Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.
There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.
My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:
1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.
2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.
My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.
Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.
Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.
My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").
Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.
I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings.
DanZ
Death Penalty and Executions
Moderator: Moderators
-
dudleysharp
- Student
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:11 pm
Palmeras errors
Post #111Palmera writes:
"The practice of capital punishment today reflects the racism and classism inherent in our justice system and other structures of American society. The death penalty systematically favors executing the poor and the blacks of America for a number of reasons."
------------
Sharp responds:
This is hogwash and reflects the common ignorance from the anti death penalty side. A little reality.
Racial issues
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.
It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.
Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.
Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.
Class issues
No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups?
-----------------------
Palmera writes:
"The fact of many people being either found innocent and released from death roll, or found innocent after being executed notwithstanding, I wonder how many innocents have to die before people will realize that the system is flawed and actually hurts society."
------------------------
Sharp responds:
Really?
Innocence Issues
Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 123 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).
That number is a fraud.
Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers.
Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in death penalty opponents claims. If that error rate is consistent, nationally, that would indicate that 21 of the alleged 125 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent -- a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the over 7500 sentenced to death since 1973.
It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900. Nonsense. Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries. However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be the most accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. Under real world scenario, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.
--------------------------
Palmera writes:
There is strong statistical evidence that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent of violent crimes and homicides. The states with the highest rate of execution are also the states with the highest rates of crime, violent crime, and homicides.
---------------------
Sharp responds:
Ugh
Death Penalty and Deterrence: Let's be clear
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, 0104
In their story, "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (1)
What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you can't simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding deterrence.
As one observer stated: "The Times story does nothing more than repeat the dumbest of all dumb mistakes taking the murder rate in a traditionally high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and concluding that the death penalty doesn't work at all. Even this comparison doesn't work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were 40 percent above Michigan's in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .". (2)
Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty."(3)
Even though easily observed on the Times' own graphics, they failed to mention the obvious. Michigan's murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US's 38 death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC (not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same period.
Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.
Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: "One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texasand the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions." (4)
And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 -- possibly the largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.
Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than doubled in the US. Any other rise and fall in murders, after that time, has been only a fraction of that change, indicating a strong and direct correlation between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is specifically what you are looking for.
If deterrence was measured by direct correlation's between execution, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate, only more confusion. Which may have been the Times goal.
Let's take a look at the science.
Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and Louisiana, that have high rates.
To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally, geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the rates of homicides.
And, as so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state, such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state, such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states, such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here, not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks already knew that.
As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations. That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations within and between others. Any direct comparison of only execution rates and only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or deception.
Ehrlich called the Times study "a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal." "The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit." He called the Times story a "one sided affair" devoid of merit. Most interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time's writer, Fessenden, who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published. Somehow Ehrlich's overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.
Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh "says he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment." Somehow,
Fessenden's left that out of the Times story, as well. (5).
There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior.
1) "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New
York Times 9/22/00 located at
www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22STUD.html and www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22DEAT.html
2) "Don't Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece", William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at www (dot) nationalreview.com/comment/comment092200c.shtml
3) ibid, see footnote 11
4) "The Death Penalty Saves Lives", AIM Report, August 2000, located atwww (dot) aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
15) "NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN", Accuracy in Media, 10/16/00, go to www (dot) aim.org/
copyright 2000-2007 Dudley Sharp
"The practice of capital punishment today reflects the racism and classism inherent in our justice system and other structures of American society. The death penalty systematically favors executing the poor and the blacks of America for a number of reasons."
------------
Sharp responds:
This is hogwash and reflects the common ignorance from the anti death penalty side. A little reality.
Racial issues
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.
It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.
Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.
Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.
Class issues
No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups?
-----------------------
Palmera writes:
"The fact of many people being either found innocent and released from death roll, or found innocent after being executed notwithstanding, I wonder how many innocents have to die before people will realize that the system is flawed and actually hurts society."
------------------------
Sharp responds:
Really?
Innocence Issues
Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 123 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).
That number is a fraud.
Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers.
Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in death penalty opponents claims. If that error rate is consistent, nationally, that would indicate that 21 of the alleged 125 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent -- a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the over 7500 sentenced to death since 1973.
It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900. Nonsense. Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries. However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be the most accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. Under real world scenario, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.
--------------------------
Palmera writes:
There is strong statistical evidence that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent of violent crimes and homicides. The states with the highest rate of execution are also the states with the highest rates of crime, violent crime, and homicides.
---------------------
Sharp responds:
Ugh
Death Penalty and Deterrence: Let's be clear
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, 0104
In their story, "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (1)
What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you can't simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding deterrence.
As one observer stated: "The Times story does nothing more than repeat the dumbest of all dumb mistakes taking the murder rate in a traditionally high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and concluding that the death penalty doesn't work at all. Even this comparison doesn't work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were 40 percent above Michigan's in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .". (2)
Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty."(3)
Even though easily observed on the Times' own graphics, they failed to mention the obvious. Michigan's murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US's 38 death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC (not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same period.
Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.
Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: "One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texasand the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions." (4)
And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 -- possibly the largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.
Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than doubled in the US. Any other rise and fall in murders, after that time, has been only a fraction of that change, indicating a strong and direct correlation between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is specifically what you are looking for.
If deterrence was measured by direct correlation's between execution, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate, only more confusion. Which may have been the Times goal.
