GUEST COLUMN
By Dudley Sharp
Justice Matters
Rev. Pickett is on a promotional tour for the anti death penalty film "At the Death House Door". It is partially about the Reverend's experience ministering to 95 death row inmates executed in Texas.
Rev. Pickett's inaccuracies are many and important.
Does Rev. Pickett just make facts up as he goes along, hoping that no one fact checks, or is he just confused or ignorant?
Some of his miscues are common anti death penalty deceptions. The reverend is an anti death penalty activist.
Below are comments or paraphrases of Rev. Pickett, taken from interviews, followed by my Reply:.
1) Pickett: I knew (executed inmate) Carlos (De Luna) didn't do it. It was his big brown eyes, the way he talked, he was the same age as my son (transference). I felt so sympathetic towards him. I was so 100% certain that he couldn't have committed this crime. (Carlos) was a super person to minister to. I knew Carlos was not guilty. Fred Allen a guard, said "by the way he talks and acts I don't believe he is guilty, either. (1)
REPLY: Experienced prison personnel are fooled all the time by prisoners, just as parole boards are. This is simply Rev. Pickett's and Fred Allen's blind speculation and nothing more.
More than that, it appears that Rev. Pickett is, now, either lying about his own opinions or he is very confused. Read on.
2) Pickett: believes that, no way, could someone, so afraid of lightning and thunder, such as Carlos De Luna, use a knife (in a crime). (1)
Reply: Rev. Pickett talks about how important his background is in understanding people and behavior and he says something like this, destroying his own credibility on the issue. If the lightning and thunder event occurred, we already know what De Luna was capable of. In 1980, "De Luna was charged with attempted aggravated rape and driving a stolen vehicle, he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 2 to 3 years. Paroled in May 1982, De Luna returned to Corpus Christi. Not long after, he attended a party for a former cellmate and was accused of attacking the cellmate's 53-year-old mother. She told police that De Luna broke three of her ribs with one punch, removed her underwear, pulled down his pants, then suddenly left. He was never prosecuted for the attack, but authorities sent him back to prison on a parole violation. Released again in December of that year, he came back to Corpus Christi and got a job as a concrete worker. Almost immediately, he was arrested for public intoxication. During the arrest, De Luna allegedly laughed about the wounding of a police officer months earlier and said the officer should have been killed. Two weeks after that arrest, Lopez was murdered." (Chicago Tribune) Being a long time criminal, we can presume that there were numerous additional crimes committed by De Luna and which remained unsolved. Was De Luna capable of committing a robbery murder, even though he had big brown eyes and was scared of lightning? Of course. This goes to Rev. Pickett's poor judgement or something else.
There is this major problem.
In 1999, years after Rev. Pickett had left his death row ministry, and 10 years after De Luna's execution, the reverend was asked, in a PBS Frontline interview, "Do you think there have been some you have watched die who were strictly innocent?"
His reply: "I never felt that." (3)
For many years, and since the 1989 execution of Carlos De Luna, the reverend never felt that any of the 95 executed were actually innocent.
This directly conflicts with his current statements on Carlos De Luna. Rev. Pickett is, now, saying that he was 100% sure of De Luna's innocence in 1989!
It appears the reverend has either revised history to support his new anti death penalty activism - he's lying - or he is, again, very confused. Reverend?
3) Introduction: In 1974, prison librarian Judy Standley and teacher Von Beseda were murdered during an 11 day prison siege and escape attempt. Ignacio Cuevas was sentenced to death, as one of three prisoners who were involved. The other two died in the shootout.
Ms. Standley and Ms. Beseda were part of Rev. Pickett's congregation, outside of prison.
Pickett: After Cuevas was executed, Rev. Pickett alleges that he met with Judy Standley's family and they told the reverend that "This (the execution) didn't bring closure." "This didn't help us." According to Rev. Pickett, "They didn't want him (Ignacio Cuevas) executed." (1)
Reply; There might be a big problem. Judy Standley's five children wrote a statement, before the execution, which stated: "We are relieved the ordeal may almost be over, but we are also aware that to some, this case represents only one of many in which, arguably, `justice delayed is justice denied," "We are hopeful the sentence will finally be carried out and that justice will at last be served," said the statement, signed by Ty, Dru, Mark, Pam and Stuart Standley. (4)
Sure seemed like the kids wanted Cuevas to be executed. Doesn't it? Reverend?
