Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Benefit of Prisons

The Benefit of Prisons
Dudley Sharp

Note: Read The Death of Punishment by Robert Blecker (Macmillan, 2014)

The US doubled their prison population to 400,000 by 1983, from the 200,000 of 1948-1976, and then, with an additional increase  from about 700,000 in 1990 to 1.8 million in 2008.

Our crime rates plummeted to 40-60 year lows (1).

The murder rate dropped by:

46% between 1976 (8.7 murder rate) and 2012 (4.7 murder rate)
54% between 1980 (10.2 murder rate) and 2012

Violent crimes rates dropped by:

17% between 1976 (468 crime rate) and 2012 (387 crime rate)
49% between 1991 (758 crime rate) and 2012

Property crimes rates dropped by:

41% between 1976 (4819 crime rate) and 2012 (2859 crime rate)
53% between 1991 (5898 crime rate) and 2012

Patrick A. Langan, senior statistician at the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, calculated that tripling the prison population from 1975 to 1989 may have reduced "violent crime by 10 to 15 percent below what it would have been," thereby preventing a "conservatively estimated 390,000 murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults in 1989 alone." (2).

Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 94 percent of state prisoners in 1991 had committed a violent crime or been incarcerated or on probation before. Of these prisoners, 45 percent had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole. When "supervised" on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children) (2).

1)  The exception is rape, which may be due to chronic underreporting, from previous decades.
using FBI data

2) "Prisons are a Bargain, by Any Measure", John J. DiIulio, Jr., Opinion, New York Times, 1/16/1996

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Death Penalty: Judge Tom Price - Dead Wrong

Draft -  under review



Texas Death Penalty: Judge Tom Price is Dead Wrong
by Dudley Sharp

In a recent appellate opinion, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Tom Price went on a rant against the death penalty.

He was dead wrong on everything.

The judge’s willful ignorance and grandstanding should be an embarrassment to the court.

The judge thinks that Texas’ 2005 law establishing life without parole (LWOP) makes the death penalty unnecessary.

That only makes sense if we equate life and death. Most folks, just as criminals, know the difference.

99% of criminal defendants and those convicted, in death penalty eligible cases, do all they can, in pre trial, trial, within appeals and in commutation proceedings to avoid death and pursue life.

Unanimous Texas juries continue to select death in those cases wherein they find it the most just sanction available -  100 times since the new LWOP law was passed - proof that jurors appreciate the obvious difference between the two sanctions, just as do criminals, (all but one) judges, prosecutors, defense counsel and citizens.

Justice is the reason for the death penalty, as with all sanctions.

The judge thinks the possibility of executing a wrongfully convicted person is an “irrational risk that should not be tolerated by the criminal justice system.”

Judge, consider reality:

More actual innocents will die without the death penalty; more actual innocents will be spared with the death penalty.

The death penalty helps to spare more innocent lives in three ways, to a greater degree than does LWOP (1):

Enhanced due process — No one denies that the death penalty has greater due process protections than do any other sanctions, offering greater protections for both the actually innocent and the actually guilty.

Enhanced incapacitation — Living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed ones do not.

Enhanced deterrence — The evidence that the death penalty deters some is overwhelming. The evidence that the death penalty deters none does not exist. Death is feared more than life. Life is preferred over death. That which we fear more, deters more.  That which we prefer more, deters less.


1) on average, since 1973, the US  has executed 33 murderers/yr., with no proof of an innocent executed, at least since the 1930s (1);

2) since 1973, at least 14,000 additional innocents have been murdered in the United States by known murderers that we have allowed to murder again — recidivist murderers (1);

3) up to 8,000 innocents are murdered every year by known criminals that we have released or failed to incarcerate (1).

Based upon the judge’s reasoning and the facts, the true “irrational risk” is leaving murderers alive and letting countless known criminals back into the free world.

The judge is aware of lifers, in Texas, who have murdered, again. He has ruled on such cases.

Judge?  Oh . . .  and 5,000 die/yr. while in US criminal custody (1).

Anti-death penalty folks have redefined both “exonerated” and “innocent” on death row to deceptively increase the numbers, a scam that has been exposed for over 15 years and is the model for Price’s reference (2), next.

