Friday, March 22, 2019

Ritter's pardon of Joe Arridy

Subject: HUGE problem: Gov. Ritter's pardon of Joe Arridy
Sent: 6/23/2016 2:51:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject: HUGE problem: Gov. Ritter's pardon of Joe Arridy

To: Scott Tobias, Publisher, Westworld
Tracy Kontrelos, Associate Publisher, Westworld
Patricia Calhoun, Editor, Westworld
Mayor Suther, AG when Ritter was Governor
Evan Dreyer, assistant to Gov. Ritter
Tyler Smith, assistant to Gov. Ritter
Former Gov. Bill Ritter
RE: Joe Arridy was the happiest man on death row, BY ALAN PRENDERGAST, Westworld, SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
From: Dudley Sharp
There is a major problem with the Governor's pardon.
The pardon states:
"Mr. Aguilar had, however, always maintained that he had never met Mr. Arridy (Pardon, p3, para 1)."
This is, in fact, totally, untrue.
From the referenced article, Alan Prendergast wrote and has confirmed the accuracy of all material in his article:
"Several days into his interrogation, Aguilar gave a statement in which he claimed to have met Arridy in a park a few hours before the murder. The two of them plotted the attack on the Drain girls — Aguilar had already learned that the parents were going out that night — and then carried it out together. Much of the "confession" consisted of terse yes-no answers to leading questions ("Then Joe assaulted the big girl, didn't he?")."
Although Aguilar later recanted, which is irrelevant, with regard to the Governor's false statement, both as a matter of reason and of fact, Aguilar's confession of guilt is much more credible that is his, later, recantation.
There is zero reason for Aguilar to falsely confess, yet every reason for him to recant.
Arridy, also, twice, spontaneously, verified that he knew Aguilar, by calling him Frank, in front of witnesses, when they were brought together and another time when Arridy was presented the ax/hatchett and identified it as Frank's.  
Arridy also stated that he knew Aguilar and that they committed the crimes, together.
Prendergrast confirms:
"Taylor brought the hatchet head recovered from Aguilar's house. Asked if he recognized the hatchet, Arridy said that it belonged to someone named Frank.", Aguilar's first name.
"Amid highly publicized security, Arridy was taken to Pueblo and escorted through the Drain home, where he re-enacted the scenario he'd provided about he and Frank turning off lights and attacking the girls. Then he was taken to police headquarters for a confrontation with Frank Aguilar, witnessed by several officers.

"That's Frank," Arridy said."
He, later, stated, that he had never met Aguilar.
"When asked why he participated in the murder, Arridy said, 'Just for meanness and I am sorry now. If they will just let me alone, I’ll be good after this.'  " (75-year-old case still compelling today, Tracy Harmon, The Pueblo Chieftain, February 24, 2014)
Given those known facts, all confirmed as true, by Prendergrast, the Governor could, hardly, have been more in error, completely contrary to the known, public facts.
I am unaware or a more inaccurate pardon.
Are you aware of anyone who fact checked either one or both of Perske's book on this case and/or the brief submitted in support of the Arridy pardon?
Did the Governor fact check David A. Martinez' or others' research on this case?
Was there an opposing state counsel report, to investigate Martinez' or others' pro pardon research, to ensure a balanced review?
If so, where are the Governor's and/or state counsel's review?
I am just beginning my research on this case and any direction would be appreciated, if you have any.
If not, thank you for your time.
I am a pro death penalty expert, a former, opponent, who has detailed many false claims of innocence in death penalty cases (1).
Sincerely, Dudley Sharp
1)  The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

Friday, March 08, 2019

Conservatives & The Death Penalty

Conservatives & The Death Penalty:
Another Rebuttal of Their Anti Death Penalty Position
Dishonesty or Willful Ignorance?
Dudley Sharp

sent 1/19/2018

To: Representative Steve Handy

cc: Governor Gary Herbert and staff
Utah House, Senate and staff
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee
Attorney General Sean Reyes and staff
Utah Prosecution Council
Utah Sheriffs' Association
Utah Appellate Courts
Libertas Institute - Utah
Students For Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty

Media throughout Utah

From: Dudley Sharp, death penalty expert

Dear Rep. Handy:

I hope, this time, you will fact check.

