Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

Purposes of Punishment

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.

This is what Sr. Mary taught us in Catechism class in 1949.

According to Cardinal Avery Dulles:

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.

According to the Catechism (2266), the primary objective is retribution (justice); the other three are all secondary considerations.

Ender

 

[Ender]

the Vatican has had a lot more time to think over this scripture, as well as to consider this scripture in the context of the whole of scripture and Christian tradition.

True, but none of this responds to my criticisms of 2267 which you have not even tried to rebut. If 2267 is valid then why is it impossible to defend with other than “because JPII said it”?

It is this which informs their opinion, not just reading one verse in the bible in and of its self.

It is not that I am citing scripture, I am citing the Church citing that particular verse. It is according to the Church that that passage has the meaning it does; it has nothing to do with how I interpret it.

The Christian is called to greater justice… Is it not more just not to resort to execution when it is not required for the protection of society, particularly knowing how imperfect our judicial system is?

No, that’s just the point. The protection of society has nothing whatever to do with justice. Justice is rendered solely by the nature of the punishment applied relative to the severity of the crime committed, and for the case of murder the Church has always seen the death penalty as just. Whether or not capital punishment does or does not provide protection is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether it is necessary to satisfy the demand of justice.

Ender

 

[FOFEBA]

Anyone who has served jury duty enough times knows that the verdict is often not based on the facts of the case. A famous example was the O.J. Simpson case, but the verdict was by no means extraordinary. It just got a lot of publicity. Two of the juries which I have sat on decided the case according to the popularity or “likability” of the parties.

We also know that even if the jurors do their job, that there are overzealous prosecutors. A close friend of mine defended capital cases exclusively as a public defender for about 20 years. She is not naive about the guilt or innocence of her clients. But, she also knows first hand, that sometimes cases are prosecuted our of political expediency without regard for the guilt or innocence of the accused. One of the better known cases in my jurisdiction occurred when the newspapers revealed that the police department was covering up a string of serial murders of prostitutes. When the news hit the papers, the police department and the DA were embarrassed, so they chose a mentally handicapped person who was guilty of manslaughter, and they tried to pin multiple murders on him. My friend defended him. A less competent atty might have seen him killed by the state for crimes he did not commit.

When I was a kid, one of our neighbors was convicted of murdering his wife. He served 10 years of his life sentence before the actual murderer was discovered. When he got out of prison, he went to law school and eventually became the city attorney of a large city in California.

We know that hundreds of convictions have been reversed because of new evidence coming to light, sometimes years after the original conviction, and sometimes because of new technologies.

Since we know that while most convictions are valid, that some of them are not, I think that we have a social and moral obligation not to kill people as a society. Arguments can be made in both ways as to the social utility and deterrence of capital punishment. My own opinion is that it does not serve as a deterrent. But beyond that, I think that it is morally unacceptable to knowingly kill innocent people, when the benefit of killing the guilty is dubious.

 

[crazzeto]

True, but none of this responds to my criticisms of 2267 which you have not even tried to rebut. If 2267 is valid then why is it impossible to defend with other than “because JPII said it”?

It is not that I am citing scripture, I am citing the Church citing that particular verse. It is according to the Church that that passage has the meaning it does; it has nothing to do with how I interpret it.

No, that’s just the point. The protection of society has nothing whatever to do with justice. Justice is rendered solely by the nature of the punishment applied relative to the severity of the crime committed, and for the case of murder the Church has always seen the death penalty as just. Whether or not capital punishment does or does not provide protection is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether it is necessary to satisfy the demand of justice.

Ender

I would suggest to you this… Rather than spending all your time spinning your wheels fixating on this specific scripture, why don’t you go ahead and read some one the New Testament as well? Perhaps the Gosple of Matthew for starts, this is traditionally the Catholic Catechisis, then perhaps some Pauleen letters, and then of some of the other Apostles.

