If you have to be in prison, especially in super-max, it is a good place to be, according to this article from the Atlantic Magazine.
It also points out that California is long overdue for capital punishment legislation that reduces the time it takes to carry out legal execution verdicts to a somewhat reasonable period, while still protecting the rights of the accused and convicted, and Texas comes to mind as one state that seems to have accomplished that by restricting the ability of lawyers to file numerous appeals.
An excerpt from the Atlantic article.
“AS AN ORANGE COUNTY jury debated in 2009 whether the white supremacist Billy Joe Johnson should live or die for murdering a fellow gang member, he asked to be sent to death row. Not because he felt any sudden remorse for the five people he’d killed over the years—“I commit crimes when people piss me off,” he once explained, matter-of-factly—but because Johnson believed he’d have better living conditions, including liberal phone privileges, a bigger cell, and daily human interaction, at San Quentin’s death row than he would at Pelican Bay, one of the state’s toughest maximum-security prisons, where he was serving a 46-year-to-life sentence, primarily in solitary confinement.
“He also knew that the odds were good that he might never be executed. Bogged down by constitutional challenges and appeals, California’s system takes an average of 20 years to move a prisoner from conviction to execution.
“Experts on both sides of the death-penalty debate have long agreed that California’s system is the nation’s costliest and least efficient. This June, a landmark report by Paula M. Mitchell, a professor at Loyola Law School, and Arthur L. Alarcón, a senior judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, unearthed new data that reveal just how bad the system is.
“Their report showed that since the current death-penalty statute was enacted in 1978, taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on only 13 executions, or roughly $308 million per execution. As of 2009, prosecuting death-penalty cases cost upwards of $184 million more each year than life-without-parole cases. Housing, health care, and legal representation for California’s current death-row population of 714—the largest in the country—account for $144 million in annual extra costs. If juries continue to send an average of 20 convicts to San Quentin’s death row each year, and executions continue at the present rate, by 2030 the ranks of the condemned will have swelled to more than 1,000, and California’s taxpayers will have spent $9 billion to execute a total of 23 inmates.
“I was stunned by the report,” said Loni Hancock, a Democratic state senator from Oakland and a member of the senate budget committee. Hancock had spent the previous five months agonizing over deep cuts to California’s general budget, and “it broke my heart,” she said. “That’s when I decided the time had come for Californians to reconsider the death penalty.”
“In late June, Hancock introduced SB 490, the first bill to propose replacing death sentences with no-parole life imprisonment, only to withdraw it eight weeks later when she realized she didn’t have the votes to get it out of committee. Now anti-death-penalty activists are taking their case to the people. Buoyed by the Alarcón-Mitchell report and the media coverage it garnered, California Taxpayers for Justice kicked off a ballot-initiative drive in October to get the required 504,760 voter signatures in time for the 2012 general election.
“Law-enforcement groups want to keep the penalty in place. “We share the frustration of death-penalty opponents,” says Cory Salzillo, the legislative director of the California District Attorneys Association. “But we should pursue remedies to fix the problems rather than repeal it altogether.” (Hancock’s own stepson, Casey Bates, is known as an aggressive prosecutor in Alameda County’s District Attorney’s office, with several murder convictions under his belt. He declined to comment on SB 490, but Hancock told me: “We haven’t talked about it.”) To many advocates for victims, the initiatives are an insult. “You can’t take justice away from the victims’ families, not after everything they’ve gone through,” contends Harriet Salarno, the president of Crime Victims United of California, which she founded after her daughter’s murder. “No-parole life sentences will never give them the closure they seek. Sure, the death penalty is costly, but that’s because it’s not executed efficiently. Look at Texas and Virginia. They limit the years of appeals. We should copy them.”
Showing posts with label Capital Punishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Capital Punishment. Show all posts
Friday, October 14, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Capital Punishment Support II
Following up on yesterday’s post, this comment from Dr. Feser’s article is really superb.
The comment:
“CS Lewis often pointed out the Christianity was added to and a completion of natural law and good paganism.
“Therefore much of The Good, most, was taken for granted as being obvious, spontaneous, inborn.
“The anciently conceived Good was a unity of virtue, truth a beauty.
“So modern 'thinkers' arrive on the scene having rejected the vast submerged iceberg of the natural and the spontaneous, and having isolated virtue (ethics) from the true and the beautiful, and they tackle an issue like the death penalty by considering it on the assumption that all previous generations were evil fools and a few minutes of sensible consideration should be able to supersede them.
“And so we discover that the death penalty is evil, and all of humanity before a few decades ago, and ninety something percent of humanity now, is evil...
“Wow!
“I look around at the world of careerists, expedience merchants and intellectual pygmies who make these amazing moral discoveries such as the evilness of the death penalty, these pundits and pub debaters who claim to have superseded the justice of the ages (the great philosophers, the Saints and martyrs)- and am simply stunned at the mismatch.
“It really is bizarre that the most self-indulgent and hedonistic generations to inhabit the planet should regard themselves as *moral* experts and exemplars - of all things!”
The comment:
“CS Lewis often pointed out the Christianity was added to and a completion of natural law and good paganism.
“Therefore much of The Good, most, was taken for granted as being obvious, spontaneous, inborn.
“The anciently conceived Good was a unity of virtue, truth a beauty.
“So modern 'thinkers' arrive on the scene having rejected the vast submerged iceberg of the natural and the spontaneous, and having isolated virtue (ethics) from the true and the beautiful, and they tackle an issue like the death penalty by considering it on the assumption that all previous generations were evil fools and a few minutes of sensible consideration should be able to supersede them.
“And so we discover that the death penalty is evil, and all of humanity before a few decades ago, and ninety something percent of humanity now, is evil...
“Wow!
“I look around at the world of careerists, expedience merchants and intellectual pygmies who make these amazing moral discoveries such as the evilness of the death penalty, these pundits and pub debaters who claim to have superseded the justice of the ages (the great philosophers, the Saints and martyrs)- and am simply stunned at the mismatch.
“It really is bizarre that the most self-indulgent and hedonistic generations to inhabit the planet should regard themselves as *moral* experts and exemplars - of all things!”
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Capital Punishment Support
There is a marvelous article by Dr. Edward Feser at The Public Discourse supporting capital punishment.
An excerpt with links at the jump.
“Most critics of capital punishment pay little attention to the question of “punishment,” focusing almost exclusively on their argument with “capital.” This is a fatal mistake, for as it happens, anyone who agrees that punishment as such is legitimate cannot fail also to agree, if he thinks carefully about the matter, that capital punishment can be legitimate, at least in principle. Of course, some critics of capital punishment reject punishment of any sort, but Christopher Tollefsen (who, in a recent Public Discourse article, claimed that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral) presumably would not.
“Traditionally, the aims of punishment are threefold: retribution, or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense; correction, or chastising the wrongdoer for the sake of getting him to change his ways; and deterrence, discouraging others from committing the same offense. Retribution is necessarily the most fundamental. Strictly speaking, we cannot correct someone who doesn’t deserve correction; at most we might try to affect his behavior (via drugs, say) in a sub-personal manner that doesn’t appeal, as true correction does, to his sense of desert and shame. We also cannot justly inflict a punishment on someone for purposes of deterrence unless he deserves that punishment. That retribution is fundamental doesn’t entail that those with the authority to do so must always exact retribution on an offender. It does, however, mean that retribution may be exacted, all things being equal (though of course things are not always equal); it also means that retribution—inflicting a harm that is deserved—must always be part of any act of punishment, even if it is not the only part.
“Now, what a wrongdoer deserves as punishment is a harm proportionate to his offense. If we allow that someone guilty of stealing $100 deserves to be punished, we must also acknowledge that he ought not to be punished by having $100,000 taken from him, or by having merely ten cents taken from him; he has not done anything to deserve the harsher punishment, but he does deserve more than the lesser punishment. In short, the punishment should fit the crime. This does not mean that a wrongdoer should have the same wrong inflicted upon him that he has committed against others—that rapists should be raped, or that arsonists should have their houses burned down. Sometimes inflicting such punishments would be impossible (a mass murderer cannot be executed multiple times), or would do more harm than good. The point is rather that the gravity of the punishment should reflect the gravity of the wrongdoing. Hence those guilty of large thefts should be punished more severely than those guilty of small ones, those guilty of inflicting serious bodily injury should be punished more severely than those merely guilty of theft, and so forth. This principle of proportionality might, in some cases, be difficult to apply practically, but we cannot plausibly reject it without rejecting the notions of desert and punishment along with it.
“If wrongdoers do deserve punishment, and if punishment ought to be scaled to the gravity of the crime (harsher punishments for graver crimes), then it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate, at least in principle. Even if it were claimed that a single murder would not merit it, it is not difficult to imagine crimes that would. Ten murders? Ten murders coupled with the rape and torture of the victims? Genocide? If wrongdoers deserve punishment and the punishment ought to be proportional to the offense, then at some point we are going to reach a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate at least in principle. To claim that no crime could justify capital punishment—to claim, for instance, that a cold-blooded genocidal rapist can never even in principle merit a greater punishment than the lifelong imprisonment inflicted on a bank robber—is implicitly to give up the principle of proportionality and, with it, any coherent conception of just punishment.