Here is a rebuttal, below, to (one of many) conservatives who refuses to fact check.

In a message dated 12/14/2017 1:08:57 PM Central Standard Time, writes:

To: Richard Viguerie (c/0

bcc: All editors and commentary writers, Washington Times

copied to  Oliver North, Jay Sekulow, Ron Paul, Michael Steele, Ramesh Ponnuru

Re:  "Republicans reconsidering the death penalty", Richard Viguerie, Washington Times, December 13, 2017

From: Dudley Sharp. death penalty expert, former opponent

I fully rebutted all of Viguerie's anti death penalty points in 2009 (1). I send him my rebuttal. He did not respond.

To repeat, with his present op/ed, many points of which are the same, as in 2009:

1) Why conservative support for the death penalty has dropped.

Viguerie:" . . . what caused this drop in conservative support in the first place? His answer: " . . .  an ongoing educational campaign to inform conservatives of the death penalty’s many practical failures."

Sharp rebuttal: It is a misinformation campaign, which duplicates the liberal anti death penalty claims, which have been rebutted for years (1,2).

Viguerie, for example, extols the efforts of the Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty (CCADP), a group owned and controlled by a very well known liberal anti death penalty group, Equal Justice USA, which counts as its financial supporters many liberal groups, inclusive of George Soros (fn 1 from 1), all detailed for Viguerie in 2009 (fn 1 from 1).

Here is a review of all of Viguerie's education points, which he claims are reasons to do away with the death penalty.

2) limited government

Sharp Rebuttal: Death row represents 0.04% of the criminals, currently, within the criminal justice system. Possibly, death row is the smallest of all government components.

3) Costs

Sharp Rebuttal:  There appears to be three or more states where the death penalty saves money over life without parole (LWOP) (3).  In those states where the death penalty might be more expensive than LWOP, that is not the fault of the death penalty, but of management (4).  Fix them.

For example, Virginia has executed 112 murderers, since 1976, within 7 years of appeals, on average (3). All states would save money over LWOP, if they don't already, by duplicating that protocol. If Virginia can do it, all states can.

Death row is a small component, of the total corrections cost, within each state.

4) Catholics

Sharp Rebuttal to Viguerie's points.

The Catholic Church has supported the death penalty for over 2000 years (5).

Some in the Church, as with Viguerie, have accepted a confusion, since 1995, that justice is no longer primary, which, clearly, is contrary to Church teachings, for 2000 years, through today (5,6).

In addition, the new teachings, 1995 forward, are based upon the secular confidence in criminal justice systems, which as you might notice, Viguerie has no confidence in any government programs, with some in the Church saying, because criminal justice systems have the means to protect us from unjust aggressors, without using the death penalty, that we should chose less severe sanctions.

What Viguerie and the Church should know is that such is, in fact, not the reality of the situation.

Innocents are much better protected when we use the death penalty/executions (7) and the reality of the criminal justice system is that it allows criminals to harm, over and over, again (7, 8).

For some odd reason the Church and Viguerie are willing to sacrifice more innocents, to make sure that all murderers live.

5) Support for the death penalty is at a 45-year low, some surveys showing that a clear majority prefers repealing and replacing the death penalty

Sharp Rebuttal: I have not seen the polls that show "a clear majority prefers repealing and replacing the death penalty".  I suspect Viguerie has not, either. California, the bluest of blue states, just voted, by popular referendum, to keep the death penalty and to speed up appeals.

A primary problem with the polling is that the media will only chose to show those polls that they like, which, usually means the ones with the lowest support (9).

For example,

---  there was a 2013 poll showing 86% death penalty support in the US (9). Not one media source carried it, even though it was by Angus Reid, the #1 most accurate pollster in the 2012 presidential election (9).