Let's take a look at the science.
Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and Louisiana, that have high rates.
To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally, geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the rates of homicides.
And, as so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state, such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state, such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states, such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here, not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks already knew that.
As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations. That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations within and between others. Any direct comparison of only execution rates and only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or deception.
Ehrlich called the Times study "a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal." "The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit." He called the Times story a "one sided affair" devoid of merit. Most interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time's writer, Fessenden, who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published. Somehow Ehrlich's overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.
Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh "says he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment." Somehow,
Fessenden's left that out of the Times story, as well. (5).
There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior.
1) "States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates", The New
York Times 9/22/00 located at
www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22STUD.html and www (dot) nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22DEAT.html
2) "Don't Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece", William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at www (dot) nationalreview.com/comment/comment092200c.shtml
3) ibid, see footnote 11
4) "The Death Penalty Saves Lives", AIM Report, August 2000, located atwww (dot) aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
15) "NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN", Accuracy in Media, 10/16/00, go to www (dot) aim.org/
copyright 2000-2007 Dudley Sharp
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #112
The practicality (or impracticality, as it were) of the death penalty I'm not going into, but the theology behind it could do with some correction here. I'm not a Catholic, so I won't be bullied into acknowledging Aquinas or Ratzinger as authoritative, by the way. Popes of times past tended to be apologists for the existing power structures and the status quo, which Jesus certainly was not, nor would have wanted his followers to be.
The best translation of razah is 'to kill', though it refers to the manner of killing done in anger or vengeance, no matter whether it is premeditated or spontaneous. Despite your claim to the contrary, the verb razah is used in reference to an act of capital punishment (Numbers 35:30), for both the offender and for the executor.
Modern Christians do not, for example, need to uphold the Mosaic dietary strictures, which were most likely originally kept to maintain basic hygiene among the nomadic Hebrews. The retributive justice prescribed here is along the same lines - though the legal principles of the Ten Commandments remain relevant to any civilised people, the 'eye for an eye' model of justice was originally meant to prevent feuds between families. If A strikes out B's eye, B is not allowed to kill A, only to have A's eye struck out. If A kills B, B's family is not allowed to wreak vengeance against A's entire family, only to demand A's life.
One hopes we are past warranting such rudiments. Capital punishment then was not about 'justice' in the manner that we are accustomed to speaking of it now, it was a basic means of maintaining some semblance of civilised order amongst a nomadic people. Remember that the people to whom Moses was speaking were also warned that vengeance belongs to God and to God alone.
'This people honours me with their lips,
But their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
Teaching human precepts as doctrines.'
The fact that some scholars of the Old Testament have read this text as 'thou shalt not murder' is not in dispute. But the English term 'murder' is an extremely awkward (at best) translation for the Hebrew verb razah 'to kill'.Dudley Sharp wrote:Biblical scholars and theologians have properly read this text as thou shalt not murder for milennia.
This is not in dispute.
The best translation of razah is 'to kill', though it refers to the manner of killing done in anger or vengeance, no matter whether it is premeditated or spontaneous. Despite your claim to the contrary, the verb razah is used in reference to an act of capital punishment (Numbers 35:30), for both the offender and for the executor.
Lloyd Bailey wrote:The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer.
Please. Tell this Lloyd Bailey fellow that you cannot be an intellectually honest Bible scholar and start any sentence with 'The Bible clearly asserts' x. The Bible is an anthology; a compilation of centuries upon centuries of written material from many different sources, priestly and secular, Hebrew and Greek. The Mosaic writings in question prescribe retributive justice against anyone who commits razah - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. But modern Christians are not, by and large, tribal nomads wandering the desert in search of a homeland.Lloyd Bailey wrote:The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant.
Modern Christians do not, for example, need to uphold the Mosaic dietary strictures, which were most likely originally kept to maintain basic hygiene among the nomadic Hebrews. The retributive justice prescribed here is along the same lines - though the legal principles of the Ten Commandments remain relevant to any civilised people, the 'eye for an eye' model of justice was originally meant to prevent feuds between families. If A strikes out B's eye, B is not allowed to kill A, only to have A's eye struck out. If A kills B, B's family is not allowed to wreak vengeance against A's entire family, only to demand A's life.
One hopes we are past warranting such rudiments. Capital punishment then was not about 'justice' in the manner that we are accustomed to speaking of it now, it was a basic means of maintaining some semblance of civilised order amongst a nomadic people. Remember that the people to whom Moses was speaking were also warned that vengeance belongs to God and to God alone.
And yet, human beings had to have written the Bible under God's inspiration. Human beings left their mark upon God's legacy. So in some sense, the Bible is all about human values, the beings whom God made in his own image. It is the reason why murder is so abhorrent - to the Hebrews, to strike at another human being is to deface the image of God.Lloyd Bailey wrote:Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values.
Perhaps, Dudley, you should stop parroting people with whom you think you agree and actually look at the text you are quoting. You will find that the text in St. Matthew in question actually makes the opposite point from that this Lloyd Bailey fellow was trying to manipulate it into saying. Jesus was not telling the Pharisees to harden their stance on tradition, he was telling them not to let human traditions prevent them from doing what is right! He followed it up with a quote from Isaiah:Lloyd Bailey wrote:Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a 'hard liner' who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not 'to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.', offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH' (Matthew 15:1-9).
'This people honours me with their lips,
But their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
Teaching human precepts as doctrines.'