I would read these with the aid of the CCC, see how they’re cited. What you’ll find is that the CCC’s position on this issue (much like it’s position on any other given issue) is not merely defenceable by “well the Pope said it”. No no no, the position is the culmination of years of exiges and study.

 

[Ender]

Rather than spending all your time spinning your wheels fixating on this specific scripture, why don’t you go ahead and read some one the New Testament as well?

Because I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant and I don’t get to interpret the meaning of scripture for myself. I have been researching what the Church herself has said on the topic, so instead of reading gospels I’ve been reading Aquinas, Augustine, the Early Fathers, Doctors of the Church, various papal statements starting from Innocent I in 405, Innocent III, Pius’s IX - XII, Leo XIII et al, five different catechisms, and most of the Church councils. If I have fixated on one specific passage it is only because it is the one the Church has used throughout her entire history on which to base her position on capital punishment.

I would read these with the aid of the CCC, see how they’re cited. What you’ll find is that the CCC’s position on this issue (much like it’s position on any other given issue) is not merely defenceable by “well the Pope said it”. No no no, the position is the culmination of years of exiges and study.

You can demonstrate that your position is valid by responding to the objections I laid out in post #467. Let’s see just how defensible 2267 turns out to be.

Ender

 

[crazzeto]

Because I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant and I don’t get to interpret the meaning of scripture for myself. I have been researching what the Church herself has said on the topic, so instead of reading gospels I’ve been reading Aquinas, Augustine, the Early Fathers, Doctors of the Church, various papal statements starting from Innocent I in 405, Innocent III, Pius’s IX - XII, Leo XIII et al, five different catechisms, and most of the Church councils. If I have fixated on one specific passage it is only because it is the one the Church has used throughout her entire history on which to base her position on capital punishment.

Ironic that you make this argument as you’ve been exercising private judgment all over this thread… Not just of scriptures, but of the saints and tradition as well. If you truely do accept that you are not the ultimate authority, but rather the magesterium is, then why not do as I said and instead of spinning your wheels questioning the magesterium, why don’t you read the documents upon which the teaching was based?

Incidently just because Catholics don’t subscribe to private judgment, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be reading the bible. It was a catholic, after all, who said “ignorance of scripture, is ignorance of Christ”.

You can demonstrate that your position is valid by responding to the objections I laid out in post #467. Let’s see just how defensible 2267 turns out to be.

Ender

I have challenged you to bother reading the logic laid out by the teaching office of the Church in the CCC.

 

[Ender]

Ironic that you make this argument as you’ve been exercising private judgment all over this thread… Not just of scriptures, but of the saints and tradition as well.

Give me an example and I’ll cite the document on which my comment was based. This charge is easy to make but you’ll have trouble sustaining it.

why don’t you read the documents upon which the teaching was based?

I can’t because the teaching is not based on anything the Church has taught. There are no endnotes or references in either 2267 or (the relevant section of) Evangelium Vitae #56 to any Church document whatever. There is nothing to support this teaching.

I have challenged you to bother reading the logic laid out by the teaching office of the Church in the CCC.

I’m sorry, do you not consider the writings of the previous 2000 years of the Church to count? Given that I haven’t read everything I’m sure there is a great deal I have missed. Be specific: cite anything at all directly supporting your position that you think I should be aware of. I have asked for specifics; you have responded with generalities.

Ender

 

[crazzeto]

1. you are now exercising private judgment, you’ve read what the teaching office of the Church has said and you have personally overruled the teaching with your own private judgment of what the Bible and Saints have to say.
2. Yes the CCC gets it’s teaching from Evangelium vitae, but JPII’s teachins were informed by the very saints you are citing, as well as scriptures etc. Again, I rechalleng you to read the CCC, Evangelium vitae, and not just the text on the page but look up the footnotes and read those as well. There is a clear bases for the teaching.
3. Reading (fairly) the churches previous teachings on the executions of prisoners, it is clear that rather than teaching that the state must execute murders, as you seem to want to suggest (whether or not you really do I’ll leave open), but rather it teaches that this punishment may be administered. That is, the teaching is that the execution of prisoners falls under the category of being a just killing, and the church still teaches this.

