Death penalty - abortion comparison

[LaFleurDeLis]

The facts are on my side. I gave you a link to several studies and provided an actual example of deterrence. I can provide several more examples too. Can you give me an example of a individual who was actually influenced by this most likely nonexistent brutalization effect?

Another thing that just came to mind. I not sure your study is credible. It talks about the California homicide rate rising after the executions. However, the California homicide rate is something very different from the California murder rate. The legal definition of a homicide is not limited to murder but also includes accidents and killing in self-defense. For all we know, the number of fatal car accidents could have risen after those executions by the California State Government.

I’m not going to waste my time trying to prove something that is commonly discussed among Criminal Justice professionals. All you need to do is google “Brutalization effect” or open up a CJ textbook.

 

[Ender]

I’m not going to waste my time trying to prove something that is commonly discussed among Criminal Justice professionals. All you need to do is google “Brutalization effect” or open up a CJ textbook.

As a theory the brutalization effect seems a bit counter-intuitive. I wonder how many people who believe that executions have no deterrent effect also believe in the brutalization effect. That said, I don’t think the theory is all that relevant (let alone all that well supported by data). It is a practical concern and the Church’s position is based on moral concerns.

Ender

 

[MC_taters]

Actually Jesus does say that at all. In this passage, when Jesus says, “Let anyone among you who is without sin cast the first stone,” the word He uses for sin is ‘Αναμαρτητος’. This is a Greek word which means, the same kind of sin. So what Jesus actually said was, “Let anyone among you who hasn’t committed adultery cast the first stone.” Therefore, Jesus was not prohibiting the death penalty but escaping a trap by pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. (bible.cc/john/8-7.htm)

You got me, I didn’t look up the Greek translation. Regardless though, if you believe that it is not a sin to have someone killed who has been guilty of a crime the state believes is punishable by death, so be it. I believe it is just as much a sin as abortion. I could bring it back to “Thou shalt not kill” but it seems there are so many exceptions to that according to the Old and New Testament that I would quickly have some of said examples shoved in my face. We are all basing our points on the imperfect (human) interpretations of ancient events.

 

[Newbie2]

The Church teaches that there are valid reasons for not executing someone, even if that is the appropriate punishment, so from that perspective there is nothing wrong with JPII’s assertion that such reasons exist in modern society. Given as guidance his position is understandable - even though I disagree with it, especially with the part that finds it unnecessary. It may well be unnecessary for protection (although that appears quite doubtful) but it is necessary to satisfy the obligation of justice which requires the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

Ender

Um…Catholic Social Justice does not require nor does it affirm the “ultimate punishment” for the “ultimate crime” (which is murder?)

 

[Ender]

Um…Catholic Social Justice does not require nor does it affirm the “ultimate punishment” for the “ultimate crime” (which is murder?)

This assertion is, at a minimum, debatable:

*The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:**For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *[Gn 9:5-6]
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. (CCC 2260)

*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *(Catechism of Trent)

Ender

 

[starshiptrooper]

You got me, I didn’t look up the Greek translation. Regardless though, if you believe that it is not a sin to have someone killed who has been guilty of a crime the state believes is punishable by death, so be it. I believe it is just as much a sin as abortion. I could bring it back to “Thou shalt not kill” but it seems there are so many exceptions to that according to the Old and New Testament that I would quickly have some of said examples shoved in my face.

It may or may not suprise you to learn that “Thou shalt not kill” is another mistranslation. The correct translation is “Thou shalt not murder”.

We are all basing our points on the imperfect (human) interpretations of ancient events.

This is disturbing. If I am reading your statement correctly, it sounds like you don’t believe in the accuracy of the Bible. If that is the case, then why even pay attention to what the Bible tells us?

 

[MC_taters]

It may or may not suprise you to learn that “Thou shalt not kill” is another mistranslation. The correct translation is “Thou shalt not murder”. This is disturbing. If I am reading your statement correctly, it sounds like you don’t believe in the accuracy of the Bible. If that is the case, then why even pay attention to what the Bible tells us?

The “correct” translation is highly debated. And what disturbs me is that you think the Bible was written by God himself. Otherwise, it cannot possibly be completely accurate, unless you believe humans are able to have the knowledge of God. I use the Bible as a model t o live by, but I do not kid myself into thinking the translation from God’s will to man’s hand is seamless.

