Death penalty

[Church_Militant]

Oh, yes—when I lived in California I think the average prison time was like 8 years. I was a witness in a murder trial where a husband killed his wife with a knife in cold blood in front of their children (who testified against him). He got 16 years, and probably would’ve gotten less if he’d had a better lawyer.

Due to prison overcrowding, many violent offenders will not serve their full term but a reduced one due to parole, time off for good behavior, etc. This is the impetus behind the “truth in sentencing” laws that creep up from time to time.

I imagine that as prison becomes viewed as a revolving door, support for the death penalty goes up.

I’m sorry, but that is dead wrong. If you check the stats you’ll find that crime is way down in most places, and that the length of sentence is not nearly the factor that politicians lead people to believe.

What works best? The evangelicals already know…conversion. They are largely behind most of the Faith Based Prison programs, and if you think the level of anti-Catholicism is bad where you live, you should hear the stuff the guys write to me about. Anti-Catholic chaplains and mandatory studies with fundamentalist preachers, (I’m talking seminars, not something simple.) Difficulty getting Catholic Bibles, Rosaries and other materials like you wouldn’t believe.

But the stats are there, and the fact is that the guys who have a real conversion while “down” have a phenomenally lower rate of return to prison. Catholic prisoners are considered non-Christians and are targeted for evangelism.

One guy that I heard from in Florida said that when he transferred from another prison the chaplain at the new prison saw his Catholic Bible and said, “I’ll just take this Bible and get you a new one.” The guys said he almost flipped out! He told him “No thanks, Chaplain. I’m a Catholic and that’s the only Bible I need.”

So, if you ever want to help those Catholic “least of the brethren” contact whoever is in charge of prison ministry in your diocese and volunteer to do something.

Death penalty? The Church says that the state has the right, but it also says.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

I agree with the Church, and thanks be to God, some of the “lifer” guys I work with will probably EOS into the arms of the Lord.

 

[dominikus28]

Ani Ibi, can you get me some info on what is prudential and infallible?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi, can you get me some info on what is prudential and infallible?

I gave links on your thread on Romanus Pontifex.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

whatevergirl:

…of course not at the expense of others.

Who is going to explain to the families of the folks who are murdered by a violent prisoner?

Violent prisoners do not only murder each other, but also prison guards, medics, and they even contract to the outside. There was that notable case involving that Tookie character.

Church teaching asks that the secular authorities only implement the death penalty if no other measure will prevent harm to innocents. Some prisoners will continue to predate innocents no matter how deep a hole we find for them.

 

[whatevergirl]

Who is going to explain to the families of the folks who are murdered by a violent prisoner?

Violent prisoners do not only murder each other, but also prison guards, medics, and they even contract to the outside. There was that notable case involving that Tookie character.

Church teaching asks that the secular authorities only implement the death penalty if no other measure will prevent harm to innocents. Some prisoners will continue to predate innocents no matter how deep a hole we find for them.

Are you saying we should execute everyone who has murdered then, and is sent to prison, in the potential chance they may murder guards, medics, etc?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I had this very converastion with a coworker the other day–a very staunch supporter of the DP, who said that to live is a privilege, and if someone refuses to respect others’ lives…his/her life should be taken away. We can’t only look at the situation as a glass half empty though…as Catholics, should we not be somewhat hopeful for a person’s rehabilitation…conversion to our Lord? God rejoices over one sinner coming back to the fold than 99 non sinners already doing good…

And how much does God mourn over an innocent death – one that we could have prevented?

Every murder is a case where we failed to protect someone. When we fail to protect, we must assume some of the guilt.

…of course not at the expense of others. But, we can’t assume that if one murders…that he/she will murder within the prison walls. Frankly, prison (the way it presently is) sets people up for failure…and makes people worse than before they came into prison, in many instances. Instead of weight rooms and cable…why not bring Christian counselors to these men and women behind bars? Why not educate them…beyond secular education…but educate them on the love of Christ? I think that we would see more rehabilitation then.

???

As an old criminology professor of mine used to say, “Before you talk about rehabilitating someone, you need to be sure he was habilitated to begin with.”

 

[whatevergirl]

And how much does God mourn over an innocent death – one that we could have prevented?

Every murder is a case where we failed to protect someone. When we fail to protect, we must assume some of the guilt.