Judge Price heads down that required road of anti death penalty advocacy, using a  Michigan/Northwestern study (3) that defines "exoneration" of those convicted in a manner that has absolutely nothing to do with actual innocence, as his referenced study makes clear (2) and as Judge Price, clearly, should know.

Judge Price, did you fact check?

The Texas Center for Actual Innocence (U of Texas Law School) calls cases "actually innocent" when the new evidence "does not depend upon new evidence of actual innocence, but instead upon evidence of a constitutional violation that probably resulted in a trial in which an innocent person may have been convicted."

"probably" "may have been" "does not depend upon new evidence of actual innocence" - Yet, they call them "actually innocent".

Standard and wrong.

There is no need to wonder why Judge Price completely avoided the Texas legal system, which has a statute to determine actual innocence (4), cases which are, thankfully, extremely rare.

Texas has declared two from death row to be actually innocent, with that statute.

As predicted, the anti death penalty cabal, inclusive of the media, wrongly finds 12 Texas death row inmates to be "exonerated" or "innocent", an 83% "error" rate in such claims, the same error rate as the claims in Florida (5).

Why have only two of those 12 inmates availed themselves of the legal system to declare themselves actual innocent and receive $80,000 in compensation for each year of incarceration? The others don’t have the proof for actual innocence.

The Texas statute was amended, so that "belief", as opposed to evidence, can be used to determine "actual innocence" (6) -- a perversion of the intent of the original law and of the definition of "actual innocence".

That amendment was added so that Anthony Graves could claim to be actually innocent and collect $80,000/yr.,  for wrongful incarceration.

This "belief" foundation confounds a well known crime truism:  "absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence".

All states should have “Proof for Actual Innocence” laws, absent a "belief" category,  so we can get rid of these common exoneration frauds/confusions, something which had occurred in Texas, until that "belief" amendment was added.

Let's deal with true actual innocence cases with the seriousness and clarity they deserve.

How about it Judge?

1) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues

3) see 3 & 4, later 5-13
The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

Sec. 103.001. CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE. (a) A person is entitled to compensation if:
(1) the person has served in whole or in part a sentence in prison under the laws of this state; and
(2) the person:
    (A) has received a full pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced;
    (B) has been granted relief in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus that is based on a court finding or determination that the person is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was sentenced; or
    (C) has been granted relief in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus and:
          (i) the state district court in which the charge against the person was pending has entered an order dismissing the charge; and
          (ii) the district court's dismissal order is based on a motion to dismiss in which the state's attorney states that no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendant and, either in the motion or in an affidavit, the state's attorney states that the state's attorney believes that the defendant is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was arrested.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? Is this a serious question?

Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? Is this a serious question?
 Dudley Sharp

Of the 112 justices of the US Supreme Court, I believe only two have declared the death penalty unconstitutional, showing how in disrepute that opinion is.

Easy to understand.

Twice, the  5th Amendment authorizes execution.

1) “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ” and
(2) “. . . nor shall any person  . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ”.
The 14th amendment is, equally, clear:

” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”.

Not surprisingly, over 200 years of US Supreme Court decisions support those amendments and the US Constitution in authorizing and enforcing the death penalty.

Some wrongly believe that the US Supreme Court decision, Furman v Georgia (1972), found the death penalty unconstitutional. It did not.

The decisions found that the statutory enforcement of the death penalty in the US was a violation of the 8th Amendment.

Based upon the death penalty being integral within the constitution, through the 5th and 14th amendments, I do not believe it will ever be found unconstitutional.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Current Problems: Catholic Death Penalty Teaching

Current Problems: Catholic Death Penalty Teaching
Most recent Catechism (last amended 2003)
Dudley Sharp

Any good Catholic may disagree with the Church's newest teaching on the death penalty (1) and remain a Catholic in good standing (1) and can find that (a) the primary and eternal purpose of sanction is justice and/or redress, as confirmed in this latest CCC, and that (b) justice should not be and cannot be  subjugated by a secondary purpose of sanction, the important concern of "defense of society" and that (c) the death penalty offers a greater degree of protection for society and individuals (2) , that being the protection of  the potential innocents harmed, now spared,  and potential repeat unjust aggressors,  also, now spared, by preventing them from harming even more innocents and , thereby, putting their eternal lives more at risk (3&4).