Looks like Mr Bailey could do with taking a dose of his own prescription. There is clear support within the text of the Gospel for an abolitionist stance: among them a story (St. John 8:3-11) in which Jesus tells the scribes and the Pharisees (those considered upholders of the Law) when they brought an adulterous woman forward for execution: 'Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' So indeed, let the Gospel speak for itself, and let those who have ears to hear listen to its message.Lloyd Bailey wrote:All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible's own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.'
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
- Søren Kierkegaard
My blog
- Søren Kierkegaard
My blog
-
dudleysharp
- Student
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:11 pm
reply to MagusYanam - Christianity and the deathj penalty
Post #113[quote="MagusYanam"]Popes of times past tended to be apologists for the existing power structures and the status quo, which Jesus certainly was not, nor would have wanted his followers to be."
But, what did Jesus offer, on this topic?
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. Should any explanation be necessary, Jesus is saying that even as execution is the required punishment for murderers, as per the Old Testament, He tells us that those who speak ill of others and have hatred in their heart shall suffer in hell. Not only does Jesus never speak out against the civil authorities just use of execution for murder, He prescribes a much more serious, eternal punishment for those who hate and speak ill of others. And what price does God exact for any and all sin? Death. (Romans 5:12-14)
--------------------
Jesus, now 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. By executing two such devoted Christians for lying to Him, does the Holy Spirit show confirmation of His support for His divinely instituted civil punishment of execution for premeditated murder or does it show His rejection of capital punishment? And read all of Revelation.
------------------
Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment."
"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)."
" When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate's power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l)."
"Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). "
"Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners."
---------------------------
Jesus -- Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above."(John 19:10-11). "Jesus reminds Pilate that the implementation of the death penalty is a divinely entrusted responsibility that is to be justly implemented. Prof. Carl F.H. Henry, 45th Annual N.A.E. Convention, "Capital Punishment and The Bible". Jesus confirms that the civil authority has the lawful right to execute Jesus, and others, and that this right has been given to that authority by God.
------------------------------
Jesus, as per Biblical scholar Dr. Baruch Levine " . . . pronouncements about divine behavior (in the Hebrew Bible) correlated in the judicial context to attitudes toward death as a proper punishment. Quite clearly, the New Testament carries on the earlier mentality." As Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount, "Obedience will be rewarded with life; disobedience will be punished with destruction. A God who rewards with life and punishes with death is One whose laws provide for death as a judicial punishment." "Capital Punishment," p 31, What the Bible Really Says, ed. Smith & Hoffman, 1993.
Magus,
Virtually all Christian scholars place Aquinas and Augustine at the top of the heap, with regard to biblical understanding. You may not, but here is what the great scholars offer:
3) St. Augustine: "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21
4) St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146
5) St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.
6) Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)
8) "Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty" (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52), "It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)." Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree "that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death" (First Things, May 2001). Moreover, Cardinal Dulles admits that opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches." "Anglican theologian Oliver O'Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is "almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty" ("The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae," in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219)." ("Capital Punishment, Justice, and Timothy McVeigh", Keith Pavlischek. The Center For Public Justice, May 21, 2001, www(dot)cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$444
10) St. Thomas Aquinas: "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
11) "St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves." " That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty." Prof. Michael Pakaluk, The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991
But, what did Jesus offer, on this topic?
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. Should any explanation be necessary, Jesus is saying that even as execution is the required punishment for murderers, as per the Old Testament, He tells us that those who speak ill of others and have hatred in their heart shall suffer in hell. Not only does Jesus never speak out against the civil authorities just use of execution for murder, He prescribes a much more serious, eternal punishment for those who hate and speak ill of others. And what price does God exact for any and all sin? Death. (Romans 5:12-14)
--------------------
Jesus, now 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. By executing two such devoted Christians for lying to Him, does the Holy Spirit show confirmation of His support for His divinely instituted civil punishment of execution for premeditated murder or does it show His rejection of capital punishment? And read all of Revelation.
------------------
Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment."
"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)."
" When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate's power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l)."
"Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). "
"Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners."
---------------------------
Jesus -- Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above."(John 19:10-11). "Jesus reminds Pilate that the implementation of the death penalty is a divinely entrusted responsibility that is to be justly implemented. Prof. Carl F.H. Henry, 45th Annual N.A.E. Convention, "Capital Punishment and The Bible". Jesus confirms that the civil authority has the lawful right to execute Jesus, and others, and that this right has been given to that authority by God.
------------------------------
Jesus, as per Biblical scholar Dr. Baruch Levine " . . . pronouncements about divine behavior (in the Hebrew Bible) correlated in the judicial context to attitudes toward death as a proper punishment. Quite clearly, the New Testament carries on the earlier mentality." As Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount, "Obedience will be rewarded with life; disobedience will be punished with destruction. A God who rewards with life and punishes with death is One whose laws provide for death as a judicial punishment." "Capital Punishment," p 31, What the Bible Really Says, ed. Smith & Hoffman, 1993.
Magus,
Virtually all Christian scholars place Aquinas and Augustine at the top of the heap, with regard to biblical understanding. You may not, but here is what the great scholars offer:
3) St. Augustine: "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21
4) St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146
5) St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.
6) Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)
8) "Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty" (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52), "It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)." Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree "that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death" (First Things, May 2001). Moreover, Cardinal Dulles admits that opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches." "Anglican theologian Oliver O'Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is "almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty" ("The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae," in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219)." ("Capital Punishment, Justice, and Timothy McVeigh", Keith Pavlischek. The Center For Public Justice, May 21, 2001, www(dot)cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$444
10) St. Thomas Aquinas: "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
11) "St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves." " That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty." Prof. Michael Pakaluk, The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #114
Pathetic. It's sad that you can't see, Dudley, that unless its people can get past their 'hot-button' issues and see the Gospel for what the Gospel truly is, Christendom is doomed by its own pettiness. I'm no lock-stock-and-barrel death-penalty abolitionist, but I can at least see that the Christian message can indeed support such a position. The position is that God and God alone has the power to give and the power to take away, and for such a precious gift as life God's powers are all the more holy.
Earthly guilt must be met with earthly justice - where divine justice is concerned, Jesus has already extended to us the ultimate mercy in the Crucifixion. What it is left to Christians to do is to extend that mercy to others.
As for sin, death is a natural consequence thereof, not a price that God exacts. Read Romans 5 closely. Death as a result of sin is one of the facts of our existence, not a moral statement on Paul's behalf. In fact, he says that sinners are justified and saved from death through Christ.
Read Acts 5 again. Peter rebuked Ananias and he died at Peter's feet - and a great fear came into the hearts of all who heard of it. Nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit had killed him. The implication was that he died in his own guilt and fear, as did his wife, not of some divine act of civil execution (an absurd notion in itself).
I'm still not seeing the point where capital punishment for premeditated murder enters into the passage at all.
I have only one monarch to whom I entrust my life or that of anyone else, in innocence or in guilt. It isn't Caesar.
The word Jesus used in the Matthew passage was Gehenna - a concept not analogous to Hell but rather to a kind of purgatory. The Gehenna was a garbage heap outside Jerusalem where the fires never went out - all trash was burned in it. The meaning that Jesus lent to the word here was the contemporary religious meaning - the Jews of the time who believed in a life after death believed that the spirit must undergo a period of purification. For twelve months the soul would undergo the harrowing of Gehenna before it would be considered pure and fit to enter God's presence.dudleysharp wrote:Should any explanation be necessary, Jesus is saying that even as execution is the required punishment for murderers, as per the Old Testament, He tells us that those who speak ill of others and have hatred in their heart shall suffer in hell. Not only does Jesus never speak out against the civil authorities just use of execution for murder, He prescribes a much more serious, eternal punishment for those who hate and speak ill of others. And what price does God exact for any and all sin? Death.
Earthly guilt must be met with earthly justice - where divine justice is concerned, Jesus has already extended to us the ultimate mercy in the Crucifixion. What it is left to Christians to do is to extend that mercy to others.
As for sin, death is a natural consequence thereof, not a price that God exacts. Read Romans 5 closely. Death as a result of sin is one of the facts of our existence, not a moral statement on Paul's behalf. In fact, he says that sinners are justified and saved from death through Christ.
First off, are you a Unitarian by any chance? As I learnt it, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in the same being.dudleysharp wrote:Jesus, now 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. By executing two such devoted Christians for lying to Him, does the Holy Spirit show confirmation of His support for His divinely instituted civil punishment of execution for premeditated murder or does it show His rejection of capital punishment? And read all of Revelation.
Read Acts 5 again. Peter rebuked Ananias and he died at Peter's feet - and a great fear came into the hearts of all who heard of it. Nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit had killed him. The implication was that he died in his own guilt and fear, as did his wife, not of some divine act of civil execution (an absurd notion in itself).
I'm still not seeing the point where capital punishment for premeditated murder enters into the passage at all.
Dr Henry seems to be making a rather liberal (and, I must say, unwarranted) interpretation of the Scripture. It seems to me upon reading John 19 that Jesus is warning Pilate against assuming too much authority where he has none. 'You would have no authority over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.' Jesus refuses to speak to Pilate because he realises that Pilate - contrary to Dr Henry's assertion - does not bear the responsibility for his execution. Pilate, in fact, does everything he can to absolve himself of that responsibility (you should know this if you read the entire passage instead of quote-mining it).dudleysharp wrote:Jesus -- Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above."(John 19:10-11). "Jesus reminds Pilate that the implementation of the death penalty is a divinely entrusted responsibility that is to be justly implemented. Prof. Carl F.H. Henry, 45th Annual N.A.E. Convention, "Capital Punishment and The Bible". Jesus confirms that the civil authority has the lawful right to execute Jesus, and others, and that this right has been given to that authority by God.
At no point does he say, or ever even hint, that vengeance belongs to the State, nor the power over life and death. Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar - give unto God what belongs to God.Avery Dulles wrote:At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment.
