects innocent
lives. The absence of the death penalty sacrifices innocent lives.
Is there any group, be they criminologists, historians, psychologists,
economists, philosophers, physicians, journalists or criminals that does not
recognize that the prospect of negative consequences constrains or deters the
behavior of some? Of course not -- not even fiction writers so speculate.
Even irrational people wear seat belts, choose not to smoke and do not rob
police stations because of the potential for negative consequences.
I. I. The Death Penalty IS a Deterrent -- Seven Recent Studies
CONTACT information for all of the study authors is within the footnotes
"The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates
increase substantially during moratoriums."
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and
Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results
suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase
in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to
reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in
eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1)
Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan
and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant
relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each
additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons
(commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set
contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977
and 1997. (2)
(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini,
found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found:
"The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared
few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net
90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians
contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly
innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost."
(3)
(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not
only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal
productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates.
"Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it
also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The
deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are
greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death
penalty) states." (4)
(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on
average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent
effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution
should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and
other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment
deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by
intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions.
(5)
(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is
estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders
per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is
approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by
Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately
$70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else
equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states
(excluding Washington D.C.).(6)
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and
Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear:
executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during
moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and
regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the
specific variable to measure executions." (7)
The findings reflect reason, common sense and history.
"According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender
would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime."
"Capital punishment is particularly significant in this context, because it
represents a very high cost for committing murder (loss of life). Thus,
the presence of capital punishment in a state, or the frequency with which it is
used, should unequivocally deter homicide." Furthermore, "an increase
in pardons (commutations) implies a decrease in the probability of execution,
which economic theory predicts should have a positive (increase) impact on
murder rates." (8)
Isaac Ehrlich (1975) provided the first systemic analysis of the relationship
between capital punishment and the crime of murder along with the first
empirical analysis of the deterrence hypothesis. He found that each execution
deterred, on average, 8 murders. Many additional studies have found
corroborating evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty --
from the United States (Ehrlich, 1977, Layson, 1985, Cloninger,
1992, Ehrlich and Liu, 1999, Dezhbakhsh et al, 2000) and Canada (Layson 1983)
and the UK (Wolpin, 1978). (9)
Pubic policy makers take note. Stopping executions will sacrifice innocent
lives. Reinstating capital punishment will spare more innocent lives.
ll. Historical support
Reason, history and common sense all support that the potential for negative
consequences deters or alters behavior. In short, incentives, negative or
positive, matter. That is undisputed.
Numerous, previous studies have also supported a deterrence finding. And the
studies that find a deterrent effect of other criminal sanctions give additional
support to the deterrent effect of the death penalty, because, if lesser
sanctions deter, then we know that more severe sanctions also deter. The studies
that find a deterrent effect of 1. increased police presence, or any other
levels of security; 2. arrest/arrest rates; 3. criminal sentencing/incarceration
terms; and 4. the presence of rules, laws and statutes all provide additional,
collateral support for the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And there are
likely hundreds, if not thousands, of such studies and examples (database in
progress).
lII. Negative consequences matter
Many have discounted a deterrent effect because of the irrationality of
potential and active criminals. However, both reason and the evidence
support that the potential for negative consequences does affect criminal
behavior.
Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of
punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital
murderers, act in such a fashion. Fear of capture does not exist without
an expectation of punishment.
This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even
their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal
action. Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious,
thoughtful or instinctive. And we instinctively know the potential
negative consequences of some actions. Even pathetically stupid o
irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection.
And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.
When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to
murder, such is a more reasoned group. It would be illogical to assume
that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for
negative consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that
some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe
punishment of execution.
As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All
criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least
many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught
because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about
staying alive than about avoiding incarceration." (10)
Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential
of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they
are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.
IV. The pre trial, trial and death row evidence - the survival
effect
At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all criminals do
everything they can to lessen possible punishments. I estimate that less
than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death sentence in the
punishment phase of their trial. The apprehended criminals' desire for
lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.
Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived
remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals. The
evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row than die.
Why? The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and death is
feared more than life. Even on death row, that is the rule.
Even such marginalized personalities as capital murderers fear death more than
imprisonment. And that which we fear the most, deters the most. (kudos to
Ernest van den Haag and many others)
It is logical to conclude that some of those less marginalized personalities,
who choose not to murder, also, overwhelmingly, fear death more than life, and,
we, thus, logically conclude that some are deterred from murdering because of
the enhanced deterrent effect of execution.
The evidence for the survival effect in pretrial, trial and appeals is
overwhelming and that weighs in favor of execution as a deterrent and as an
enhanced deterrent over lesser sentences.
