Do you support the death penalty?

[Deborah123]

I could never believe in it. Even if 1 person in a 1000 convicts was wrongly convicted and hanged, that would be 1 too many.
The risk is too great for me.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I totally agree with you. I was just saying that if there is any merit at all to the support of capital punishment, it would be in the vein of justice, not “showing someone that murder is wrong.”

I agree and this point is relevant because the OP presented a similar argument (although, in all fairness, I wonder if he presented it while not agreeing with it) and he is now gone.

You and I differ with Ender in that we accept the teachings of the Church as she presents them, not as we wish to interpret them.

This thread is so messy with people using the function incorrectly that I can no longer follow it easily. I think I’m going to start a new thread with an OP specifically pointing out Church teaching. That is where the emphasis should be, IMO. I’m just not sure if I want to take the chance of having the same arguments presented over and over. I’ll post a link in this thread (I hope that’s OK).

 

[LittleSoldier]

This reply is also meant for DudleySharp…

Ah, but my implication is that we cannot merely use the Old Testament as a moral guide. To read 2260 and its footnote as a stand-alone statement fails to consider that it is meant to set up the historical presentation of this particular moral dilemma. The classic example is the “eye for an eye…” (yes, I know that does not prescribe an eye for an eye, but merely limits the penalty to not exceed the original damage). However, after quoting this, Jesus said, “But I tell you…”

Therefore, should we follow the Old Testament, or should we follow what Jesus said? (Certainly the state has the right and the duty to corral offenders and protect society from them, but the OT and its fulfillment in the NT would say that as a Christian society we are obligated to temper rehabilitation with mercy where possible.)

But back to paragraphs 2260 and 2267. It indeed makes a cross-reference to Gen. 9:6. But please read that in context: It is establishing the historical witness of the respect for human life. We must read on to see how the Church then guides that historical perspective into our application of God’s laws as Catholics. Suppose we read what 2267 actually says: “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 with the dignity of the human person…”

If retribution were the primary objective of punishment, surely the Catechism would not make that statement! Instead, it would instruct a society to fulfill the objective of retribution, and then treat the dignity of the offender as a secondary consideration.

So – as has been stated numerous times in this thread – the death penalty seems to have no place in our society today. If we wanted to, we could most assuredly provide a sufficient means to “defend and protect” people from the aggressor.

I’ve been going back through this thread and I really like this post. I feel that it deserves a second posting.

I would like to add (yes, again) that nothing in the current CCC goes against Church teaching and that we are required to defer to the Magisterium.

 

[dudleysharp]

6.6% recidivism rate found in a 1997 study: bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf

A study from 2002, finding a 1.2% recidivism rate: bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

The combined recidivism rate for the two studies is 3.9%.

With a 3.9% recidivism rate, the US is looking at about 28,000 more innocents murdered, by those who had murdered, before, with about 700, 000 murders in the US from 1973-2010, that using only one additional innocent murdered, although many would have been multiple innocents murdered.

But . . .

Both of these studies only looked at recidivism for 3 years after release.

I am looking at recidivism for 38 and less, years 1973-2010, as the modern era of new death penalty statutes began in 1973.

Recidivism rates will be higher if released prisoners were tracked 4 years and beyond. In addition, this group is very likely responsible for a disproportionately high number of the 25% unsolved murders, raising the recidivism percentage even higher.

However, using the 3.9% is the most proper to use, because it is the only one I know, for sure.

It is important to note that these studies are based upon re-arrest, not re-conviction.

Based upon convictions, 7-8% of those on death row had murdered, at least one person, prior to committing additional murder or murders which put them on death row – an estimated 600-1000 additional innocents murdered, by those who had murdered before, on death row. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=18

BJS is currently working on an updated study, recidivism of prisoners released from state prisons in 2005.

Based upon previous studies, it could be years before we see it. For some reason, they do them on an 11 year cycle and only look at 3 years after release.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Murder and execution - Very distinct moral differences
Dudley Sharp

Muina Arthur testified before the New Mexico Legislature on January 29, 2009.

Everyone should have justified sympathy for Muina Arthur, whose son Karl Eugene Chamberlain was executed because he raped and murdered 30 year old Felecia Prechtl.

However, Muina was in error, by saying: "I am the survivor of a murder victim’’, meaning her son’s execution.

Make no mistake, Felicia Prechtl was the innocent rape/murder victim. She was murdered.

