Death Penalty Articles

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors

Patti March — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:56:00 GMT

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07

SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT

The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.

Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.

In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."

This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.

Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration.

First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.

When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them.

Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers.

Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.

History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.

Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions.

If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.

If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, saving more innocent lives.

No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 10 recent ones, find that executions do deter.

As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives.

If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.

Thirdly, we know that some criminals don't murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it.

Executions save more innocent lives.

Therefore, the Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered -- a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope's, and other's, conclusions.

Contrary to the Church's belief, that the Pope's opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.

Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended -- unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims.

When the choice is between

1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or
2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered,

the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)

Pope John Paul II's death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.

Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all.

A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important fact.

Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.

Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.

These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope's position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Pope John Paul II's prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.

Most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction.
1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression.
4.   Deterrence

It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was incomplete and improper.

At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.

The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.

For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution.

(read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).

"In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)

Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment." ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.

Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.

The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from 'paramount obedience' to God's eternal law to a civil standard reflecting 'steady improvements' . . . in the penal system?". Such teachings hadn't changed. The Pope's position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings.

If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent "paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?

The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.

Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society -- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)

The Pope's position is now based upon the state of the corrections system -- a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before -- meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then -- were and are well aware of.

Since it's inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it would have been revealed long before 1995.

There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard. The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder.

If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.

The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.

Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope.

"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)

Again, with regard to the Pope's prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent.

Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.

In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes.

Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?

Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.

So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?

It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.

The Pope's position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstruct the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops.

(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,

in a blog     (replace dot)    domid.blogspot(DOT)com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007

NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.

(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at
homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective" at
www(DOT)sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm

(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
www(dot)st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

(5) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?", KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

(6) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS" , KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp

(7) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty", by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
www(dot)tfp.org/crusade/crusade_mag_vol_87.pdf

(8) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
www(dot)firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022

(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld(DOT)compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm

(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.

copyright 1997-2007 Dudley Sharp

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharp(at)aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Pro death penalty sites

homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.

-----------

Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

Patti March — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:40:28 GMT

1) 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:   June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004

2) Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate's power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). "

"Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty."

"Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners."

"The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. "

"Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death."

"The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.

"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. "

("The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?" at http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3
NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the sections "The Purposes of Punishment" and "Harm Attributed to the Death Penalty", it is, otherwise, a solid historical treatment of the Church and the death penalty)

3) St. Augustine: "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

4) St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

5) St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

6) Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)

7) Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

_________________________________________________________

A specific case

"For the temporary gratification of his lust, the defendant destroyed an entire family's future. He has forfeited his right to live." Superior Court Judge William R. Froeberg endors(ing) the jury's recommendation to impose the death penalty on Alejandro Avila, who  kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered 5 year old Samantha Runnion. "Avila grabbed a kicking and screaming Samantha as she played outside her Stanton home. Her nude body was found the following day in the mountains about 50 miles away, left on the ground as if it had been posed."   ( " 'Judge: Girl's killer forfeits 'right to live' "- Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA), July 23, 2005, ASSOCIATED PRESS)
___________________________________________________________

8) "Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty" (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52), "It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)." Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree "that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death" (First Things, May 2001). Moreover, Cardinal Dulles admits that opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches." "Anglican theologian Oliver O'Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is "almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty" ("The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae," in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219)." ("Capital Punishment, Justice, and Timothy McVeigh", Keith Pavlischek. The Center For Public Justice, May 21, 2001, www(dot)cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$444

9) Pope (and Saint) Pius V: "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder."   "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

10) St. Thomas Aquinas: "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

11) "St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves." " That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty." Prof. Michael Pakaluk, The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991

Christian, not specifically Catholic, references

12) Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: "if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die." Acts 25:11. "Very clearly this constitutes an acknowledgment on the part of the inspired apostle that the state continued to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice, just as it did from the days of Noah (Gen 9:6)".

13) God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11. By executing two such devoted Christians for lying to Him, does the Holy Spirit show confirmation of His support for His divinely instituted civil punishment of execution for premeditated murder or does it show His rejection of capital punishment? And read all of Revelation.

14) "You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER" and "Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court". But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, "Raca", shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, "You fool", shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell." Jesus, Matthew 5:17-22. Should any explanation be necessary, Jesus is saying that even as execution is the required punishment for murderers, as per the Old Testament, He tells us that those who speak ill of others and have hatred in their heart shall suffer in hell. Not only does Jesus never speak out against the civil authorities just use of execution for murder, He prescribes a much more serious, eternal punishment for those who hate and speak ill of others. And what price does God exact for any and all sin? Death. (Romans 5:12-14)

15) Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above."(John 19:10-11). "Jesus reminds Pilate that the implementation of the death penalty is a divinely entrusted responsibility that is to be justly implemented. Prof. Carl F.H. Henry, 45th Annual N.A.E. Convention, "Capital Punishment and The Bible". Jesus confirms that the civil authority has the lawful right to execute Jesus, and others, and that this right has been given to that authority by God.

16) " . . . pronouncements about divine behavior (in the Hebrew Bible) correlated in the judicial context to attitudes toward death as a proper punishment. Quite clearly, the New Testament carries on the earlier mentality." As Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount, "Obedience will be rewarded with life; disobedience will be punished with destruction. A God who rewards with life and punishes with death is One whose laws provide for death as a judicial punishment." Dr. Baruch Levine, "Capital Punishment," p 31, What the Bible Really Says, ed. Smith & Hoffman, 1993.