----  every year Gallup comes out with their death penalty poll, the media only picks up the lowest support numbers from Gallup, even though, almost every year, there is another poll result, within that same Gallup release, that has about 10% higher death penalty support (9).

I, strongly, suspect other topics of polls are handled, similarly, by the media.

We all know that the questions asked and the answers provided, by the polling companies, direct the outcome.  With the death penalty, those variables can provided 10-40% swings (9).

6) Mistakes

Sharp Rebuttal: Since 1976, after Gregg v Georgia, the case that approved new death penalty statutes,  there have been about 0.4% of death row inmates proven to be actually innocent and released from death row, which equals a 99.6% accuracy rate for actually guilty convictions and a 100% rate of freeing the actually innocent, very likely, the most accurate government program.

The current anti death penalty claims of 160 "exonerated" from death row, have been a well known deception, at least since 1996, when the number was 69, Anti death penalty folks have, simply, redefined both "innocent" and "exonerated" and then stuffed a bunch of cases into those perverted definitions. Their claims are 70-83% false, depending upon review, as detailed (10).

There is no known innocents executed since 1913 (date changed), if then.

We can speculate, but then we can also speculate that these number may be higher:

Since 1973:

16,000 innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers and
400,000 innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals (7,8).

Viguerie, where do you think the mistakes are? This goes to the #1 concern for the anti death penalty movement - it is imperative that all murderers must live, no matter the cost.

7) "far too often botch these executions — something the public clearly has no appetite for."

Sharp Rebuttal:  Possibly, about 1% of lethal injections have been botched - a pretty good record. The claim that 7% are botched is, simply, false, as fact checking proves (11).

Mr. Viguerie is voicing the willful ignorance of conservatives, not their concerns.

1)  Rebuttal to Richard A. Viguerie
Dudley Sharp, 7/09

2) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

4)  Judges Responsible For Grossly Uneven Executions


Judges as Jackasses

5)  By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, 2017, Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, $24.95). Visit or call 1-800-651-1531. ''

6)   Critical Dismay:  The Catholic Church's Latest (2018)Death Penalty Catechism Amendment (added 3/19)

Catholic Church: Problems with Her Newest Death Penalty Position:
The Catechism & Section 2267     

8)  Catechism and State Protection

9)  86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty

10)  The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Dr. J Zivot: More Medical Anti Death Penalty Idiocy

Dr. J Zivot: More Medical Anti Death Penalty Idiocy

Sent to: Dr. J. Zivot

RE: Rebuttal of  "Why I'm for a moratorium on lethal injections," J. Zivot, USA Today, op-ed, December 15, 2013

Date 2/3/18, 1:09:38 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Dudley Sharp, pro death penalty expert, former opponent

Dr. Zivot: "Sodium thiopental is no longer in my pharmacology toolbox. Hospira, the last company to manufacture the drug, stopped making it to protest its use in carrying out the death penalty."

Well, no (1).

2011, Hospira took sodium thiopental away from innocent patients, even though they knew it would not stop executions (1).

Hospira knew that  thiopental was, rapidly, being replaced by propofol (2).

2007: "Thiopental is a barbiturate widely used as an intravenous agent for the rapid induction of general anesthesia, with consciousness being lost within 10–20 seconds. However, its use as an inducing agent is decreasing following the introduction of propofol." (2a)

2009: "Thiopental (sodium pentothal) has been the barbiturate most frequently used for induction of anesthesia in children, although more recently many clinicians have replaced it with propofol." (2b)

January 2011 -  US Based Hospira stops making sodium thiopental.
Why? Logistics.

Hospira had moved thiopental production from North Carolina to Italy in 2010. The EU and drug manufacturers had been publicly, shamed by anti death penalty groups, starting in 2009 (1), because EU jurisdiction drugs were being used in US executions. Italy's constitution bans the death penalty and Italy told Hospira they had to guarantee that any 
Italy produced thiopental could not be used in US executions. Hospira couldn't or wouldn't and, therefore, shut down thiopental production.