“Obviously, questions might be raised about whether capital punishment is advisable in practice, even if it is allowable in principle. Enough has been said, however, to show that it is not intrinsically wrong to resort to it, at least not if punishment as such is legitimate. (For a more detailed defense of capital punishment along similar lines, see chapter 4 of David Oderberg’s Applied Ethics.)
“Now, why does Tollefsen think that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong? He appeals to what he calls the “Essential Dignity View” of human beings, according to which “human beings … possess dignity, or excellence, in virtue of the kind of being they are; and this essential dignity can be used summarily to express why it is impermissible, for example, intentionally to kill human beings: to do so is to act against their dignity.” On this basis, Tollefsen concludes that “it is always wrong intentionally to kill a human person,” from which it follows that capital punishment is wrong.
“It is one thing merely to assert that capital punishment is against human dignity; it is quite another actually to show that it is. To be sure, it is plausible to say that to kill an innocent person is to act against his dignity. It is also plausible to say that imprisoning or fining an innocent person is contrary to his dignity. Suppose, however, that someone claimed that imprisoning or fining even a guilty person would be contrary to his dignity. I assume Tollefsen would disagree; certainly he should. The reason is obvious: A guilty person deserves such punishment, but an innocent person does not. So if a guilty person can, consistent with his dignity, deserve imprisonment or a fine, why could he not also deserve capital punishment, if his offense is grave enough?”
An excerpt with links at the jump.
“Most critics of capital punishment pay little attention to the question of “punishment,” focusing almost exclusively on their argument with “capital.” This is a fatal mistake, for as it happens, anyone who agrees that punishment as such is legitimate cannot fail also to agree, if he thinks carefully about the matter, that capital punishment can be legitimate, at least in principle. Of course, some critics of capital punishment reject punishment of any sort, but Christopher Tollefsen (who, in a recent Public Discourse article, claimed that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral) presumably would not.
“Traditionally, the aims of punishment are threefold: retribution, or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense; correction, or chastising the wrongdoer for the sake of getting him to change his ways; and deterrence, discouraging others from committing the same offense. Retribution is necessarily the most fundamental. Strictly speaking, we cannot correct someone who doesn’t deserve correction; at most we might try to affect his behavior (via drugs, say) in a sub-personal manner that doesn’t appeal, as true correction does, to his sense of desert and shame. We also cannot justly inflict a punishment on someone for purposes of deterrence unless he deserves that punishment. That retribution is fundamental doesn’t entail that those with the authority to do so must always exact retribution on an offender. It does, however, mean that retribution may be exacted, all things being equal (though of course things are not always equal); it also means that retribution—inflicting a harm that is deserved—must always be part of any act of punishment, even if it is not the only part.
“Now, what a wrongdoer deserves as punishment is a harm proportionate to his offense. If we allow that someone guilty of stealing $100 deserves to be punished, we must also acknowledge that he ought not to be punished by having $100,000 taken from him, or by having merely ten cents taken from him; he has not done anything to deserve the harsher punishment, but he does deserve more than the lesser punishment. In short, the punishment should fit the crime. This does not mean that a wrongdoer should have the same wrong inflicted upon him that he has committed against others—that rapists should be raped, or that arsonists should have their houses burned down. Sometimes inflicting such punishments would be impossible (a mass murderer cannot be executed multiple times), or would do more harm than good. The point is rather that the gravity of the punishment should reflect the gravity of the wrongdoing. Hence those guilty of large thefts should be punished more severely than those guilty of small ones, those guilty of inflicting serious bodily injury should be punished more severely than those merely guilty of theft, and so forth. This principle of proportionality might, in some cases, be difficult to apply practically, but we cannot plausibly reject it without rejecting the notions of desert and punishment along with it.
“If wrongdoers do deserve punishment, and if punishment ought to be scaled to the gravity of the crime (harsher punishments for graver crimes), then it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate, at least in principle. Even if it were claimed that a single murder would not merit it, it is not difficult to imagine crimes that would. Ten murders? Ten murders coupled with the rape and torture of the victims? Genocide? If wrongdoers deserve punishment and the punishment ought to be proportional to the offense, then at some point we are going to reach a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate at least in principle. To claim that no crime could justify capital punishment—to claim, for instance, that a cold-blooded genocidal rapist can never even in principle merit a greater punishment than the lifelong imprisonment inflicted on a bank robber—is implicitly to give up the principle of proportionality and, with it, any coherent conception of just punishment.
“Obviously, questions might be raised about whether capital punishment is advisable in practice, even if it is allowable in principle. Enough has been said, however, to show that it is not intrinsically wrong to resort to it, at least not if punishment as such is legitimate. (For a more detailed defense of capital punishment along similar lines, see chapter 4 of David Oderberg’s Applied Ethics.)
“Now, why does Tollefsen think that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong? He appeals to what he calls the “Essential Dignity View” of human beings, according to which “human beings … possess dignity, or excellence, in virtue of the kind of being they are; and this essential dignity can be used summarily to express why it is impermissible, for example, intentionally to kill human beings: to do so is to act against their dignity.” On this basis, Tollefsen concludes that “it is always wrong intentionally to kill a human person,” from which it follows that capital punishment is wrong.
“It is one thing merely to assert that capital punishment is against human dignity; it is quite another actually to show that it is. To be sure, it is plausible to say that to kill an innocent person is to act against his dignity. It is also plausible to say that imprisoning or fining an innocent person is contrary to his dignity. Suppose, however, that someone claimed that imprisoning or fining even a guilty person would be contrary to his dignity. I assume Tollefsen would disagree; certainly he should. The reason is obvious: A guilty person deserves such punishment, but an innocent person does not. So if a guilty person can, consistent with his dignity, deserve imprisonment or a fine, why could he not also deserve capital punishment, if his offense is grave enough?”
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Capital Punishment Abolition Movement
Its latest manifestation comes from a group of American Catholic academics, who support the abolition statement posted by Catholic Moral Theology.
And regarding the specifics of the Davis case leading off the abolitionist’s plea, an article in the UK Telegraph has some devastating comments, which should have been more covered by the American press.
An excerpt.
“There are few subjects that provoke as much smug condescension and shallow anti-Americanism as the death penalty in the United States. And the “debate” over the execution in Georgia last Wednesday of Troy Davis, 42, convicted of the 1989 murder of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer, marked a new low.
“The sheer emotionalism and partisanship of much of the coverage of the case in Britain was an embarrassment. On virtually no other subject could you find facts presented so selectively, conclusions so sweeping and reasoning so simplistic.
“American campaigners against the death penalty know the buttons to press. Thus, we have statements like that from Thomas Ruffin, a lawyer for Davis, who said that Georgia had “legally lynched a brave, a good and indeed, an innocent man”.
“We saw “I am Troy Davis” T-shirts being worn as far afield as London, the message being that Davis was somehow plucked randomly from the streets and arbitrarily condemned, perhaps because he was black.
“Unfortunately, little about the Davis case fits this naïve picture. A jury of seven blacks and five whites found that Davis, who had a street name of “Rah”, standing for “Rough As Hell”, had been pistol-whipping a homeless man in a Burger King car park and had shot MacPhail dead when he intervened.
“Again and again, courts confirmed the Davis conviction as being on legally solid ground. Lynchings were carried out by racist mobs rushing to judgement, dragging their quarry out to string them up from a tree. To describe a two-decade legal process that twice went to the highest court in the land as a “lynching” is to try to strip the word of all meaning.
“Last year, the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of directing that a District Judge...hold fresh hearings because seven out of nine eyewitnesses had supposedly recanted their testimony.
“Davis’s lawyers declined to put two of those witnesses on the stand, making their affidavits of almost no value. Judge William Moore, a President Bill Clinton appointee, found that of the five others, two did not in fact alter their original evidence and two lacked any credibility. He found that one, a jailhouse snitch, had genuinely recanted – but that it had been clear in the original trial he was a liar.”
The perspective we keep hearing about capital punishment from the American media, may cause us to wonder: "How can they get it so wrong?" but Catholics who expect the media to be on the side of the angels, does not understand Catholic teaching erected on the gospel proclamation: “and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted.” (Luke 2:34)
Pope John Paul II wrote a wonderful book on this: Sign of Contradiction.
Our organization supports capital punishment and we have published a book about it, Capital Punishment and Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support, excerpts of which are on our website.
Catholics have always understood the need to confront evil, and the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, expressed through the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2266-#2267) and our Church’s greatest theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote concerning capital punishment:
“When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover 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 any more.”
Summa Theologica. (1948). Second Part of the Second Part: Question 25, Article 6, Reply to Objection 2.
And regarding the specifics of the Davis case leading off the abolitionist’s plea, an article in the UK Telegraph has some devastating comments, which should have been more covered by the American press.
An excerpt.
“There are few subjects that provoke as much smug condescension and shallow anti-Americanism as the death penalty in the United States. And the “debate” over the execution in Georgia last Wednesday of Troy Davis, 42, convicted of the 1989 murder of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer, marked a new low.