17) "The rejection of capital punishment is not to be dignified as a higher Christian way" that enthrones the ethics of Jesus. The argument that Jesus as the incarnation of divine love cancels the appropriateness of capital punishment in the New Testament era has little to commend it. Nowhere does the Bible repudiate capital punishment for premeditated murder; not only is the death penalty for deliberate killing of a fellow human being permitted, but it is approved and encouraged, and for any government that attaches at least as much value to the life of an innocent victim as to a deliberate murderer, it is ethically imperative." Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, Twilight Of A Great Civilization, Crossway, 1988, p 70,72.

18) Father Pierre Lachance, O.P. : "There is no question but that capital punishment was not only allowed but mandated in the Old Testament. In the New Law (New Testament) (St.) Paul recognizes the legitimacy of capital punishment . . . "It is not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword. He is God's servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer". Romans 13:4.(TDP:OVS, 1986, pg. 84)

19) Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, wrote a landmark essay on the death penalty entitled "A Bible Study". Here is a synopsis of his analysis: " . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." (p. 111-113) Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: ". . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy." (p. 116). Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.


20) "God, Himself, instituted the death penalty (Genesis 9:6) and Christ regarded capital punishment as a just penalty for murder (Matthew 26:52). God gave to government the legitimate authority to use capital punishment to restrain murder and to punish murderers. Not to inflict the death penalty is a flagrant disregard for God's divine Law which recognizes the dignity of human life as a product of God's creation. Life is sacred, and that is why God instituted the death penalty. Consequently, whoever takes innocent human life forfeits his own right to live." Protestant scholar Rev. Reuben Hahn (Mt. Prospect, Ill.), Human Events, 3/2/85.

21) Charles W. Colson, Prison Fellowship : "It is because humans are created in the image of God that capital punishment for premeditated murder was a perpetual obligation. The full range of biblical data weighs in its favor. This is the one crime in the Bible for which no restitution was possible (Numbers 35:31,33). The Noahic covenant recorded in Genesis 9 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. "Gen 9:6) antedates Israel and the Mosaic code; it transcends Old Testament Law, per se, and mirrors ethical legislation that is binding for all cultures and eras. The sanctity of human life is rooted in the universal creation ethic and thus retains its force in society. The Christian community is called upon to articulate standards of biblical justice, even when this may be unpopular. Capital justice is part of that non-negotiable standard. Society should execute capital offenders to balance the scales of moral judgement." From "Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement", by Charles W. Colson., a former opponent of capital punishment. He is spiritual advisor and friend to numerous death row inmates and the Founder of Prison Fellowship, the largest Christian ministry serving incarcerated prisoners. Ph.703-478-0100.

22) The movie Dead Man Walking reveals a perfect example of how just punishment and redemption can work together. Had rapist/murderer Matthew Poncelet not been properly sentenced to death by the civil authority, he would not have met Sister Prejean, he would not have received spiritual instruction, he would not have taken responsibility for his crimes and he would not have reconciled with God. Had Poncelet never been caught or had he only been given a prison sentence, his character makes it VERY clear that those elements would not have come together. Indeed, for the entire film and up until those last moments, prior to his execution, Poncelet was not fully truthful with Sister Prejean. His lying and manipulative nature was fully exposed at that crucial time. It was not at all surprising, then, that it was just prior to his execution that all of the spiritual elements may have come together for his salvation. It was now, or never. Truly, just as St. Aquinas predicted, it was his pending execution which finally led to his repentance. For Christians, the most crucial concerns of Dead Man Walking must be and are redemption and eternal salvation. And, for that reason, it may well be, for Christians, the most important pro-death penalty movie ever made. A real life example of this may be the case of Dennis Gentry, executed April 16, 1997, for the highly premeditated murder of his friend Jimmy Don Ham. During his final statement, Gentry said, "I'd like to thank the Lord for the past 14 years (on death row) to grow as a man and mature enough to accept what's happening here tonight. To my family, I'm happy. I'm going home to Jesus." As the lethal drugs began to flow, Gentry cried out, "Sweet Jesus, here I come. Take me home. I'm going that way to see the Lord." (Michael Gracyk, Associated Press, Houston Chronicle, 4/17/97). We cannot know if Gentry or the fictitious Poncelet or the two real murderers from the DMW book really did repent and receive salvation. But, we do know that St. Aquinas advises us that murderers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. We should err on the side of caution and not give murderers the opportunity to harm again. Indeed, as Dr. W.H. Baker confirms in his On Capital Punishment (Moody Press, 1985), biblical text finds that it is a violation of God's mandate not to execute premeditated murderers - and nowhere does the text contradict this finding.


23) Christians who speak out against capital punishment in deserving cases " . . . tend to subordinate the justice of God to the love of God. . . . Peter, by cutting off Malchu's ear,. . . was most likely trying to kill the soldier (John 18:10)", prompting " . . . Christ's statement that those who kill by the sword are subject to die by the sword (Matthew 26:51-52)." This " implicitly recognizes the government's right to exercise the death penalty." Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, "A Matter of Life and Death", p 52 Christianity Today, 8/4/95.


24) Sister Helen Prejean: "It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus' admonition "Let him without sin cast the first stone", when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) - the Mosaic Law prescribed death - should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to show Jesus' wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.