 

[Ender]

The “correct” translation is highly debated.

I don’t think there is much debate about that commandment. I don’t know what Episcopalians believe but I really doubt you can cite any (significant) document that interprets “Thou shalt not kill” as meaning one may never under any circumstances kill a human being.

I use the Bible as a model to live by, but I do not kid myself into thinking the translation from God’s will to man’s hand is seamless.

Does the prohibition against killing extend to animals? If you believe it doesn’t then clearly that short command does not mean exactly what it says and it needs interpretation. Where do you look for the explanation?

Ender

 

[ddarko]

This assertion is, at a minimum, debatable:

*The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:**For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *[Gn 9:5-6]
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. (CCC 2260)

*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of *paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

Actually I think you might have a slight problem with understanding church teaching. You seem to be looking at things purely from a legalistic point of view. You take a set of pronouncements from the church and see if you can build your case. This does not work always as we can see from your conclusion here about the death penalty.

The above teaching from the council of Trent on the death penalty stem from the dignity of a person. That is the cornerstone of nearly all Catholic teachings. The quote from the CCC above shows the sacredness of Blood. It does not mean that the idea “man should be punished by man himself” is justified as a right throughout time. So Ender, you are reading a lot more than you should to this one passage.

So going back, we look at things from the perspective of human dignity. The reason why it was justified to slay another human being for a crime was merely because there was no other alternatives during the medieval days. So it was justifiable to end the life of a criminal for the sake of safeguarding the lives of many.

But today this is no longer necessary especially in countries like the United States.

The error that Ender and most proponents of DP fall in to is assuming that Death Penalty is the only punishment suitable for a given crime. This was never a Church teaching. DP was obligatory at times in order to safeguard lives of many. But there was never an Obligation to dish out the DP because it was the only punishment that fit a crime. The DP was deemed as sufficiently fulfilling the punishment aspect which was required in the act but it was not considered the SOLE way of giving the punishment.

So today, one can give a punishment like imprisonment for life instead of actually ending a life of a human being. Therefore the Death Penalty is not justified in most countries.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

The above teaching from the council of Trent on the death penalty stem from the dignity of a person. That is the cornerstone of nearly all Catholic teachings. The quote from the CCC above shows the sacredness of Blood. It does not mean that the idea “man should be punished by man himself” is justified as a right throughout time.

The Church’s position on capital punishment is indeed based on the fact of man’s dignity, and we know man’s dignity is based on the fact that “man is made in the image of God.” The difficulty that phrase causes, however, is that it given as the *reason *the life of a murderer is forfeit. This phrase is not randomly thrown out; it is given as an explanation for why "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, because…" As to whether this command remains in effect, we are helpfully told in 2260 that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” I am mystified as to how you can say it "does **not **mean [it] is justified as a right throughout time."

The reason why it was justified to slay another human being for a crime was merely because there was no other alternatives during the medieval days.

This is incorrect. Either execution is an affront to man’s dignity or it isn’t and even 2267 recognizes that there may still be times when someone should be executed, therefore it cannot be against man’s inherent dignity to deprive him of his life.

The error that Ender and most proponents of DP fall in to is assuming that Death Penalty is the only punishment suitable for a given.

It is valid to argue that capital punishment is not required for murder … but, in light of Gen 9:6, it’s a hard argument to sustain.

DP was obligatory at times in order to safeguard lives of many.

This is incorrect as well. Safety is a valid objective of punishment but it is not now and never has been the primary objective and by itself it could never justify capital punishment.

So today, one can give a punishment like imprisonment for life instead of actually ending a life of a human being. Therefore the Death Penalty is not justified.

What justifies the use of capital punishment is … justice: whether or not the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The question of safety is not relevant to that determination.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

The Church’s position on capital punishment is indeed based on the fact of man’s dignity, and we know man’s dignity is based on the fact that “man is made in the image of God.” The difficulty that phrase causes, however, is that it given as the *reason *the life of a murderer is forfeit. This phrase is not randomly thrown out; it is given as an explanation for why "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, because…" As to whether this command remains in effect, we are helpfully told in 2260 that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” I am mystified as to how you can say it *“does **not ***mean [it] is justified as a right throughout time.”