Economics and logistics are the reasons Hospira stopped production.

Abbott Labs created sodium thiopental in the 1930's and was aware of the US' planned use of sodium thiopental, for executions, in 1979 and its first use in executions in 1982 (1). 

Abbott spun off Hospira in 2004. Abott's/Hospira's "ethical" concerns, conveniently, showed up 30 years later, at, exactly the moment it served Hospira's logistical problem.

March, 2011 -  Propofol replaces Thiopental in The WHO Model List Essential Medicines, 17th edition. Thiopental remains an alternate.

Ending thiopental production had no discernable effect on Hospira's stock. Stock followers long knew, at least since 2006, that propofol was replacing thiopental and Hospira was a huge pharmacutical company with many products, with thiopental a tiny fraction of its total revenue.

2015   Pfizer buys Hospira for $17 billion.

Dr. Zivot: "An executioner and the condemned are not the same as a doctor and a patient, though it is easy to see how similarities can be drawn."

Of course, they are not, remotely, the same and it would be irrational to find them similar (1).

Dr. Zivot, all of a sudden agrees, within his next paragraph: " . . . executioners are not doctors . . .".  and, later, " States may choose to execute their citizens, but when they employ lethal injection, they are not practicing medicine." . . . stating the obvious, which is, they are not, of course, remotely, similar, as Dr. Zivot concedes, or not, depending on which of his paragraphs you choose.

Dr. Zivot: "As a physician, however, I am ethically prohibited from commenting on the details of lethal injection lest even casual association suggest support or oversight."

Total nonsense (1), as it appears the doctor well knows, as he comments on lethal injection, often. Does he concede being unethical?

Dr. Zivot protests: "(Execution jurisdictions)  are usurping the tools and arts of the medical trade and propagating a fiction."

Here is Zivot's "fiction".

Dr. Zivot: " When I gave a patient sodium thiopental, it was a medicine whose purpose was to heal. When the state gave sodium thiopental to a prisoner, it was a poisonous chemical whose purpose was to kill."

There is no fiction, of course. Zivot states clear reality (1), as he well knows, as do all.

Dr. Zivot continues:

"Missouri recently obtained propofol, an exceedingly important anesthetic agent, and threatened to use it for executions. It would have succeeded if not for the threat of sanction by the European Union, which opposes the death penalty. Because of our broken domestic drug manufacturing market, 90% of our propofol is produced in Europe. EU sanctions would have stopped propofol shipment to the U.S. and left physicians without this critical drug."

Dr. Zivot appears to miss the ethical problem.

I, completely, agree with Dr. Zivot, that the manufacturer and the EU would have stopped all exports of the drug, to the US, which would have put millions of innocent patients at risk, even though the manufacturer and the EU both, well know, as with Hospira and sodium thiopental, that withholding the drug would not stop the executions and, only, harm patients, a threat they would have carried out, as detailed (1).

That's their moral compass. Save one convicted murderer and put millions of innocent patients at risk (1). The opposite of "do no harm" (1).

In that propofol consideration, we have this ethical result:

The governor of Missouri, knowing that the manufacturer and the EU would not hesitate to put millions of innocent patients at risk,  removed propofol from the execution group, to spare those patients (1).

The governor, unhesitatingly, chose to spare the patients (1).

The EU and the manufacturer, unhesitatingly, would have chosen to sacrifice innocent patients (1), as Dr. Zivot, correctly, finds.

Dr. Zivot: "Most recently, Florida reported the use of midazolam, another essential medication, in an execution. Midazolam is in the class referred to as a benzodiazepine. 

These drugs replaced barbiturates, to a degree, because they were safer. That is, it is harder to kill someone with them. How Florida granted itself expertise in the use of midazolam, now repurposed as a chemical used to kill, is known only to Florida."

