The Death Penalty panel with Houston religious leaders took place with a full house at the Hobby Center. Houston Pastors Jeff Zetto and Art Preisinger were among the many present. Here’s the Chronicle’s coverage: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7387397.html
I met quite a few people who had lost loved ones to violent crime. Spent time with a woman whose nine-year-old daughter was murdered. Touching when these folks oppose the death penalty. I’m pleased that our social statement opposes the desth penalty. I’m also grateful for the Catholic Church’s consistent and unwavering stance on this issue. The Houston Chronicle is calling for the end of the Death Penalty in Texas. Also Austin American Statesman. Dallas Morning News. Illinois just abolished it.
I found out and applaud that Texas DP sentences are down 70% since 2003. In ’03 there were 48. Last year 8. Globally, there were 714 executions in 2009, in 18 countries. The U.S. is in the top five along with 1. The People’s Republic of China
2. Iran
3. Iraq
4. Saudi Arabia
These are strange bedfellows for us IMHO.
Here are the notes from my comments.
Capital Punishment
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
Theologically speaking:
Violent crime is as ancient as the human family. In Genesis 4 Cain kills Abel. All of us as religious leaders have been touched by violence in some way. We’ve all had parishioners who have been raped or abused. Most of us have had parishioners who lost a loved one to violence. The desire for revenge and retaliation can be extremely strong. Like the blood of Abel, our hearts cry out too for those who grieve.
Violence has a powerful and corrosive effect on society. Do we, by authorizing state violence through execution, lower violence or could we actually be perpetuating it?
The two questions I get asked the most by DP proponents:
1. Doesn’t the Bible sanction the DP?
In places.
The Hebrew Bible permits capital punishment, for many things: disobeying your parents, homosexual acts, being caught in adultery, worshipping idols. Rabbi Lyons shared that according to the Talmud this was permitted in a society with inadequate prisons to sequester violent people, but rarely enacted.
But Jesus reinterpreted this law in the Sermon on the Mount. You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” but I say to you… Turn the other cheek… Love your enemies… Pray for those who persecute you.
His approach in John 8 with the woman caught in adultery tells us his position on the death penalty. If they were caught in the act, where’s the guy? The whole system is unfair, stacked against the powerless. Let whoever is without son cast the first stone.
Jesus knew that we actually promote violence when we retaliate. “He who lives by the sword will also die by the sword.” We perpetuate the cycle of violence when the state sponsors violent acts against the violent. Jesus promoted restorative justice.
Cain killed Abel. What was his sentence? God did not call for his execution, but evicted and marked him.
2. “If your son was killed, wouldn’t you want justice?” Of course. I would probably want to torture and punish the murderer myself. But would committing my act of horrific violence ruin my soul, leaving me with even worse memories? Would I want those memories? Could I even do it? And if I couldn’t do it with my own hands, is it fair for me to ask someone else to do it for me? Should I ask someone else to dirty their hands and soul?
And there are other problems:
1. State execution is now painless. I’ve often wondered if life in prison is actually a worse punishment.
2. It’s not an effective deterrant. Violent crime is actually higher in states that practice capital punishment.
3. Capital punishment has never been fair. The race of the victim plays a significant role in who gets executed. The race of the accused plays a role. Blacks are executed at a much higher rate than whites and that ought give us considerable concern.
4. All to often, the state gets it wrong. The release of Anthony Graves from death row three months ago, after 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, should offend as much as the offense itself. He is the 138th innocent person released from death row since 1973. Jesus was executed wrongly by the state. Over-zealous in its hunger to punish, the state takes life from those who did no wrong.
5. Because it cannot be carried out fairly, most civilized countries consider Cap Pun to be human rights abuse. In 2009, there were 714 executions in 18 countries. We are in the top five with 1. The People’s Republic of China
2. Iran
3. Iraq
4. Saudi Arabia
These are strange bedfellows for Americans IMHO – not countries I seek to emulate in terms of human rights.
I believe we can do better than this. It’s time.
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
Bishop Michael Rinehart 
January 20, 2011 at 9:06 am
The New Testament biblical and theological support for the death penalty far outweighs any alleged denunciation of it.
I hope we can have an extensive discussion on the issue on this blog.
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.” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.). Part of Synopsis of Professor Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says, Abingdon Press, 1987.
“Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
Christianity and the death penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity
Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (p. 116). ” . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect.” (p. 111-113) Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.
Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4
full context (NAB) http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm
For this last quote, Matthe 15:4, I recommend a review of the many different translations of this text, its specific reference to the words of God in various passages from the OT and the explanation of its full meaning.
I look forwrd to your replies and a full discussion. Thank you.
January 20, 2011 at 10:10 am
I am sorry, but not surprised, that you have rejected an open discussion of the death penalty.
It is the standard and improper response from the anti death penalty religious.
January 20, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Dudley,
Thanks for your interest. I’ve got a full day today, but will respond.
Peace,
Mike Rinehart
January 20, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Dudley,
Tell me about your passion and interest in this topic. Did you lose a loved one to violent crime?
I’ll start with common ground. I agree that painless lethal injection is more merciful than life in prison. In fact at the panel someone asked if eliminating the death penalty wasn’t letting perps off the hook. That person isn’t aquainted with the dehumanizing environment of prison. Personally, I would want the killer of someone I knew to spend life in prison, not get lethal injection.