Misuse and misunderstanding of John 8:7 is quite common. See Forgery in the Gospel of John
www(dot)religioustolerance.org/john_8(dot)htm

25) Some churches are now espousing a pro-life continuum, a philosophy whereby the taking of any life, under any circumstances, must be condemned - such as the taking of lives through war, self defense, suicide, abortion and the death penalty. This is an interesting social philosophy which directly conflicts with the Word of God. Catholic biblical scholar Father Richard Roach, S.J. argues that it is not a contradiction for religious people to oppose abortion and . . . to support capital punishment. "Abortion is absolutely prohibited. It is always evil. No one can ever abort a guilty baby, so the act can never be right. This is not the case, however, with either capital punishment or a just and defensive war. It is only murder, along with its subdivisions suicide and abortion, which God's law absolutely prohibits. The upshot of all this is that trying to put abortion, capital punishment and war in one package makes chaos of Catholic morals and can lead one to misinterpret God's Law . . . " Princeton. University scholar Dr. Paul Ramsey fully concurs: "abortion and capital punishment are two different questions. There is no inconsistency between moral disapproval of unnecessarily killing the innocent and the judicial execution of the guilty." (Haven Bradford Gow, "Religious Views Support The Death Penalty", The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints, Greenhaven Press, 1986, p. 81- 82 & 84).

26) "The opposition to capital punishment is not based on Scripture but on a vague philosophical idea that the taking of a life is wrong, under every circumstance, and fails to distinguish adequately between killing and murder, between punishment and crime. The argument that capital punishment rules out the possibility of repentance for crime is unrealistic. If a wanton killer does not repent when the sentence of death is upon him, he certainly will not repent if he has 20-50 years of life imprisonment. The sentence of death on a killer is more redemptive than the tendency to excuse his crime as no worse than grand larceny. Mercy always infers a tacit recognition that justice and rightness are to be expected. The Holy God does not show mercy contrary to his righteousness but in harmony with it. That is why the awful Cross was necessary and a righteous Christ had to hang on it. That is why God's redemption is always conditioned by one's heart attitude. The Church and individual Christians should be active in their witness to the Gospel of love and forgiveness; but meanwhile wherever and whenever God's love and mercy are rejected, as in crime, natural law and order must prevail, not as extraneous to redemption but as part of the whole scope of God's dealings with man. No matter how often a jury recommends mercy, the law of capital punishment must stand as the silent but powerful witness to the sacredness of God-given life. Active justice must be administered when the sacredness of life is violated. Life is sacred, and he who violates the sacredness of life through murder must pay the supreme penalty. It is significant that when Jesus voluntarily went the way of the Cross He chose the capital punishment of His day as His instrument to save the world. And when He gave redemption to the repentant thief He did not save Him from capital punishment but gave him paradise instead. We see again that mercy and forgiveness are something different from being excused from wrongdoing. Synopsis of Dr. Jacob J. Vellenga's "Is Capital Punishment Wrong", p. 63-72, Essays on the Death Penalty, ed. T. Robert Ingram, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Vallenga is former Associate Executive of the United Presbyterian Church (USA).

27) The leadership councils of some Christian denominations in the U.S. have released statements in opposition to the death penalty. These statements reflect social positions that have questionable biblical foundation and, often, they reflect positions which selectively only discuss the mercy of God and improperly avoid the justice of God. For example, some believe that it would be hypocritical for Christians to support capital punishment, because that would suggest that some peoples sins are not forgivable. They argue that capital punishment conflicts with Jesus' teachings - that, if we are not willing to forgive, then we place ourselves outside of God's forgiveness. Such pronouncements are hardly convincing and are biblically inaccurate. All death row inmates, no matter how vile and numerous their misdeeds, are subject to the forgiveness of men and of God and, more importantly, they are subject to redemption and eternal salvation. Indeed, God compels us, individually, to forgive those who have harmed us. This, in no way, conflicts with the biblical mandate that the government authority impose the death penalty in deserving cases. Social positions cannot and do not replace biblical instruction. Furthermore, the murder victim is hardly capable of forgiving the murderer. The biblical requirement to forgive those who injure us is an individual requirement. Therefore, no one, other than God, has the moral authority to forgive the crime of murder.

28) "While the thief on the cross found pardon in the sight of God. 'Today you will be with Me in Paradise - that pardon did not extend to eliminating the consequences of his crime. 'We are being justly punished, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds'. (Luke 23:39-43)". Neither God nor Jesus nor the Holy Spirit nor the prophets nor the apostles ever spoke out against the civil authorities use of executions in deserving cases - not even at the very time of Jesus' own execution when He pardoned the sins of the thief, who was being crucified along side Him. Indeed, quite the opposite. Their biblical support for capital punishment is consistent and overwhelming. Furthermore, Jesus never confuses the requirements of civil justice with those of either eternal justice or personal relations. Charles Colson accurately recognizes this fact in stating that" it leads to a perversion of legal justice to confuse the sphere of private relations with that of civil law." All quotations from Charles Colson's "Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement".

29) Protestant scholar and journalist Rev. G. Aiken Taylor states, "Most Christians tend to confuse the Christian personal ethic with the requirements of social order. In other words, we tend to apply what the Bible teaches us about how we - personally - should behave toward our neighbors with what the Bible teaches about how to preserve order in society. And there is a big difference. Capital punishment is specifically enjoined in the Bible. 'Who ever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed' (Genesis 9-6). This command is fully agreeable to the Sixth Commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' (Exodus 20:13), because the two appear in the same context. Exactly 25 verses after saying 'Thou shalt not kill', the Law says, 'He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death' (Ex 21:12)." See also Leviticus 24:17 and Numbers 35:30-31.(TDP:OVS, pg. 84,1986) Biblical teachings regarding personal conduct, civil government and eternal judgement and relations are often taken out of context, thereby replacing one duty or instruction improperly with another.