Florida has  access to anesthesiologists and pharmacologists. Is Dr. Zivot unaware? 


Dr. Zivot: "From an ethical perspective, I cannot make the case that a medicine in short supply (midazolam) should preferentially be used to kill rather than to heal."

Nor can I.

I could not find that both midazolam and its substitute, propofol, were both in short supply at the time of Dr. Zivot's article. I have little doubt they could have been, but will depend upon Dr. Zivot, for some confirmation.

Drug shortages are the norm and are a combination of some or all of low profits, high liability, medical personnel misusing drugs, causing huge judgments, bad management control, by the FDA, medical partners and manufacturers, as detailed (3), with this article reviewing those problems, all of which are caused by those in the medical profession (3), government and private.

Currently (2017-2018), I could not find FDA confirmation of a midazolam shortage or a shortage of its substitute, propofol (4).

Midazolam, very likely, would never have been used in more than 10 executions per year, less than one per month. How much midazolam is wasted or misused, every year, by those in the medical professions? Most likely, medical professions waste huge multiples of what would be used in executions. I doubt anyone would question that. Doc, any ethical perspective on that?

Dr. Zivot: "What appears as humane is theater alone."

Dr. Zivot, take a bow. The theatrics are all yours.

I agree with Dr. Zivot that we should do away with the lethal injection method of executions. 

However, for me, it is for practical reasons, not the very weak or false medical ethical reasons, presented by Dr. Zivot (1).

Joel Zivot, M.D., is an assistant professor of anesthesiology and also the medical director of the cardio-thoracic and vascular intensive care unit at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.


2a)  Thiopental, John A. Davies, in xPharm: The Comprehensive Pharmacology Reference, 2007.

2b) Preoperative Evaluation, Premedication, and Induction of Anesthesia in A Practice of Anesthesia for Infants and Children (Fourth Edition), 2009, Elizabeth A. Ghazal, Charles J. Coté


"A comparative study of sodium thiopental and propofol in adenotonsillectomy surgery in children: MOPS score, incidence and severity of agitation", Samaneh Kouzegaran, Mohammad Hossein Moradi, Elahe Alahyari, Amir Sabertanha, Biomedical Research 2017; 28 (17): 7590-7593,

3)  US Propofol Drug Shortages: A Review of the Problem and Stakeholder Analysis, Christopher Hvisdas, PharmD Candidate, Andrea Lordan, PharmD Candidate, Laura T. Pizzi, PharmD, MPH, and Brandi N. Thoma, PharmD, American Health & Drug Benefits. 2013 May-Jun; 6(4): 171–175. PMCID: PMC4031712,

4) I believe this is the most recent list
FDA Drug Shortages, Current and Resolved Drug Shortages and Discontinuations Reported to FDA

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Catholics & The Death Penalty

Catholics & The Death Penalty:
Critical Dismay:  The Catholic Church's Latest (2018)Death Penalty Catechism Amendment

1) Magisterial Irresponsibility, by Catholic theologian Steven Long, 10/18 (1)

"For the earnest believer, the derogation of the doctrinal patrimony of the Church on (the death penalty)—as though Scripture, tradition, the consensus of the Fathers, the teaching of Aquinas, and the teaching of all papacies up to the present had been swept away—is in its way as saddening as is the derogation of spiritual and moral integrity in the case of Theodore McCarrick."

"There are four reasons for viewing this revision critically and with measured dismay."

The first concerns the “dignitarian” ­premise  . . .  the assertion that we now understand human dignity better than did earlier epochs of the Church, especially in so far as we now know that felons retain human dignity despite their crimes."

"In the Catholic tradition, it is the dignity of the human person—not its denial—that undergirds the legitimacy of capital punishment."  

" Genesis 9:6 identifies the imago dei as the very reason for the penalty: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.”

" . . .  the Church has always affirmed, and has never denied, that the felon executed for a grave crime possesses human dignity, the imago dei ordered to, and specified by, noble goods in nature and grace." 