Anthony Graves spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. We cannot give him back his 18 years, but at least he has the rest of his life. Had he been executed as scheduled, he wouldn’t have that. Our justice system is too uncertain to risk executing the innocent.
Texans have figured this out. The fact that juries only gave out eight death sentences last year, compared to 48 in 2003, means people are realizing the problem.
To Matthew 15. Jesus is quoting the Old Testament not advocating it. He’s using rhetoric. Context. The whole text:
1 Then Pharisees and experts in the law came from Jerusalem to Jesus and said,
2 “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “And why do you disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’
5 But you say, ‘If someone tells his father or mother, “Whatever help you would have received from me is given to God,”
6 he does not need to honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God on account of your tradition.
7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said,
8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me,
9 and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”
He’s criticizing the Pharisee’s for dogged adherence to the law. They’re criticizing him for relaxing the law. So he says, in effect, “The law says to kill disobedient kids. If you think the law is so important why not do that? No, you’re taking human precepts and turning them into doctrines.” Jesus is not advocating the death penalty here.
Dudley, Your initial post does not seem to have appeared, though I approved it this morning. I’ll go back and see what Went wring and try to get it up. I approve all comments to avoid profanity or inappropriate remarks.
Peace,
Mike
January 21, 2011 at 9:13 am
As I said in my letter, distributed to you, as well as all other relgious leaders who spoke at the event, and many in the media, one of the primary problems is that the anti death penalty religious simply parrot the common anti death penalty information without fact checking it.
You do this with you prefference for a life sentnece, which you think is harsher.
You accept that a life sentence is more severe and therefore your preferrence is toward the less merciful.
This is a standard and confused take by the anti death penalty religious on thi specific point.
The standard anti death penalty position is that death penalty folks are full of revenge and hatred and that is why they prefer the death penalty. Here, you are saying the death penalty is more merciful. That’s OK, if that is what you truly believe.
My guess is, from the perspective of the eternal, that the death penalty is more merciful.
But, factually, you are dead wrong on your position.
It appears about 99% or more of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty, find the death penalty much less merciful than a life sentence.
About 70% of those subject to the death penalty, already know what prison is like. They’ve been there.
Yet, about 99% of those subject to the death penalty, do everything they can in pre trial, plea bargains, trial punishment phase, on appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings, doing everything possible to avoid execution and try to serve life instead.
This is not in question.
They fear death more than life and prefer life over death. No surprise.
more later.
January 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Bishop:
Beginning with your point “1. Doesn’t the Bible sanction the DP?”
None of your points describes any biblical denunciation of the death penalty. Every point you attempt to make is clarified within the links and quotes I provided in my first post, with the exception of the Cain referrence and John 8.
Suffice it to say that looking at biblical text atomistically brings about some problems.
First, God protecting Cain in not a universal statment against the death penalty any more than God wiping out all of mankind with the exception of Noah and his immediate family is a statement for the future killing millions. In addition, God later introduced, some 30 crimes/sins for which men shall be put to death. He did that knowingly.
Secondly, re John 8. It is most certainly not an anti death penalty tome.
John 8 and the death penalty: The Woman Caught in Adultery
Compiled by Dudley Sharp
1) Anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean, often inaccurate, get this right: “It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) – the Mosaic Law prescribed death – should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to how Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.
2) What about the woman caught in adultery? From “Why I Support Capital Punishment”, by Andrew Tallman, sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review See Part 11
http://andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-i-support-capital-punishment-part_07.html
“the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, two thousand years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as.”
3) Sanctity of Life & the Death Penalty: Flip sides of the same “Divine” coin
Author: Richard Eric Gunby, Quodlibet Journal: Volume 5 Number 2-3, July 2003
ISSN: 1526-6575 John 8:2-11 (NRSV)
“Therefore their motives (to entrap Jesus) were nothing but evil. They were not seeking to follow God’s Law-Word in godly fashion; rather, they were attempting to employ surreptitiously what Moses said, towards their own evil ends of trying to trip Jesus up. What a foul thing.”
“This cannot be read as an example of Jesus doing away with the law. Far from it! This is an example of Jesus, again, going by the clear unencumbered dictates of the law and not allowing it to be used towards evil ends in His presence. It is Jesus together with the Law triumphant over His enemies and their tradition. This is clearly an upholding of the law.”
http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/gunby-sanctity.shtml
as of 4/24/10
4) John 8: The Woman Caught in Adultery – Dealing with Capital Offenses Lawfully
http://reocities.com/CapitolHill/lobby/3562/adultry.html
5) Excellent review of the challenges to the authenticity of John 8
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/spurious.htm
as of 8/6/10
Start here: • John 7:53 – 8.11: The “woman taken in adultery” story: Metzger’s statement. Just before page 105 and through page 201
more
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm
January 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm
the no 2 on your problem list asserts that the death penalty is no deterrent, based upon higher murder rates in death penalty states.
This is where I will assert my claim that the anti death penalty relgious simply accept any anti death penalty claims, no matter how false.