They may have understanding of Scripture, but 'virtually all Christian scholars' also acknowledge that they had vested interests in defending the Empire and the power of the Bishopric of Rome. Christ had no interest in establishing the supremacy of any earthly power, but in establishing the kingdom of Heaven. Trying to use the Gospel to advocate giving the power over life and death to the scribes and the Pharisees of the world is to pervert it into something other than the Gospel. Allow the Gospel to speak for itself instead of trying to make it speak on behalf of powers and princes.dudleysharp wrote:Magus,
Virtually all Christian scholars place Aquinas and Augustine at the top of the heap, with regard to biblical understanding. You may not, but here is what the great scholars offer:
I have only one monarch to whom I entrust my life or that of anyone else, in innocence or in guilt. It isn't Caesar.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
- Søren Kierkegaard
My blog
- Søren Kierkegaard
My blog
Post #115
dudleysharp wrote:
In 2000 the Justice Department released a report finding, among other things, that "Of the 682 defendants reviewed under the Department's death penalty decision-making procedures in the period 1995 to 2000, 134 (20%) were White, 324 (48%) were Black, and 195 (29%) were Hispanic." In case you're counting, that means that 77% of the defendants were of color. In the cases of both Blacks and Hispanics, the proportion of each as defendants is much higher than the proportion they represent in the general population. Minorities, it states, make up 74% of the cases in which federal prosecutors seek the death penalty. The study shows that the same flaws inherent in the application of the death penalty on the state level, are present on the federal level as well. [1]
A study entitled "The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-99" [2] tells us that racism plays a role in deciding who shall live, and who shall die in the California justice system (remember CA has by far the highest number of inmates of death row [3].) Here are some of the pertinent facts:
*80% of executions in California were for those convicted of killing whites, while only 27.6% of murder victims are white.
*Those who murder non-Latino whites are over four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill Latinos and over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill African-Americans.
*A person convicted of first degree murder in a predominantly white, rural county (like Napa, King, Colusa, or Shasta counties) is more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death than a person convicted of a similar crime in a diverse, urban county like Los Angeles, which has the highest number of homicides in the state.
*The death rate by homicide in California varies substantially by race. African Americans are six times more likely to be murdered than whites.
Citing three similar studies done in Ohio, Illinois, and New Jersey, the website Think Progress, argues that institutional racism is a national problem reflected harshly in light of capital punishment. Each of these studies conclusions found that the race of the victim played a larger role in determining the sentencing of the defendant than the defendants own race. Racial prejudice takes many forms in our justice system. [4]
Compared to the general population, our justice system has always tried and imprisoned a disproportionate number of minorities (mainly blacks) than whites. The same is true of death row. While death penalty advocates will point to statistics that show the actual number of people of different race on death row is negligible, they fail to relate that statistic as a reflection of the overall population. African Americans represent under 15% of the population, yet they represent almost 40% of death penalty defendants.
dudleysharp wrote:
dudleysharpe wrote:
Also, not executing murderers will always put the public at more risk than if they weren't executed??? Why can't they be jailed for life? Is the possibility of a massive breakout too risky? Is that the logic to follow here? Further, in the real world, there is a strong correlation between the states with the highest percentage of death penalty cases/execution and the states with the highest percentage of homicides. Again, murderers don't expect to get caught. The death penalty is not a deterrent. The massive amounts of time and money used in these cases would be far better spent to improve social programs, education, the infrastructure of society etc...
You argue that in fact, the death penalty does deter further crimes: "There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior. " Though I don't see why the negative consequence must be death and not life in prison, I'll continue on. As you accurately point out, deterrence involvess many factors - I'll see if I can't produce a more compelling argument as to why the death penalty does not deter homicides than Time.
I find it interesting that you refer to Ehlich as support of your proposition. Nearly all studies subsequent to his showed not only that the death penalty does not provide deterrence but some studies have showed that it in fact compounds the problem facilitating the murder of future victims... oh the irony.
As Janet Reno tells us "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." For someone as close to the issue as she was, this is a pretty bold statement. The problem in analyzing what effect the death penalty has future crime can depend on the method your using. Study after study has shown that there is no correlation (suggesting deterrence) between execution rates and homicide rates. Some studies have actually shown that capital punishment increases the homicide rate when executions occur: Bowers, 1988; Costanzo, 1998; Phillips, 1983; Phillips & Hensley, 1984
Time's "throwback" study aside, Sellin's 1959 study on CP and deterrence using "every scrap of data available" [5] to quantitatively and qualitatively asses the situation has been repeated time and time again when new data is made available; and, time and time again, it is shown that CP has absolutely no deterring effect on homicide rates. There have even been international studies done. Take the Archer and Gartner (1984) study which looked at fourteen countries that had abolished the death penalty. Did their rates of homicide go up? Nope.
This is all well and good, but what of other models? Economic models have been mixed. This is because they need to manipulate large amounts of data to be successful. Unfortunately for the econometrics model, the information regarding CP is wanting because there is too little data and too many ways to manipulate it to come out with reliable results. [5] The problem is that good mathematical formulas do not necessarily make for good social science.
The fact of the matter is that no reliable evidence suggests that CP has a deterring effect, whereas many studies reliably show that it has none.
So here we have a racist, classist, flawed (the kind flawed in which innocents are put away and killed,) and impotent system in place. What is it going to take for people to realize that we, as Americans, must abolish such a barbaric and costly punishment system if we are to progress socially? The way we treat our criminals is a reflection of our society. All evidence portrays us as unscrupulous, racist, classist (don't forget sexist), and impotent. Super duper!
[1] http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/pubdoc/deathpe ... 2000report
[2] http://www.scu.edu/law/news/pr/pr_1215.html
[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
[4] http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/22/rac ... h-penalty/
[5] http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capita ... hment.html
In 1994, U.S. Justice Harry Blackmun remarked in his opinion on Callins v Collins: "Even under the most sophisticated death penalty statutes, race continues to play a major role in deciding who shall live and who shall die." This statement aptly describes the role race has played in our American capital punishment system for the past 30 years. Proponents of the capital punishment system continually deny, or fail to understand the complexity of prejudice inherent in our judicial system in the U.S.; especially in regards to the death penalty.Sharp responds:
This is hogwash and reflects the common ignorance from the anti death penalty side. A little reality.