Saint Pope John Paul II (SPJPII) made a prudential judgement, within Evangelium Vitae (EV), and such judgement was factually and rationally in error and then those errors were placed within the CCC.

1)  The first sentence from CCC 2267, being:

"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."

Where is "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude" "recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."

It doesn't exist.

Response from two Catholic scholars:

"The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II" ."  (5)

"The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Churh on capital punishment — vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception."(5)

Not only is this a rational error, it conflicts with 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

As taught in this very same CCC, redress, justice and just retribution are primary and eternal. Public defense is secular and utilitarian and, therefore, must always be secondary to the primary,  eternal truth of justice.

Yet, both the CCC and SPJPII are stating that we must replace eternal truths with secular utilitarianism. Obviously an error.

Furthermore, SPJPII, somehow, only lists one of the Catholic Church's four foundations for sanction (defense) neglecting all others - another error.  Justice, redress, just retribution are always primary.

A significant rational error is that SPJPII attempts to erase execution, if it is not the "only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings". There is nothing within reason or Catholic teachings that says we must either include or exclude a method of sanction, because there may be another "practicable way to defend the lives of human beings".

Our obligation is to find the "best way to defend the lives of human beings", which, in many cases, means the death penalty, which better protects innocents than do lesser sanctions, in three ways (3), and is a sanction which more corresponds with justice, the primary function, in some cases.

Both the utilitarian and eternal truths of capital punishment are in conflict with SPJPII's pronouncements. SPJPII would have us sacrifice more innocents, by sparing more guilty murderers, putting more innocents in peril, just as he puts more unjust aggressors in greater eternal peril, as detailed (2-4).

2)  The middle sentence within CCC 2267:

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person,"

Flannery and Remick's comments (5) apply, here, as well.

The traditional, philosophical and eternal teachings remain the same, that the Church has and does recognize that the imposition of the death penalty is based upon the sanctity of life and is in conformity with the dignity of the human person (3), both innocent murders victims and guilty unjust aggressors/murderers.

Then, we have this:

Within the very same CCC as 2267, we have CCC 2260: "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." "This teaching remains necessary for all time."

SPJPII says if "bloodless means are sufficient" than we must shun the death penalty.

SPJPII chooses his dependence upon wildly varying secular criminal justice systems (4), defense of society, over this  eternal commandment.

SPJPII chooses to leave all unjust murderers, alive, with the well known outcome, guaranteeing many more innocents will be murdered (2-4), putting many more unjust murderers at greater eternal risk, as we know so many will murder or, otherwise, harm, again (2-4).

If his concern is protection of innocents, SPJPII would have said, "We will use that sanction which best protects the innocents", but he didn't. He only used a "sufficient" standard, when he should have used a "best" standard, if protecting innocent lives is your primary concern and if a sanction commensurate with the crime which, in many cases, both by utility and justice,  will be the death penalty (2-5).

3) Factually, we know that the last sentence from CCC 2267 is false:

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by
rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56.]

"In fact", the overwhelming evidence is that, given all known realities of the State's actions to repress known unjust aggressors, that the proper protection of innocents from unjust aggressors is, extremely often, not the case (4), as we all know (4).

"Putting more innocents at risk, by repeat harm from known unjust aggressors and putting those same known unjust aggressors at greater eternal risk, by allowing them to harm more innocents, as we know many will do.(2-4)" is the result of this newest EV and CCC teaching .

The factual support for this is overwhelming, as detailed (4), and as both CCC and EV avoided.

In addition, sinners do not redeem "themselves", a truly bizarre statement. Redemption comes from the grace and mercy of God.


These newest death penalty teachings, within EV and the CCC, occurred at the exact time when SPJPII and the Church were involved in the horrendous priest sex scandal, worldwide, which so clearly demonstrated the human error of allowing unjust aggressors to harm innocents, over and over, again.  The Church had the "means" to protect the innocent. She just didn't . . . and it took years of lawsuits and heartbreak for the Church to, finally, wake up and become honest.

It is as if the Church never got the message, now repeating that same horror, over and over, again.

In the course of human affairs, with the priest sex scandal, , for anyone who wants to learn, what we think is "sufficient" is, often, a disaster - evidently a lesson lost within EV and CCC and, now, repeated, with Her newest death penalty teachings.