Of course the death penalty deters.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2) “Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
3) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
“Death Penalty and Deterrence”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent–confirmed–seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
January 21, 2011 at 3:01 pm
There’s lots of research to the contrary:
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has collected many recent deterrence studies, including ones by Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, Joanna M. Shepherd, H. Naci Mocan & R. Kaj Gittings and others claiming a deterrent effect to the death penalty. These studies may be found HERE. The following are academic critques of this new research:
Death and Deterrence Redux: Science, Law and Causal Reasoning on Capital Punishment: In an article in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University describes numerous serious errors in recent deterrence studies, including improper statistical analyses and missing data and variables that are necessary to give a full picture of the criminal justice system. Fagan writes, “There is no reliable, scientifically sound evidence that [shows that executions] can exert a deterrent effect…. These flaws and omissions in a body of scientific evidence render it unreliable as a basis for law or policy that generate life-and-death decisions. To accept it uncritically invites errors that have the most severe human costs.” Since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972, dozens of studies have been performed to determine whether future murderers are deterred by the death penalty. In the past five years, Fagan writes, a “new wave” of studies has emerged, claiming that each execution prevents 3-32 murders, depending on the study. Some of these studies tie pardons, commutations, exonerations, and even irrational murders of passion to increases in murder rates. While many of these studies have appeared in academic journals, they have been given an uncritical and favorable reception in leading newspapers. Fagan takes issue with this lack of serious and adequate peer review by fellow researchers. He analyzed this research and found that “this work fails the tests of rigorous replication and robustness analysis that are the hallmarks of good science.”(4 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 255 (2006))
The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence: In an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives “are simply not credible.” In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. The authors state: “We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility.” (The Economists’ Voice, April 2006).
The Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate: A new edition of the Stanford Law Review contains an article entitled Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate. The article examines and performs comparison tests on recent studies that have claimed a deterrent effect to the death penalty. Authors John J. Donohue of Yale Law School and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania state their goal and conclusions: “Aggregating over all of our estimates, it is entirely unclear even whether the preponderance of evidence suggests that the death penalty causes more or less murder.” (58 Stanford Law Review 791 (2005)).
The Death Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny: Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Law, examines recent studies on deterrence and the death penalty, as well as other social science research ragarding capital punishment in the U.S. In The Death Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny, Weisberg notes that many of the new studies claiming to find that the death penalty deters murder have been legitimately criticized for omitting key variables and for not addressing the potential distorting effect of one high-executing state, Texas. Later in the article, Weisberg examines studies on race-of-victim discrimination and on capital jurors. This article will appear in the forthcoming edition of the Annual Review of Law and Social Science. (1 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 151 (2005)).
Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence: In testimony before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary regarding proposed legislation to initiate a “foolproof” death penalty, Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan analyzed recent studies that claimed that capital punishment deters murders. He stated that the studies “fall apart under close scrutiny.” Fagan noted that the studies are fraught with technical and conceptual errors, including inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, and other deficiencies. “A close reading of the new deterrence studies shows quite clearly that they fail to touch this scientific bar, let alone cross it,” Fagan said as he told members of the committee that the recent deterrence studies fell well short of the demanding standards of social science research. (J. Fagan,Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence, testimony before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts Legislature on House Bill 3934, July 14, 2005).
New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?: A study conducted by Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics has identified significant statistical problems with the data analysis used to support recent studies claiming to show that executions deter crime in the United States. In “New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?,” Professor Berk addresses the problem of “influence,” which occurs when a very small and atypical fraction of the available data dominates the statistical results of a study. He found that this statistical problem is found in a number of recent studies claiming to show that capital punishment deters violent crime. The UCLA study conducted by Berk found that in many instances the number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable used by researchers, despite the fact that many states in most years execute no one and few states in particular years execute more than five individuals. These values represent about 1% of the available observations that could have been used by researchers to draw conclusions for earlier studies claiming to find that capital punishment is a deterrent. In Professor Berk’s study, a re-analysis of the existing data shows that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1%. (Published on UCLA’s Web site, July 19, 2004).
January 21, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Dudley,
Thank you for taking time to paste volumes of information you have compiled supporting your viewpoint, and linking to your blog. I’m still curious why this issue is so important to you. Do you have a personal investment in this? Are you a paid lobbyist? What fuels your opinionated blogging?
We will have to disagree about the texts. The Hebrew Bible condones it. Jesus does not. I’m not saying Christians can’t make an argument for it. I’m saying they’d be hardpressed to put those words in Jesus’ mouth.
MR
January 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm
My reasoned conclusion is that if you never read any of the studies, otherwise, you wouldn’t have made the false claim to begin with, regarding murder rates and deterrence.
Yes?
Bishop, you are wrong, there is not a lot of research to the contrary.
In fact, I am not aware of any research that denies that some are deterred by the death penalty.
There is a reason for that, no one denies that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism.
You would have us believe that the most severe sanction is the only one which deters no one. You have no evidence to support that belief.
I have much evidence to support deterrence, inclusive of potential murderers who claimed they didn’t murder, because of their fear of execution, also known as individual deterrence, which cannot exist without a general deterrent effect.
If reason is used, the very least you can say about deterrence is that of course the death penalty deters, but I don’t think it deters more than life imprionment, as Hugo Adam Bedau, the father of modern anti death penalty academics, states.