As an old criminology professor of mine used to say, “Before you talk about rehabilitating someone, you need to be sure he was habilitated to begin with.”

every murder? I don’t think that’s accurate. Is it society’s fault that Scott Peterson murdered his wife? He is a one and only time offender…impossible to protect people, if these same people are their spouses. Many women die at the hands of their husbands…is it society’s fault that these men (who have no prior records) are walking the streets? I think it becomes a societal problem, when we let convicted murderers walk the streets–but in many cases, murders take place by people who are just beginning their criminal ‘careers.’ It’s just not accurate to say that if people are killed, it’s our fault as society for not protecting them–in every case. In some cases, yes. In the ones I illustrate above, no.

 

[whatevergirl]

And how much does God mourn over an innocent death – one that we could have prevented?

Every murder is a case where we failed to protect someone. When we fail to protect, we must assume some of the guilt.

As an old criminology professor of mine used to say, “Before you talk about rehabilitating someone, you need to be sure he was habilitated to begin with.”

If it is our responsibility to protect people…protect ourselves and our families…we must help those who need help–before they hurt people, as much as we can. It’s not enough to carry guns, or to strike after we have been assualted…we have to help people to be better people–before they hurt others. Sure, many cannot be helped…but, there are many people who hurt, because they have been abused for example. I don’t think that we should draw a line in the sand and say…evil people over here, the rest of us here. Truthfully, we all have the capacity to do evil, and to do good. Some of us just have better upbringings that others…which can lead to better morals and ideals, and general respect for human life. Now there are many people too who have been abused, let’s say, and they vow to never hurt someone. But, as an example-- a teacher gets the sense that one of her students is deeply troubled…possibly going to hurt people…she needs to do everything she can, to make the parents aware…the proper authorities aware…not just shrug, and say…‘oh well, just another bad kid in the world.’ That’s what I mean, by being proactive.

 

[vern_humphrey]

every murder? I don’t think that’s accurate. Is it society’s fault that Scott Peterson murdered his wife?

Please list the positive steps we took to protect her.

Explain what we did to inculcate a respect for human life and Christian morality into Scott Peterson.

He is a one and only time offender…impossible to protect people, if these same people are their spouses.

In fact, in spousal muirders, about 80% of the time, the police have had at least one call for domestic violence.

Many women die at the hands of their husbands…is it society’s fault that these men (who have no prior records) are walking the streets?

In 80% of the cases, yes, indeed.

I think it becomes a societal problem, when we let convicted murderers walk the streets–

If it’s a “societal problem” then society – that’s us – must accept responsbility for it.

but in many cases, murders take place by people who are just beginning their criminal ‘careers.’

Very rarely – most murderers have a long history of escallating violence.

It’s just not accurate to say that if people are killed, it’s our fault as society for not protecting them–in every case. In some cases, yes. In the ones I illustrate above, no.

What cases have you illustrated? What specific cases have you shown that there was no previous anti-social behavior? And what percent of murders fall into that category?

And finally, how does that excuse us when we let **known and convicted **murderers kill again?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Are you saying we should execute everyone who has murdered then, and is sent to prison, in the potential chance they may murder guards, medics, etc?

I am saying that the answer is not simplistic. I am Canadian. We have not had the death penalty for almost half a century. We have grown accustomed to not having the death penalty. Also we have a government-funded media (CBC) which is loathe to report anything which contradicts their own closely guarded political leanings.

And no I am not talking about potential chance if potential chance means on the ‘off chance’. I mean, there are cases when you can see it coming. There are cases when a prisoner merely sees prison as another business opportunity and that his or her competition must be removed. And I think we know that.

As a Catholic we must not kill whimsically. We must take all possible measures to avoid killing another person. However, there are situations in which killing is not only allowed but it is our duty. Self-defence for example. Defending our families and our property for example. Defending our countries for example. Defending justice for example.

Now we can always choose not to defend ourselves, our families and our countries. That is why the teaching on these sorts of killings is prudential. Not infallible.

Killing for the charitable among us is not pleasant. I have never killed anyone (except with kindness heh heh), but I imagine it must be something that would cause me anguish. And frankly I would dread doing it. Nevertheless not all things in life are easy. Some things are darn hard.

So I ask the question again: how can any of us explain to a family that their loved one has been killed by a prisoner? How do we apply the principle of double effect here? Are the innocent to be slain without prejudice and nothing be said or done about it?

Difficult question. But it is a real question, not a rhetorical question. What is the alternative to allowing the innocent to be slain by prisoners?