V. If unsure about deterrence
Common sense, reason and history all support that the potential for negative
consequences restricts the behavior of some. But, if unsure of deterrence,
we face the following dilemma -- If executions do deter, halting executions
causes more innocents to be murdered and gives those living murderers the
opportunity to harm and murder again. If the death penalty does not deter,
and we do execute, we punish murderers as the jury deemed appropriate and we
prevent those executed murderers from harming or murdering again.
Oddly, death penalty opponents believe that the burden of proof is on those who
say the death penalty is a deterrent. Clearly it is not. The weight
of the evidence, within reason, history, common sense and the social sciences is
that the potential for negative consequences restricts the behavior of some.
That is not in dispute. Furthermore, if opponents cannot prove it is not a
deterrent, which they never have and never will, then they are the ones who risk
sacrificing innocents, both by absence of deterrence and reduced incapacitation.
Regardless of jurisdiction, under all debated scenarios, more innocents are put
at risk when we fail to execute. Any alleged concern for innocents weighs
in favor of executions.
Vl. The individual deterrent effect
The individual deterrent effect is represented by those who state that they were
deterred from committing a murder only because of the prospects of a death
sentence. Individual cases support the enhanced deterrent effect. (11)
One Iowa prisoner, who escaped from a transportation van, with a number of other
prisoners, stated that he made sure that the overpowered guards were not harmed,
because of his fear of the death penalty in Texas. The prisoners were
being transported through Texas, on their way to New Mexico, when the escape
occurred. Most compelling is that he was a twice convicted murderer from a
non death penalty state, Iowa. In addition, he was under the false impression
that Texas had the death penalty for rape and, as a result, also protected the
woman guard from assault. (12)
New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker recorded his interview with a
convicted murderer. The murderer robbed and killed drug dealers in Washington
DC., where he was conscious that there was no death penalty. He
specifically did not murder a drug dealer in Virginia because, and only because,
he envisioned himself strapped in the electric chair, which he had personally
seen many times while imprisoned in Virginia. (13)
Logic requires that the individual deterrent effect cannot exist without the
general deterrent effect. Therefore, reason dictates that the general
deterrent effect must exist. The question is not: "Does deterrence
exist?" It does. The issue is: "What is the quantifiable impact
of deterrence?"
Individual cases support the individual deterrent effect and such cases insure
that general deterrence must exist. And, for both, the evidence also
suggests that executions provide enhanced deterrence over incarceration.
VlI. Conflicting studies
In reviewing 30 years of deterrence studies, the strongest statement one may
make against deterrence is that there is conflicting data (14).
Yet, even when academic bias against capital punishment is overt, such as in the
case of the American Society of Criminology -- the subtitle to their death
penalty resources page is "Anti-Capital Punishment Resources" -- even
they fail to state that the death penalty does not deter some potential
murderers, only that "social science research has found no consistent
evidence of crime deterrence through execution." (15) That is far from
stating that executions do not deter. And the criminologists are, very
likely, that academic group most hostile toward the death penalty. What social
science conflicts with the notion that the potential for negative consequences
restrains the behavior of some? And most would agree that execution is the most
serious negative consequence that a murderer may face.
Numerous studies find that executions do deter. And there is a rational
conclusion based upon common experience. It appears that all criminal
sanctions deter some. It would be irrational to conclude that the most
severe and publicized sanction -- execution -- does not deter some potential
murderers.
Those studies which do not find deterrence say that they could not detect it,
not that it doesn't exist. Those studies which find for deterrence state
such.
As Professor Cloninger states: " . . . (Our recent) study is but
another on a growing list of empirical work that finds evidence consistent with
the deterrence hypothesis. These studies as a whole provide robust
evidence -- evidence obtained from a variety of different models, data sets and
methodologies that yield the same conclusion. It is the cumulative effect of
these studies that causes any neutral observer to pause." (16)
Conflicting studies and reason both weigh in favor of the death penalty as a
deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.
VlII. The brutalization effect of executions
Some, particularly death penalty opponents, find that the brutalization effect
is more likely than the deterrent effect. The brutalization effect finds
that murders will increase because potential murderers will murder because of
the example of state executions.
Why would potential and active murderers be so influenced by the state in such a
deep philosophical manner, revealed by brutalization, but they wouldn't be more
affected by the simple "you murder, we execute you?"
Death penalty opponents make an interesting about face on this issue. They
insist that criminals are so thoughtless and impulsive that they can't be
affected by the potential of negative consequences but, then, those same
opponents see criminals as so contemplative that their criminal actions increase
BECAUSE those criminals follow the example of the state. One might ask those
opponents: "Is there any other government action which influences criminals
in such a fashion?" Do criminals kidnap more BECAUSE the state
increases incarceration rates? Do criminals give money to potential
victims BECAUSE the state donates to needy causes?