The problem with that is that about 99% of murderers subject to the death penalty work very hard to get a life sentence.
With such overwhelming realities, it would be astounding if a large percentage of more reasoned folks, those who chose not to murder, don’t also show such overwhelming fear of death, reflected by deterrence.
If saving innocent lives is important, we have this.
If unsure, what do you do?
If you execute and there is no deterrence, you have provided a just and more merciful sentence (says you) and you have prevented a known murderer from ever harming/murdering again.
If it is a deterrent, you have accomplished those same outcomes, as well as spared more innocent lives.
However, if you fail to execute and there is a deterrent effect, you have spared murderers at the cost of more innocents murdered.
It is much better to risk sparing more innocent lives than to risk sacrificing more innocent lives.
————————————
In reply to the deterrence crtiques.
What you have posted are critiques of very few of the studies finding for death penalty deterrence.
Donahue and Wolfers have been completely blown apart by 5 rebuttals. I can provide them, if you wish.
There is no need to rebut Berk, who finds that there is likely deterrence in Texas. Wiesgerg also reviews that.
No one has rebutted Fagan, to my knowledge, because they don’t find him worthy of rebuttal.
January 22, 2011 at 8:10 am
Bishop, you write:
“I’m not saying Christians can’t make an argument for (the death penalty). I’m saying they’d be hard pressed to put those words in Jesus’ mouth.”
You reverse the burden of proof in biblical studies.
Can you show me where Jesus rejected the death penalty teachings of the OT, with specific words placed in His mouth, refuting the death penalty?
No, you cannot. If there is no specific refutation, the death penalty, as Law, stands. As you know, the Noahic covenant is for all people and for all times.
Prof. Carey: ” . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect.” (p. 111-113) Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.
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). ”
“Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.”
“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.”
The biblical and theological foundation for the death penalty , in breadth and depth, far outweigh any denunciation of it.
January 22, 2011 at 10:23 am
Bishop, you write: “Our justice system is too uncertain to risk executing the innocent. Texans have figured this out. The fact that juries only gave out eight death sentences last year, compared to 48 in 2003, means people are realizing the problem.”
This is anti death penalty speak with no evidence to support it.
Some evidence.
Texas murder rates have dropped about 67%, murders about 50% in Texas between 1991 and 2009 (6). As robbery and rapes have dropped at about the same rates (6), it is predictable that capital murder rates, would have dropped at even a greater rate, likely greater than 70%, explaining the great majority of the drop in capital cases sought and given.
Prosecutors already know that the vast majority of exoneration claims are bogus (7) and, therefore, that has little if any effect on their considerations.
With the 27 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence (8), it is a bit surprising we don’t have more death sentences being sought.
Nationally, it is also clear that part of the reduction is due to some state prosecutors knowing that judges in their state will not allow an execution to take place.
Many court decisions have also played a role in the reduction.
6) Texas Crime Rates 1960 – 2009, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
7) The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
8) a) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
b) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
January 22, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I find it interesting that
1. You’re not answering my questions about your interest in this
2. You’re not responding to the data I provided.
3. You’re using your own blog as “evidence.”
4. You call overturned convictions a scam.
It appears you’re more interested in monologue than dialogue. It also seems you’re excited to see people executed.
January 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Bishop, you write:
“The Hebrew Bible condones (the death penalty). Jesus does not.”
Jesus never refutes it. Therefore it stands as the Word of God.
Secondly, I would note that Cardinal Dulles agrees with the use of this citation as supportive of the death penalty:
“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)” (1)
A citation that I believe you wrongly interpreted, above. You see it as a conflict between strict or liberal interpretation of the Law.
You write: “(Jesus is) criticizing the Pharisee’s for dogged adherence to the law. They’re criticizing him for relaxing the law.”
The opposite is the case. Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees for being too liberal with the law, by basing it upon their traditions, as opposed to sticking with the obvious Word of God.
And it is about tradition vs the Word of God. The Word of God wins out.
I have reviewed about 60 textual references and/or interpretations of Mathew 15:4, all of which either agree with my view of the text or don’t disagree with it and I find none that agrees with your interpretation.
The teaching is that the Pharisees and the law givers have perverted God’s words, His command, that children care for the parents’ needs, forever, not only by respect, but by caring for them if they become indigent or infirm and, if they don’t, that they should be executed.
It is a command.
The Pharisees, in error or intentionally, had replaced God’s command with their own self serving interpretation, that the children, having given their monies to God, via the Pharisees, had negated the child’s responsibility to care for their parents.
Jesus/God said no, you cannot replace the clear teaching of God, with your own self serving interpretation and allow children to abandon their duty to their parents. The teaching of God trumps the traditions of men.
This is inclusive of the death penalty for children who disrespect or otherwise harm their parents.
That is the specific and intended meaning of the text, which is the point that Jesus was making.
Jesus, specifically, chose those many OT texts and brought them into the NT, to make that point, with that specific reference.