What the church is clarifying, is that the usage of this punishment should (rightly) be avoideded whenever it is possible to do so while continuing to ensure the public saftey.

 

[sedonaman]

Seems that some folks don’t want criminals punished at all. jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell092210.php3

 

[wheels10]

I’ll remind you of JPII’s comment that: “Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it .” Your perception seems to be that mercy means the same thing as clemency and that it trumps justice, but if you always choose it over justice you act improperly.

Mercy DOES NOT trump Justice. One is free to choose either. I WILL ALWAYS WANT TO CHOOSE MERCY. This does not mean that punishment should not be given. Punishment should given to help the person repent and change their ways. I WILL NEVER GIVE UP ON ANOTHER PERSON. THIS IS LOVE.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism)

As I have always said, I am in agreement that punishment should be given. But a punishment that will provide every opportunity for one to change their ways, not one that will destroy them.

There is nothing in Church teaching that suggests that sinners never deserve the full weight of the punishment their sins have earned for them. Quite the opposite. Repentance is obligatory before mercy can be received.
CCC 1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.

I completely agree. A person should be given a chance their ENTIRE LIFE to change their ways. LOVE IS PATIENT.

I hope so, and inasmuch as my version of mercy is the one described by Aquinas, Augustine and the Church I think optimism on my part is warranted.

Matthew 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

It is the very next section (2260) where the Catechism quotes Gen 9:6 which demands the life of the murderer because of the severity of the crime, because man is made in God’s image. There is nothing there to explain why the example of Cain’s treatment in 2259 should overturn the general rule specified in 2260. We know there are exceptions to that rule; we do not know why God made an exception of Cain.

Perhaps God wanted to give Cain his ENTIRE LIFE to change his ways, and repent? Love is patient. Love never gives up. ALL LOVE COMES FROM GOD.

1 Corinthians, Chapter 13: “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

 

[Ender]

1. you are now exercising private judgment, you’ve read what the teaching office of the Church has said and you have personally overruled the teaching with your own private judgment of what the Bible and Saints have to say.

I have asked for specific examples of something you think is my private judgment and you have yet to reply with anything. If you’re going to make those charges surely you should be willing to back them up. Quote something I’ve written that you think is my personal opinion.

1. Yes the CCC gets it’s teaching from Evangelium vitae, but JPII’s teachins were informed by the very saints you are citing, as well as scriptures etc. Again, I rechalleng you to read the CCC, Evangelium vitae, and not just the text on the page but look up the footnotes and read those as well. There is a clear bases for the teaching.

More generalizations. If there is such a clear basis for this new teaching then let us know what it is. Where does the Church say anything about capital punishment that supports 2267?

1. Reading (fairly) the churches previous teachings on the executions of prisoners, it is clear that rather than teaching that the state must execute murders, as you seem to want to suggest (whether or not you really do I’ll leave open), but rather it teaches that this punishment may be administered. That is, the teaching is that the execution of prisoners falls under the category of being a just killing, and the church still teaches this.

I have not stated or implied that it must be applied only that it should be applied more often than it is.

What the church is clarifying, is that the usage of this punishment should (rightly) be avoideded whenever it is possible to do so while continuing to ensure the public saftey.

The problem with this justification is that safety has nothing whatever to do with justice and, as justice is the primary objective of all punishment, that is what needs to be satisfied in every case. Protection is a secondary objective and, except in specific situations, cannot determine the appropriate punishment.