30) Biblical scholar Lloyd R. Bailey's book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says (Abingdon Press, 1987): An approved synopsis.

The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer. In the case of murder, the biblical materials offer the clearest and most sustained justification for the death penalty. The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant. A person who takes a human life, without proper sanction, forfeits any right to life - no alternative is allowed and the community must not be swayed by values to the contrary.

Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values. However meritorious mercy may be, however abundantly evident it may be in God's own dealings, murder was an offense for which mercy and pity were not allowed and for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden. The sentence is set by God's torah and a judge cannot have discretion in this matter. Murder is something utterly on its own, nothing can be compared to it.

It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover the 'mind of Jesus Christ' on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of 'the hell of fire'. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a 'hard liner' who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not 'to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.', offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH' (Matthew 15:1-9).

All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible's own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.' (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.).

This book is mandatory reading for those who wish to undertake a thorough and accurate look at this often misused and misunderstood area of concern and debate.

copyright 2001-2006

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Pro death penalty sites
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)dpinfo.com
http://joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.org/
http://www.yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Inaccuracies of No Death Penalty Wisconsin

Patti March — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:06:00 GMT

To: The Wisconsin State Legislature and Media throughout Wisconsin

The No Death Penalty Wisconsin (NODPWI) presents many inaccuracies, by commission or omission.

The NODPWI lists "A Dozen Reasons to be Against the Death Penalty" (1). Their listed reasons are false or misleading. A review is below.

NODPWI claims: 1) Risk of Killing Innocents - hundreds of people on death row have been released/exonerated. Four were exonerated only after they died awaiting execution.

Reality: Since 1973, possibly 20 inmates have been released from death row because of actual innocence, whereby there was an actual innocence finding by the appellate courts or an agreement of actual innocence by both prosecutors and defense counsel in those cases. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900. The evidence is that innocents are more at risk when we fail to execute murderers. Many cases have been overturned and many inmates released. However, overwhelmingly, these cases did not have any evidence of actual innocence, but were overturned by the "super due process" of death penalty cases, based upon legal issues. I am aware of one case, of a confirmed actually innocent person, who died while on death row. This tragic case would have ended the same way had he been sentenced to life.

NODPWI claims: 2) DNA evidence is not infallible - sloppy lab work and ill-trained staffs have lead to many cases of contaminated evidence. 11 people in Oklahoma have been executed based on contaminated DNA evidence.

Reality: Nothing is infallible, but DNA is the most accurate crime fighting and evidence tool that has ever existed. I suspect the 11 cases referenced are related to Oklahoma DNA "expert" Joyce Gochrist's disasters . It will be some time before all of those investigations are complete. No one will defend those conditions. However, the overwhelming majority of testings --maybe 99% -- do not have problems. Most relevant, history shows that Wisconsin is competent to responsibly manage DNA evidence and testing. Parole and probation evaluations are not infallible, either. Many innocents are harmed and murdered by those so improperly released. Perhaps NODPWI will start a new coalition to ban those practices because they are much more harmful to innocents.

NODPWI claims: 3) Death penalty is not an effective criminal deterrent- Crime had not gone down since capital punishment was reinstated in the late 1970s. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.

Reality: Crime and murder rates have dropped dramatically since the 1970's. 8 recent US studies have found for a deterrent effect of capital punishment. Detroit Michigan and Washington DC have no death penalty and have been perennial leaders in murder rates for decades. However, deterrence is not measured by looking at just murder rates vs execution rates. All prospects for a negative outcome deter some. There are no exceptions.

NODPWI claims: 4) Death penalty is racially and economically biased - African Americans account for over 40% of the death row population and are only 12% of the total US population. Most people on death row are poor and uneducated and often cannot afford quality legal assistance.

Reality: Fortunately, the US doesn't base criminal sentencing on population counts, but, rather, on crimes committed. White murderers are more likely to be executed than are black murderers and are executed more quickly than black death row inmates. The rich, very rarely, commit capital murder. Is there any evidence that the rich murderers are less likely to be executed than are their poorer ilk, based upon the commission of capital murder by those differing economic groups? Virtually all people on death row are educated. Most are poor because most capital murderers are poor. 99.9% of the poor do not commit capital murder.

NODPWI claims: 5) The Death Penalty Costs More - Death penalty cases cost far more than life without parole. All of the appeals, expert witnesses, and lab tests mean that death penalty cases can cost up to of 90 million dollars. Some US counties have gone bankrupt because of a single death penalty case. Wisconsinites need to consider Milwaukee County, the county with the most murders cases, and thus the most potential death penalty cases. Milwaukee County is already on the brink of bankruptcy. The death penalty could cost the state's most populous county millions that would otherwise be going to social services that county residents (many of whom are in poverty) desperately need.

Reality: The up front costs of death penalty cases are higher than similar/equivalent cases, seeking life. However, when taking into account; (1) the huge cost savings of plea bargaining a potential death penalty case to a life sentence, (2) the extremely high cost of long term medical care for geriatric life cases and (3) the enhanced deterrent and enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty, there is no reason for the death penalty to be more expensive than equivalent life cases. In fact, there is no reason for death cases to be more expensive than similar, equivalent life cases.

NODPWI claims: 6) The US is one of the world's leading executioners, putting us in a group with countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam.