4) Pickett: "A great majority of them (the 95 executed inmates he ministered to) were black or Hispanic." (1)
Reply: The reverend's point, here, is to emphasize the alleged racist nature of the death penalty. There is a problem for the reverend - the facts - the "great majority" were 47 white (49%) with 32 black (34%), and 16 Hispanic (17%).
5) Pickett: "Out of the 95 we executed only one that had a college degree. All the rest of them their education was 9th grade and under." (1)
Reply: Not even close. Rev. Pickett's point, here, seems to be that capital murderers are, almost all, idiots who can't be held responsible for their actions. But, there are more fact problems for the reverend. In a review of only 31 of the 95 cases, 5 had some college or post graduate classes and 16 were high school graduates or completed their GED. Partial review (Incomplete Count) , below.
Would Rev. Pickett tell us about the educational achievements of all the true innocent murder victims and those that weren't old enough for school?
6) Pickett: spoke of the Soldier of Fortune murder for hire case, stating the husband got the death penalt, while the hired murderer got 6 years. (1)
Reply: Rev. Pickett's point, here, was the unfairness of the sentence disparity. More fact problems. John Wayne Hearn, the hitman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sandra Black.
7) Pickett: speaks of how sincere hostage taker, murderer Ignacio Cuevas was. Rev. Pickett states that "between 11 and midnight (I) believe almost everything" the inmates say, because they are about to be executed. (1)
Reply: Bad judgement. Minutes later, Cuevas lied when on the gurney, stating that he was innocent. This goes to show how Rev. Pickett and many others are easily fooled by these murderers. Pickett concedes the point.
8) Pickett: "In my opinion and in the opinion of the convicts, life in prison, with no hope of parole, is a much worse punishment (than the death penalty)." "Most of these people (death row inmates) fear life in prison more than they do the possibility of execution." (2)
REPLY: More fact problems. We know that isn't the opinion of those facing a possible death sentence of those residing on death row. This gives more support to my suspicion that Rev. Pickett is putting words into the inmates' mouths.
Facts: What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence, rather than seeking a life sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero (less than 2%). They prefer long term imprisonment. This is not, even remotely, in dispute. How could Rev. Pickett not be aware of this? How long was he ministering to Texas' death row? 13 years?
9) Pickett: stated that "doctors can't (check the veins of inmates pending execution), it's against the law." (1)
Reply: Ridiculous. Obviously untrue.
10) Pickett: Pavulon (a paralytic) has been banned by vets but we use it on people. (1)
REPLY: This is untrue and is a common anti death penalty deception. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) stetes, "When used alone, these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized." Obviously, paralytics are never used alone in the human lethal injection process or animal euthanasia. The AVMA does not mention the specific paralytic - Pavulon - used in lethal injection for humans. These absurd claims, falsely attributed to veterinary literature, have been a bald faced lie by anti death penalty activists.
In Belgium and the Netherlands, their euthanasia protocol is as follows: A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) (NOTE-the first drug in human lethal injection) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) (NOTE-the second drug, the paralytic, in human lethal injection) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability (NOTE: as in human lethal injection). Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg. (NOTE: That is how effective the second drug in human lethal injection is, that it can be given intramuscularly and still hasten death).
Just like execution/lethal injection in the US, although we give a third drug which speeds up death, even more.
11) Pickett: "Most of the inmates would ask the question, "How can Texas kill people who kill people and tell people that killing people is wrong?" That came out of inmates’ mouths regularly and I think it’s a pretty good question to ask." (2)
REPLY: Most? Would that be more than 47 out of 95? I simply don't believe it. 10 out of 95? Doubtful. I suspect it is no coincidence that "Why do we kill people to show that killing is wrong" has been a common anti death penalty slogan for a very long time. I suspect that Rev. Pickett has just picked it up, used it and placed it in inmate's mouths. Furthermore, we don't execute murderers to show that murder is wrong. Most folks know that murder is wrong even without a sanction.
12) Pickett: said an inmate said "its burning" "its burning", during an execution. (1)
REPLY: This may have occurred for a variety of reasons and does not appear to be an issue. It is the third drug which is noted for a burning sensation, if one were conscious during its injection. However, none of the inmates that Rev. Pickett handled were conscious after the first drug was administered. That would not be the case, here, as the burning complaints came at the very beginning of the injection process, which would involve a reaction where the burning would be quite minor. Has Rev. Pickett reviewed the pain and suffering of the real victims - the innocent murdered ones?
Bottom line. Reverend Pickett's credibility is as high as a snakes belly.
Time to edit the movie?!