Karl Chamberlain was the guilty murderer justly executed for that crime. His just sanction was execution for that murder.

There is a huge moral difference between the murder of an innocent rape/murder victim and the just execution of the guilty rapist/murderer who committed that crime.

Please do not confuse the innocent and the guilty, the victim and the perpetrator, the just sanction and the crime, as does Muina.

Be as opposed to the death penalty as you wish, just don’t equate murder and execution. It is an amoral or an immoral equation.

No one wants any parent to suffer the horror of knowing their child is a rapist/murderer. Karl Eugene Chamberlain was solely responsible for his actions, the rape/murder of Felecia Prechtl, just as he was solely responsible for his mother’s torment, because of his acts and the just sanction he brought upon himself.

Nor do we wish that the parents of the true murder victim, Felecia Prechtl, will have to hear that someone is trying to find some moral equivalence between the rape/murder of their daughter with the execution of her rapist/murderer. It is foul, indeed. Even the hint of it should not be approved.

Please.

Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of death penalty opponents
Dudley Sharp

There is a very common anti death penalty slogan:

“Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

We don’t. Even with no sanction, most folks know that committing murder is wrong.

We execute guilty murderers who have murdered innocent people.

The difference between crime and punishment, guilty murderers and their innocent victims is very clear to most.

The moral confusion exists when people blindly accept the amoral or immoral position that all killing is equal.

The anti death penalty folks are just looking at an act – “killing” – and saying all killings are the same. Only an amoral person would equate acts, without considering the purpose behind them.

For those, like some anti death penalty folks, who believe all killing is morally equivalent, they would equate the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 6-7 million additional innocents with the execution of those guilty murderers committing that slaughter. They would also equate the rape and murder of children with the execution of the rapist/murderer.

This is what the anti death penalty folks do, morally equate killing (murder) with the punishment for that murder, another killing (execution).

For such anti death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution).

Most folks understand the moral differences.

Some anti death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating killing (murder) with killing (execution).

Either way, it’s time to stop it. It is just too grotesque a tool.

RELATED LINKS

“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

“Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

copyright 2000-20010 Dudley Sharp: Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

As I have stated before, you really do not know if anyone who has been executed is really guilty. If you claim to know you are claiming that you can see into someone’s heart and soul and you can see his actions. Human beings do not have that ability - only God is omniscient. And that is why God is the only judge who can base His knowledge of guilt and innocence on absolutely everything that has gone on in an alleged murderer’s life, what is in his heart and soul, if he is culpable, if he is psychotic, if he can tell the difference between right and wrong, etc. God is also truly, perfectly loving and truly, perfectly merciful. None of us, as human beings, can be privy to all the facts necessary to know, without a doubt, that a person is guilty of murder. God can.

I’m also troubled that you continue to put all anti-death penalty people into one group. You did so in the post to which I am responding here - more than once. Not all anti-death penalty people believe that all killing is the same, nor do they all equate murder with execution.

I would also like to add that the Magisterium has presented its teachings in the CCC and we are required, as Catholics, to adhere to that teaching.

 

[inkitty]

No I do not support the death penalty. God is the only one to take a life or give a life.

 

[Deborah123]

No I do not support the death penalty. God is the only one to take a life or give a life.

Well said!!!

 

[dudleysharp]

No I do not support the death penalty. God is the only one to take a life or give a life.

Reagarding giving life, obviously true.

Regarding taking it, obvioulsy you are in error. The Church has given man the right to take life in self defense, defense of others, a just war and capital punishment.

This is not in dispute.

 

[dudleysharp]

“The Innocent and the Shammed”, Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html

“The Myth Of Innocence”, Joshua Marquis,published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology - 3/31/2005, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
joshmarquis.blogspot.com/2005/03/myth-of-innocence.html

“Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. March”, by Ward Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, p 49, The Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, Issue 2, Summer 2008http://www.cjlf.org/files/CampbellExonerationInflation2008.pdf

“Counting the Guilty”, Joshua Marquis, 3/26/2008
coastda.blogspot.com/2008/03/counting-guilt*y.html

“The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation”, reports By United States Congress, Senate, 107th Congress, 2d Session, Calender no 731, Report 107-315. The Innocnce Protection Act of 2002,
(iv) The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation, alturl.com/6j7oc

The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents*” scam
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-pe*nalty.aspx

