Neutral Expert™ Deborah Denno Rears Her Nonpartisan Head Yet Again
Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay about the death penalty that cites Neutral Expert™ Deborah Denno:
Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and expert on lethal injection, highlights this same political inertia in a recent article in the Fordham Law Review (PDF). State death-penalty procedures are screwed up because while courts and lawmakers want to be tough on the death penalty, they don’t want to dirty their hands with execution. Denno writes that “the entities most responsible for implementing the state’s death sentence never want to be associated with the details of it—not the legislatures, not the courts, and until September 27, 2007, not the Supreme Court.”
Well. Denno is a little more than a “law professor and expert on lethal injection.” She is a partisan opponent of the death penalty. I explained here, in a post that whacked L.A. Times partisan Henry Weinstein for citing Denno as a neutral expert.
Of course, nobody thinks Dahlia Lithwick is neutral — so I guess we should expect her seemingly neutral experts to be partisans. Right?
So…do you disagree with her point or what?
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/13/2007 @ 5:42 amAre you saying that her lack of neutrality makes her less of an expert? Are you saying that she’s being deceptive? Did she start with a bias and become an expert? Or did she become expert and than form an opinion? Are there any experts that don’t have an opinion? I have no idea what your point is.
That Dahlia might have mentioned Denno doesn’t want people to be executed — while citing Denno for the idea that government doesn’t want people to be executed.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/13/2007 @ 6:16 amIn all the stories regarding the “mounting evidence of pain” – by using the three drug cocktail – Why do they not contain any information from anthesialogists. The Baze case provides SCOTUS with the opportunity to establish a “Daulbert” like standard. You cant opine on the cruel or unusual standard if the facts being ruled upon are based on junk science or at best a very, very remote likihood of pain.
joe - dallas (138e46) — 11/13/2007 @ 6:18 amjoe #1 – Is there some particular problem with accurately portraying this person? Why is it so damn difficult for the press to just be honest?
JD (388d32) — 11/13/2007 @ 6:58 amJD is “press” and “honest” an oxymoron?
Sue (b3ba52) — 11/13/2007 @ 7:44 amI was just trying to find out if P was trying to make any statement other than that the quoted person has biases that could have been placed in the article.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/13/2007 @ 12:11 pmNo, you weren’t Joe. You launched a full verbal broadsides implying that Patterico was quibbling about biased sources cloaked as experts, so your feigned surprise at the response is humorous.
Here’s why Patterico has a point:
If you have no problem with Lithwick’s supposed expert, then in, say, a discussion of free press and the media, the following should equally pass muster
Point is, Rush is partisan – he’s unapologetically conservative – and should be referred to as such. Just like death penalty opponent Deborah Denno.
Socrates Abroad (e43502) — 11/13/2007 @ 8:28 pmWell said, Socrates.
JD (33beff) — 11/14/2007 @ 6:51 amLets stop all this whinning and quit all those stupid appeals and quit this whiing from a bunch of liberal bleedinghearts
krazy kagu (6b296a) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:24 amActually socrates, I meant what I said. This is the 3rd time, that i know of, that Patterico has written a post that boils down to:
“I have no comment on the point of the article but I don’t like something the writer did or didn’t do.”
That’s fine. Watchdogs are useful.
I also thought that he might know a lot more about the expert than he had posted and that this info might be relevant.
Also, He didn’t say she wasn’t an expert, just that she was also an activist. If an expert has an opinion, that can be useful to know for a multiple reasons.
But, re-reading my comment I did come across as a tool. I’m sorry about that. It wasn’t my intention.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/14/2007 @ 6:43 pmjoe – I will not speak for Patterico, but from my perspective, this is more of a meta- type of post. It is common for the media to go to incredible lengths to identify Republicans, and their supporters, as such in the newspapers, TV, etc … Often, their party precedes their name. They use the party, or their conservative positions as a means to discredit their opinion, or show that it is biased. However, the same standards are not applied to Dem politicians and liberals in general. A Republic expert on partial birth abortion would be an ideological Christian right abortion zealot, while the Dem counterpart would be a womens reproductive health expert.