Reality: The US is responsible for about 3% of the world's executions. Regardless of percentages or number, US juries give the death penalty when they find it the most just punishment for the crime, just as they do when other punishments are assessed. Only the most ignorant would compare the criminal justice systems of the US with those four other nations.

NODPWI claims: 7) The US is one of the few democracies and the only nation in NATO to use the death penalty.

Reality: True. However, many of the alleged democracies are not very democratic when it comes to the death penalty, choosing not to have that sanction, even when a majority of their population approves it. According to Gallup, 80% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Pretty democratic.

NODPWI claims: 8) Wisconsin has recently enacted tougher sentencing requirements for murder cases, and also, life without parole guarantees no further crimes will be committed.

Reality: Untrue. Living murderers do harm and murder, again -- in prison, after escape and after improper release. No reasonable person will guaranty otherwise. Executed murderers never harm or murder, again.

NODPWI claims: 9) The current method of lethal injection used on death row prisoners is so inhumane that even veterinarians don't use it to put animals to sleep.

Reality: This is a total deception, strictly the product of dishonest anti death penalty sources.

NODPWI claims: 10) It is a violation of medical ethics for doctors to assist with executions.

Reality: Execution is a criminal justice practice. There is no need for doctors to assist with executions, as we all know.

NODPWI claims: 11) Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and many other political and human rights groups oppose the death penalty.

Reality: Many oppose the death penalty, it doesn't mean that they are correct. 80% of Americans supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh.

NODPWI claims: 12) The death penalty is opposed by many major religious groups including most Jewish and Christian denominations.

Reality: That is true, but their reasons for opposing the death penalty are often based upon standard anti death penalty inaccuracies. Furthermore, many of their theological or biblical positions are incomplete or erroneous. A majority of Americans, including religious individuals, support executions. Biblical and theological support for the death penalty is solid.

NODPWI states:"Our purpose is to educate Wisconsin citizens to cast an intelligent vote against the death penalty referendum . . ." (2)

To the contrary, their goal appears to be deception.

I am willing to conduct a thorough discussion of these issues with the No Death Penalty Wisconsin coalition on their site.

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

(1) www(dot)nodeathpenaltywi.org/whyvoteno.htm

(2) www(dot)nodeathpenaltywi.org/aboutNODPWI.htm

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Pro death penalty sites
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www.dpinfo.com
http://joshmarquis.blogspot.com./
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www.prodeathpenalty.com
www.prodeathpenalty.org/
www.yesdeathpenalty.com/ (Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

"The Exonerated" - are any actually innocent? New Mexico

Patti March — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:03:00 GMT

To: Media and Government throughout New Mexico and

U of New Mexico

"The Exonerated" - anti truth, anti victim - are any actually innocent?
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

This play is presented as a true story of six innocents sent to death row because of corruption within the system.

The Exonerated is a true story just as CATS and The Lion King are.

Reviews of each case, with links and contacts for your own review.

1) Robert Earl Hayes Nothing about Hayes’ retrial changes the appeals court’s original observation that evidence existed to establish Hayes’ guilt. Hayes has now been convicted of a nearly identical murder in New York, which was committed prior to the murder in Florida.    Go to

no. 74 at http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
and pages 36-39 at http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

2) Sunny Jacobs -- After the shooting, still at the scene of the murders, a trooper asked Jacobs: "Do you like shooting troopers?" Jacobs response: "We had to."

The best review of the blatant dishonesty of this "Exonerated" case is "The Myth of Innocence", Josh Marquis, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v 95, No 2, Winter, 2005, Northwestern University School of Law.

Mr. Marquis can be reached at CoastDA@aol.com, or 503-791-0012.

There is no evidence to support a claim of innocence for Jacobs in the murder of two police officers in Florida. She eventually pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and was released for time served, after 16 years. Hardly a finding of innocence.
go to pages 40-46 at www (dot) floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

3) David Keaton -- Keaton's defense attorney stated that even without Keaton's numerous confessions, that the eyewitness testimony was likely sufficient to convict Keaton for the capital murder.

Through the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, Keaton's numerous confessions, as well as those of co-defendants, Keaton was sentenced to death. There is no credible claim for innocence in this case of robbery/murder. The case was overturned on appeal. The prosecution chose not to re prosecute for a number of good reasons -- 1. he was no longer subject to the death penalty, because of changes in the law 2. Keaton was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a robbery that he committed ten days prior to the robbery/murder for which he was sentenced to death and 3. illness of witnesses.

Keaton was sentenced to death in 1971, under the old death penalty law. He was on death row for 13 months when the US Supreme Court overturned all death penalty cases in Furman v Georgia.

Read pages 60-68 at www (dot) floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

4) Delbert Tibbs -- The Florida Supreme Court candidly conceded that it should not have reversed Tibbs' conviction since the evidence was legally sufficient.

The state prosecutor who chose not to retry Tibbs recently explained to the Florida Commission on Capital Crimes that Tibbs “was never an innocent man wrongfully accused. He was a lucky human being. He was guilty, he was lucky and now he is free."
See no.10 at http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm
and pages 134-138 at www(dot)floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

5) Kerry Max Cook -- The judge, in accepting Cook's no contest plea, said that Cook was guilty of the crime and that the state was capable of proving its case.

This is not a DNA exoneration case.