------------
Incomplete count
this is a review of 31 out of the 95 death row inmates ministered by Rev. Pickett
21 of the 31 below had some college or post graduate classes (5)
or were high school graduates or completed their GED (16)
-----------
1) Brooks 12
3) O'Bryan post graduate degree - dentist
41 james russel 10th
42 G Green sophomore college
45 David Clark 10th and GED
46 Edward Ellis 10th
47 Billy White 10th
48 Justin May 11th
49 Jesus Romero 11th and GED
50 Robert Black, Jr. a pilot (probably beyond 12th)
55. Carlos Santana 11th
57 Darryl Stewart 12th
58 Leonel Herrera 11th and GED
60) Markum Duff Smith Post graduate College
33) Carlos De Luna 9th
95 Ronald Keith Allridge 10th and GED
93 Noble Mays Junior in College
92 Samuel Hawkins 12th
91 Billy Conn Gardner 12th
90 Jeffery Dean Motley 9th
89 Willie Ray Williams 11th
86 Jesse Jacobs 12th
85 Raymond Carl Kinnamon 11th and GED
84 Herman Clark sophomore college
83 Warren Eugene Bridge 11th
82 Walter Key Williams 12th
72 Harold Barnard 12th
73 Freddie Webb 11th and GED
75 Larry Anderson 12th
77 Stephen Nethery 12th
79 Robert Drew 10th
-------------------------------------------------------------
1) "Chaplain Discusses 'Death House' Ministry", Interview, Legal Affairs, FRESH AIR, NPR, May 19, 2007.
2) THE FAILURE INTERVIEW: REVEREND CARROLL PICKETT—AUTHOR OF "WITHIN THESE WALLS: MEMOIRS OF A DEATH HOUSE CHAPLAIN" Interview, by Kathleen A. Ervin
www(DOT)failuremag.com/arch_history_carroll_pickett_interview.html
3) "The Execution: Interview with Reverend Carroll Pickett", PBS, FRONTLINE, 1999
www(DOT)pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/pickett.html
4) "Appellate court refuses to stay killer's execution", Kathy Fair, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section A, Page 1, 2 Star edition, 05/23/1991
- Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters e-mail sharpjfa(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.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
http://www.dpinfo.com/
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis.blogspot.com/
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
www.prodeathpenalty.org/
http://www.yesdeathpenalty.com/(Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
Featured Article
Monday, May 26, 2008
Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
A few comments: First, right on target! Second, Cuevas said no shuch thing about being innocent, I was there! Third, Robert Black not only had a degree, he was a former USMC Captain and an Eagle Scout. Another one for the list would be George Lott, he was a lawyer.
I have the book but have not read it yet and more than likely will not. From the press releases and interviews I made up my opinion, if I want to read fiction, I will read fiction that is not pretending to be fact.
The Netherlands abolished the death penalty in 1870. Belgium abolished the death penatly in 1996. I don't think it's a sound argument to use their euthanisation process for animals and compare it to how the United States kills people. In fact, the U.S and Japan are the last two modern countries that still have the death penalty. We're right up there with China and Iraq as the top executors in the worls.
It's time for us to catch up with the rest of the world.
Good respose "anonymous #2" Just as long as you just want to agrue for arguements sake. For the US to have to catch up with the rest of the world -- we will have to kill a few thousand innocent people such as they have done in England, France, Italy, and Spain.
The rest of the world has actually regressed in it's estimation of justice.
And comparisons to China and Iraq (or Iran?) are disingenuous; they execute people for political dissent, but in America people are executed for murdering innocent people.
Which is really what capital punishment is about. It's not so much about deterrent (though it has been proven many times to have that effect) as it is about justice for the victim. At the heart of any good justice system is the concept of restitution and recompense. The murderer stole experiences, joys, triumphs, and years themselves from the victim (and his family). Since the murderer cannot "pay back" the life he has taken and restore it as one could something destroyed or stolen, the best he can do is give up his life. Anything less is to say that the victim's life was worth less than that of the murderer.
This, from the French daily Le Monde, December 2006 (1):
Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46%
USA: 82%
We are led to believe there isn't death penalty support in England or Europe. European governments won't allow executions when their populations support it: they're anti democratic. (2)
97%+ of Guatemalans support the death penalty. 2.6% oppose
(telephone survey, newspaper Prensa Libre, 2/14/08)
www(dot)latinamericapress.org/article.asp?lanCode=1&artCode=5545
79% support the resumption of hanging in Jamaica. 16% oppose. (Bill Johnson Polling for The Gleaner (Jamaica) Newspaper, 1/12-13/08
(1) The recent results of a poll conducted by Novatris/Harris for the French daily Le Monde on the death penalty shocked the editors and writers at Germany's left-leaning SPIEGEL ONLINE (Dec. 22, 2006). When asked whether they favored the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, a majority of respondents in Germany, France and Spain responded in the affirmative.