Please review: Here are some, all leading to others.
http://bible.cc/matthew/15-4.htm
exodus 20:12
Exodus 21:17
Leviticus 20:9
Deuteronomy 5:16
Proverbs 20:20
Matthew 15:5
Mark 7:11
As made clear, here:
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat015.htm
¦The gift, etc… That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves; by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests, that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns. (Challoner)
¦Commandments of men… The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God), or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God’s holy word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in his church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. Luke 10:16; Matthew 18:17. (Challoner)
and here:
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
Mark 7:1-13 One great design of Christ’s coming was, to set aside the ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies men added to the law of God’s making.
Those clean hands and that pure heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees of every age.
Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a device to free him from the claim of this duty.
1) Paragraph 2, Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty
http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
January 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Dear Bishop:
I suspect my interets in this is similar to yours. I am interested in justice and the truth.
I am not sure what data I have not responded to, that you have provided. I try to be thorough and stick to the topic at hand.
If you could tell me what you think I have not fully responded to, I will consider it.
It isn’t my blog, but, that is hardly irrelevant. Two blogs post a lot of my material.
What is relevant is our foundation in fact and reason, in a civil discourse.
I do not call overturning cases a scam. The scam is the fraud involved, which i detail, at length.
Due process is very important and overtunring cases is an important part of due process.
The scam is the intentional deception of saying that cases overtuned equal cases which are exonerated or actually innocent, which is not the case.
Important disctinctions of fact helped to define debate and public policy discussions. Intentional deceptions are not wanted.
This has been a dialogue all along, with you and I specifically referencing each others comments and responding to them, just as I am here. This is no monologue.
I am truly sorry that you would say that I am “excited to see people executed.”
That kind of personal attack is a poor reflection on you and you have no evidence to make such a claim, nor will you find any.
I look at this subject with the gravity and seriousness it deserves and always view executions with a profound sadness as I reflect on the crimes and innocent victims murdered.
I am so sorry you felt the need to respond in this fashion.
January 22, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Dear Bishop:
My apologies for my second post, challenging you for not allowing a full discussion, when you certainly have.
I speak from considerable experience that religious leaders will not allow full public debate on this topic at their sites or in their churches.
I made my presumption because my second post was allowed through and the prior one was not, I simply presumed, wrongly in your case.
I am sorry that I did not make this apology without a prompt from you.
I request your forgiveness and appreciate the prompt.
Most sincerely, Dudley
January 27, 2011 at 10:30 am
Bishop, you write:
“The Hebrew Bible condones (the death penalty). Jesus does not.”
Jesus never refutes it. Therefore it stands as the Word of God.
Secondly, I would note that Cardinal Dulles agrees with the use of this citation as supportive of the death penalty:
“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)” (1)
A citation that I believe you wrongly interpreted, above. You see it as a conflict between strict or liberal interpretation of the Law.
You write: “(Jesus is) criticizing the Pharisee’s for dogged adherence to the law. They’re criticizing him for relaxing the law.”
The opposite is the case. Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees for being too liberal with the law, by basing it upon their traditions, as opposed to sticking with the obvious Word of God.
And it is about tradition vs the Word of God. The Word of God wins out.
contd
January 27, 2011 at 10:31 am
contd
I have reviewed about 60 textual references and/or interpretations of Mathew 15:4, all of which either agree with my view of the text or don’t disagree with it and I find none that agrees with your interpretation.
The teaching is that the Pharisees and the law givers have perverted God’s words, His command, that children care for the parents’ needs, forever, not only by respect, but by caring for them if they become indigent or infirm and, if they don’t, that they should be executed.
It is a command.
The Pharisees, in error or intentionally, had replaced God’s command with their own self serving interpretation, that the children, having given their monies to God, via the Pharisees, had negated the child’s responsibility to care for their parents.
Jesus/God said no, you cannot replace the clear teaching of God, with your own self serving interpretation and allow children to abandon their duty to their parents. The teaching of God trumps the traditions of men.
This is inclusive of the death penalty for children who disrespect or otherwise harm their parents.
That is the specific and intended meaning of the text, which is the point that Jesus was making.
Jesus, specifically, chose those many OT texts and brought them into the NT, to make that point, with that specific reference.
contd
January 27, 2011 at 10:34 am
contd
Please review: Here are some, all leading to others.
http(COLON)//bible(DOT)cc/matthew/15-4.htm
exodus 20:12
Exodus 21:17
Leviticus 20:9
Deuteronomy 5:16
Proverbs 20:20
Matthew 15:5
Mark 7:11
As made clear, here:
http(COLON)//www.newadvent(DOT)org/bible/mat015.htm
¦The gift, etc… That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves; by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests, that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns. (Challoner)
¦Commandments of men… The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God), or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God’s holy word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in his church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. Luke 10:16; Matthew 18:17. (Challoner)
and here:
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
Mark 7:1-13 One great design of Christ’s coming was, to set aside the ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies men added to the law of God’s making.
Those clean hands and that pure heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees of every age.
Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a device to free him from the claim of this duty.
1) Paragraph 2, Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty
www(DOT)homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
January 27, 2011 at 10:43 am
Dear Bishop:
In response to some earlier comments.
I suspect my interets in this is similar to yours. I am interested in justice and the truth.
I am not sure what data I have not responded to, that you have provided. I try to be thorough and stick to the topic at hand.
If you could tell me what you think I have not fully responded to, I will consider it.