Mr. Cook was convicted of the murder of Linda Jo Edwards, who was found in her apartment on June 10, 1977, beaten on the head with a plaster statue, stabbed in the throat, chest and back and sexually mutilated. Mr. Cook was arrested 2 months later where he worked as a bartender in Port Arthur. Officers said they found Mr. Cook's fingerprint on Ms. Edwards' apartment door. At first he denied knowing Ms. Edwards. Cook lied. He later said they met at the apartment complex's swimming pool and he went to her apartment. His original conviction resulting in a death sentence was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. A 1992 retrial ended in a hung jury. He was again convicted and sentenced to death in 1994. That verdict was overturned in 1996. Before a 4th trial, Mr. Cook pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of murder. He was sentenced to 20 years time served. Mr. Cook took the deal so he could avoid a possible return to death row. By taking the plea, both Cook and his attorneys conceded that this is hardly a case where there is no evidence for guilt and certainly not a case with confirmable actual innocence.

for more on this case, contact David Dobbs at david (at) davidedobbs.com

6) Gary Gauger -- Gauger confessed to the murder of his parents. That confession was thrown out based upon the lack of probable cause to arrest him. Gauger's ex-wife and children filed a wrongful death suit against Gauger in the murder of his parents. Gary's brother remains so convinced of Gary's guilt in the murders of their parents, that he has prepared a review of the case which claims to support Gary's guilt, even though there are now two other people jailed for the murders.

Furthermore, the trial court erroneously imposed a death sentence. The court granted a motion for reconsideration and vacated the sentence less than ten months later in September 1994. The trial court found that it had not considered all the mitigating evidence and concluded that Gauger should not be sentenced to death. People v. Bull, 705 N.E.2d 824, 843 (Ill. 1999); Chicago Tribune (9/23/94). Gauger served a brief time on death row. He was not properly sentenced to death by the trial court. He should never have been sent to death row because the trial court did not finally sentence him to be executed. Gauger’s case is an example of how consideration of mitigating evidence under current law results in a sentence less than death.
see no. 69 at www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com/DPIC.htm

Some additional articles:

"Cross-Examination for a Drama That Puts the Death Penalty on Trial", Adam Liptak, New York Times, January 27, 2005
www(dot)nytimes.com/2005/01/27/theater/newsandfeatures/27pros.htm

"Prosecutors take exception to Court TV film", Richard Willing, USA TODAY, 1/24/05http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-24-exonerated_x.htm

"The Myth of Innocenceon’t believe everything you see on CourtTV", Joshua Marquis, National Review, 1/27/05 www(dot)nationalreview.com/comment/marquis200501270742.as
---------------------------

Are audiences being duped to further a political/social agenda? Of course. And theater critivcs? They simply don't bother to fact check and blindly accept and repeat whatever the producers tell them.

Only one theater critic, Tom Sime of the Dallas Morning News, bothered to see if the claims were true. His brief review resulted in this published comment: "Maybe three are actually innocent and three actually aren't. In any case, blind faith - in the criminal justice process or in the truth of crusading art- is best left at home."

"The Exonerated" is strictly a bit of anti-death penalty deception, which is not at all surprising. It appears that the Soros Foundation, through their Open Society Institute (OSI) is the primary benefactor of "The Exonerated" . The Soros Foundation finances anti death penalty efforts, worldwide.

Copyright 2002-2006

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Austin American-Statesman, lethal injection, confusion & ?DOGS?

Patti March — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:05:48 GMT

To: Editorial Board

The Austin American-Statesman:

You write:

"That leaves the door open for Texas and other states to continue executing inmates using at least one drug that isn't fit for putting down dogs." (EDITORIAL, "How the high court may have changed the death penalty", EDITORIAL BOARD, Saturday, June 17, 2006).

Which drug is that?

I am very surprised that you persist in this manner, particularly in light of the two emails that I sent to you, below.

Did you find something which contradicted this?

Sincerely, Dudley Sharp

In a message dated 6/12/2006 10:53:59 A.M. Central America Standard , Sharpjfa writes:

Dear Austin-American Statesman:

As per the email I sent you on 6/4, I received clarification on this point, below:

In a message dated 6/4/2006 3:28:48 P.M. Central America Standard Ti, Sharpjfa writes:

". . . a combination of pentobarbital with a neuromuscular blocking agent (a paralytic) is not an acceptable euthanasia agent." (4)

The barbiturates used in human lethal injection is not pentobarbital. However, the above statement, at footnote (2), makes no exceptions, so this becomes a point of confusion within the AVMA statements.

I have sent them an email for some clarification.

By combination, the AVMA meant that the two drugs were administered in the same syringe, together, at the same time.

There is a clear reason not to do this and human lethal injection procedures do not allow it.

So, with that clarification, there is no statement, by AVMA than can be used, without distortion, that speaks against the human lethal injection drug protocol.

It was completely fabricated by death penalty opponents.

If you have something in conflict with this, please let me know.

Sincerely, Dudley Sharp

In a message dated 6/4/2006 3:28:48 P.M. Central America Standard Ti, Sharpjfa writes:

To: Austin American-Statesman

Based upon my discussions and exchanges with the AAS, I thought the following might be useful. This is a brief review and is by no means authoritative.

If you find any material which will assist in a better understanding of these issues or which calls into question my review, I would like to see it.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Dudley Sharp, 713-622-5491

Lethal Injection: Texas law and veterinary standards: A Preliminary Review

by Dudley Sharp

As adopted within Senate Bill 572, within Texas's 78th legislature, and made into law, there are two specific methods for euthanasia of animals within Texas -- the use of sodium pentobarbitol or carbon monoxide.

Those selections might have been, partially, influenced by The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommendations of 2000. (1)

There is some literature questioning the use (of) carbon monoxide on animals.