(2)An excellent article, “Death in Venice: Europe’s Death-penalty Elitism", details this anti democratic position (The New Republic, by Joshua Micah Marshall, 7/31/2000). Another situation reflects this same mentality. "(Pres. Mandela says 'no' to reinstating the death penalty in South Africa - Nelson Mandela against death penalty though 93% of public favors it, according to poll. "(JET, 10/14/96). Pres. Mandela explained that ". . . it was necessary to inform the people about other strategies the government was using to combat crime." As if the people didn't understand. South Africa has had some of the highest crime rates in the world in the ten years, since Mandela's comments. "The number of murders committed each year in the country is as high as 47,000, according to Interpol statistics." As of 2006, 72% of South Africans want the death penalty back. ("South Africans Support Death Penalty", 5/14/2006, Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research).
Rev. Pickett is my hero. I read his book twice and researched its content; what he states is true. This blog is pro death; they will say anything to get you to believe that murder is all right, however, it's not. Rev. Pickett is a very brave man for coming forward and speaking the truth.
This blog is pro life. I am so pro-life that I believe, as God dictated in Genesis 9:6, that human life is so sacred that when someone wrongfully kills an innocent human being, they should pay for that crime with the only thing that can come close to the life they stole: their own life.
To require the murderer to pay with anything less diminishes the value of the life the murderer took.
Human life is sacred or it is not. Most comments that are pro-death penalty are finding loop holes in "Thou shalt not kill." There are lots of reasons that people come up with to kill other people. In the case of the death penalty, grieving friends and relatives want revenge, the dead people won't rest easy until their killers are killed ("I'm sorry, Jesus, but I can't join you in heaven until after the execution."),and an interpretation of justice, whatever that is.
If a few people are executed who didn't commit the crime of which they are accused, they are just collateral damage.
Actually, we have already made the decision that life is not sacred. Hence Hiroshima, Vietnam, and Iraq which are three examples of collateral damage i.e. the killing of lots of underage non-combatants.
It seems strange that the victims of murder in Texas are innocent and the murderers executed but the children killed in war are collateral damage and we elect their murderers president.
Until human life has some importance the arguments over war, the death penalty and abortion are just hot air.
Actually, Jeff, God didn't say "Thou shalt not kill;" he said "Thou shalt not murder." There's a big difference.
God allows for justified killing in war, and for the execution of murderers. Please read Genesis 9:6; God COMMANDED us to execute people who had so little respect for human life that they would wrongfully kill another human being--and he's never rescinded that command, not even in the New Testament.
Ellis:
Actually, Jeff, God didn't say "Thou shalt not kill;" he said "Thou shalt not murder." There's a big difference.
Jeff:
This is my point. This distinction is a way to justify killing. Who decides what is killing and what is murder? Why not be up front and say you, along with say the Romans, don't have a problem with killing/murdering people? Why hide behind a translation distinction.
Ellis:
God allows for justified killing in war, and for the execution of murderers. Please read Genesis 9:6; God COMMANDED us to execute people who had so little respect for human life that they would wrongfully kill another human being--and he's never rescinded that command, not even in the New Testament.
Jeff:
First, I am not a Jew so what the God of the Old Testement commands doesn't carry much weight with me. I suppose that Yahweh meant don't kill other Jews; just ask the Egyptians, Caananites and Amelekites. (I may have spelled these incorrectly but you get the idea.) The only mention of legal capital punishment in the Gospels is the woman who was about to be stoned and Jesus stopped the execution.
I think that government sponsered killing bothers me. My Grand Dad always told me that a person has to kill their own snakes. For many years I was a penpal of a woman in prison who killed her abusive husband and I did not judge her. But if some grieving friend or relative had a felt need to kill the murderer of someone, I would give them a gun and say, "Knock yourself out." ( I lived for many years in a county where the gun law was that the head of a household had to own a gun and ammunition for it.) People are what they are and nowhere near the end of their evolution. They are going to kill/murder other people. But there is something "chicken shit" about having the government do it. Instead of looking for reasons to kill/murder other people we, in my opinion, should be looking for reasons to make their lives better. One would hope that we would try to advance the civilized aspects of our species. Any damn fool can kill/murder a person particularly if the government does it for them. It is much harder to forgive them.