 

[LittleSoldier]

“The Innocent and the Shammed”, Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html

“The Myth Of Innocence”, Joshua Marquis,published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology - 3/31/2005, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
joshmarquis.blogspot.com/2005/03/myth-of-innocence.html

“Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. March”, by Ward Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, p 49, The Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, Issue 2, Summer 2008http://www.cjlf.org/files/CampbellExonerationInflation2008.pdf

“Counting the Guilty”, Joshua Marquis, 3/26/2008
coastda.blogspot.com/2008/03/counting-guilt*y.html

“The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation”, reports By United States Congress, Senate, 107th Congress, 2d Session, Calender no 731, Report 107-315. The Innocnce Protection Act of 2002,
(iv) The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation, alturl.com/6j7oc

The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents*” scam
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-pe*nalty.aspx

I have written several posts in response to yours but you haven’t responded to most of what I have written. I hope that you respond. Thank you.

BTW, your links to the articles written by Joshua Marquis don’t work. And another one doesn’t, either.

 

[Nelka]

Well do you?

One one hand, it’s a way different case then abortion, because killing a serial killer is different from killing an unborn baby.

But on the other day, isn’t it illogical to kill people who kill people to show people who kill people than killing people is wrong?

What would be your defense in front of God when he asks you why you killed a serial killer when He performs justice and not you?

And your defense if He asks you why you stopped him from asking God for His Mercy?

Do you wish to join the serial killer in Hell for breaking God’s commandment?

 

[dudleysharp]

BTW, your links to the articles written by Joshua Marquis don’t work.

No kidding. Very odd.

Don’t know what happened.

Here they are, again, as I tried to post them, before.

---

“The Innocent and the Shammed”, Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html

“The Myth Of Innocence”, Joshua Marquis,published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology - 3/31/2005, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
coastda.blogspot.com/2005/03/myth-of-innocence.html

“Counting the Guilty”, Joshua Marquis, 3/26/2008
coastda.blogspot.com/2008/03/counting-guilty.html

 

[dudleysharp]

PLEASE do NOT tell me what I have done or not done. Again, YOU DO NOT KNOW

Yes, I do. It is impossible for you to make the conclusions you have and have read my material.

The factual definitions of innocent and exonerated have nothing to do with the DPIC definitions/deceptions.

Even they have admitted that.

I have always conceded that innocents have been executed.

You say we cannot know for sure if anyone is guilty. It just isn’t a credible statement. It is important to have a discussion, employing reason.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I do. It is impossible for you to make the conclusions you have and have read my material.

No, it is not impossible and I would appreciate it if you do not tell me what I have done or have not done.

The factual definitions of innocent and exonerated have nothing to do with the DPIC definitions/deceptions.

Even they have admitted that.

I have always conceded that innocents have been executed.

You say we cannot know for sure if anyone is guilty. It just isn’t a credible statement. It is important to have a discussion, employing reason.

What isn’t a credible statement?

 

[dudleysharp]

What would be your defense in front of God when he asks you why you killed a serial killer when He performs justice and not you?

And your defense if He asks you why you stopped him from asking God for His Mercy?

Do you wish to join the serial killer in Hell for breaking God’s commandment?

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4
This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same commands from God, in the same circumstance, from the OT.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important. This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something contrary to support for execution.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.

 

[Ender]

I’ve been going back through this thread and I really like this post. I feel that it deserves a second posting.

Since you have posted surritter’s comment a second time I will respond to it a second time.

To read 2260 and its footnote as a stand-alone statement fails to consider that it is meant to set up the historical presentation of this particular moral dilemma.

Either we are to understand Gen 9:6 as it stands or we must ignore or reinterpret it. It appears you have chosen to ignore it.

Therefore, should we follow the Old Testament, or should we follow what Jesus said?

There is no contradiction, no either/or choice to make. Given that 2260 says the teaching of Gen 9:6 “remains necessary for all time” why would you assume otherwise?

But please read that in context: It is establishing the historical witness of the respect for human life.

No it isn’t. We have already seen in Gen 1:27 that: “God created mankind in his own image…”. That point alone is not merely being reechoed in 9:6. It is the fact of man’s dignity that explains the awfulness of murder and why the life of a murderer is forfeit. It is precisely because of man’s dignity that the crime of murder is so heinous and the penalty so high.

We must read on to see how the Church then guides that historical perspective into our application of God’s laws as Catholics.

