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). ”
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.

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.

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.

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?

As most of you know, I, and quite a few others, correct the media on death penalty issues, when we can.

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.

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

7 studies are reviewed, herein
For emphasis, population count is totally irrelevant, regarding any consideration of class or race/ethnicity bias in the application of the death penalty. The only relevant factors in such a review are class, race/ethnic distribution of murderers and their victims in capital murders, as well as criminal history, the specific circumstances of the crime(s) and a review of individual prosecutorial jurisdictions.
Study 1: Drs. Stephen Klein and John Rolph: “After accounting for some of the many factors that may influence penalty decisions, neither race of the defendant nor race of the victim appreciably improved prediction of who was sentenced to death . . . “. “Relationship of Offender and Victim Race to Death Penalty Sentences in California”, Jurimetrics Journal, 32, Fall 1991, aka The Rand Corporation Study)
Study 2: Smith College Professors Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers found that legal variables, such as prior criminal history and the aggravated nature of the murder, are the proven basis for imposition of the death penalty. The black/white variation in sentencing has generally been reduced to zero when such legal variables are introduced as controls. “Execution by Quota?”, The Public Interest, Summer 1994

There are a number of inadequate issues raised in opposition to 16-17 year old murderers being culpable for the death penalty — Brain science and other arguments are either weak or false.

Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 102 inmates have been “released from death row with evidence of their innocence”, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972). (The number of “innocents” may vary, periodically)

A thorough review finds that death penalty opponents have lied, extensively, regarding the numbers of innocents sentenced to death, that such risk is extraordinarily low and that the cessation of executions will put many more innocents at risk.