Ender

 

[crazzeto]

Ender,

When you ignore the Magesterial teachings, that is the teachings of the Church councils and that of the Catechism(s) (not just the CCC) then you are exercising private judgment. No magesterial teaching says what you would have this forum believe, that the only justice demanded for murder is the execution of the prisoner. Not a single magesterial teaching has ever said this, not even once. The strogest statement you’ll find is in Trent, that

“the crime of murder tends towards this punishment”… Notice, in ~1,500 A.D. when execution was typically more of a must than an option due to a lack of a real prison system the strongest wording the Bishops used was “tends towards”, that is, they already are acknowleging that there may end up being situations where the prisoner isn’t executed.

Today, times have changed. We have a prison system, we can keep murders locked up indefinently and frankly, at lower cost than an execution will take. As the Church has never taught, not even once, that execution is the only fitting punishment for murder (only that it is an acceptable punishment, which it still teaches), the Church has seen that we must now attempt to rise to a higher level.

After all, Christ didn’t come into the world to damn it, but to save it. Better to offer these people as much time as possible to repent.

This posting does present you a certain challenge, this:

Find a single magesterial teaching which suggests murder must be followed by executions.

Not a paper written by Aquinas, this is not a magesterial teaching, or some other such example of a particular saints personal opinion (no matter how great and awesome). The church is certainly well aware of what all the saints which came before her had to say. Find a catechism, find a council document speaking on crime and punishment which actually does say, what you claim it says.

The church never taught that execution is the only just punishment for murder. It has taught that it is a just punishment, that the execution of a criminal is not a sin. But that doesn’t make it the only just punishment, and that teaching certainly leaves open the door for more merciful punishments to be used more readily when the time is appropriate.

 

[dudleysharp]

In the context of Church teachings, retribution overwhelms all other purposes for punishment.

And yes, as Ender writes: “according to the Catechism (2266), the primary objective is retribution (justice); the other three - rehabilitation, defense against the criminal and deterrence - are all secondary considerations.” as well as hoped for results.

In terms of the Church and humanism, those later three could be viewed as utilitarian and as hoped for outcomes of the sanction, not the reason for it.

Reason and Church teaching, as per 2266 and others, finds that retribution must be foundational with sanction.

Why? Because the proper offender must be identified and sanctioned in matter which is proportional to the crimes. Justice. That must be the starting point. There is no other.

To have a proper understanding of what the Church is teaching, we must look at the positive aspects of retribution/sanction/punishment/justice.

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression/sin (awareness), which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior (reform), that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption), which is hoped, has an positive effect for salvation, inclusive of the assistance of expiation, when the sanction is voluntarily accepted.

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect, again, with a hoped for positive effect for salvation.

For the Church, all of these effects are integral and inseparable from retribution and, include a redress of the disorder. These hoped for medicinal effects, for the Church, are not a result of retribution, but are what retribution entails, are integral to retribution.

All of this is conditional upon the guilty person being identified and sanctioned - retribution. All of this is primary and foundational to all other benefits or outcome of the sanction.

All other Church purposes of punishment are secondary to retribution, but are also integrally to our understanding of Church teachings on punishment.

That is one of the many reasons that 2267 and Ev are so wrong - safety of society, which includes deterrence, must always be secondary and subordinate to retribution.

 

[crazzeto]

If anyone suggests that the CCC contradicts it’s self, or that the current Church teaching on execution contradicts anything previously taught… Then I can only say that, that individuls understanding of the issues at hand are flawed.

I do feel quite safe saying this, as the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. As punishment for crime falls under this heading, and the official catechisis is clear, I would then suggest that so is this conclusion.

Again, I reassert my challenge. Find where the Church has ever taught the concepts some are putting forward here with her infallible authority.

 

[AHapka]

Can capital punishment be proven to be a deterrent so as to prevent the same crimes from happening over and over again? There’s no hard evidence in human history to support capital punishment as a deterrent statistically.

You seriously must be joking when you make a statement like that. There are no known cases of a person committing a murder after being executed. There are known cases of people killing after they have been released from prison.

Seems like hard evidence to me.