I find no condemnation of any other drugs or protocol within this Texas law, which would bring into question the Texas lethal injection protocol. I have not spoken to the sponsor of the SB 572 legislation.

Within the death penalty debate, there is a recent allegation that veterinarians are prohibited from using pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the paralyzing agent used in human lethal injection, because it may cause and/or mask pain to the animals, within the euthanasia process.

However, this appears to be contradicted within the literature.

First, the AVMA actually makes a statement which, inadvertently, supports the Texas (and other jurisdictions') protocol -- the opposite of what the detractors have been claiming.

"When used "alone", these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized." (2)

Obviously, no state uses a paralytic without an anaesthetic -- EVER. The anesthesia is always used first. It appears that these absurd claims, originated by anti death penalty activists and falsely attributed to veterinary literature,  are a complete perversion of the literature.

To claim that paralytics are condemned in veterinary euthanasia, without mentioning the specific context, is an intentional deception. (The AVMA report does not mention the specific paralytic used in lethal injection for humans).

Secondly, with properly administered IVs, there would be no pain within the Texas lethal injection protocol - it is, chemically, impossible with the drugs and dosages administered.

Thirdly, the AVMA, specifically, cautions (3):

"The 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia has been widely misinterpreted.

1. The guidelines in this report are in no way intended to be used for human lethal injection.
2. The application of a barbiturate, paralyzing agent, and potassium chloride delivered in separate
syringes or stages (the common method used for human lethal injection) is not cited in the report.
3. The report never mentions pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the paralyzing agent used in human
lethal injection.

Before referring to the 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, please contact the AVMA to
ensure the association's position is stated correctly. Please contact Michael San Filippo, media relations
assistant at the AVMA, at 847-285-6687 (office), 847-732-6194 (cell) or msanfilippo@avma.org for more
information or to set up an interview with a veterinary expert." (3)

However, some confusion could arise with this statement from AVMA:

". . . a combination of pentobarbital with a neuromuscular blocking agent (a paralytic) is not an acceptable euthanasia agent." (4)

The barbiturates used in human lethal injection is not pentobarbital. However, the above statement, at footnote (2), makes no exceptions, so this becomes a point of confusion within the AVMA statements.

I have sent them an email for some clarification.

It must be noted, just as the AVMA did, that any transfer of their standards to human protocols may be inappropriate, unless and until some relevance is established, if it can be. Animals and people often react quite differently to the same substances.

Both speculation and assumption are unnecessary, when it is fairly easy to confirm the effects of these well known drugs on different subjects, IF they have even been used on the different subjects.

Based upon this literature, this veterinary nonsense was, likely, just another anti death penalty deception.

Furthermore, the AVMA approves of "potassium chloride in conjunction with prior general anesthesia" (5) -- the drug protocol used within the Texas lethal injection, with the exception of the paralytic used in between.

We can see more support for Texas's lethal injection within this review.

First, this two drug protocol is approved by AVMA, for animals. Secondly, the only disadvantage listed by AVMA for potassium chloride is "clonic spams" (6) -- the involuntary rapid and violent jerking of muscles soon after injection of the potassium. The effect can be similar in humans.

The paralytic drug, used second, within the Texas lethal injection protocol, helps to reduce, or eliminate, this effect. This is an obvious benefit in human executions.

In other words, a review of the AVMA literature finds much support for the Texas lethal injection protocol and nothing that conflicts with or condemns it.

Hopefully, this newest, blatant distortion by the anti death penalty crowd will soon fade and will be replaced with science and reason.

----------------------

Veterinary use of sodium pentobarbital

"Pentobarbital is a barbiturate that is available as both a free acid and a sodium salt, the former of which is only slightly soluble in water and ethanol." (7) (NOTE -- I don't believe this is used for human lethal injection).

"Veterinary medicine
In veterinary medicine sodium pentobarbital—traded under names such as Sagatal—is used as an anaesthetic.UBC Committee on Animal Care (2005). Euthanasia. SOP 009E1 - euthanasia - overdose with pentobarbital. The University of British Columbia. URL accessed on 4 October, 2005. Pentobarbital is an ingredient in Equithesin." (7)

"Veterinary Euthanasia
It is used by itself, or more often in combination with complementary agents such as phenytoin, in commercial animal euthanasia (2003). ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA. Animal Use Protocols. University of Virginia. URL accessed on 4 October, 2005. injectable solutions. Trade names include Euthasol, Euthatal, Beuthanasia-D and Fatal Plus. "(7)

1) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
   Appendix 1, page 693

2)    www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
          Appendix 4, page 696

3)   www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
         Cover Page

4) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf

          page 680.

5)   www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
         Page 680

6)    www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
         Page 681

7)    http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Pentobarbital

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Media - lack of credibility

Patti March — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:57:00 GMT

Dear Friends:

As most of you know, I, and quite a few others, correct the media on death penalty issues, when we can. It is impossible to keep up with all of the errors and/or one sided presentations - they are too many and too frequent.

However, I didn't realize that the media's credibility was, generally, this horrendous. FYI.

In 2005, Pew Media Research found that 45% of respondents said they could believe little to nothing that was written in their daily newspaper. (1)

(1) Media: More Voices, Less Credibility, Trends 2005, p. 49, Pew Media Research, pewresearch(dot)org/assets/files/trends2005-media.pdf

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, 713-622-5491

Innocence Issues: How Safe is the Death Penalty? Very.

Patti March — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:09:03 GMT

The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Recently though, even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers -- The New York Times -- has recognized that deception.