"It is this dignity of the human person that guarantees that no earthly suffering, including the need to suffer death as a penalty for grave crime, can of itself prevent anyone from attaining the highest good of union with God. Human dignity also merits the sternest protective legal sanctions, potentially including the death penalty."

" The Church has also held that the human dignity of the innocent merits the most rigorous defense, potentially including punishment by death for those who wrongfully assail the human dignity of others."

" . . . it is both historically and doctrinally false to suggest that the Church has in the past failed to understand that unrepentant felons retain their natural human dignity."  " . . .  it is untrue that the Church has not properly understood human dignity until the modern period."

Sharp: This is a clear, obvious error in the amendment -  an error repeated, often, by Pope Francis and other Church leadership, for many years,with no plausible excuse, for them, or the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), making such an error.

Secondly,  the revision " . . . is being presented and publicized in a misleading way . . .  its widespread reception as abrogating prior teaching, the prudential character of this small insertion in the Catechism ought to be made clear - the lowest level of ­doctrine—prudential admonition—lacks the central and defining nature of the higher tiers of Catholic teaching. Not to make clear the prudential character of the insertion escalates . . .  the danger of needless division, beyond the immediate matter of the death penalty."

Sharp: Pope Francis and others present the amendment, as if it binding teaching for all Catholics, when it is, clearly, not only prudential in nature, but false, and, thus, any Catholic can disagree with the teaching and who may recognize the obvious, which that it is, in fact, error.

Thirdly, the " . . . reason why this revision of the Catechism is objectively problematic is that the language of the conclusion about the death penalty appears violent and excessive" suggesting "that the penalty is essentially unjust . . .", ". . .  the prudential antecedents make this conclusion impossible."

"To speak of the death penalty as an “attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”—taken in itself and apart from its prudential antecedents—suggests a wholesale break with tradition."

"There is an ultra vires excess in this formulation that is likely to be misunderstood and assimilated wholly to secular humanitarianism. The rhetoric of the conclusion, if predicated on the prudential reasons given, ought to be prudential. But the language used does not sound prudential and is inordinate. This exacerbates the confusion and is a grave defect. It ought to be corrected."

Sharp: "impossible".

Fourth, the prudential " . . . claim that new discoveries about the nature of penal sanctions and new methods of detention do away with further questions concerning the protection of society from the wicked, or the deterrence of crime (to say nothing of changing the essential justice of the death penalty itself), is false."

Sharp: This has been an awful, willful falsehood, by the Church, for, at least 21 years (2), very much in the historical character of the Church with Her sex scandal cover ups, at the same time. Since the first amendment, in 1997, it has been obvious that the Church, willfully, refused to look at the reality of criminal justice practices, very often, causing additional harm to innocents (2). This refusal is most egregious, in the exposure of the Church's cover up of the sex abuse scandal, now, also, intentionally, not disclosing the realities of criminal justice systems (2), another slap in the face to the truth and innocent victims.

"It does not aid the pastoral mission of the Church when those responsible for handing on this tradition seem to join in the dismantling of their own theological heritage."

NOTE:  Long details God's specific biblical killings, here, whereas some say that God would not kill -  Long replies: "This would come as a great surprise to Onan (Genesis 38:10), the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:29), Pharaoh’s army (Exodus 14:28), Aaron’s sons (Leviticus 10:2), Korah (Numbers 16:32), David and Bathsheba’s baby (2 Samuel 12:14-15), Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:16-17), Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 13:20), Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:14-15), Ezekiel’s wife (Ezekiel 24:16), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10), Herod (Acts 12:23), and the many, many others scripture tells us were killed by God." (3)

Cardinal Avery Dulles states: "In the Old Testament the Mosaic Law specifies no less than thirty-six capital offenses calling for execution  . . .  considered especially fitting as a punishment for murder since in his covenant with Noah God had laid down the principle, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Genesis 9:6). In many cases God is portrayed as deservedly punishing culprits with death, as happened to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16). In other cases individuals such as Daniel and Mordecai are God’s agents in bringing a just death upon guilty persons." (4).