“The sheer emotionalism and partisanship of much of the coverage of the case in Britain was an embarrassment. On virtually no other subject could you find facts presented so selectively, conclusions so sweeping and reasoning so simplistic.
“American campaigners against the death penalty know the buttons to press. Thus, we have statements like that from Thomas Ruffin, a lawyer for Davis, who said that Georgia had “legally lynched a brave, a good and indeed, an innocent man”.
“We saw “I am Troy Davis” T-shirts being worn as far afield as London, the message being that Davis was somehow plucked randomly from the streets and arbitrarily condemned, perhaps because he was black.
“Unfortunately, little about the Davis case fits this naïve picture. A jury of seven blacks and five whites found that Davis, who had a street name of “Rah”, standing for “Rough As Hell”, had been pistol-whipping a homeless man in a Burger King car park and had shot MacPhail dead when he intervened.
“Again and again, courts confirmed the Davis conviction as being on legally solid ground. Lynchings were carried out by racist mobs rushing to judgement, dragging their quarry out to string them up from a tree. To describe a two-decade legal process that twice went to the highest court in the land as a “lynching” is to try to strip the word of all meaning.
“Last year, the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of directing that a District Judge...hold fresh hearings because seven out of nine eyewitnesses had supposedly recanted their testimony.
“Davis’s lawyers declined to put two of those witnesses on the stand, making their affidavits of almost no value. Judge William Moore, a President Bill Clinton appointee, found that of the five others, two did not in fact alter their original evidence and two lacked any credibility. He found that one, a jailhouse snitch, had genuinely recanted – but that it had been clear in the original trial he was a liar.”
The perspective we keep hearing about capital punishment from the American media, may cause us to wonder: "How can they get it so wrong?" but Catholics who expect the media to be on the side of the angels, does not understand Catholic teaching erected on the gospel proclamation: “and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted.” (Luke 2:34)
Pope John Paul II wrote a wonderful book on this: Sign of Contradiction.
Our organization supports capital punishment and we have published a book about it, Capital Punishment and Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support, excerpts of which are on our website.
Catholics have always understood the need to confront evil, and the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, expressed through the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2266-#2267) and our Church’s greatest theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote concerning capital punishment:
“When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover 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 any more.”
Summa Theologica. (1948). Second Part of the Second Part: Question 25, Article 6, Reply to Objection 2.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Politics of Capital Punishment
It is an issue that represents a dividing line between conservative and liberal Catholics, with liberal Catholics interpreting the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as supporting the abolishment of capital punishment, which it does not; as our book—supporting the many other conservative Catholics reaching the same conclusion—reveals.
It is an issue that also divides conservative and liberal voters, so well captured by this article in the Wall Street Journal.
An excerpt.
“Perhaps the most striking statement at last night's Republican presidential debate came not from Rick Perry or Mitt Romney but from the audience, which applauded the preface of one of moderator Brian Williams’ questions. Here's how it looked in the transcript:
“Williams: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you . . .
(APPLAUSE)
“Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?
“Perry answered: "No sir," pointed out that death-row convicts are entitled to extensive appeals, and crisply declared: "In the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice."
“Williams then asked Perry to explain the audience's reaction to Williams’ question:
"What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?"
“Although Williams surely did not intend it as such, this question was a gift for Perry, who got to reiterate his position while flattering voters by praising their wisdom: "I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of--of cases, supportive of capital punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens--and it's a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don't want you to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you do, you will face the ultimate justice."
“Brian Williams was far from alone in being vexed by the audience's applause. "That crowd cheering for all of Rick Perry's executions was truly creepy," tweeted Glenn Greenwald, an expert on creepiness. "Any crowd that instantly cheers the execution of 234 individuals is a crowd I want to flee, not join," wrote the excitable Andrew Sullivan. "This is the crowd that believes in torture and executions." (Sullivan is hallucinating again. No jurisdiction in America employs torture as a criminal penalty.)”
It is an issue that also divides conservative and liberal voters, so well captured by this article in the Wall Street Journal.
An excerpt.
“Perhaps the most striking statement at last night's Republican presidential debate came not from Rick Perry or Mitt Romney but from the audience, which applauded the preface of one of moderator Brian Williams’ questions. Here's how it looked in the transcript:
“Williams: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you . . .
(APPLAUSE)
“Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?
“Perry answered: "No sir," pointed out that death-row convicts are entitled to extensive appeals, and crisply declared: "In the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice."
“Williams then asked Perry to explain the audience's reaction to Williams’ question:
"What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?"
“Although Williams surely did not intend it as such, this question was a gift for Perry, who got to reiterate his position while flattering voters by praising their wisdom: "I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of--of cases, supportive of capital punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens--and it's a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don't want you to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you do, you will face the ultimate justice."
“Brian Williams was far from alone in being vexed by the audience's applause. "That crowd cheering for all of Rick Perry's executions was truly creepy," tweeted Glenn Greenwald, an expert on creepiness. "Any crowd that instantly cheers the execution of 234 individuals is a crowd I want to flee, not join," wrote the excitable Andrew Sullivan. "This is the crowd that believes in torture and executions." (Sullivan is hallucinating again. No jurisdiction in America employs torture as a criminal penalty.)”
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Face of Murder
This program, Homicide Watch, is an excellent method for preserving the stories connected to homicide giving the public valuable insight about why capital punishment is sound public policy, and a policy we support.
An excerpt from Homicide Watch's website, About page.
“About Homicide Watch D.C.
“Homicide Watch D.C. launched in late September 2010 as a WordPress blog and was recognized in August 2011 as a notable entry in the 2011 Knight-Batten Awards for Innovation in Journalism. We use primary source documents, social networking and original reporting to build one of the nation’s most comprehensive public resources on violent crime.
“The site relaunched in August 2011, adding a custom database to track homicide cases from crime to conviction, building the area’s most complete public resource for the people who need it most: victim’s families, suspects’ families, and all others affected by violent crime in D.C.
“As DC residents, we believe that how people live and die here, and how those deaths are recognized, matters to every one of us. If it matters how someone is killed in Cleveland Park, then it matters how someone is killed in Truxton Circle, Ivy City, Washington Highlands or Georgetown. If we are to understand violent crime in our community, the losses of every family, in every neighborhood must be recognized. And the outcome of every trial -- be it a conviction or an acquittal -- must be recorded.”
An excerpt from Homicide Watch's website, About page.
“About Homicide Watch D.C.
“Homicide Watch D.C. launched in late September 2010 as a WordPress blog and was recognized in August 2011 as a notable entry in the 2011 Knight-Batten Awards for Innovation in Journalism. We use primary source documents, social networking and original reporting to build one of the nation’s most comprehensive public resources on violent crime.
“The site relaunched in August 2011, adding a custom database to track homicide cases from crime to conviction, building the area’s most complete public resource for the people who need it most: victim’s families, suspects’ families, and all others affected by violent crime in D.C.
“As DC residents, we believe that how people live and die here, and how those deaths are recognized, matters to every one of us. If it matters how someone is killed in Cleveland Park, then it matters how someone is killed in Truxton Circle, Ivy City, Washington Highlands or Georgetown. If we are to understand violent crime in our community, the losses of every family, in every neighborhood must be recognized. And the outcome of every trial -- be it a conviction or an acquittal -- must be recorded.”
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Laity’s Expertise
One of the strongest calls from the Holy Father is that of encouraging the laity to lead in areas where their competence and expertise outweighs that of the priests and religious of the Church, as expressed in the Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Christifideles Laici which teaches us that:
“In the context of Church mission, then, the Lord entrusts a great part of the responsibility to the lay faithful, in communion with all other members of the People of God. This fact, fully understood by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, recurred with renewed clarity and increased vigor in all the works of the Synod: "Indeed, Pastors know how much the lay faithful contribute to the welfare of the entire Church. They also know that they themselves were not established by Christ to undertake alone the entire saving mission of the Church towards the world, but they understand that it is their exalted office to be shepherds of the lay faithful and also to recognize the latter's services and charisms that all according to their proper roles may cooperate in this common undertaking with one heart" (italics in original)
And as ratified by Canon Law:
“Can. 215 The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit of these purposes.
“Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”
There are, as noted by the modern spiritual classic, The Soul of the Apostolate, places in the world “to which no priest had access”.
“It is very certain that the primitive Church, as we have already hinted, knew how to organize magnificent and numerous shock troops, in the midst of the faithful, and their virtues both struck the pagans with astonishment and excited the admiration of honest souls, even those most prejudiced against Christianity by their principles, their traditions, and their social background. Conversions were the result, even in circles to which no priest had access.” (p. 163)
This is clearly true in the area of criminal justice, where the organized American Catholic hierarchical leadership has made costly blunders through the uninformed expression of opinions and policy suggestions whose adoption can present a great danger to the innocent.
Such is the case with this latest foray into criminal justice politics, as reported by California Catholic Daily.
An excerpt.
“A group of about 50 people gathered at the headquarters of the California Catholic Conference in Sacramento yesterday morning and then marched to the state capitol, where others joined them in a vigil to support of a bill that would allow judges to reconsider life without parole sentences meted out to juvenile criminals.