Murder rates and execution rates
Although deterrence is much more than a simple look at only execution rates and
murder rates, we do find that as executions have risen dramatically, the murder
rate has plunged.
From 1966-1980, a period which included our last national moratorium on
executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than
doubled from 11,040 to 23,040. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to
10.2/100,000. During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged 1 execution
every 3 years, with a maximum of two executions per year. From 1995-2000
executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period.
The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in
2000 -- a 46% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since
1966 (17).
The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has
fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to
8.5/100,000 (18). Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty
sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US. The Harris County murder
rate dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar
periods. Texas' murder rate dropped 62% during that same period, or 41% more
than the national average.
Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas
but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization.
And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that
aggressively use capital punishment." (19)
After a thorough review of deterrence studies, Professor Samuel Cameron
observed, "The brutalization idea is not one the economists have given any
credence." "We must conclude that the deterrence effect dominates the
opposing brutalization effect." (20)
Reason, history, common sense and the studies weigh against the brutalization
effect.
lX. The incapacitation effect
The incapacitation effect states that executed murderers cannot harm or murder
again. Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to
harm and murder again than are executed murderers.
That obvious logic escapes death penalty opponents who say that we can have
foolproof incarceration. What hypocrisy. This is the same group of
folks who tell us that our system of justice is so fraught with error that we
cannot possibly continue the death penalty. Yet, the facts tell us that
living murderers harm and murder again, in prison, after escape and after
improper release. Executed murderers do not. In addition, the US
death penalty appears to be that criminal justice sanction which is the least
likely to convict the factually innocent and the most likely to remedy such rare
error upon post conviction review.
Stuart Taylor: "Statistical studies and common sense aside, it's undeniable
that the death penalty saves some lives: those of the prison guards and other
inmates who would otherwise be killed by murderers serving life sentences
without parole, and of people who might otherwise encounter murderous
escapees". (21)
Under all circumstances, the execution of murderers will protect innocents at a
higher rate than will incarceration.
X. Death Penalty Opponents
Why is it that some death penalty opponents appear to laugh off any potential
for a deterrent effect of executions? Because to admit that executions
deter some potential murderers would be to admit that, in reaching their goals,
they will knowingly benefit murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent
lives. Of course, opponents will never prove it is not a deterrent and
many will admit that executions do deter some.
How many would still oppose executions if they knew that the evidence supported
the deterrent effect and that many more innocents are put at risk by not
executing?
Stuart Taylor: "So those of us who lean against the death penalty must
confront the very real possibility that abolishing it could lead to the violent
deaths of unknown numbers of innocent men, women, and children. And those who
are still skeptical that the death penalty deters any killings must also
confront the risk-benefit calculus suggested by political scientist John McAdams
of Marquette University: 'If we execute murderers, and there is, in fact, no
deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute
murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have
allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the
former. This, to me, is not a tough call.' " (22)
Xl. Conclusion
Those of us who support execution do so because it is a just punishment.
The moral foundation for all punishments is that they are deserved. One
cannot support a punishment based upon deterrence alone.
Reason, common sense and history all fall on the side of deterrence. Be it
Sweden or Rwanda, Texas or Michigan, Singapore or Chile, England or Japan,
whether high crime rates or low, the death penalty will always deter some
potential murderers. Regardless of jurisdiction, the potential for
negative outcomes will always restrict the behavior of some. And, the
weight of the evidence clearly supports execution as an enhanced deterrent.
As Professor Rubin states, "Our evidence is that there are substantial
benefits from executions and, thus, substantial costs of changing this policy
(23).
We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve
to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to
save lives which deserve to be saved.
1). "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence
from Postmoratorium Panel Data", American Law and Economics Review V5 N2
2003 (344-376), Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd.
contact Dezhbakhsh at econhd@emory.edu, ph 404-727-4679, Rubin at prubin@emory.edu,
ph 404-727-6365 and Shepherd at ph 864-656-6786, e-mail jshephe@CLEMSON.EDU
The quotation is from the complete, pre publication study which can be found at
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cozden/Dezhbakhsh_01_01_paper.pdf
2) "Getting
Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment,"
Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 46, Number 2, October 2003, at
www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?JLE460202
registration
required
H. Naci Mocan (mmocan@carbon.cudenver.edu, ph 303-556-8540) and R. Kaj Gottings
(rgitting@carbon.cudenver.edu),
This is a revised
version of "Pardons, Executions and Homicide," NBER WP8639) at
econ.cudenver.edu/mocan/papers/GettingOffDeathRow.pdf
The quote is from the working paper "Pardons, Executions and
Homicide", October 2001, located at
http://econ.cudenver.edu/beckman/kai.pdf
downloaded on 1/22/01
3) "EXECUTION MORATORIUM IS NO HOLIDAY FOR HOMICIDES", Prof.