It isn’t my blog you are referrencing, but, that is hardly irrelevant. Several blogs post a lot of my material. I often refer to them.
What is relevant is our foundation in fact and reason, in a civil discourse.
I do not call overturning cases a scam. The scam is the fraud involved, which i detailed, at length.
Due process is very important and overtunring cases is an important part of due process.
The scam is the intentional deception of saying that cases overtuned equal cases which are exonerated or actually innocent, which is not the case.
Important disctinctions of fact helped to define debate and public policy discussions. Intentional deceptions are not wanted. That was the clairity.
This has been a dialogue all along, with you and I specifically referencing each others comments and responding to them, just as I am here. This is no monologue.
I am not “excited to see people executed.”
I have never felt, thought, spoekn or written to give such an impression.
I look at this subject with the gravity and seriousness it deserves and always view executions with a profound sadness as I reflect on the crimes and innocent victims murdered.
Most sincerely.
January 27, 2011 at 8:45 pm
You write: “Bishop, you are wrong…”
Which means you of course are right. No need for further discussion then.
January 28, 2011 at 11:24 am
Bishop:
What I did was provide biblical and theological support for my position.
I didn’t just say you were wrong. That wouldn’t have been productive or helpful in understanding.
I was expecting you to reply with a similar defense of your position.
The need for further discussion is based upon justice and the truth.
January 29, 2011 at 1:40 pm
I suspect these may be the items which you said I hadn’t responded to:
Matthew 15:4 – turn the other cheek:
This is a personal instruction, as opposed to an instruction to government, which has the obligation to defend the state as well as its individual citizens.
There are obvious limitations even on the personal application. For example, we all retain both the right and obligation to defend ourselves and others from severe harm.
1) “Not to resist evil, etc… What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18, and Acts 23.” (Challoner)
see full review; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm
2) Should the State turn the other cheek?, James M. Arlandson
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/pacifism5.htm
3) Review of turn the other cheek – multiple translations
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm
January 29, 2011 at 1:40 pm
———————————
Reply to racism claims:
In the US, white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers.
1) “Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html
2) “The Death Penalty and Racism The Times Have Changed”, Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, The American Interest, Nov/Dec 2010,
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=901
3) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
BY KENT SCHEIDEGGER
Click to access DPenaltyRace.pdf
4) Race, Sentencing and the death penalty.
http://prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Race
——————————–
“an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” is a quote which often brings much confusion, just as it appears wrongly attributed to Gandhi, for which there is no known connection.
Although an eye for an eye can be placed in many biblical locations, it appears most likely, in the quotes context, to be referring to the biblical text Exodus 21:24, whereby some often misinterpret the text as a call for revenge. In fact, the opposite is true.
The “eye for an eye” context is a casting out of personal revenge and the excessive punishments of the past and an establishment of punishments which are fair and “equal” to the sin/crime, with greater due process and review, toward governmental review with a foundation in justice – the early form of a criminal justice system that we have today.
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo021.htm
http://bible.cc/exodus/21-24.htm
January 30, 2011 at 8:38 am
I suspect these may be the items which you said I hadn’t responded to:
Matthew 15:4 – turn the other cheek:
This is a personal instruction, as opposed to an instruction to government, which has the obligation to defend the state as well as its individual citizens.
There are obvious limitations even on the personal application. For example, we all retain both the right and obligation to defend ourselves and others from severe harm.
1) “Not to resist evil, etc… What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18, and Acts 23.” (Challoner)
see full review; www(DOT)newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm
2) Should the State turn the other cheek?, James M. Arlandson
www(DOT)answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/pacifism5.htm
3) Review of turn the other cheek – multiple translations
http(COLON)//bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm
January 30, 2011 at 8:42 am
Reply to racism claims:
In the US, white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers.
1) “Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias”
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html
2) “The Death Penalty and Racism The Times Have Changed”, Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, The American Interest, Nov/Dec 2010,
www(COLON)the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=901
3) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
BY KENT SCHEIDEGGER
www(DOT)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPenaltyRace.pdf
4) Race, Sentencing and the death penalty.
http(COLON//prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Race
January 30, 2011 at 8:45 am
“an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” is a quote which often brings much confusion, just as it appears wrongly attributed to Gandhi, for which there is no known connection.
Although an eye for an eye can be placed in many biblical locations, it appears most likely, in the quotes’ context, to be referring to the biblical text Exodus 21:24, whereby some often misinterpret the text as a call for revenge. In fact, the opposite is true.
The “eye for an eye” context is a casting out of personal revenge and the excessive punishments of the past and an establishment of punishments which are fair and “equal” to the sin/crime, with greater due process and review, toward governmental review with a foundation in justice – the early form of a criminal justice system that we have today.
www(DOT)newadvent.org/bible/exo021.htm
http(COLON)//bible.cc/exodus/21-24.htm
February 4, 2011 at 10:09 am
Timothy Adams is scheduled to be executed by the State of Texas on Tuesday, February 22, 2011.
Timothy Adams, who goes by Tim, is held in the highest regard by members of his church, by supervisors and fellow soldiers in the military, and by his work colleagues. He had no criminal record—nor had ever been arrested—prior to the tragic mistake for which he was sentenced to death.