Jeff, I had to reject your last comment because of the profanity; unfortunately I don't have any way to edit them.
If you'd like to resubmit without the profanity, I'd be happy to publish it.
Actually, Jeff, God didn't say "Thou shalt not kill;" he said "Thou shalt not murder." There's a big difference. This is my point. This distinction is a way to justify killing. Who decides what is killing and what is murder? Why not be up front and say you, along with say the Romans, don't have a problem with killing/murdering people? Why hide behind a translation distinction.
God allows for justified killing in war, and for the execution of murderers. Please read Genesis 9:6; God COMMANDED us to execute people who had so little respect for human life that they would wrongfully kill another human being--and he's never rescinded that command, not even in the New Testament. First, I am not a Jew so what the God of the Old Testement commands doesn't carry much weight with me. I suppose that Yaweh meant don't kill other Jews; just ask the Egyptians, Caananites and Amelekites. (I may have spelled these incorrectly but you get the idea.) The only mention of legal capital punishment in the Gospels is the woman who was about to be stoned and Jesus stopped it.
I think that government sponsered killing bothers me. My Grand Dad always told me that a person has to kill their own snakes. For many years I was a penpal of a woman in prison who killed her abusive husband and I did not judge her. If some grieving friend or relative had a felt need to kill the murderer of someone, I would give them a gun and say, "Knock yourself out." ( I lived for many years in a county where the law was that the head of a household had to own a gun and ammunition for it.) People are what they are and nowhere near the end of their evolution. They are going to kill/murder other people. But there is something "deleted" about having the government do it. Instead of looking for reasons to kill/murder other people we, in my opinion, should be looking for reasons to make their lives better. One would hope that we would try to advance our species. Any (deleted) fool can kill/murder a person particularly if the government does it for you. It is much harder to forgive them.
With regard to the words I used that you consider profanity:
pro·fan·i·ty [prō fánnətee, prə fánnətee]
(plural pro·fan·i·ties)
n
1. profane language or behavior: language or behavior that shows disrespect for God, any deity, or religion
2. profane word or phrase: a word or phrase that shows disrespect for God, any deity, or religion
The phrase I used had nothing at all to do with God or religion. It has to do with a particularly trivial type of excrement.
I Googled the 6th Commandment and found the following:
In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the sixth commandment. He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them:
>It sounds to me that the death penalty is murder.<
... under the Old Covenant God allowed humans to kill other humans under certain circumstances. But what about today, and those who are now under the New Covenant, should we participate in the execution of a murder or an adulterer? Should Christians involve themselves in warfare? I would argue that Christians should not participate in such activities because the New Covenant is a covenant of life, not of death (2 Corinthians 3:4-11). Under the New Covenant Christians do not execute people for sinning. The most drastic steps anyone can take against an unrepentant Christian are withholding brotherly fellowship from him until he repents (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15); and delivering or handing him over to Satan for spiritual correction (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:18-20). It is unclear from the scriptures exactly what it means to turn someone over to Satan.
Under the New Covenant a change occurred. Just as Christians are to no longer execute sinners, so they should not wage carnal war, but spiritual warfare (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:1-6; Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 6:11-14; 2 Timothy 2:3-5; 4:6-8). Christians must be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9, Romans 14:19), forgiving those who do them harm (Ephesians 4:29-32; Colossians 3:12-14; Matthew 6:9-15; Mark 11:25-26), treating their enemies with love (Luke 6:27-36) and not seeking revenge (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 3:8-12). Hatred which is the same as murder (1 John 3:15), is unforgiving, vengeful and hostile towards one's enemies.
>While I think the Old Testement has some wisdom, I get my moral sense from the New Testement. I must say that while I don't know to what degree Jesus was divine, I do chose His moral values. Frankly I don't understand the rationale behind justifying the death penalty on the basis of the Old Testement. I suppose the death penalty can be argued on the basis of revenge but I think it sacraligious, dare I say profane, to bring God and the Bible into it.<
If you want to stick with that definition of profane, Jeff, your comment will remain unpublished. Your call.
Since you seem to ignore the dictionary and make up your own definition of words, my call is to opt out your blog. For intelligent discussion there needs to be a common language. You seem to have made up your own and am too old to learn a new version of English. I think that you should give some thought to the possibility that besides the dictionary your have also abandoned rational thought.