Racial issues
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.
It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.
Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.
Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.
In 2000 the Justice Department released a report finding, among other things, that "Of the 682 defendants reviewed under the Department's death penalty decision-making procedures in the period 1995 to 2000, 134 (20%) were White, 324 (48%) were Black, and 195 (29%) were Hispanic." In case you're counting, that means that 77% of the defendants were of color. In the cases of both Blacks and Hispanics, the proportion of each as defendants is much higher than the proportion they represent in the general population. Minorities, it states, make up 74% of the cases in which federal prosecutors seek the death penalty. The study shows that the same flaws inherent in the application of the death penalty on the state level, are present on the federal level as well. [1]
A study entitled "The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-99" [2] tells us that racism plays a role in deciding who shall live, and who shall die in the California justice system (remember CA has by far the highest number of inmates of death row [3].) Here are some of the pertinent facts:
*80% of executions in California were for those convicted of killing whites, while only 27.6% of murder victims are white.
*Those who murder non-Latino whites are over four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill Latinos and over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill African-Americans.
*A person convicted of first degree murder in a predominantly white, rural county (like Napa, King, Colusa, or Shasta counties) is more than three times as likely to be sentenced to death than a person convicted of a similar crime in a diverse, urban county like Los Angeles, which has the highest number of homicides in the state.
*The death rate by homicide in California varies substantially by race. African Americans are six times more likely to be murdered than whites.
Citing three similar studies done in Ohio, Illinois, and New Jersey, the website Think Progress, argues that institutional racism is a national problem reflected harshly in light of capital punishment. Each of these studies conclusions found that the race of the victim played a larger role in determining the sentencing of the defendant than the defendants own race. Racial prejudice takes many forms in our justice system. [4]
Compared to the general population, our justice system has always tried and imprisoned a disproportionate number of minorities (mainly blacks) than whites. The same is true of death row. While death penalty advocates will point to statistics that show the actual number of people of different race on death row is negligible, they fail to relate that statistic as a reflection of the overall population. African Americans represent under 15% of the population, yet they represent almost 40% of death penalty defendants.
dudleysharp wrote:
Well, let's look at O.J. Simpson. All the evidence pointed to the fact that he committed a premeditated double murder; yet, now he get's to freely admit to it without fear of punishment. O.J. Simpson is only one case. (and yes, race also played a factor in his decision... to his favor. It's amazing what money will buy you these days!) But this is not the point. The point is that our justice system is set up in such a way that it favors the wealthy over the poor. This is institutionalized classism. You really can't get around this. It's an inherent flaw in our system which facilitates the corruption of justice. Again, this is reflected in the use of the death penalty. The point is not whether, once caught-tried-and found guilty, a rich person is more likely to be executed (I applaud your crafty approach) but that there are no rich people on death row. Death row is populated by the poorest of the poor. This speaks directly to the system in place that put them there. Without money to buy a good defense, or an adequate appeal (if one at all) what chance is there that these people received any kind of chance? Now, I'm not condoning murder or implying that all poor minorities on death row are innocent. Rather, I'm saying that the vast majority, especially the poor and minorities never received a fair trial... not by a long shot. This reflects the classism and racism inherent in the structures of our justice system and in our society in general.Class issues
No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups?
dudleysharpe wrote:
Reading your response, I had to wonder- how many innocents will have to be sentence and/or executed before you'll admit that this is a HUGE problem???Sharp responds:
Really?
Innocence Issues
Also, not executing murderers will always put the public at more risk than if they weren't executed??? Why can't they be jailed for life? Is the possibility of a massive breakout too risky? Is that the logic to follow here? Further, in the real world, there is a strong correlation between the states with the highest percentage of death penalty cases/execution and the states with the highest percentage of homicides. Again, murderers don't expect to get caught. The death penalty is not a deterrent. The massive amounts of time and money used in these cases would be far better spent to improve social programs, education, the infrastructure of society etc...
You argue that in fact, the death penalty does deter further crimes: "There is a constant within all jurisdictions -- negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior. " Though I don't see why the negative consequence must be death and not life in prison, I'll continue on. As you accurately point out, deterrence involvess many factors - I'll see if I can't produce a more compelling argument as to why the death penalty does not deter homicides than Time.
I find it interesting that you refer to Ehlich as support of your proposition. Nearly all studies subsequent to his showed not only that the death penalty does not provide deterrence but some studies have showed that it in fact compounds the problem facilitating the murder of future victims... oh the irony.
As Janet Reno tells us "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." For someone as close to the issue as she was, this is a pretty bold statement. The problem in analyzing what effect the death penalty has future crime can depend on the method your using. Study after study has shown that there is no correlation (suggesting deterrence) between execution rates and homicide rates. Some studies have actually shown that capital punishment increases the homicide rate when executions occur: Bowers, 1988; Costanzo, 1998; Phillips, 1983; Phillips & Hensley, 1984
Time's "throwback" study aside, Sellin's 1959 study on CP and deterrence using "every scrap of data available" [5] to quantitatively and qualitatively asses the situation has been repeated time and time again when new data is made available; and, time and time again, it is shown that CP has absolutely no deterring effect on homicide rates. There have even been international studies done. Take the Archer and Gartner (1984) study which looked at fourteen countries that had abolished the death penalty. Did their rates of homicide go up? Nope.