“The bill in question, SB 9, by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would allow judges to review the cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after they have served 15 years of their sentence. Judges would be permitted to re-sentence such juveniles to a new sentence of 25 years to life, which would mean they could be considered for parole and perhaps not spend the rest of their lives in prison.
“According to Yee, his bill requires that juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole show remorse and progress toward rehabilitation before being allowed to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence.
“The bill has the strong backing of the California Catholic Conference, the political action arm of the state’s bishops.
“Sentencing a teenager to prison with no opportunity for parole completely eliminates any possibility of rehabilitation,” the bishops said in a statement on SB 9. “Young people should have a chance to turn their lives around.”
“The bill, already approved by the state Senate, passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Aug. 17, and is scheduled for a vote in the state Assembly this week. If it passes, it would then go to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature.
“There is no question that youth who commit crimes should be held accountable -- but in a way that reflects their age and their capacity for rehabilitation,” said the Catholic Legislative Network in an Aug. 22 email. “SB 9 recognizes that young people have the capacity to change and should have access to the rehabilitative tools to do so.” (The Catholic Legislative Network operates under the auspices of the California Catholic Conference.)”
Fortunately, this effort failed, as reported by the San Jose Mercury News.
An excerpt.
“A bill that would have allowed juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole the chance to pursue freedom after a quarter-century in prison narrowly failed to pass the state Assembly Thursday.
“In an hourlong floor debate, Republicans seemed to sway wavering Democrats by recounting details of vicious rapes and brutal killings.
“Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, argued that the bill was about much more than "whether we're going to give people a chance at redemption." He said it's about teens like Scott Dyleski, convicted of "slaughtering" his Lafayette neighbor in 2005, so he could steal her credit cards and buy marijuana. Right after the vicious crime, Donnelly noted, the 16-year-old had sex with his girlfriend.
“Senate Bill 9 "is sending a signal we don't actually value life," Donnelly added. "If you take a life, then the least we can do is say you have to give up yours, whether it's life in prison, or the death penalty."
“The bill by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, was backed by human rights advocates and child psychiatrists. It was approved by the full Senate and supported by all but a handful of key Assembly Democrats.
“In a dramatic twist, although Yee counted 40 votes late in the day -- one shy of passage -- his failure to convince enough Democrats ultimately doomed the bill in a 36-36 vote, with eight members abstaining when the final roll was called.”
“In the context of Church mission, then, the Lord entrusts a great part of the responsibility to the lay faithful, in communion with all other members of the People of God. This fact, fully understood by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, recurred with renewed clarity and increased vigor in all the works of the Synod: "Indeed, Pastors know how much the lay faithful contribute to the welfare of the entire Church. They also know that they themselves were not established by Christ to undertake alone the entire saving mission of the Church towards the world, but they understand that it is their exalted office to be shepherds of the lay faithful and also to recognize the latter's services and charisms that all according to their proper roles may cooperate in this common undertaking with one heart" (italics in original)
And as ratified by Canon Law:
“Can. 215 The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit of these purposes.
“Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”
There are, as noted by the modern spiritual classic, The Soul of the Apostolate, places in the world “to which no priest had access”.
“It is very certain that the primitive Church, as we have already hinted, knew how to organize magnificent and numerous shock troops, in the midst of the faithful, and their virtues both struck the pagans with astonishment and excited the admiration of honest souls, even those most prejudiced against Christianity by their principles, their traditions, and their social background. Conversions were the result, even in circles to which no priest had access.” (p. 163)
This is clearly true in the area of criminal justice, where the organized American Catholic hierarchical leadership has made costly blunders through the uninformed expression of opinions and policy suggestions whose adoption can present a great danger to the innocent.
Such is the case with this latest foray into criminal justice politics, as reported by California Catholic Daily.
An excerpt.
“A group of about 50 people gathered at the headquarters of the California Catholic Conference in Sacramento yesterday morning and then marched to the state capitol, where others joined them in a vigil to support of a bill that would allow judges to reconsider life without parole sentences meted out to juvenile criminals.
“The bill in question, SB 9, by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would allow judges to review the cases of juveniles sentenced to life without parole after they have served 15 years of their sentence. Judges would be permitted to re-sentence such juveniles to a new sentence of 25 years to life, which would mean they could be considered for parole and perhaps not spend the rest of their lives in prison.
“According to Yee, his bill requires that juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole show remorse and progress toward rehabilitation before being allowed to submit a petition for consideration of the new sentence.
“The bill has the strong backing of the California Catholic Conference, the political action arm of the state’s bishops.
“Sentencing a teenager to prison with no opportunity for parole completely eliminates any possibility of rehabilitation,” the bishops said in a statement on SB 9. “Young people should have a chance to turn their lives around.”
“The bill, already approved by the state Senate, passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Aug. 17, and is scheduled for a vote in the state Assembly this week. If it passes, it would then go to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature.
“There is no question that youth who commit crimes should be held accountable -- but in a way that reflects their age and their capacity for rehabilitation,” said the Catholic Legislative Network in an Aug. 22 email. “SB 9 recognizes that young people have the capacity to change and should have access to the rehabilitative tools to do so.” (The Catholic Legislative Network operates under the auspices of the California Catholic Conference.)”
Fortunately, this effort failed, as reported by the San Jose Mercury News.
An excerpt.
“A bill that would have allowed juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole the chance to pursue freedom after a quarter-century in prison narrowly failed to pass the state Assembly Thursday.
“In an hourlong floor debate, Republicans seemed to sway wavering Democrats by recounting details of vicious rapes and brutal killings.
“Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, argued that the bill was about much more than "whether we're going to give people a chance at redemption." He said it's about teens like Scott Dyleski, convicted of "slaughtering" his Lafayette neighbor in 2005, so he could steal her credit cards and buy marijuana. Right after the vicious crime, Donnelly noted, the 16-year-old had sex with his girlfriend.
“Senate Bill 9 "is sending a signal we don't actually value life," Donnelly added. "If you take a life, then the least we can do is say you have to give up yours, whether it's life in prison, or the death penalty."
“The bill by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, was backed by human rights advocates and child psychiatrists. It was approved by the full Senate and supported by all but a handful of key Assembly Democrats.
“In a dramatic twist, although Yee counted 40 votes late in the day -- one shy of passage -- his failure to convince enough Democrats ultimately doomed the bill in a 36-36 vote, with eight members abstaining when the final roll was called.”
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Capital Punishment Knowledge Gap
The depth of it, considering it is the ultimate sanction to protect the innocent from the evil aggressor, is often astonishing, as noted by the Crime and Consequences blog.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“The Concord Monitor has this interview with presidential candidate Ron Paul. He claims to have changed his view on the death penalty based on "study." From what he says, it appears that his study consists of lapping up the anti side's propaganda the way a dog laps up antifreeze, completely unaware it is poison.
“For example, "It's so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks."
“What did he study to come up with that gem? The DPIC website?
“We don't have firm numbers on "poor," but we have reams of data on race. As of 12/31/09, the population of death row was 3,173, of whom 1,317 were black. (BJS, Capital Punishment in the United States, 2009, Table 4.) That is 41.5%, significantly less than half, but I won't quibble over the 8.5%. Far more important is the logical leap that this ratio somehow indicates racism.
“What percentage of murderers are black? It runs pretty consistently about half. For 2009 single-offender, single-victim homicides where the race of the offender is known, there were 6,631 total with 3,106 black perpetrators, 46.8%. (Sourcebook of Criminal Statistics, Table 3.129.2009.) Other years are similar.
“Given that the percentage of blacks on death row is about the same (actually a tad less) as the percentage of murderers who are black, how does Paul make the leap to "so racist"? Probably by falling for the Fallacy of the Irrelevant Denominator and comparing the percentage on death row with the general population. But the general population is 99+% nonmurderers and hence irrelevant to a calculation about race and the death penalty.
“You don't have to be a genius to recognize the correct denominator in this problem. You only have to think about it a little. By failing to do so, even while claiming to have studied the problem, Paul demonstrates appalling shallowness of thought.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“The Concord Monitor has this interview with presidential candidate Ron Paul. He claims to have changed his view on the death penalty based on "study." From what he says, it appears that his study consists of lapping up the anti side's propaganda the way a dog laps up antifreeze, completely unaware it is poison.
“For example, "It's so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks."
“What did he study to come up with that gem? The DPIC website?
“We don't have firm numbers on "poor," but we have reams of data on race. As of 12/31/09, the population of death row was 3,173, of whom 1,317 were black. (BJS, Capital Punishment in the United States, 2009, Table 4.) That is 41.5%, significantly less than half, but I won't quibble over the 8.5%. Far more important is the logical leap that this ratio somehow indicates racism.
“What percentage of murderers are black? It runs pretty consistently about half. For 2009 single-offender, single-victim homicides where the race of the offender is known, there were 6,631 total with 3,106 black perpetrators, 46.8%. (Sourcebook of Criminal Statistics, Table 3.129.2009.) Other years are similar.