 

[AHapka]

But I should add that I am against the death penalty because of:

1. Cost
2. Possibility of executing innocent
3. More time to repent
4. Modern society can keep a person confined for life if it wants to.

 

[Ender]

No magesterial teaching says what you would have this forum believe, that the only justice demanded for murder is the execution of the prisoner.

Since I haven’t said it either this objection is spurious.

As the Church has never taught, not even once, that execution is the only fitting punishment for murder (only that it is an acceptable punishment, which it still teaches), the Church has seen that we must now attempt to rise to a higher level.

This is closer to my position so I’ll address it. First, I acknowledge exceptions exist so I rarely use terms like “only”, “always”, and “never.” When you insert such terms in claims you attribute to me they will almost always be wrong; however, I do believe that execution is the proper punishment for murder. The Church clearly considers it a just punishment or she would not approve it under any condition and it isn’t clear to me how, if death is just, the much lighter punishment of life in prison can be just as well. Too lenient a punishment is as unjust as too harsh a one. Nor is it clear, given that it was God himself who specified the punishment, that we have the right to change it.

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Innocent I)

Find a catechism, find a council document speaking on crime and punishment which actually does say, what you claim it says.

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 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)

“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.” (Pius XII)

But that doesn’t make it the only just punishment, and that teaching certainly leaves open the door for more merciful punishments to be used more readily when the time is appropriate.

I agree, there are times when other punishments would be more appropriate. What I disagree with is the assertion that other punishments should be the norm rather than the exception and I disagree completely with the arguments employed to oppose capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If anyone suggests that the CCC contradicts it’s self, or that the current Church teaching on execution contradicts anything previously taught… Then I can only say that, that individuls understanding of the issues at hand are flawed.

Section 2267 is the prudential opinion of JPII and the Magisterium; it is not Church doctrine, and it is not binding.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles)

I do feel quite safe saying this, as the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. As punishment for crime falls under this heading, and the official catechisis is clear, I would then suggest that so is this conclusion.

It’s a reasonable assumption, but not a correct one.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about … applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger)

Ender

 

[sedonaman]

…
4) Modern society can keep a person confined for life if it wants to.

“Want” is the key word. There are people who tear at the fabric of society and want chaos to reign. These are the same ones who don’t “want” to keep criminals locked up and argue that it “costs” too much to incarcerate them, but they never count the human cost, nor do they bear the cost of their own social experiments gone wacko. Unfortunately, they have the ears of too many bleeding hearts. It is long past the time for the criminal pay for his misdeeds instead of society. You don’t have to be guilty of a serious crime to get the death penalty in this country; you have to be guilty as hell.

 

[dudleysharp]

crazzeto:

I think you are in error, on every point:

crazzeto writes:

“No magesterial teaching says what you would have this forum believe, that the only justice demanded for murder is the execution of the prisoner. Not a single magesterial teaching has ever said this, not even once.”

This is just a brief review.

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

What does “most certainly” mean?

2260: “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.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

What does “shall” mean?

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

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

What does “shall not suffer to live” mean?

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.

What does “shall” mean?

Saint (& Pope) 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).

What does “paramount obedience” mean?

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.

What does “when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” mean?

crazzeto writes: “Today, times have changed. We have a prison system, we can keep murders locked up indefinently and frankly, at lower cost than an execution will take.”

long term incarceration of prisoners was reported on in Genesis, as well as in history back to 2000 BC in Egypt.

books.google.com/books?id=bwvH5ce94eIC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=history+imprisonment+egypt&source=bl&ots=UbmU1nqKxO&sig=J-GMbCUmFY4RDTUCroTjOeJRN4w&hl=en&ei=orsHTPHOGIH_8AaG5cHBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=history%20imprisonment%20egypt&f=false

COST ISSUES

“Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP”
homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx

Cost Savings: The Death Penalty
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx

What are the costs of not having the death penalty?

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A