Tim was born in Houston, Texas on August 22, 1968 to Columbus and Wilma Adams. Tim grew up in a religious home, and was active in his church and bible study. Tim’s Sunday school teacher, Verlene Edmond, remembers how “quiet” and “polite” Tim was as a sixteen-to-eighteen-year-old boy. For the first two years of Tim’s life, Tim’s father served in the Vietnam War with the 23rd infantry. After his return from the war, Tim’s father worked for the Houston Fire Department, attaining the position of fire marshal over the course of his thirty-plus year career. At home, Tim was a role model to his younger siblings, one of whom he inspired to graduate college and who currently works as a teacher in Houston.
After graduating high school, Tim enlisted in the army in 1986 and was stationed outside Nuremberg, Germany at Herzo Base. Roger West, a Sergeant in the US Army and Purple Heart recipient, wished he could have “a whole platoon of guys like Tim.” During his military service in Germany, Tim’s girlfriend Cynthia gave birth to his first son, Terell. After three years in the service, Tim was honorably discharged and returned home to his family. Although Cynthia and Tim parted ways, both Cynthia and Terell continue to support Tim.
Tim married Emma Adams in 2000, and his second son, Tim Jr., was born shortly thereafter. To better provide for his family, Tim began working for ACSS security as a security guard at Greenway Plaza in Houston. Because of his reliability and diligence in carrying out his work duties, he quickly became supervisor of all security shifts. Tim’s supervisor, Diane Garcia, received “many, many positive comments and feedback on Tim’s performance.”
Tim has spent his time on Texas’s death row trying to understand what caused his crime; seeking forgiveness from his family, friends and God; and deepening his relationship with Jesus Christ. He has been a model prisoner, without even a single disciplinary write-up on his record over the eight years he has been in prison.
In 2002, Timothy Wayne Adams shot and killed his 19-month-old son, Timothy Wayne Adams, Jr. during a standoff with Houston police. After a fight with his wife escalated out-of-hand, Mr. Adams “snapped” and decided to take his own life and the life of his youngest son. Mr. Adams did not take his own life on that horrible day due to the support of his family and friends, who spoke to him over the phone and told him that his life was worth saving. One of those friends convinced him to speak to an HPD negotiator, who in turn persuaded Mr. Adams to let go of his suicidal thoughts and end the standoff. Ultimately, Mr. Adams left his apartment and surrendered peacefully to police a few hours after the ordeal began.
From the moment that Mr. Adams was taken into police custody, he has taken full responsibility for his actions. Mr. Adams realizes that it is nearly impossible for the Board, as well as any citizen in our society, to comprehend what could lead a father to kill his own son. In no way would Mr. Adams ever try to justify his actions; what he did was wrong, plain and simple. He would take back his actions that horrible day in an instant if it were possible.
What Mr. Adams requests is that he have the opportunity to tell his life story, something that the jury did not hear at his trial. Mr. Adams’s defense counsel did not present crucial mitigating evidence to counter the prosecution’s contention that Mr. Adams was a future danger to society or to show that his life was worth saving. Consequently, the jury learned almost no information about Mr. Adams’s life and upbringing, which would have helped them determine that Mr. Adams, a deeply religious, hard-working family man, was not a future danger to society and never will be.
Lacking this mitigating evidence, it is perhaps not surprising that the jury sentenced Mr. Adams to death. But since learning additional information about Mr. Adams’s character and background, jurors Rebecca Hayes and Ngoc Duong have urged the Board to commute Mr. Adams’s death sentence to a life sentence. They both believe that information relating to Mr. Adams’s upbringing, deep devotion to religion, and mental state would have caused them both to stick with their initial inclination, which was to spare Mr. Adams and sentence him to life in prison.
With this petition, Mr. Adams seeks to show the Board that February 20, 2002 was an aberration in his life. Before that day, Mr. Adams had never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Since that day, he has not had a single disciplinary write-up in prison. Mr. Adams wants to share his life story to show the Board that, before committing this crime, he was a religious, hard-working individual who suffered from extreme anxiety but who loved and provided for his family just the same. Since being incarcerated, he has had the opportunity to reflect on his actions, which has brought him closer to God and deepened his devotion to Jesus Christ.
In telling his story, Mr. Adams wants to give his family the opportunity to speak on his behalf, something that defense counsel prevented them from doing at trial. In this case, the defendant’s family is unfortunately also the victim’s family—Mr. Adams’s parents lost their grandson, his siblings lost their nephew, and his oldest son lost his half-brother. Yet, none of these family members were able to stand up in front of the jury to describe the severe hurt and suffering they had endured as a result of Mr. Adams’s actions. Nor were they able to explain that, despite their pain, they still supported and loved Mr. Adams and did not want to lose their son, brother, and father to this tragedy as well.
Mr. Adam’s will file a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and ask them to vote to spare his life. Governor Perry will be asked to commute Tim’s death sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Nothing good will come from executing Tim and causing his family any more unimaginable pain and anguish. If ever there was a man who deserved clemency, it is Tim Adams.
We’ve talked about the risk in executing a potentially innocent man. Tim Adams is clearly guilty. I do not see what his execution accomplishes, aside from bloodying our hands and perpetuating the cycle of violence.