“Given that the percentage of blacks on death row is about the same (actually a tad less) as the percentage of murderers who are black, how does Paul make the leap to "so racist"? Probably by falling for the Fallacy of the Irrelevant Denominator and comparing the percentage on death row with the general population. But the general population is 99+% nonmurderers and hence irrelevant to a calculation about race and the death penalty.
“You don't have to be a genius to recognize the correct denominator in this problem. You only have to think about it a little. By failing to do so, even while claiming to have studied the problem, Paul demonstrates appalling shallowness of thought.”
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Cell Phones in Prison
One of the reasons given by the capital punishment abolitionist movement—and even noted in the Catechism—is that current penal technology keeps prisoners from threatening society so effectively, that capital punishment is no longer needed to protect the innocent from the aggressor.
The Catechism says:
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
This story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer is but another in a long line of articles noting the complete opposite.
An excerpt.
“Dimorio McDowell transformed his prison cell into a business office with nothing but a mobile phone and a lot of chutzpa.
“From 7 a.m. until midnight, seven days a week, McDowell worked tirelessly building a Cleveland criminal enterprise that did up to $1 million worth of work.
“Want a jumbo flat-screen, but don't have $2,000?
“McDowell and his unsavory team of Cleveland shoppers could fetch a 55-inch TV and anything else you wanted -- stainless steel refrigerator, hardwood flooring, laptop computer -- for half the store price.
“Just give them a few days. McDowell was serving time for credit card fraud at Fort Dix federal prison in New Jersey. But one of his associates would meet you at a Cleveland gas station with the loot.
“Incarceration in the largest U.S. prison was doing nothing to slow down McDowell's life of crime. Then, in October 2009, McDowell accidentally tripped across the path of a small-town Summit County cop.”
The Catechism says:
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
This story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer is but another in a long line of articles noting the complete opposite.
An excerpt.
“Dimorio McDowell transformed his prison cell into a business office with nothing but a mobile phone and a lot of chutzpa.
“From 7 a.m. until midnight, seven days a week, McDowell worked tirelessly building a Cleveland criminal enterprise that did up to $1 million worth of work.
“Want a jumbo flat-screen, but don't have $2,000?
“McDowell and his unsavory team of Cleveland shoppers could fetch a 55-inch TV and anything else you wanted -- stainless steel refrigerator, hardwood flooring, laptop computer -- for half the store price.
“Just give them a few days. McDowell was serving time for credit card fraud at Fort Dix federal prison in New Jersey. But one of his associates would meet you at a Cleveland gas station with the loot.
“Incarceration in the largest U.S. prison was doing nothing to slow down McDowell's life of crime. Then, in October 2009, McDowell accidentally tripped across the path of a small-town Summit County cop.”
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Capital Punishment for Rape
Our organization believes this to be an appropriate sanction, see our fourth guiding criminal justice principle.
The Supreme Court recently disagreed, and an article in the Washington Post, by Charles Lane—whose book on capital punishment was commented on in a previous post—speculates on that decision after reading Jaycee Lee Dugard’s book.
An excerpt from the Post article.
“A Stolen Life , Jaycee Lee Dugard’s harrowing memoir of sexual torture and confinement at the hands of Phillip Garrido, has hit the top of Amazon’s best-seller list. I read it, astonished at her courage and her eloquence — and disgusted at the crimes Garrido, on parole for a previous rape, committed against Dugard for years, starting when she was 11.
“I also wondered how history might have been different if Dugard had escaped from her 18-year hell before the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, instead of a year after it. This was the case in which the court voted 5-4 to ban the death penalty for raping a child. No future Phillip Garrido need ever fear execution, though many who read Dugard’s book will agree with me that he would richly deserve it.
“At the time, the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy struck me as a mixed salad of moralizing and debatable assertions. Post-Dugard, it’s even less persuasive.
“In previous cases, the Supreme Court banned certain applications of capital punishment partly because a large majority of states had abandoned them, suggesting a “national consensus.” For example, when the court struck down the death penalty for the rape of an adult in 1977 it cited the fact that only Georgia still allowed it.
“In Kennedy v. Louisiana, Justice Kennedy (no relation, obviously) claimed a “national consensus” against the death penalty for raping a child, because only six states allowed it. But they were all post-1995 statutes; under the court’s precedents, the one-way direction of the recent trend argued for their constitutionality.”
The Supreme Court recently disagreed, and an article in the Washington Post, by Charles Lane—whose book on capital punishment was commented on in a previous post—speculates on that decision after reading Jaycee Lee Dugard’s book.
An excerpt from the Post article.
“A Stolen Life , Jaycee Lee Dugard’s harrowing memoir of sexual torture and confinement at the hands of Phillip Garrido, has hit the top of Amazon’s best-seller list. I read it, astonished at her courage and her eloquence — and disgusted at the crimes Garrido, on parole for a previous rape, committed against Dugard for years, starting when she was 11.
“I also wondered how history might have been different if Dugard had escaped from her 18-year hell before the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, instead of a year after it. This was the case in which the court voted 5-4 to ban the death penalty for raping a child. No future Phillip Garrido need ever fear execution, though many who read Dugard’s book will agree with me that he would richly deserve it.
“At the time, the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy struck me as a mixed salad of moralizing and debatable assertions. Post-Dugard, it’s even less persuasive.
“In previous cases, the Supreme Court banned certain applications of capital punishment partly because a large majority of states had abandoned them, suggesting a “national consensus.” For example, when the court struck down the death penalty for the rape of an adult in 1977 it cited the fact that only Georgia still allowed it.
“In Kennedy v. Louisiana, Justice Kennedy (no relation, obviously) claimed a “national consensus” against the death penalty for raping a child, because only six states allowed it. But they were all post-1995 statutes; under the court’s precedents, the one-way direction of the recent trend argued for their constitutionality.”
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Criminal Justice Reform?
It is billed as that, as this article from the San Diego News about sending more criminals to local jurisdictions rather than to state prison, and this one from the San Francisco Chronicle about changing the three-strikes sentencing; as well as this older effort to abolish capital punishment by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and all indicate a moving away from incapacitation as a criminal deterrent.
A criminal in prison won’t be harming the innocent directly—though if he can get access to a cell phone he can indirectly—and capital punishment removes the particularly horrible criminals from their earthly life and the possibility they may repeat their horrors, as well as providing the deep stimulus facing death can have on seeking redemption.
Unfortunately, too many policy makers—even among Catholic leadership—seem driven by a certain cloudiness of mind, leading them to adopt a pacifistic approach to evil, which renders it supremacy on the ground; rather that a vigorous response to evil, which can render it impotent.
A criminal in prison won’t be harming the innocent directly—though if he can get access to a cell phone he can indirectly—and capital punishment removes the particularly horrible criminals from their earthly life and the possibility they may repeat their horrors, as well as providing the deep stimulus facing death can have on seeking redemption.
Unfortunately, too many policy makers—even among Catholic leadership—seem driven by a certain cloudiness of mind, leading them to adopt a pacifistic approach to evil, which renders it supremacy on the ground; rather that a vigorous response to evil, which can render it impotent.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Capital Punishment Support
The fourth guiding criminal justice principle of the Lampstand Foundation is:
4) Capital punishment is an appropriate response to the criminal evil of murder, rape, and pedophilia.
Capital punishment is often the only effective social method available to protect the innocent and applied with dispatch after legal review of the crimes charged and determining the fitness of its application, should be considered an appropriate sentence for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles; who, knowing the time of their death, are able, with certainty of their remaining time to do so, seek God's forgiveness.
From the Vatican Catechism (2007):
"2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."
Lane (2010) notes: "During the decade beginning in 1997, five states enacted the death penalty for rape of a child--though the Supreme Court struck those laws down in 2008." Lane, C. (2010). Stay of execution: Saving the death penalty from itself. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. (p. 66)
The Lampstand article, Capital Punishment and the Constancy of Catholic Social Teaching, is available at Social Justice Review.
A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports finds high support from the American public for capital punishment.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Support for the death penalty remains high, and adults are a bit more confident that capital punishment helps deter crime than they were a year ago.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey shows that 63% of American Adults favor the death penalty, while 25% oppose it. Another 12% are undecided.
“The number of adults who support the death penalty is virtually identical to surveys conducted last June and in November 2009.
“Forty-seven percent (47%) of adults believe the death penalty helps deter crime, but 39% disagree. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure. Still, Americans are more confident that the death penalty helps deter crime than they were last June, when they were evenly divided on the question. The latest results are similar to those found in late 2009.
“The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 25-26, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.”
4) Capital punishment is an appropriate response to the criminal evil of murder, rape, and pedophilia.
Capital punishment is often the only effective social method available to protect the innocent and applied with dispatch after legal review of the crimes charged and determining the fitness of its application, should be considered an appropriate sentence for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles; who, knowing the time of their death, are able, with certainty of their remaining time to do so, seek God's forgiveness.
From the Vatican Catechism (2007):
"2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."
