Mr. Tallman disregards the studies on deterrence, by stating that because studies reach different conclusions, we should disregard them.

There is not the balance he presumes.

Studies finding for deterrence state such, studies not finding for deterrence don't say that no one is deterrered, but that their study didn't measure any of those deterred, if they were.

Studies finding for deterrence means that having the death penalty and/or executing murderers spares more innocent people, by preventing some potential murderers from murdering.

Studies not finding for deterrence, don't say that no one was deterred, but that their study couldn't find for deterrence, if it exists.

The choice becomes saving innocent life or, possibly not saving innocent life.

The choice is simple. The weight, if unsure, must go to saving innocent life.

Again, not a close call.

Furthermore, since 2001, there are 16 US studies, inclusive of there defenses, finding for death penalty deterrenc

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.

Virtually all criminals realize the real prospects of being caught, that is the only reason they attempt to be undetected in their crimes. Virtually all criminals show a fear of apprehension because they fear sanction.

Criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole?

What percentage of capital murderers:
-- seek a plea bargain to a death sentence?
-- argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial?
-- waive their appeals and speed up the execution process?

In nearly 100% of these cases, they prefer long term imprisonment.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

If nearly 100% of death penalty eligible murderers tell us they prefer life imprisonment over the death penalty, logic finds that potential murderers, whom Tallman and most of us would conclude are more rational, would also see the death penalty as a greater deterrent than a life sentence.

Weight in favor of the death penalty as an enhanced deterrent.

Mr. Tallman disregards the studies on deterrence, by stating that because studies reach different conclusions, we should disregard them.

There is not the balance he presumes.

Studies finding for deterrence state such, studies not finding for deterrence don't say that no one is deterrered, but that their study didn't measure any of those deterred, if they were.

Studies finding for deterrence means that having the death penalty and/or executing murderers spares more innocent people, by preventing some potential murderers from murdering.

Studies not finding for deterrence, don't say that no one was deterred, but that their study couldn't find for deterrence, if it exists.

The choice becomes saving innocent life or, possibly not saving innocent life.

The choice is simple. The weight, if unsure, must go to saving innocent life.

Again, not a close call.

Since 2001, there are 16 US studies, inclusive of their defenses, finding for death penalty deterrence.