 

[vern_humphrey]

We need to hold the death penalty in reserve for those who kill Corrections Officers, Police Officers, prosecutors and judges (and their families.) If we don’t, the system will fall apart. People on life sentences will have no compunction about killing inside prison, or ordering killings outside.

 

[whatevergirl]

Please list the positive steps we took to protect her.

Explain what we did to inculcate a respect for human life and Christian morality into Scott Peterson.

In fact, in spousal muirders, about 80% of the time, the police have had at least one call for domestic violence.

In 80% of the cases, yes, indeed.

If it’s a “societal problem” then society – that’s us – must accept responsbility for it.

Very rarely – most murderers have a long history of escallating violence.

What cases have you illustrated? What specific cases have you shown that there was no previous anti-social behavior? And what percent of murders fall into that category?

And finally, how does that excuse us when we let **known and convicted **murderers kill again?

We took no positive steps to protect her, because she didn’t need protecting at that time. Scott Peterson wasn’t a known felon…he had no record. He was well liked by family, friends and neighbors…his wife had no idea he was cheating on her. Why would I list positive steps, when there were none to take?

I’m speaking of people who have criminal records…then, yes, society plays a role in allowing more people to get hurt, when those convicted felons are released. Not sure what the debate is about? I don’t disagree with you on that. But, should we kill every murderer then, vern? Before seeing if they could be rehabilitated? Is that what the RCC teaches us to do? No, it teaches us that if there are no other avenues to protect society, then the DP can be used as a means of protection.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We took no positive steps to protect her, because she didn’t need protecting at that time.

She was murdered, wasn’t she? Along with her unborn son.

Scott Peterson wasn’t a known felon…he had no record. He was well liked by family, friends and neighbors…his wife had no idea he was cheating on her. Why would I list positive steps, when there were none to take?

Really? You can’t think of any?

I’m speaking of people who have criminal records…then, yes, society plays a role in allowing more people to get hurt, when those convicted felons are released. Not sure what the debate is about? I don’t disagree with you on that. But, should we kill every murderer then, vern?

Now you got snippy a while ago with me – and then you say

But, should we kill every murderer then, vern?

Please quote a post where*** I ***said we should kill every murderer!

Before seeing if they could be rehabilitated? Is that what the RCC teaches us to do? No, it teaches us that if there are no other avenues to protect society, then the DP can be used as a means of protection.

I posted the following:

We need to hold the death penalty in reserve for those who kill Corrections Officers, Police Officers, prosecutors and judges (and their families.) If we don’t, the system will fall apart. People on life sentences will have no compunction about killing inside prison, or ordering killings outside.

And you pretend that I said something like “we should kill every murderer before seeing if they could be rehabilitated?”

I think you owe me an apology.

 

[whatevergirl]

She was murdered, wasn’t she? Along with her unborn son.

Really? You can’t think of any?

Now you got snippy a while ago with me – and then you say

Please quote a post where*** I ***said we should kill every murderer!

I posted the following:

And you pretend that I said something like “we should kill every murderer before seeing if they could be rehabilitated?”

I think you owe me an apology.

I apologize for misreading your posts.

We have very different ways of looking at life. Forgive me for not understanding where you’re coming from, vern. Take care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I apologize for misreading your posts.

We have very different ways of looking at life. Forgive me for not understanding where you’re coming from, vern. Take care.

Thank you.

My position is simple – we have a duty to protect society. We cannot shirk that duty, because when we do, we kill the innocent.

 

[whatevergirl]

Thank you.

My position is simple – we have a duty to protect society. We cannot shirk that duty, because when we do, we kill the innocent.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I look at life in more grey hues, than all black and white…and these issues are grey to me, I suppose. Have a good night.

…til we meet again:wave:

 

[dudleysharp]

The new anti death penalty position of the Church is based upon Pope John Paul II’s writings and speaches since 1995, which neglected reason and biblical, theological and traditonal foundations.

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
*
Were Pope John Paul II’s death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae incorrect and was their adoption into the Catechism 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.

(%between%Link to the rest of the article.)

 

[dudleysharp]

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.

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

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.

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

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)God’s Justice and Ours by Antonin Scalia | Articles | First Things

(9) “The Death Penalty”, by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld(DOT)CompuServe.com - Home

(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)Death Penalty Links
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)Profile: Nehora-Law-Firm Not Found | Inc.com (Sweden)
www(dot)Capital Punishment in the United States

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