Lane (2010) notes: "During the decade beginning in 1997, five states enacted the death penalty for rape of a child--though the Supreme Court struck those laws down in 2008." Lane, C. (2010). Stay of execution: Saving the death penalty from itself. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. (p. 66)
The Lampstand article, Capital Punishment and the Constancy of Catholic Social Teaching, is available at Social Justice Review.
A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports finds high support from the American public for capital punishment.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“Support for the death penalty remains high, and adults are a bit more confident that capital punishment helps deter crime than they were a year ago.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey shows that 63% of American Adults favor the death penalty, while 25% oppose it. Another 12% are undecided.
“The number of adults who support the death penalty is virtually identical to surveys conducted last June and in November 2009.
“Forty-seven percent (47%) of adults believe the death penalty helps deter crime, but 39% disagree. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure. Still, Americans are more confident that the death penalty helps deter crime than they were last June, when they were evenly divided on the question. The latest results are similar to those found in late 2009.
“The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 25-26, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.”
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Capital Punishment & Cost Benefit
This article from the Los Angles Times examines the cost of capital punishment in California and suggests remedies—the capital punishment abolitionist viewpoint is obvious—which do not include legislation to reduce unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits extending the death penalty cases way beyond common sense.
The Crime and Consequences Blog also examines the article.
An excerpt from the Los Angeles Times article.
“Taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment in California since it was reinstated in 1978, or about $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out since then, according to a comprehensive analysis of the death penalty's costs.
“The examination of state, federal and local expenditures for capital cases, conducted over three years by a senior federal judge and a law professor, estimated that the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row and legal representation for the condemned adds $184 million to the budget each year.
“The study's authors, U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, also forecast that the tab for maintaining the death penalty will climb to $9 billion by 2030, when San Quentin's death row will have swollen to well over 1,000.
“In their research for "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle," Alarcon and Mitchell obtained California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation records that were unavailable to others who have sought to calculate a cost-benefit analysis of capital punishment.
“Their report traces the legislative and initiative history of the death penalty in California, identifying costs imposed by the expansion of the types of crimes that can lead to a death sentence and the exhaustive appeals guaranteed condemned prisoners.
“The authors outline three options for voters to end the current reality of spiraling costs and infrequent executions: fully preserve capital punishment with about $85 million more in funding for courts and lawyers each year; reduce the number of death penalty-eligible crimes for an annual savings of $55 million; or abolish capital punishment and save taxpayers about $1 billion every five or six years.
“Alarcon, who prosecuted capital cases as a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney in the 1950s and served as clemency secretary to Gov. Pat Brown, said in an interview that he believes the majority of California voters will want to retain some option for punishing the worst criminals with death. He isn't opposed to capital punishment, while Mitchell, his longtime law clerk, said she favors abolition. Both said they approached the analysis from an impartial academic perspective, aiming solely to educate voters about what they are spending on death row.
“Alarcon four years ago issued an urgent appeal for overhaul of capital punishment in the state, noting that the average lag between conviction and execution was more than 17 years, twice the national figure. Now it is more than 25 years, with no executions since 2006 and none likely in the near future because of legal challenges to the state's lethal injection procedures.
“The long wait for execution "reflects a wholesale failure to fund the efficient, effective capital punishment system that California voters were told they were choosing" in the battery of voter initiatives over the last three decades that have expanded the penalty to 39 special circumstances in murder, the report says.”
The Crime and Consequences Blog also examines the article.
An excerpt from the Los Angeles Times article.
“Taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment in California since it was reinstated in 1978, or about $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out since then, according to a comprehensive analysis of the death penalty's costs.
“The examination of state, federal and local expenditures for capital cases, conducted over three years by a senior federal judge and a law professor, estimated that the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row and legal representation for the condemned adds $184 million to the budget each year.
“The study's authors, U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, also forecast that the tab for maintaining the death penalty will climb to $9 billion by 2030, when San Quentin's death row will have swollen to well over 1,000.
“In their research for "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle," Alarcon and Mitchell obtained California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation records that were unavailable to others who have sought to calculate a cost-benefit analysis of capital punishment.
“Their report traces the legislative and initiative history of the death penalty in California, identifying costs imposed by the expansion of the types of crimes that can lead to a death sentence and the exhaustive appeals guaranteed condemned prisoners.
“The authors outline three options for voters to end the current reality of spiraling costs and infrequent executions: fully preserve capital punishment with about $85 million more in funding for courts and lawyers each year; reduce the number of death penalty-eligible crimes for an annual savings of $55 million; or abolish capital punishment and save taxpayers about $1 billion every five or six years.
“Alarcon, who prosecuted capital cases as a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney in the 1950s and served as clemency secretary to Gov. Pat Brown, said in an interview that he believes the majority of California voters will want to retain some option for punishing the worst criminals with death. He isn't opposed to capital punishment, while Mitchell, his longtime law clerk, said she favors abolition. Both said they approached the analysis from an impartial academic perspective, aiming solely to educate voters about what they are spending on death row.
“Alarcon four years ago issued an urgent appeal for overhaul of capital punishment in the state, noting that the average lag between conviction and execution was more than 17 years, twice the national figure. Now it is more than 25 years, with no executions since 2006 and none likely in the near future because of legal challenges to the state's lethal injection procedures.
“The long wait for execution "reflects a wholesale failure to fund the efficient, effective capital punishment system that California voters were told they were choosing" in the battery of voter initiatives over the last three decades that have expanded the penalty to 39 special circumstances in murder, the report says.”
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Capital Punishment & Public Policy
An excellent post at the Catholic Advocate concerning capital punishment, an issue that Catholics have struggled with, though the teaching of the Church consistently supports its use as appropriate under certain conditions.
An excerpt.
“The Death Penalty (Chapter VIII)
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (CCC 2267).
“Capital punishment is probably the most misunderstood moral issue in the Catholic Church. This confusion stems from the change made in the Catechism in 1997 to bring the teaching into conformity with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995).
“The change was widely reported in the media and by some Catholic commentators as the Church declaring total opposition to the use of the death penalty. This view is not supported by the words of the revised Catechism or Evangelium Vitae itself.
“The Church’s position can be summarized in this way: The Church is not opposed to the death penalty in principle but in practice. To oppose the death penalty in principle would be to remove one of the most basic responsibilities of the common good—to provide defense and security against aggression.”
An excerpt.
“The Death Penalty (Chapter VIII)
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (CCC 2267).
“Capital punishment is probably the most misunderstood moral issue in the Catholic Church. This confusion stems from the change made in the Catechism in 1997 to bring the teaching into conformity with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995).
“The change was widely reported in the media and by some Catholic commentators as the Church declaring total opposition to the use of the death penalty. This view is not supported by the words of the revised Catechism or Evangelium Vitae itself.
“The Church’s position can be summarized in this way: The Church is not opposed to the death penalty in principle but in practice. To oppose the death penalty in principle would be to remove one of the most basic responsibilities of the common good—to provide defense and security against aggression.”
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Capital Punishment Abolition
It was abolished in Illinois and apparently, according to this story from the Chicago Sun Times, it backfired.
An excerpt.
“The ink is long dry on Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature to the law abolishing the death penalty. The abolitionists had their celebrations. Now, however, it appears repeal has claimed its first victim.
“Jitka Vesel, 36, was stalked and murdered by a rejected boyfriend from Canada who, before killing her, did research to determine that Illinois had ended the death penalty, according to DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin.
“Dmitry Smirnov, 20, of British Columbia, met Vesel three years ago through an Internet dating site, moved to the Chicago area but returned to Canada after she ended their brief relationship. From there, Smirnov harassed Vesel, returning to the United States two weeks ago, buying a handgun in Seattle, gluing a GPS device to Vesel’s car to stalk her and surprising her in Oak Brook on Wednesday, when “he began shooting, he reloaded and he shot her some more,” Berlin said.
“During a videotaped interrogation by police, Smirnov said “he researched whether Illinois still had the death penalty and he researched it as recently as the morning of the murder,” Berlin said.
“Opponents of capital punishment argue it has no deterrent effect. A dozen academic studies demonstrated the deterrence value of capital punishment; other studies rejected that finding. But Vesel’s murder, the prosecutor said, “is not an academic study, this is an actual case, which I would argue is proof that the death penalty is a deterrent.”
“Abolitionists may argue Smirnov would have killed Vesel no matter what. Berlin said Smirnov wasn’t specifically asked that question. “If we still had a death penalty, would he still have gone through with it? The answer to that is just speculation,” Berlin told me. “But certainly there’s an argument to be made that he may not have gone through with it if he was that concerned about the status of the death penalty.”
An excerpt.
“The ink is long dry on Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature to the law abolishing the death penalty. The abolitionists had their celebrations. Now, however, it appears repeal has claimed its first victim.
“Jitka Vesel, 36, was stalked and murdered by a rejected boyfriend from Canada who, before killing her, did research to determine that Illinois had ended the death penalty, according to DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin.
“Dmitry Smirnov, 20, of British Columbia, met Vesel three years ago through an Internet dating site, moved to the Chicago area but returned to Canada after she ended their brief relationship. From there, Smirnov harassed Vesel, returning to the United States two weeks ago, buying a handgun in Seattle, gluing a GPS device to Vesel’s car to stalk her and surprising her in Oak Brook on Wednesday, when “he began shooting, he reloaded and he shot her some more,” Berlin said.