JD (33beff) — 11/14/2007 @ 6:48 pmJD, that’s a fair point, and one good reason why watchdogs are valuable. I don’t think the presence of some bias will in itself invalidate an argument but I agree that in this case it could have been added without any difficulty or cost.
Full disclosure, I oppose the death penalty because
1. It hasn’t been shown to lower the crime rate.
2. It has been shown to result in the execution of innocent people.
3. There’s very little chance of escaping a modern prison. So it doesn’t make us any safer from the people we kill than life in prison without parole.
4. It’s expensive.
5. Making it cheaper would likely result in killing more people for crimes they didn’t commit.
The argument that dying hurts seems silly to me. Although i find it odd if we can’t find a poison that doesn’t hurt.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/14/2007 @ 6:57 pmjoe – That it could have been added without any difficulty or cost, and yet was not, is even more maddening. Were there a death penalty supporter quoted, they would have most certainly been labeled as a pro-death penalty Republican.
As for the numbered bullet points, just off the top of my head …
1) Does not matter if it reduces the crime rate. It removes one murderer from society, and makes them no longer able to cause harm.
JD (33beff) — 11/14/2007 @ 7:18 pm2) I see this alleged, but not substantiated. I admit, it is likely to have happened. But I have not seen proof that we have executed an innocent.
3) It is not just about making us safer, or preventing escape. They could continue to cause harm to others imprisoned with them, to guards, to medical staff, etc …
4) It is expensive, as well it should be. We have a rigorous system of review in place. It is also expensive to imprison them for life.
5) This one just seems to be an extension of #4. Since I think it should be expensive, I will not quibble with decreasing the costs.
Just my 2 cents …
JD (33beff) — 11/14/2007 @ 7:49 pmJD,
To my mind, 1 innocent person is enough to invalidate the death penalty since i see no benefit to society beyond the satisfaction of executing those people that obviously deserve it. this study seems pretty good to meet my mark. The other factual claim i made was that it doesn’t reduce crime.
I will say that there are a number of people I’ve seen in the news lately that (assuming they’re guilty) I’d be happy to execute. But I think letting them live (for the rest of their lives in jail) is a small price to pay for not executing an innocent person.
I’m going to skip the low rate of prison break unless you really need a link.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:16 pmI am not concerned with them breaking out of prison. They continue to pose a threat to any and all people that they come in contact with – other prisoners, guards, prison staff, medical staff.
Additionally, it is of no concern to me how it affects the crime rate. One known murderer will no longer have the opportunity to ply his or her trade. It is one less murdered sharing the same air that you and I are blessed to breathe.
FWIW, I really liked that Freakonomics book.
JD (33beff) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:24 pmYeah, i’m fine with the idea that the death penalty kills people that put their babies into the microwave.
I’m not fine with the idea that the death penalty kills some poor (low income) guy (more men than women by %) who didn’t actually commit the crime.
For me the question is: “What does it cost us to not kill people that didn’t do it?”
1. We have to tolerate their continued existence.
It sucks, but prison is pretty bad. So I don’t see that as a big deal. It’s worse for the victim and that troubles me.
2. As you pointed out, they can hurt more people in prison.
I’m all for making prison safer. I don’t think a few executions will have much more affect on prison guard safety than it will the prison’s population. ‘
3. They could escape and hurt more people.
I don’t think this is likely.
So, i don’t think the death penalty is useful.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:37 pmYeah, and I loved freakonimics.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:37 pmI liked that the author was willing to take on incredibly controversial and incendiary topics in such a straight-forward manner. That is sorely lacking in the discourse these days.
JD (33beff) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:40 pmI like that he did it well. It was education and entertaining. Moore, Malkin and Ann Colture take on controvery but they’re neither of those things.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/14/2007 @ 8:49 pm