Dale O. Cloninger and Prof. Roberto Marchesini. go to http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Moratoriums.htm
based on the study "Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group
experiment", Dale O. Cloninger (cloninger@cl.uh.edu, phone 281-283-3210),
Roberto Marchesini (marchesini@cl.uh.edu, phone 281-283-3215), Applied
Economics, 4/01, Vol 33, N 5, p569 -- p576
4) Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and
Empirical Evidence, December 2001, Eastern Economic Journal, Forthcoming ,
ZHIQIANG LIU (e-mail zqliu@buffalo.edu, ph. 716-645-2121) on line at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=352681
5) Murders of Passion, Execution Delays and the Deterrence of Capital
Punishment, March 2003, at http://people.clemson.edu/~jshephe/, Joanna M.
Shepherd, ph 864-656-6786, e-mail jshephe@CLEMSON.EDU
6). "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Paul
R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID354680_code021216500.pdf?abstractid=354680
7) Dezhbakhsh, Hashem and Shepherd, Joanna, "The Deterrent Effect of
Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'" (Aug 19, 2003).
Emory University Economics Working Paper No. 03-14 at
ssrn.com/abstract=432621
contact
Dezhbakhsh at econhd@emory.edu or ph 404-727-4679 and Shepherd at ph
864-656-6786 or jshephe@CLEMSON.EDU
8) "Pardons, Executions and Homicide", H. Naci Mocan (mmocan@carbon.cudenver.edu)
and R. Kaj Gottings (rgitting@carbon.cudenver.edu), Journal of Law and
Economics, forthcoming. Online version located at
http://econ.cudenver.edu/beckman/kai.pdf
downloaded on 1/22/01
9) Professor Ehrlich, e-mail mgtehrl@acsu.buffalo.edu, phone (716)
645-3287. For support and defense of his work go to: http://wings.buffalo.edu/economics/IEcrime.html
Review from Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights
and Empirical Evidence, December 2001, Eastern Economic Journal, Forthcoming ,
ZHIQIANG LIU, e-mail zqliu@buffalo.edu, ph. 716-645-2121, on line at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=352681
10) "Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?", Stuart
Taylor, National Journal. D.C. Dispatch, 5/31/02 at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2001-05-31.htm
11) see paragraph 14, Section B, "The Incapacitation and the
Deterrence Effects", Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United
States, 10/1/97, at http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
12) "Langley says Texas death penalty affected his actions during
escape", by Stephen Martin, The Daily Democrat (Ft. Madison, Iowa), 1/8/97,
pg 1.
13) Blecker book
14) Section B, "The Incapacitation and the Deterrence Effects",
Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States, 10/1/97, at
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
15) "ASC RESOLUTION ON THE DEATH PENALTY", ASC Annual Meeting,
Montreal, 1987, Anti-Capital Punishment Resources from the ASC's Critical
Criminology Division, go to http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html
last viewed 12/2/01.
16) "Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group
experiment", Dale O. Cloninger (cloninger@cl.uh.edu), Roberto Marchesini (marchesini@cl.uh.edu),
Applied Economics, 4/01, Vol 33, N 5, p569 -- p576, located at http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v33y2001i5p569-76.html
17) i) Homicide trends in the U.S., Long term trends, Homicide victimization,
1950-99, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports,
1950-2000
at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm
, Page last revised on January 4, 2001
(ii) Crime in the United States -- 2000,
Section II -- Crime Index Offenses Reported, "Murder and non
negligent homicide", FBI, Uniform Crime Reports at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2_3.pdf
(iii) "Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2001",
Key Facts at a Glance, Executions
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Source: Capital Punishment 2000, December 2001 at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm
18) Texas Department of Public Safety, Uniform Crime Reporting, Harris County
data, from 1982 and 2000 database.
19) Boston Globe, 10/28/97, p A12
20) "A Review of the Econometric Evidence on the Effects of Capital
Punishment", The Journal of Socio-Economics, v23 n 1/2, p 197-214, 1994
21) "Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?", Stuart
Taylor, National Journal. D.C. Dispatch, 5/31/02 at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2001-05-31.htm
22) "Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?", Stuart
Taylor, National Journal. D.C. Dispatch, 5/31/02 at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2001-05-31.htm
23) "Death penalty deters scores of killings ", Paul H. Rubin, The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 3/13/02, from
www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0302/0314death.html
copyright 2001-2004 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
PO Box 55159, Houston, Texas 77255
My focus has been on violent crime issues and what can be done, within the
criminal justice and legislative systems, to lessen injury to the innocent and
to prosecute the guilty. To accomplish that goal, involvement in community
education, elections, legislation, victim's rights issues, including assistance
in individual cases are all important.