“During a videotaped interrogation by police, Smirnov said “he researched whether Illinois still had the death penalty and he researched it as recently as the morning of the murder,” Berlin said.
“Opponents of capital punishment argue it has no deterrent effect. A dozen academic studies demonstrated the deterrence value of capital punishment; other studies rejected that finding. But Vesel’s murder, the prosecutor said, “is not an academic study, this is an actual case, which I would argue is proof that the death penalty is a deterrent.”
“Abolitionists may argue Smirnov would have killed Vesel no matter what. Berlin said Smirnov wasn’t specifically asked that question. “If we still had a death penalty, would he still have gone through with it? The answer to that is just speculation,” Berlin told me. “But certainly there’s an argument to be made that he may not have gone through with it if he was that concerned about the status of the death penalty.”
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Controlling Outside Crime From Inside
A central aspect in the advocacy of Catholic capital punishment abolitionists is the assumption that modern penal technology—such as super-max prisons—are adequate to keep the aggressor from harming the innocent, addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (Italicization added)
However, the illegal use of communication technology by prisoners, in even the most secure of prisons, has sharply reduced the opportunity to “defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor”.
The Los Angeles Times reports on the difficulty prison officials are having controlling the use of cell phones.
An excerpt.
“Frustrated by the state's inability to prevent thousands of illicit cellphone calls made by inmates from its prisons, California's corrections chief is seeking help from an industry that has a big financial interest in his cause.
"Prisons Secretary Matthew Cate said he will offer a deal to companies that bid for the next contract to provide phone service for state inmates: Install costly equipment that will block cellphone calls and see profits surge as prisoners use authorized services to connect with the outside world.
"If cellphones are inoperable, the company will make more money," Cate said in a recent interview.
"Prisoners are supposed to use pay phones mounted on the walls of their housing units to call people outside. They are charged collect call rates, and the conversations are recorded and monitored by prison staff. But the proliferation of smuggled cellphones in recent years has reduced use of the authorized phones and the ability to monitor them, and officials say they cannot afford the technology to block cellular signals.
"The contract for inmate phone service is up for renewal. Cate wants the winning bidder to pay the estimated $16.5 million to $33 million that it would cost to install "managed access" systems in all 33 state prisons.
"In one day earlier this year, a test of the system intercepted more than 4,000 attempts to place calls, send text messages and access the Internet from smuggled cellphones at a single prison, said California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Paul Verke. He would not reveal which prison, citing security concerns."
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (Italicization added)
However, the illegal use of communication technology by prisoners, in even the most secure of prisons, has sharply reduced the opportunity to “defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor”.
The Los Angeles Times reports on the difficulty prison officials are having controlling the use of cell phones.
An excerpt.
“Frustrated by the state's inability to prevent thousands of illicit cellphone calls made by inmates from its prisons, California's corrections chief is seeking help from an industry that has a big financial interest in his cause.
"Prisons Secretary Matthew Cate said he will offer a deal to companies that bid for the next contract to provide phone service for state inmates: Install costly equipment that will block cellphone calls and see profits surge as prisoners use authorized services to connect with the outside world.
"If cellphones are inoperable, the company will make more money," Cate said in a recent interview.
"Prisoners are supposed to use pay phones mounted on the walls of their housing units to call people outside. They are charged collect call rates, and the conversations are recorded and monitored by prison staff. But the proliferation of smuggled cellphones in recent years has reduced use of the authorized phones and the ability to monitor them, and officials say they cannot afford the technology to block cellular signals.
"The contract for inmate phone service is up for renewal. Cate wants the winning bidder to pay the estimated $16.5 million to $33 million that it would cost to install "managed access" systems in all 33 state prisons.
"In one day earlier this year, a test of the system intercepted more than 4,000 attempts to place calls, send text messages and access the Internet from smuggled cellphones at a single prison, said California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Paul Verke. He would not reveal which prison, citing security concerns."
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Europeans Fund US Death Penalty Abolition Groups
This report from The Foundry should not surprise us. Europe is an aggressively secular culture that is working—though the European Union—to end the influence of Catholicism, and picking away at a fundamental and traditional tenet of Catholic social teaching, support for capital punishment, is a clever strategy that too many Catholics have bought into.
Lampstand has published a book, Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support—free to members or available at Amazon—and excerpts are posted to our website.
An excerpt from the Foundry article.
“Why on earth are British taxpayers being forced to fund European Union lobbying for policy campaigns in the United States? Furthermore, why is the EU directly interfering in domestic political debates in America, and so far without Congressional oversight? As the research detailed below demonstrates, the EU’s European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is spending millions of Euros on US-based campaigns against the death penalty. An extraordinary development.
“The EIDHR project list for 2009 (the latest year for which a full itemised list is given), unearthed by my intrepid colleague Sally McNamara, is a real eye-opener. While most of the projects focused on developing countries, several million Euros were actually set aside for projects in the United States, specifically for groups opposed to the death penalty.
“This extremely unusual funding for US groups – by a taxpayer-funded foreign entity to advance a political cause – deserves to attract a great deal of public attention, including Congressional scrutiny in Washington and parliamentary scrutiny in London.
On Capitol Hill both the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, should apply oversight on EU funding for American groups. And this could be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of EU money flowing to US organisations on any number of causes.
“Here is a list of US recipients of EU EIDHR aid in 2009, which amounted to €2,624,395 ($3,643,951). The recipients of EU aid include the rather wealthy American Bar Association, whose annual budget approached $150 million in 2008.
“American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education: EU grant: €708,162 ($983, 277)
Project: The Death Penalty Assessments Project: Toward a Nationwide Moratorium on Executions
“Death Penalty Information Center: EU grant: €193,443 ($268,585)
Project: Changing the Course of the Death Penalty Debate. A proposal for public opinion research, message development, and communications of capital punishment in the US.
“The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty: EU grant: €305,974 ($424,829)
Project: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Intensive Assistance Program”
Lampstand has published a book, Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support—free to members or available at Amazon—and excerpts are posted to our website.
An excerpt from the Foundry article.
“Why on earth are British taxpayers being forced to fund European Union lobbying for policy campaigns in the United States? Furthermore, why is the EU directly interfering in domestic political debates in America, and so far without Congressional oversight? As the research detailed below demonstrates, the EU’s European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is spending millions of Euros on US-based campaigns against the death penalty. An extraordinary development.
“The EIDHR project list for 2009 (the latest year for which a full itemised list is given), unearthed by my intrepid colleague Sally McNamara, is a real eye-opener. While most of the projects focused on developing countries, several million Euros were actually set aside for projects in the United States, specifically for groups opposed to the death penalty.
“This extremely unusual funding for US groups – by a taxpayer-funded foreign entity to advance a political cause – deserves to attract a great deal of public attention, including Congressional scrutiny in Washington and parliamentary scrutiny in London.
On Capitol Hill both the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, should apply oversight on EU funding for American groups. And this could be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of EU money flowing to US organisations on any number of causes.
“Here is a list of US recipients of EU EIDHR aid in 2009, which amounted to €2,624,395 ($3,643,951). The recipients of EU aid include the rather wealthy American Bar Association, whose annual budget approached $150 million in 2008.
“American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education: EU grant: €708,162 ($983, 277)
Project: The Death Penalty Assessments Project: Toward a Nationwide Moratorium on Executions
“Death Penalty Information Center: EU grant: €193,443 ($268,585)
Project: Changing the Course of the Death Penalty Debate. A proposal for public opinion research, message development, and communications of capital punishment in the US.
“The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty: EU grant: €305,974 ($424,829)
Project: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Intensive Assistance Program”
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Death Penalty Profiles
In a wonderful—but gruesome—public service, the Orange County Register is profiling all of the murders on death row sentenced by Orange County judges.
The introduction to the series is here, the next two profiles are here, profiles three and four here, five and six here.
To read more of the series just type oc death row in their search.
An excerpt from the introduction.
“When serial killer Rodney James Alcala was hustled off to death row at San Quentin State Prison in April, he joined 57 other killers condemned to die by Orange County judges.
“The Orange County list begins with John Galen Davenport, who was sentenced in 1981 for a vicious torture, rape and murder a year earlier. He is still appealing his case 30 years later.
“Alcala – the latest addition – would have been in front of Davenport on the list had his original death sentence in 1980 for kidnapping and murdering a 12-year-old Huntington Beach girl remained intact.
“But that conviction and death sentence was reversed on appeal (as was a 1986 conviction and death sentence). Alcala has been in the court system ever since, and his appeal of his third death sentence is just getting started.
“Superior Court judges in the Santa Ana courthouse have been adding Orange County convicts to death row for 31 years.
“PROFILES OF KILLERS
“The Orange County Register has compiled summaries of each of the 58 killers, detailing their crimes, their victims and the state of their appeals.
“The Register will begin publishing that list, two at a time, beginning Monday on ocregister.com.
“The first death-penalty trial of 2011 in Orange County is under way before Superior Court Judge John D. Conley.