2) AN APPEAL TO THE CARDINALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, various esteemed religious authors, First Things, 8/15/18 (5)

" . . . to teach that capital punishment is always and intrinsically evil would contradict Scripture. That the death penalty can be a legitimate means of securing retributive justice is affirmed in Genesis 9:6 and many other biblical texts, and the Church holds that Scripture cannot teach moral error."

"The legitimacy in principle of capital punishment is also the consistent teaching of the magisterium for two millennia."

"To contradict Scripture and tradition on this point would cast doubt on the credibility of the magisterium in general."

3) Prof. Joseph M. Bessette, claremont mckenna college, LETTERS, First Things, 12/18 (6)

" . . . as surely as night follows day, when Pope Francis speaks on doctrinal matters, confusion results. " . . .  so it is with the pope’s August (2018) revision to section 2267 of the Catechism. Although taught by the Church for two millennia as a legitimate punishment for grievous crimes (and employed by the Papal States under six different popes more than 500 times in the nineteenth century alone), capital punishment is now “inadmissible,” and therefore the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

" . . .  Steven A. Long, in “Magisterial Irresponsibility” (October, 2018), interprets (this revision) as essentially a prudential judgment “susceptible to falsification,” and therefore one with which faithful Catholics may respectfully disagree."

"For reasons never explained, the last three popes and many of the world’s bishops have decided that the death penalty does not deter murder. This crucial empirical matter is simply ignored. Yet, as Edward Feser and I show at some length in By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, the case for deterrence is strong: both because many criminals modify their behavior in light of criminal sanctions and, perhaps more important, because the death penalty powerfully teaches that murder is a great wrong, leading most people not even to consider killing another human being."

"  . . . the Catechism has been enlisted to preempt the lawful authority of public officials in a way that jeopardizes the lives of the innocent. This is not, you might say, your grandfather’s Catholic Church."

4) Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., st. louis, missouri, LETTERS, First Things, 12/18 (6)

"Francis asserted, shockingly, that the death penalty is “in itself contrary to the Gospel—in sé stessa contraria al Vangelo” (emphasis added)." " . . . it is false doctrine—a monumental papal error to which Catholics should not assent."

5) Sharp:  Think about this:

For more than 2000 years, there has been Catholic support for the death penalty, from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians that, in breadth and depth, overwhelm any teachings to the contrary (7).

Now, in 2018, Pope Francis and others are saying that the greatest of all Catholic Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, biblical scholars and theologians, were dead wrong for over 2000 years and that those most revered figures are theologically, morally and intellectually inferior, by finding the death penalty not just admissible, but, sometimes, obligatory, merciful, part of Holy Scripture, and that it, specifically, recognized the dignity of man and was just - all very well known teachings (7).

All of a sudden - POOF - those 2000 years of teaching are thrown in the trash heap.

It is that absurd.

1) Magisterial Irresponsibility, Steven Long, First Things, 10/18

2)  Catechism and State Protection 

3)  See 
(13) "Unnatural Lawyering" within:

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment 

4)  CATHOLICISM & CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, by Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things,  April 2001,

5) AN APPEAL TO THE CARDINALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, various authors, First Things, 8/15/18, 


7)  See Catholic teachings within

See Catholic teachings within

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

All Catholics May Support The Death Penalty

Four Catholic Journals Indulge in (anti death penalty) Doctrinal Solipsism, Steven Long, THOMISTICA, March 5, 2015,