February 5, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Bishop:
Please respond to these questions:
Based upon what you have previously written, don’t you find the execution of any guilty murderer, under any condition, even the unrepentant ones, just “bloodying our hands and perpetuating the cycle of violence”?
I did not see you mention Emma Adams. What is her position on this execution?
She was the wife that Timothy tried to murder, prior to her escaping by running out of the house.
He made sure their sweet baby was dead, to destroy her life.
Have you fact checked all of the claims in your post?
Or did you just rely upon a presentation of anti death penalty activists?
I see these one sided “he’s such a wonderful murderer” posts all the time. Often they are so much nonsense.
Do you have any links to primary source material on this case?
Confirming truth or fiction is important.
Usually, at this stage, all of the alleged problems with his attorneys and the quality of defense would have been presented to the appellate courts. Proper presentation of mitigation in these cases is a huge deal and any shortcomings in that area, cause many cases to be overturned, unless there is a logical stategy to not enter mitigation, which does occur and may be predictable in a case like this.
But, I don’t know enough about the case.
If he is a lovely repentant murderer, why do you want him to serve life in prison?
Why life instead of death?
Some thoughts:
Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52
Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).
Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.”
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:
Some opposing capital punishment ” . . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (3)
February 6, 2011 at 10:01 am
It appears most likley that Adams had intended to murder three innocents and had planned the murders.
He shot at Emma – the bullet passed through her clothes and grazed her back. Emma’s older son, by a previous relationship, was very likely also a target. They ran out of the house, together.
Fortunately, the gun jammed.
Here is some primary source material.
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinionInfo.asp?OpinionID=12784
I am looking for more.
This “I was going to commit suicide” claim, is not uncommon. in murder cases.
In Adam’s case, even by his own admission, it syas this allegedly because he wanted to be with his son. He murdered his son, therefore to be with him, he had to commit suicide.
It seems much more likely, also by what he said, that he murdered their baby solely because he wanted her to suffer.
He had already messed up the triple murder. Therefore, murdering the baby was his best remaining option to destroy her.
Murderers are by their nature, self serving/self centered people.
February 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
February 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm
You speak of murders as if they are different from us, as if, given the circumstances, you too could not snap, and be in the same circumstance. As if, you could not be falsely accused. As if you could not be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and come back broken, and make a huge, horrific mistake. State-sponsored murder defiles the society and condones violence.
February 7, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Dear Bishop:
We all die because of our sin. Does God not love us because we die? Of course not.
Does love they neighbor mean they are not subject to proper government sanction. Of course not. Quite the opposite in fact, as some of the great writings profess.
Clearly, you did not read the links I posted. I wish you would.
I never speak of murderers in the fashion you wrongly perceive. Nor do I exempt myself from the commission of grave error or sin. Ever.
I am well aware that the teachings are clear – many murderers may see heaven and many non murderers may not.
I am speaking directly to the topic at hand and not changing the subject.
I ask you to respond to specific questions, but you will not.
You write: “State-sponsored murder defiles the society and condones violence.”
You have no once been able to contradict my presentation, or that of the many scholars I have presented, regarding the biblical suport for the death penalty, therefore you are really saying” God defiles society by His approval of the death penalty”, unless you can make a better presentation.
You have made many errors of biblical interpretation, which I have revealed, without your rebuttal.
February 7, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I’ve read them. I just disagree.
Michael Rinehart, bishop Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 12941 1-45 North Freeway, Suite #210 Houston, TX 77060-1243 281-873-5665 http://gulfcoastsynod.org http://bishopmike.com http://twitter.com/breadtweet http://flickr.com/photos/bishopmike http://www.facebook.com/bishoprinehart
February 9, 2011 at 4:01 am
These have still not be allowed to come through.
Would you approve them, please.
3) Review of turn the other cheek – multiple translations
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm
Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 29, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Dudley Sharp
———————————
Reply to racism claims:
———————————————————-
The need for further discussion is based upon justice and the truth.
Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 29, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Dudley Sharp
I suspect these may be the items which you said I hadn’t responded to:
Matthew 15:4 – turn the other cheek:
——————————————————————————
1) Paragraph 2, Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty
http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Dudley Sharp
Dear Bishop:
I suspect my interets in this is similar to yours. I am interested in justice and the truth.
—————————————
b) “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Dudley Sharp
Bishop, you write:
“The Hebrew Bible condones (the death penalty). Jesus does not.”
———————————————
February 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Friends, I don’t sit at my computer all day. Sorry. Work to do. Some of these responses got filtered out because they look like spam to WordPress. And really, some are. Don’t paste stuff from your blog. Paste a link.
Re: death penalty arguments. None of these are new. They’re tired old arguments to justify unnecessary violence. I’ve read them all over the years. I simply disagree.
February 20, 2011 at 6:26 am
Dear Bishop:
It is not a matter of living on one’s computer, but a matter of tuth and thorugh review, which you invited.
You may disagree with what I have posted. However, that is far from rebuttal, which you have not even attempted, except, once, with deterrence, for which you did not succeed.
Importantly, I did rebut all of your biblical references and for which, you offerred not rebuttal to my presentation.
Thank you for approving my additonal comments.
I thank you for this opportunity and wish that more of the religious would participate in such public discusssion.
Blessings to you.