“Reputed gang member Stephenson Choi Kim, 31, could receive a death sentence if he is convicted of first-degree murder of Venus Hyun during a gang shooting in 2004, if the jury also finds that the slaying was committed during the "special circumstance" of killing for the benefit of his gang, and if the jury finds that death is the more appropriate punishment than life in prison without the possibility of parole.
“And then Conley would have to agree with the jury's decision and impose a death sentence.
“Orange County has more death row inmates now (58) than any other county except Los Angeles (with 220) and Riverside (70), according to the California Department of Corrections. San Diego (41) is a distant fourth, followed by San Bernardino (37) and Sacramento (35).”
The introduction to the series is here, the next two profiles are here, profiles three and four here, five and six here.
To read more of the series just type oc death row in their search.
An excerpt from the introduction.
“When serial killer Rodney James Alcala was hustled off to death row at San Quentin State Prison in April, he joined 57 other killers condemned to die by Orange County judges.
“The Orange County list begins with John Galen Davenport, who was sentenced in 1981 for a vicious torture, rape and murder a year earlier. He is still appealing his case 30 years later.
“Alcala – the latest addition – would have been in front of Davenport on the list had his original death sentence in 1980 for kidnapping and murdering a 12-year-old Huntington Beach girl remained intact.
“But that conviction and death sentence was reversed on appeal (as was a 1986 conviction and death sentence). Alcala has been in the court system ever since, and his appeal of his third death sentence is just getting started.
“Superior Court judges in the Santa Ana courthouse have been adding Orange County convicts to death row for 31 years.
“PROFILES OF KILLERS
“The Orange County Register has compiled summaries of each of the 58 killers, detailing their crimes, their victims and the state of their appeals.
“The Register will begin publishing that list, two at a time, beginning Monday on ocregister.com.
“The first death-penalty trial of 2011 in Orange County is under way before Superior Court Judge John D. Conley.
“Reputed gang member Stephenson Choi Kim, 31, could receive a death sentence if he is convicted of first-degree murder of Venus Hyun during a gang shooting in 2004, if the jury also finds that the slaying was committed during the "special circumstance" of killing for the benefit of his gang, and if the jury finds that death is the more appropriate punishment than life in prison without the possibility of parole.
“And then Conley would have to agree with the jury's decision and impose a death sentence.
“Orange County has more death row inmates now (58) than any other county except Los Angeles (with 220) and Riverside (70), according to the California Department of Corrections. San Diego (41) is a distant fourth, followed by San Bernardino (37) and Sacramento (35).”
Monday, February 14, 2011
Cell Phones & Capital Punishment
One of the major reasons given by Catholics involved in the capital punishment abolition movement is that current prison technology protects the innocent from the aggressor, as the Catechism—note highlighted section—states:
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (highlighting added)
However, as reported by National Public Radio, prison technology is not adequate to protect the innocent from the aggressor, as the proliferation of cell phones in the hands of prisoners increases, enabling them to reach out.
An excerpt.
“By all accounts, California prison inmates are keeping up with technology. Using smart phones, they are texting, surfing the Web and even posting videos to YouTube.
“One inmate even shot and narrated a video on his cell phone camera while guards tried to put down a riot; Sacramento TV station KCRA aired the footage last year.
"I gotta go right now," the prisoner-narrator says on the video before he abruptly signs off.
“Thousands of these phones have been found, hidden under bunks or even in inmates' pockets. The prisons say it's dangerous because convicts can use the phones to stay in touch with other criminals. But California has yet to find a way to stop them.
'A Lucrative Football'
"It's really frightening that they would be able to post video from a phone," says Joe Baumann, a correctional officer at the the California Rehabilitation Center, a state prison in Norco. He says 10 to 15 phones are found each week. They're smuggled in in all sorts of ingenious ways.
"We had a case recently where we had a gentlemen pull up to the fence with a football," he says. With a strong arm, the man easily tossed the football over the electrified fence. There were 27 cell phones and chargers stuffed inside the pigskin. Each phone is worth about $1,000 behind bars.
"That's a pretty lucrative football," Baumann says.
“But it's not just outsiders smuggling the thousands of phones into state prisons every year. State analysts say the primary source of unauthorized phones is the prison staff.
“Last year, one guard claimed he made $150,000 smuggling phones. He was fired but never charged with anything.
“Richard Subia, of California's Department of Corrections, says smuggling cell phones to convicts isn't a crime.”
“2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (highlighting added)
However, as reported by National Public Radio, prison technology is not adequate to protect the innocent from the aggressor, as the proliferation of cell phones in the hands of prisoners increases, enabling them to reach out.
An excerpt.
“By all accounts, California prison inmates are keeping up with technology. Using smart phones, they are texting, surfing the Web and even posting videos to YouTube.
“One inmate even shot and narrated a video on his cell phone camera while guards tried to put down a riot; Sacramento TV station KCRA aired the footage last year.
"I gotta go right now," the prisoner-narrator says on the video before he abruptly signs off.
“Thousands of these phones have been found, hidden under bunks or even in inmates' pockets. The prisons say it's dangerous because convicts can use the phones to stay in touch with other criminals. But California has yet to find a way to stop them.
'A Lucrative Football'
"It's really frightening that they would be able to post video from a phone," says Joe Baumann, a correctional officer at the the California Rehabilitation Center, a state prison in Norco. He says 10 to 15 phones are found each week. They're smuggled in in all sorts of ingenious ways.
"We had a case recently where we had a gentlemen pull up to the fence with a football," he says. With a strong arm, the man easily tossed the football over the electrified fence. There were 27 cell phones and chargers stuffed inside the pigskin. Each phone is worth about $1,000 behind bars.
"That's a pretty lucrative football," Baumann says.
“But it's not just outsiders smuggling the thousands of phones into state prisons every year. State analysts say the primary source of unauthorized phones is the prison staff.
“Last year, one guard claimed he made $150,000 smuggling phones. He was fired but never charged with anything.
“Richard Subia, of California's Department of Corrections, says smuggling cell phones to convicts isn't a crime.”
Thursday, February 10, 2011
US Bishops & Death Penalty
US bishops following the guidance of the politically liberal secular world is not a new phenomena.
It characterized the Cardinal Bernardin machine written about recently by George Weigel in his article for First Things “The End of the Bernardin Era: The rise, dominance, and decline of a culturally accommodating Catholicism” — in which he concluded: “The Bernardin Era was one of institutional maintenance and bureaucratic expansion in which a liberal consensus dominated both the internal life of the Church and the Church’s address to public policy.”
It has manifested itself in the call for abolition of the death penalty—recently arising in Ohio, as reported by the Associated Press (AP), in opposition to traditional Catholic teaching, which Lampstand has published a book about, with excerpts on our website.
An excerpt from the AP story.
“COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati and Bishop Frederick Campbell of Columbus are among 10 Catholic church leaders in Ohio who have signed a statement urging the state to stop using the death penalty, weeks after an Ohio Supreme Court justice issued the same call.
“Ohio put eight people to death last year, the most since 1949, The Columbus Dispatch reported.
“The statement signed by the Catholic bishops said they believe capital punishment is wrong in nearly all cases and that "just punishment can occur without resorting to the death penalty."
“Former state prisons director Terry Collins and Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer also recently called for an end to capital punishment in Ohio. Pfeifer, a Republican, helped write Ohio's death penalty law and was one of its leading proponents as a state legislator in the 1970s and 1980s, but he said it's being used in cases for which it wasn't intended.
"I think the time's right on this one," he said last month. "You have Republicans in every direction. . With that political configuration, it would be the most opportune time to seriously debate and discuss whether or not we have the death penalty."
It characterized the Cardinal Bernardin machine written about recently by George Weigel in his article for First Things “The End of the Bernardin Era: The rise, dominance, and decline of a culturally accommodating Catholicism” — in which he concluded: “The Bernardin Era was one of institutional maintenance and bureaucratic expansion in which a liberal consensus dominated both the internal life of the Church and the Church’s address to public policy.”
It has manifested itself in the call for abolition of the death penalty—recently arising in Ohio, as reported by the Associated Press (AP), in opposition to traditional Catholic teaching, which Lampstand has published a book about, with excerpts on our website.
An excerpt from the AP story.
“COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati and Bishop Frederick Campbell of Columbus are among 10 Catholic church leaders in Ohio who have signed a statement urging the state to stop using the death penalty, weeks after an Ohio Supreme Court justice issued the same call.
“Ohio put eight people to death last year, the most since 1949, The Columbus Dispatch reported.
“The statement signed by the Catholic bishops said they believe capital punishment is wrong in nearly all cases and that "just punishment can occur without resorting to the death penalty."
“Former state prisons director Terry Collins and Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer also recently called for an end to capital punishment in Ohio. Pfeifer, a Republican, helped write Ohio's death penalty law and was one of its leading proponents as a state legislator in the 1970s and 1980s, but he said it's being used in cases for which it wasn't intended.
"I think the time's right on this one," he said last month. "You have Republicans in every direction. . With that political configuration, it would be the most opportune time to seriously debate and discuss whether or not we have the death penalty."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