Rebuttal of Four Catholic Publications Call For End to Capital Punishment


Sister Helen Prejean: Does Truth Matter?:
Dead Man Walking & The Death Penalty

Friday, June 08, 2018

Why has death penalty support dropped? - Q & A 4

Why has death penalty support dropped?   - Q & A 4
Dudley Sharp

Q - Why has death penalty support dropped?
There appears to be 3 main reasons:
1) Media bias is so strong against the death penalty and objective reporting seems to have all but disappeared, as detailed (1)  and most folks get their death penalty information from the media. Basic.
2) Support "MAY" have dropped -  Picking & Choosing Polls
--  a 2013 poll showing 86% death penalty support, the highest I have ever seen, was picked up by no media outlets - None - even though the pollster, Angus-Ried, is very well known and was the #1 most accurate pollster in the 2012 presidential election.(2). AR got the message and stopped doing their regular death penalty poll.
--  Gallup polls, always, has multiple questions and answers, different polls, within their annual death penalty poll and the media only reports on the smallest death penalty support response, when other answers show about a 10% spike in death penalty support, as here:
October 29, 2013, Gallup finds:
60% death penalty support, their lowest in 40 years (1, fn3).
70% death penalty support was found from another Gallup question, within the same poll (1, fn4).
--  When providing the "sometimes" answer to the standard "do you support the death penalty for murder?" question death penalty support rises, dramatically. That is, rarely, used, anymore. It is interesting, as that is where you will get the most accurate answers, because we only use it rarely and sometimes, as the statutes dictate.
We know, as do the pollsters, that the "yes" or "no" answers end up increasing death penalty opposition, by excluding the "sometimes" answer.
--- An excellent example of this is provided by Gallup:
When Gallup asked about truly "death penalty eligible" murders, as with Timothy McVeigh’s mass murders in the Oklahoma City bombing, his execution was supported by 81%, while 16% opposed (Gallup 5/02/01). (3)

With nearly identical polling dates (Gallup, 6/10/01), Gallup found 65% general support for executions for all murders, with 28% opposed, when excluding the "sometimes" option. (3)

Those Gallup polls found that death penalty opposition fell by 43% and support rose by 25% , when comparing polls of a specific death penalty eligible crime, those with a "sometimes" response option (more support. less opposition) to the category of all murders, excluding a "sometimes" answer  (less support, more opposition, still majority support), which is what Gallup does. (3)
Quinnipiac polling has a decade or so of polling with "sometimes" and "no" answers, reflecting those same outcomes.
3)    Very important -  These  are, rarely, if ever, shown by the media:
--   95% Death Penalty Support by Loved Ones of Capital Murder Victims, from non scientific polling (4)
--   92% of police chiefs support the death penalty (5)
You almost, never, see the 92%, anywhere, because the study was funded by an anti death penalty group, The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC).
What we, almost, always see from the media and other snti death penalty folks, from that study is this:
"Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police. "
Never is that analyzed in media.
Of course the death penalty is last at "reducing violent crime". It has to be. Capital murder is, by far, the smallest component of all violent crimes and, as a result of that, any deterrent and incapacitation effects of the death penalty/executions will, necessarily, be the smallest for all other violent crimes and there sanctions, as detailed and 19 states don't even have the death penalty.  
To show some perspective:
There have been about 8400 death sentences and 1400 executions since 1973.
Just today, right now, there are about 6, 000, 000  persons under criminal justice "control", meaning in jail, in prison, and under some sort of supervision, parole or probation.  What do you think that total number would be, for all violent crimes, from 1973-today -  20-30 million?
Per year, drug abuse affects about 40 million Americans and costs about $740 billion per year (6).
The police support the death penalty because it is just in some cases, just as the support for other sanction.
1) There are, at least, two ways to check media bias.
a) Look at stories that had weeks and months to fact check/vet, as here:
Courts, states put death penalty on life support
b) Then look at the pro death penalty side of the story and reflect how often you find a balance in death penalty stories - almost never.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

2) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
3)   US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High
4)   95% Death Penalty Support by Loved Ones of Capital Murder Victims
5) figure 5, pg 15, , THE FRONT LINE: Law Enforcement Views on the Death Penalty , The Death Penalty Information Center,
6) Drug Abuse Statistics
Trends and Statistics, National Institute of Drug Abuse