Ok, it isn’t that hard to read the catechism my friend. This is the exact phrase

“The Old Testament always** considered blood a sacred sign of life**.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

So the teaching is that blood is sacred. NOT that humans must take blood for blood. Your idea is totally contradictory to Christ’s teaching if we take it in that light.

This is incorrect. Either execution is an affront to man’s dignity or it isn’t and even 2267 recognizes that there may still be times when someone should be executed, therefore it cannot be against man’s inherent dignity to deprive him of his life.
It is valid to argue that capital punishment is not required for murder … but, in light of Gen 9:6, it’s a hard argument to sustain.

Actually it is not a hard argument to sustain. If we only had Genesis 9:6 in the Bible, I will happily agree with you. But there are other texts that speak of forgiveness. Christ forgave Saul, someone who murdered thousands of innocent Christians and made him to a saint. These are things to keep in mind.

Also, if we merely read it the way you want to in a very literal fashion, then one must actually “shed blood” in the first place to justify someone else “shedding their blood”. It also becomes a problematic issue for where do you stop shedding blood? To explain with an example,

Let’s say criminal X shed the blood of person Y. Ender shed the blood of X. But since Ender also shed the blood of a man, someone must also shed his blood. Right?

So as you can see, a literal reading of the passage in the sense you do does not make sense. What that passage tells you is the sacredness of Blood.

This is incorrect as well. Safety is a valid objective of punishment but it is not now and never has been the primary objective and by itself it could never justify capital punishment.
What justifies the use of capital punishment is … justice: whether or not the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The question of safety is not relevant to that determination.

Exactly. This is where you stray from Catholic teaching. No document of the church ever states that the only means of justice for a certain crime is the death penalty. It merely states that the death penalty sufficiently captures the element of justice but never that it is the sole means.

Do you see what I am saying now or is it still unclear?

God Bless

 

[Ender]

This is the exact phrase

“The Old Testament always** considered blood a sacred sign of life**.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

So the teaching is that blood is sacred. NOT that humans must take blood for blood.

The phrase is hardly explaining that blood is sacred, it is explaining that the phrase “sheds man’s blood” means “takes a man’s life.” It does not mean that his literal blood is sacred, and the teaching being referred to here is hardly the meaning of an archaic phrase but the meaning of the sentence.

Your idea is totally contradictory to Christ’s teaching if we take it in that light.

It may be contradictory to your understanding but it surely contradicts nothing the Church teaches … given that this is what the Church has always taught.

But there are other texts that speak of forgiveness. Christ forgave Saul, someone who murdered thousands of innocent Christians and made him to a saint.

I am sure you can come up with any number of Scripture passages you believe support your position. I am equally sure you cannot come up with a citation from a single Church document that sustains the position expressed in 2267 / EV 56. Your interpretations are not relevant - as mine are not. Unlike you, however, I can cite supporting documents going back through the history of the Church; I don’t rely on personal interpretation.

This is where you stray from Catholic teaching. No document of the church ever states that the only means of justice for a certain crime is the death penalty. It merely states that the death penalty sufficiently captures the element of justice but never that it is the sole means.

I agree that the death penalty is the just punishment for murder. I would like to hear your explanation for why a lesser punishment is also just given that justice requires the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

The phrase is hardly explaining that blood is sacred, it is explaining that the phrase “sheds man’s blood” means “takes a man’s life.” It does not mean that his literal blood is sacred, and the teaching being referred to here is hardly the meaning of an archaic phrase but the meaning of the sentence.

I think you are maybe unaware that blood is indeed considered sacred in the Catholic church?

Also, you might have missed what I said above, to repeat:-

Also, if we merely read it the way you want to in a very literal fashion, then one must actually “shed blood” in the first place to justify someone else “shedding their blood”. It also becomes a problematic issue for where do you stop shedding blood? To explain with an example,

Let’s say criminal X shed the blood of person Y. Ender shed the blood of X. But since Ender also shed the blood of a man, someone must also shed his blood. Right?

So as you can see, a literal reading of the passage in the sense you do does not make sense. What that passage tells you is the sacredness of Blood.

Do you see the problem or is it still not clear?