This is all well and good, but what of other models? Economic models have been mixed. This is because they need to manipulate large amounts of data to be successful. Unfortunately for the econometrics model, the information regarding CP is wanting because there is too little data and too many ways to manipulate it to come out with reliable results. [5] The problem is that good mathematical formulas do not necessarily make for good social science.
The fact of the matter is that no reliable evidence suggests that CP has a deterring effect, whereas many studies reliably show that it has none.
So here we have a racist, classist, flawed (the kind flawed in which innocents are put away and killed,) and impotent system in place. What is it going to take for people to realize that we, as Americans, must abolish such a barbaric and costly punishment system if we are to progress socially? The way we treat our criminals is a reflection of our society. All evidence portrays us as unscrupulous, racist, classist (don't forget sexist), and impotent. Super duper!
[1] http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/pubdoc/deathpe ... 2000report
[2] http://www.scu.edu/law/news/pr/pr_1215.html
[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
[4] http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/22/rac ... h-penalty/
[5] http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capita ... hment.html
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #116
That's utterly irrelevant if those people actually commited those crimes. The simple fact is, more poor people commit crimes and there are a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanic poor. That accounts for the higher rate of blacks and hispanics. It's not racism, it's reality.palmera wrote:In 2000 the Justice Department released a report finding, among other things, that "Of the 682 defendants reviewed under the Department's death penalty decision-making procedures in the period 1995 to 2000, 134 (20%) were White, 324 (48%) were Black, and 195 (29%) were Hispanic." In case you're counting, that means that 77% of the defendants were of color.
It's also unfortunate that so many blacks and hispanics, especially, reject the idea of bettering their lives. They don't want to leave the 'hood and anyone who gets out, gets an education and works hard for a living is seen as a sellout. I doubt we'll see any significant change in the raceial makeup of death row any time soon, simply because there are more poor blacks and hispanics who have earned their way there.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #117
One point you are missing is that for capital offenses, the percentage of the time where the prosecutors go for the death penalty is HIGHER for blacks and hispanics than for the white criminals. IF the rate at which the prosecutors went after the death penalty was the same for blacks and whites, I would agree. That is not the case though.Cephus wrote:That's utterly irrelevant if those people actually commited those crimes. The simple fact is, more poor people commit crimes and there are a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanic poor. That accounts for the higher rate of blacks and hispanics. It's not racism, it's reality.palmera wrote:In 2000 the Justice Department released a report finding, among other things, that "Of the 682 defendants reviewed under the Department's death penalty decision-making procedures in the period 1995 to 2000, 134 (20%) were White, 324 (48%) were Black, and 195 (29%) were Hispanic." In case you're counting, that means that 77% of the defendants were of color.
It's also unfortunate that so many blacks and hispanics, especially, reject the idea of bettering their lives. They don't want to leave the 'hood and anyone who gets out, gets an education and works hard for a living is seen as a sellout. I doubt we'll see any significant change in the raceial makeup of death row any time soon, simply because there are more poor blacks and hispanics who have earned their way there.
Post #118
cephus
Your post strikes at the core of the problematic views regarding the marginalized in our society held by Americans ignorant (or in denial) of the complexity of issues they see as black and white. Just how many blacks do you imagine dismiss Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a "sellout?"
I also find it interesting that you dismiss the views held by those who published the study and those of the justices who voiced the same concerns. Just what reality are they living in?
Let me tell you what's unfortunate. It's "unfortunate" (to use a term which utterly trivializes this issue) that our society is built upon inherently racist, sexist, agist and classist structures. It's "unfortunate" that our justice system is far from blind. It's "unfortunate" that so many affluent Americans reject these problems rather than struggle to fix them. It's "unfortunate" that the complex issues facing our society are framed in black and white terms. It's "unfortunate" that we will doubtfully see a change in the racial makeup of our death row any time soon, not because poor blacks and hispanics don't want to better themselves instead striving to stay marginalized in the "hood," but because the majority of Americans fail to critically examine the corruptions of our society and fail to question the assumptions to which they hold on to for fear of exposing their complicity in society's problems.
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
I'm not really sure how to respond to your grand dismissal of reality in favor of a highly prejudicial view stemming, it seems, from an ignorance of the socio-economic realities that permeate our society. Your sweeping generalization and vast oversimplification of the lives and views poor blacks and hispanics is rooted in a reality of which I am unaware. The idea that "so many blacks and hispanics, especially, reject the idea of bettering their lives" is not only a dismissive, but heinous charge.That's utterly irrelevant if those people actually commited those crimes. The simple fact is, more poor people commit crimes and there are a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanic poor. That accounts for the higher rate of blacks and hispanics. It's not racism, it's reality.
It's also unfortunate that so many blacks and hispanics, especially, reject the idea of bettering their lives. They don't want to leave the 'hood and anyone who gets out, gets an education and works hard for a living is seen as a sellout. I doubt we'll see any significant change in the raceial makeup of death row any time soon, simply because there are more poor blacks and hispanics who have earned their way there.
Your post strikes at the core of the problematic views regarding the marginalized in our society held by Americans ignorant (or in denial) of the complexity of issues they see as black and white. Just how many blacks do you imagine dismiss Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a "sellout?"