Maybe you should try another dictionary, Jeff, like one of the most common out there called the Merriam-Webster, which defines profanity as "to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use."
You might also try getting in touch with average human beings; I'm pretty sure that all except the most vulgar of them would agree that the word you used is indeed profanity.
To respond to your comment at 2:08, there isn't a single thing in the New Testament under the new covenant which supersedes God's edict to carry out capital punishment in Genesis 9:6. You might recall that this edict was not even a part of the Mosaic Law, but was given to all of humanity as the 8-member human race came off the ark after God destroyed it for, among other things, the incredible violence that was going on in the antediluvian world.
Jesus affirmed that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and Jesus' apostle Paul affirmed in Romans 13:4 that government has the authority to carry out capital punishment against the wrong-doer.
When capital punishment is carried out, it is not an emotional act, and it isn't retribution on the part of the loved ones. It is a punitive act carried out by the state--which has authority delegated by God--to balance the scales of justice as best they can be in an imperfect world, i.e. to ensure that the guilty party pays a penalty commensurate with the damage done. Since the murderer stole the entire life of the victim, the closest the murderer can come to repaying what was taken is to give up his own life. This affirms the value and sacredness of human life.
Mr. Ellis, I am speechless. I can think of no response to the idea of justifying the death penalty on the basis of what God told Noah after the flood.
Speechless enough, I hope, to perhaps read why God destroyed the planet in Genesis 6, what he said in Genesis 9:6 about the sacred nature of human life, and take the time to think about what it means.
Ok, Jeff and Bob:
Let's see what a few experts say.
Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
Religious positions in favor of capital punishment are neither necessary not needed to justify that sanction. However, the biblical and theological record is very supportive of the death penalty.
Many of the current religious campaigns against the death penalty reflect a fairly standard anti death penalty message, routed in secular arguments. When they do address religious issues, they often neglect solid theological foundations, choosing, instead, select biblical sound bites which do not impact the solid basis of death penalty support.
The strength of the biblical, theological and traditional support for the death penalty is, partially, revealed, below.
(1)"The Death Penalty", by Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.
www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment ", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007
(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at
www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective",
by Br. Augustine (Emmanuel Valenza)
www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm
(4) "Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice", Prof. J. Budziszewski, First Things, August / September 2004 found athttp://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BudziszewskiPunishment.shtml
(5) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
www.ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm
(6) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987.
The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
(7) "Why I Support Capital Punishment", by Andrew Tallman
sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review
http://andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/search?q=Capital+punishment
(8) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty"
by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=957
(9) "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
(10) "God’s Justice and Ours" by US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022
(11) "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.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
(12) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?",
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
(13) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS",
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp
---------------------
70% of Catholics supported the death penalty as of May, 2oo5, Gallup Poll, Moral Values and Beliefs. The May 2-5, 2005 poll also found that 74% of Americans favor the death penalty for murderers, while 23% oppose.
copyright 1999-2008 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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
www.homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www.dpinfo.com
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www.coastda.com/
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www.prodeathpenalty.com
www.yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.htm
Mr. Sharp:
The death penalty is a barbaric solution to a societal problem. All the subtle arguments and all the articles by experts, in God knows what, don't change this. A solution of death is a failure, not anything to be proud of, and I find an underlying unseemly pride when the words conclude that God is pro-death penalty.
Instead of finding reasons to kill, why aren't you finding reasons to not kill. And if you are not a barbarian and decide to kill, you have failed.
Do you really believe that if Jesus was in the death chamber that He would throw the switch?
Belief in the death penalty is one thing, claiming that Jesus agrees with you is another.
I think that calling one's self Christian and pro death penalty is hipocracy, but then Christianity lost contact with Jesus 1700 years ago.
Jeff, whether there's any pride involved or not, I don't know. But it's a simple fact: God not only is "pro-death penalty," He instituted it and commanded it.
He did so in Genesis 9:6 when the human race began again after the global flood (which God used to destroy a world, the Bible tells us, was consumed by violence). This was long before the Mosaic Covenant, and thus was not subject to being superseded by the New Covenant Christ instituted.
Christ never said anything against the death penalty. If anything, he affirmed it when He said in Matthew 26:52 that people who live by the sword die by the sword, and his apostle Paul stated in Romans 13 that the human government, delegated it's authority by God, "does not bear the sword for nothing."
The death penalty is the best way to affirm the value of the life taken by the murderer, the best way to ensure the murderer does not do the same to anyone else, and the best way to deter the same crime from others.
Post a Comment