It may be contradictory to your understanding but it surely contradicts nothing the Church teaches … given that this is what the Church has always taught.

Actually no. It has unfortunately never taught your line of interpretation.

I am sure you can come up with any number of Scripture passages you believe support your position. I am equally sure you cannot come up with a citation from a single Church document that sustains the position expressed in 2267 / EV 56. Your interpretations are not relevant - as mine are not. Unlike you, however, I can cite supporting documents going back through the history of the Church; I don’t rely on personal interpretation.
I agree that the death penalty is the just punishment for murder. I would like to hear your explanation for why a lesser punishment is also just given that justice requires the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Maybe you have not been understanding me properly. I am not citing anything new here except explaining what you have presented here as “evidence”. It has nothing to do with my personal interpretation either.

And maybe you have not understood my challenge to you. You have not presented a SINGLE church document stating that the sole punishment for a crime X (may it be murder, or what ever you can imagine) is DEATH. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

If you are talking about morality here and the punishment for a mortal sin is death, well then I think lot more people will be put to death including me.

So please, provide specific evidence to what you claim i.e. Only sole punishment that satisfies justice for Crime X is the Death Penalty.

I will be waiting.

God Bless

 

[starshiptrooper]

The “correct” translation is highly debated.

It definitely isn’t “Thou shalt not kill”. As you yourself admitted, there are far too many exceptions in the Bible for that.

And what disturbs me is that you think the Bible was written by God himself

Where did I say that God wrote the Bible?

Otherwise, it cannot possibly be completely accurate, unless you believe humans are able to have the knowledge of God. I use the Bible as a model t o live by, but I do not kid myself into thinking the translation from God’s will to man’s hand is seamless.

I never said everything in the Bible was 100% accurate, as we just discovered there is at least one passage that is not properly translated. However this is completely off topic. This is a thread on the morality of the death penalty, not the accuracy of the current edition of the Bible.

 

[Ender]

I think you are maybe unaware that blood is indeed considered sacred in the Catholic church?

True, I am unaware of that. Citation please.

Also, if we merely read it the way you want to in a very literal fashion, then one must actually “shed blood” in the first place to justify someone else “shedding their blood”. It also becomes a problematic issue for where do you stop shedding blood?

This is about as bizarre an explanation of that passage as I have encountered. As 2260 explains, “blood” in the context of Gen 9:6 means life, so the meaning of that passage is “Whoever takes the life of a man is to lose his life at the hands of man.”

What that passage tells you is the sacredness of Blood.

This is so far from the truth it’s not even wrong.

Maybe you have not been understanding me properly. I am not citing anything new here …

Your treatise on blood is pretty novel; truly, I’ve never encountered anything like that before.

You have not presented a SINGLE church document stating that the sole punishment for a crime X (may it be murder, or what ever you can imagine) is DEATH.

Well, I guess that’s true. Then again, that’s not been a point I’ve so far tried to make. I have, however, pointed out that there are always exceptions that depend on the circumstances so there could be no blanket assertion that every murder must be punished by death. What I have said is that the just punishment for murder is death, which is like saying men are taller than women, which is in general true even though in particular cases it is not.

So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Clearly.

If you are talking about morality here and the punishment for a mortal sin is death, well then I think lot more people will be put to death including me.

No, I have never asserted that. Read more carefully.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I think the OP did an excellent job of defining the difference between the death penalty and abortion. In regards to the efficacy of life in prisonment, I think the Catechism gives us the criteria from which we are to measure our opinion on the death penalty. As much as we might want to decry brutality and scream for justice, we need to consider the possibility of life imprisonment when it can be securely done. However, it is this very area that I find abolishing the death penalty to be unfeasible. While cases of it’s need for the protection of society are rare, I am convinced they exist. The idea that we can safely incarcerate people for life is more of an ideal than an idea. It simply can not happen. Some people will continue to present an ongoing threat to society, at large or in prison. We can not idealize our concept of technology and think it can permit us to run prisons at an unrealistically safe rate.

 

[ddarko]

True, I am unaware of that. Citation please.

Not sure what you are asking here? Are you not aware that the Roman Catholic view of salvation is through the shedding of Christ’s blood?