I also find it interesting that you dismiss the views held by those who published the study and those of the justices who voiced the same concerns. Just what reality are they living in?
Let me tell you what's unfortunate. It's "unfortunate" (to use a term which utterly trivializes this issue) that our society is built upon inherently racist, sexist, agist and classist structures. It's "unfortunate" that our justice system is far from blind. It's "unfortunate" that so many affluent Americans reject these problems rather than struggle to fix them. It's "unfortunate" that the complex issues facing our society are framed in black and white terms. It's "unfortunate" that we will doubtfully see a change in the racial makeup of our death row any time soon, not because poor blacks and hispanics don't want to better themselves instead striving to stay marginalized in the "hood," but because the majority of Americans fail to critically examine the corruptions of our society and fail to question the assumptions to which they hold on to for fear of exposing their complicity in society's problems.
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #119
There is no dismissal of reality, simply a recognition of how things really are outside of the liberal mindset. Most of the so-called "socio-economic realities" are actually brought on by those who live under them. It's a simple fact that the poor breed outside of wedlock far more often than higher socio-economic strata, that the poor are more involved in drug use and alcohol abuse, that they are less educated, gang members, etc. It's also a fact that inside the so-called black culture, education is *NOT* a priority, nor is work, nor is personal responsibility. All of these things do keep them down, not because society has it's foot on their back, but because they've chained themselves to a self-imposed system that keeps them uneducated and untrained to get themselves out of poverty.palmera wrote:I'm not really sure how to respond to your grand dismissal of reality in favor of a highly prejudicial view stemming, it seems, from an ignorance of the socio-economic realities that permeate our society.
Of course, the liberal mindset blames everyone else, it points fingers at society, it points fingers at the white male, it points fingers at everyone and everything except the people who need to get off their backsides and actually MAKE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES! Nobody says it's easy, nobody says it won't be a challenge, but the simple fact of the matter is that they have the responsibility to put forth the effort and better themselves so that maybe their children might have a better life.
It's just sad that it's easier to point fingers and place blame than it is to actually do something to make things better.
Post #120
cephus wrote
Aside from the dripping irony of your post, it is void of any factual support and is instead rooted in your own racist and classist vision of "reality." I honestly don't understand how this is such a simple, black/white issue for you. Please explain how, if these people you claim have no interest in bettering themselves, whose struggles to 'not' succeed in life are their own faults, decided to strive for success- how they would go about doing it? Please educate me on how this would come about.
If we're going to talk about the death penalty in the USA, we need to address these issues.
Make something of themselves????? There are, without a doubt, no harder working people in the United States of America than Mexicans. If it weren't for them many local economies would flat out crumble. Minorities in this country build our infrastructure and clean our infrastructure. They work two jobs and rely on the bus to take them from one to the next to get to them. Do you give any attention or care to the meaning of the words you're using?
Rather than rant for another hour I'll stop for now. C, you really need to invest some time into understanding the things you're talking about; or at least into understanding the words you're writing. Your ignorance, or flat out denial, stuns me. How you manage to take an extremely complex reality and boil it down into black/white is shocking.[/strike]
There is no dismissal of reality, simply a recognition of how things really are outside of the liberal mindset. Most of the so-called "socio-economic realities" are actually brought on by those who live under them. It's a simple fact that the poor breed outside of wedlock far more often than higher socio-economic strata, that the poor are more involved in drug use and alcohol abuse, that they are less educated, gang members, etc. It's also a fact that inside the so-called black culture, education is *NOT* a priority, nor is work, nor is personal responsibility. All of these things do keep them down, not because society has it's foot on their back, but because they've chained themselves to a self-imposed system that keeps them uneducated and untrained to get themselves out of poverty.
I'm not sure that these are the actual words the O.E.D. uses to define "irony," but they must be close.It's just sad that it's easier to point fingers and place blame than it is to actually do something to make things better.
Aside from the dripping irony of your post, it is void of any factual support and is instead rooted in your own racist and classist vision of "reality." I honestly don't understand how this is such a simple, black/white issue for you. Please explain how, if these people you claim have no interest in bettering themselves, whose struggles to 'not' succeed in life are their own faults, decided to strive for success- how they would go about doing it? Please educate me on how this would come about.
If we're going to talk about the death penalty in the USA, we need to address these issues.
So you're shaming liberals because liberals blame themselves??? You say that liberals blame society (which is made up of liberals among others) and everybody else. Do you not see that you're contradicting yourself?Of course, the liberal mindset blames everyone else, it points fingers at society, it points fingers at the white male, it points fingers at everyone and everything except the people who need to get off their backsides and actually MAKE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES! Nobody says it's easy, nobody says it won't be a challenge, but the simple fact of the matter is that they have the responsibility to put forth the effort and better themselves so that maybe their children might have a better life.
Make something of themselves????? There are, without a doubt, no harder working people in the United States of America than Mexicans. If it weren't for them many local economies would flat out crumble. Minorities in this country build our infrastructure and clean our infrastructure. They work two jobs and rely on the bus to take them from one to the next to get to them. Do you give any attention or care to the meaning of the words you're using?
Rather than rant for another hour I'll stop for now. C, you really need to invest some time into understanding the things you're talking about; or at least into understanding the words you're writing. Your ignorance, or flat out denial, stuns me. How you manage to take an extremely complex reality and boil it down into black/white is shocking.[/strike]
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