Would that include everything the Church has ever said on the subject prior to 1995 or should we just dismiss two millennia of Church teaching as irrelevant?

If retribution were the primary objective of punishment …

Well, according to the Church, it is. Is there really any doubt that the USCCB is here equating retribution with the “restoration of the order of justice”?

*The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. *(USCCB)

… surely the Catechism would not make that statement! Instead, it would instruct a society to fulfill the objective of retribution…

Nonetheless, retribution means restoring the order of justice which the Catechism identifies as the primary objective of punishment.

… and then treat the dignity of the offender as a secondary consideration.

How is an execution an offense against man’s dignity?

Ender

 

[surritter]

Either we are to understand Gen 9:6 as it stands or we must ignore or reinterpret it. It appears you have chosen to ignore it.

What a broad statement. Are we to avoid eating pork because God commanded it?
You see, I have NOT ignored it. I follow the teachings of the Church. As a fellow Catholic, I wish you would do the same.

There is no contradiction, no either/or choice to make. Given that 2260 says the teaching of Gen 9:6 “remains necessary for all time” why would you assume otherwise?

Ah, the old trick of taking something out of context. The Catechism is not saying that the death penalty is the item that is to be held for all time. For the benefit of all, here is the pertinent quote from 2260: “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.’ The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Ender, is the teaching that we must track down and kill all murderers? Or is the teaching that blood is the symbol of life, and God made man in His own image?

No it isn’t. We have already seen in Gen 1:27 that: “God created mankind in his own image…”. That point alone is not merely being reechoed in 9:6. It is the fact of man’s dignity that explains the awfulness of murder and why the life of a murderer is forfeit. It is precisely because of man’s dignity that the crime of murder is so heinous and the penalty so high.

But since you consider the phrase from Gen 9:6 stating “By man his [the murderer’s] blood shall be shed” to be a command, then surely we should track down and kill all murderers, right?

Would that include everything the Church has ever said on the subject prior to 1995 or should we just dismiss two millennia of Church teaching as irrelevant?

Well, if you could show an authoritative teaching from anytime in the Church’s history that mandates the DP, as you claim, then we could have a good discussion on this point. However, all we have to rely on is your connecting some supposed dots regarding “redressing an offense” and “retribution.” I have amply dealt with this issue in previous posts.

Well, according to the Church, it is. Is there really any doubt that the USCCB is here equating retribution with the “restoration of the order of justice”?

Unfortunately, the USCCB is not a Magisterial body, so this is irrelevant. But even in that quote, notice that they are not holding retribution to be the primary objective. You use the word “equate” when the document simply says that it is the THIRD objective. Stop injecting your own beliefs into what a quote says!

Common sense says that if we are to hold retribution as the primary objective of punishment, then yes, we should track down and kill all murderers. But that’s not what our Church teaches, is it? Ergo, there is some faulty logic leading you to make these claims about retribution.

Nonetheless, retribution means restoring the order of justice which the Catechism identifies as the primary objective of punishment.

Please write a separate post explaining how the Catechism identifies retribution as the PRIMARY objective!!

How is an execution an offense against man’s dignity?

Someone hasn’t read Evangelium Vitae, right? There’s a wealth of knowledge there for you in paragraphs 41 and 56. Simply put, however, Catholics should agree that even a murderer’s life has intrinsic value, merely because he is made in God’s image. That is why there is an issue of dignity involved. There are times when that dignity necessarily takes a back seat, such as in self-defense, but it’s strange that you see no relevance when someone mentions the criminal’s dignity of soul in relation to the death penalty.

 

[LittleSoldier]

6.6% recidivism rate found in a 1997 study: bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf

How did you arrive at the 6.6% figure? I’ve scanned the research paper but there are a lot of tables and a lot of information. I’d like to know how you arrived at your number. Thank you.

A study from 2002, finding a 1.2% recidivism rate: bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Same question as above. Thank you.

The combined recidivism rate for the two studies is 3.9%.

Again, I would like to know how you arrived at this figure. I hope you didn’t take the figures from two separate studies, add them together, and then divide by the number of studies.

With a 3.9% recidivism rate, the US is looking at about 28,000 more innocents murdered, by those who had murdered, before, with about 700, 000 murders in the US from 1973-2010, that using only one additional innocent murdered, although many would have been multiple innocents murdered.