Anyway, the Catechism quote you provided had some references

I reproduced it here:-

Lev 17:14

“For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.”

Another great example of blood in a sacred context is Exodus 12:1-13 (It’s a bit long so I can’t reproduce it here). But the blood here is used in a very special way that comes to full realization by the blood shed by the Jesus Christ the Lamb of God.

Your treatise on blood is pretty novel; truly, I’ve never encountered anything like that before.

Well I can assure that it is not novel.

Blood is an important element of Catholic salvation. In fact, we have been claimed as family by the blood of Christ, NOT his death. This is an important point that distinguishes Catholics from the heretical Penal Substitution view of Protestants.

So this is a very Christological teaching as well. The best document that I would suggest for an in depth study is Cur Deus Homo by St. Anselm.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html

So I am sure are thinking, how does all this connect to this topic? The important factor that this distinction brings about is how punishment is viewed in light of satisfaction of justice. So I think it might help better understand this whole issue in a new light.

Sorry if this is not sounding like a short answer but your question is a very deep one which has very deep implications to the faith.

This is about as bizarre an explanation of that passage as I have encountered. As 2260 explains, “blood” in the context of Gen 9:6 means life, so the meaning of that passage is “Whoever takes the life of a man is to lose his life at the hands of man.”
This is so far from the truth it’s not even wrong.

Actually where does it say, the blood shed terminates with killing of whom that shed blood?

The problem with your interpretation of this passage, as a right given by God to man to shed the blood of the criminal, is that you fail to recognize that the passage makes no distinction between the criminal and the man who might shed the blood of the criminal.

The passage makes a blanket statement about those who shed the blood of fellow men. It is almost similar to the scenario of Jesus and the prostitute who is about to be stoned.

So you have implicitly read something in to the passage that does not exist i.e. a restriction as applying only to the criminal.

Therefore I agree with you that in either context of blood, the passage shows the graveness of the act of murder. But I do not think it gives the right for man to shed the blood of another because then he will also condemned to the same fate ad infinitum.

Well, I guess that’s true. Then again, that’s not been a point I’ve so far tried to make. I have, however, pointed out that there are always exceptions that depend on the circumstances so there could be no blanket assertion that every murder must be punished by death. What I have said is that the just punishment for murder is death, which is like saying men are taller than women, which is in general true even though in particular cases it is not.
Clearly.
No, I have never asserted that. Read more carefully.

I thought you assert a bit more though. Your claim is that for some crimes (maybe we can define this as murder in a certain context) the sole JUST punishment is death. Or did I misunderstand you?

Because then it is not a matter of general vs. particular. In all cases of murder, Death Penalty is GUARANTEED to be fitting in terms of satisfying punishment. There is no disagreement there.

The position the church maintains is that it is however not the SOLE way of satisfying the punishment. Thus other means exist in today’s world to satisfy this punishment while rehabilitating the criminal.

God Bless

 

[dudleysharp]

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

First, PJPII has no clue as to reality.

Secondly, the Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. Do the authors of the Catechism have no grasp of reality? (4) Apparently not.

The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution. “Unable to inflict harm” (2265) has the same meaning as “impossible to do harm”.

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

1. a) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims

b) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

c) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

d) Hell in the heart of paradise

“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”

Published: 4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543

e) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11/30/authorities-sex-offender-pulls-gun-on-texas-guards-during-prison-transfer-search-ongoing-17934/

f) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_tdQrE5B6tvgSYXBtfmfMOLEwwD9CACTHG0

g) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005 policeone.com/corrections/articles/120563-Officials-embarrassed-by-Texas-death-row-inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

h) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day seemingly forever, if it cared to look. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in contradiction of the willful ignorance within EV and 2267.

 

[MC_taters]

1. a) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims

How does encouraging violence deserve execution? That doesn’t even sound illegal.

 

[dudleysharp]

How does encouraging violence deserve execution?

I never said it did.

The point was that incarceration allows indoctrination of more violence as taught by the living criminal. Execution does not.allow such indoctrination.

The point being, if a death penalty crime is committed, such indocrination, by that criminal, cannot occur if he is executed.

In other words, just another manner in which the death penalty helps spare more innocents.

Another example.

“Hell in the heart of paradise”
“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”

4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543