"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . ". ' (1)

This when death penalty opponents are claiming the release of 118 "innocents" from death row. The deceptions of those opponents were not broadly exposed, earlier, because most in the media -- like Dennis Rogers -- had forgotten to fact check -- death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their "exonerated" or "innocents" list.

A few of us have been publicly and actively exposing these deceptions, at least since 1998. The acknowledgment of this problem is just now being readily accepted -- "To be sure".

I believe that one would have a hard time finding 20-25 "categorically innocent" people released from death row, who were prosecuted during the modern US death penalty, after 1972, post Furman v Georgia.

During that same, post Furman period, about 7500 have been sentenced to death. We now know of a 0.3% error rate (0.4%, using Liptak's lower number) for sentencing actually innocent people to death.

None were executed -- meaning both trial and appeals have seen a 100% record in executing the guilty and sparing the innocent.

Appeals are an inescapable part of the death penalty system. Appeals review claims of both legal and actual innocence errors.

We all know and, reluctantly, accept that a certain percentage of actual innocents will be convicted. Locating actual innocents is the original foundation for appeals.

Obviously, the pre trial and trial portion of the system did not work properly in those 0.3-0.4% of cases.

However, could anyone have predicted a system that was 99.6-99.7% accurate in finding actual guilt and raising that number to 100%, on appeal, by sparing actual innocents the carrying out of that sentence?

12-13 of the released cases are DNA exonerations, although I think one of those had multiple offenders and is, therefore, not conclusive.

If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can reasonable conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 7500 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8-99.9% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system.

Have there been some horrible, inexcusable cases? Yes. Tragically all professions have that.

Does the death penalty system try to find and remedy those cases? Yes.

Based upon the accuracy of the actually guilty convicted and the appellate record of identifying actual innocents, is there a more accurate criminal justice practice in the world? Maybe not.

Why would any prosecutor say that this is proof that the system work.

We have our answer.

Furthermore, without the death penalty, the evidence is clear that many more innocents are at risk.

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

Is execution an enhanced incapacitator?

Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder,again, than are executed murderers. Who would have known?

Is the death penalty a deterrent?

7 recent studies, as well as the anecdotal evidence, say yes. Is there any negative consequence that doesn't deter some folks. Of course not.

Your choice.

Spare murderers lives and sacrifice more innocents. Execute murderers and spare more innocents.

Full report - All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

(1) "The Death of Innocents': A Reasonable Doubt", New York Times, Adam Liptak, 1/23/05, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/books/review/23LIPTAKL.html?ex=1109221200&en=93aa2967c4c6fa7b&ei=5070&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=login

Copyright 2005

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Pro death penalty sites
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.dpinfo.com/
www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://www.prodeathpenalty.org/
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/ny_sida_1.htm (from Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
www.vuac.org/capital

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.

Pope John Paul II: a pro-death penalty essay

Patti March — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:43:00 GMT

In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect the writings of Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."

The Pope is misinformed. Such cases are not at all rare.

Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.

Contrary to the Pope's belief, that his new opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true.

Three issues may have escaped the Pope's consideration.

First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them. What, apparently, escaped the Pope's attention is that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder again than are executed murderers.

History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.

Secondly, the Pope's position is not based upon biblical principles, but is now dependent upon social science. If such science concludes that executions provide an enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope must call for increased executions. If the Pope decides that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and, therefore, chooses not to execute, and he is wrong, this will sacrifice innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again. If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again.

These options tell us that executions provide an enhanced defense of society.

If unsure about deterrence, the Pope must choose the option which protects innocent lives or that which sacrifices innocent lives. No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. And quite a few studies find that executions do deter. Is there any evidence that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the actions of some? Of course not.

If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then the Pope must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society.

Thirdly, we know that some criminals don't murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. Executions save lives.

Therefore, the Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk -- a position which contradicts the Pope's emphasis on defending society.

Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the required punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), require execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.

These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope's position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Again, we see that the Pope's position is social, not biblical.

For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution. (read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).

Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment." ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.

Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.

The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from 'paramount obedience' to God's eternal law to a civil standard reflecting 'steady improvements' . . . in the penal system?". Such teachings hadn't changed. The Pope's position is now social, not biblical nor theological.

The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.

Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society -- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)

The Pope's position is now based upon the state of the corrections system -- a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before -- something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then -- are aware of.

History confirms that executions defend society at a higher degree than incarceration.

Since it's inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it could have been revealed long before 1995. They hadn't changed because the biblical writings are clear that there is a mandate for execution under specific circumstances. And there is nothing in the biblical record or in Catholic tradition that conflicts with that mandate.

There is, finally, a most disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard. The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just and required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder. If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.

The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.

Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should be fully supported by the Pope.

"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)

In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes. The Church concurs that executions represent just punishment for some crimes.

And, certainly, the Church and the Pope believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. And there is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within the Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?

Properly, the Pope does not challenge the biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has only amended his belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.

So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?

It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.

References
1) Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., "The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?" at
http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3
NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the
sections "The Purposes of Punishment" and "Harm Attributed to the Death Penalty",
it is, otherwise, a solid historical treatment of the Church and the death penalty

2) Father Robert Ellis' "In Defense of the Death Sentence", at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death.htm

3) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm

4) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.

copyright 1997-2005 Dudley Sharp

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Report, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Pro death penalty sites
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.dpinfo.com/
www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://www.prodeathpenalty.org/
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/ny_sida_1.htm
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
www.vuac.org/capital

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.