But . . .

Both of these studies only looked at recidivism for 3 years after release.

I am looking at recidivism for 38 and less, years 1973-2010, as the modern era of new death penalty statutes began in 1973.

Recidivism rates will be higher if released prisoners were tracked 4 years and beyond. In addition, this group is very likely responsible for a disproportionately high number of the 25% unsolved murders, raising the recidivism percentage even higher.

However, using the 3.9% is the most proper to use, because it is the only one I know, for sure.

It is important to note that these studies are based upon re-arrest, not re-conviction.

Based upon convictions, 7-8% of those on death row had murdered, at least one person, prior to committing additional murder or murders which put them on death row – an estimated 600-1000 additional innocents murdered, by those who had murdered before, on death row. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=18

BJS is currently working on an updated study, recidivism of prisoners released from state prisons in 2005.

Based upon previous studies, it could be years before we see it. For some reason, they do them on an 11 year cycle and only look at 3 years after release.

 

[dudleysharp]

How did you arrive at the 6.6% figure? I’ve scanned the research paper but there are a lot of tables and a lot of information. I’d like to know how you arrived at your number. Thank you.
Same question as above. Thank you.
Again, I would like to know how you arrived at this figure. I hope you didn’t take the figures from two separate studies, add them together, and then divide by the number of studies.

Of course you are confused.

Sadly, I can only offer you a “you’re not welcome” to your “thank yous”.

As I have said, previously, you don’t read things prior to commenting. The figures are there. You simply don’t want to make the effort.

Please put some effort into this. I did.

Be thorough before you comment the first time, not the third or fourth time, if at all.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation.”

(unconfirmed) Herbert Spencer (1820-1903).

 

[LittleSoldier]

Of course you are confused.

Sadly, I can only offer you a “you’re not welcome” to your “thank yous”.

As I have said, previously, you don’t read things prior to commenting. The figures are there. You simply don’t want to make the effort.

Please put some effort into this. I did.

Be thorough before you comment the first time, not the third or fourth time, if at all.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation.”

(unconfirmed) Herbert Spencer (1820-1903).

OK. You won’t answer any questions about the studies you posted. Um, that really doesn’t make much sense. First of all, I read the reports I quoted. There are a lot of figures and tables there. I am asking for your help so that I can understand your position. And again, you have made assumptions. “You simply don’t want to make the effort.” “You don’t read things prior to commenting.” You don’t know how much effort I have put into studying and reading what you have presented. As for reading things before commenting, I tried to read three articles but the links (which you provided) didn’t even work.

Your (unconfirmed) quote by Herbert Spencer makes a lot of sense. Why do you condemn me before you investigate?

Please don’t accuse me of not being thorough. My gosh, ask a question and get smacked across the face for it.

If you are not willing to answer questions about the research papers to which you provided links you are not willing to discuss this issue in an appropriate way.

It does appear that you added the recidivism rates from two separate research studies, (separated by five years), and then simply divided the number you obtained by two. That would give you the recidivism rate you have presented. I couldn’t find it anywhere else and your explanation in your report was sketchy. And as you are refusing to answer my questions I am forced to conclude that you either won’t or can’t. If you won’t or can’t defend your own figures then there isn’t much to be said, except that if you did obtain a recidivism rate in this way you obtained it inappropriately. If all the parameters were exactly the same it would make sense. But they aren’t. I was hoping you had not obtained your recidivism rate that way; that it was somewhere in the reports. I couldn’t find it.

As for the recidivism rates you obtained from your linked research, I finally found a recidivism rate of 1.2% in the second report (persons who allegedly committed a homicide and then allegedly committed a homicide after being released). All you had to do was tell me the Table number. I finally found it in Table 10. Why didn’t you report the Table number? Lots of people don’t have the time to thoroughly dissect every single research report. I sure don’t!

Your articles are difficult to follow, poorly written and poorly presented. My background is in Psychology research methodology. I read reports all the time and I’m sorry but I have to agree with the people who disliked your reports.

I have to conclude that your assertions are baseless and your position indefensible.

And that is indeed sad. You are now on my list.

But I will once again add that we are required to submit to the Magisterium - that is, if we want to follow Church teaching. That is why I follow what the Church states in the CCC. And it is clear: the death penalty should not be used unless there is no other way to protect the innocent. That is the teaching that I am going to follow.

God’s peace to you.