Tragic and incomprehensible.


1) From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

(paragraph 3) "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
from Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles, part of memorandum sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, made public July 2004.

2)  The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues

3)  The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

4) Catechism & State Protection

5) "Capital Punishment and the Law", Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame)

Monday, October 06, 2014

Catechism & State Protection

Catechism & State Protection
Dudley Sharp
This is an excerpt from my full Catechism review
Had Saint Pope John Paul II's (SPJPII) Evangelium Vitae (EV) been, properly, thought through, it would have concluded that innocents were better protected with the death penalty and that the death penalty is, therefore, a greater defender of society and innocents and, as such, EV would not have created the errors which were, then, wrongly put into the Catechism.

CCC 2267: "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

These pronouncements, within 2267, reflect zero knowledge or concern about the reality of violence within prisons and the fact that criminal justice systems, worldwide, allow unjust aggressors to re offend against innocents, over and over, again (4).
NOTE: We do not "redeem ourselves" --  a truly bizarre statement within a CCC or any other Church teaching. We are redeemed through the grace and mercy of God. There has never been Church teaching that the death penalty, or any other type of death, prevents redemption, prior to our deaths. Just the opposite, there are many teachings about the expiation and mercy of executions and how that benefits the eternal future of the unjust aggressor.

The "very rare, if not practically non-existent"  statement, within both EV and the CCC, shows an indifferent ignorance to how often unjust aggressors harm innocents, repeatedly (4), this, at the exact moment when the Church was embroiled in one of its worst moral dilemmas in Her history, the priest sex abuse horror, with repeat violent offenders.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate any "prudential" moniker or any reference to judgement.
Do a GOOGLE search for  --  priests sex offender  -   there are 800,000 hits - note how
many priests are known repeat offenders
Cases whereby the unjust aggressors harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape, after improper release and/or with no incarceration, are way too common (4)  -   the known factual opposite of the SPJPII and Church's incomprehensible finding that such cases are "very rare, if not practically non existent", a factual error so profound and obvious (4) that it is clear that fact checking was avoided in both EV and the Catechism, showing zero concern for innocent victims.

The Church and SPJPII made no prudential judgement, here, but instead, made a factual assertion which was entirely false (4), with zero fact checking and showing little interest - a grossly irresponsible judgement ---  this at a time when both the Church and SPJPII were in the midst of a horrendous moral  scandal of priests being allowed to sexually assault children, repeatedly.

One would think that would make both the Church and PJPII highly sensitive to innocent crime victims and their offenders being allowed to re offend, but, instead, it appears this was all, completely, forgotten within EV and CCC. Staggering.
A Google search of --  recidivism crime worldwide  -- produced 4.76 million hits, within 0.21 seconds. Try it.
Let's look at "the means at the State's disposal" and the willful ignorance of anyone that would state that repeat offenders are "very rare, if not practically non-existent."

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh the teachings based in justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation, all of which are primary, within 2000 years Church teachings, inclusive of the most recent CCC.

It is not a matter of the "means" at the State's disposal, but is about the reality of human error and how that, consistently, allows known violent offenders to harm innocents, repeatedly.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of "mercy" to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent, repeatedly, when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors, over and over, again. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing escapes, crimes in prisons and free world criminal activities, inclusive of murdering witnesses (4). All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism and EV, authors who live within enforced ignorance.

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood (4).

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor is given so many opportunities to harm again and does so. Do the authors of the Catechism and EV have no grasp of reality and history? (4)

Apparently not.

It is as if the Church was unaware of Her disastrous problems of the last 5 decades, when violent sex offenders were allowed to re victimize innocents over and over, again, inside the Church.

It appears the Catechism's and & EV's authors never considered the reality of such suffering (3&4). It is unknown why She acted in such a fashion.

Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. 

They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
1) improve, becoming slightly better, still harmful people or a saint and, everything, in between.
2) Stay the same, bad for them and bad for us
3) become even worse, more dangerous to all, the innocent and the unjust aggressor


1) Genesis 9:5-6 - "For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life. If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made." (NAB)

2) Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars

3) Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty

4) The Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if it cared to look. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in contradiction of the willful ignorance within EV and CCC 2267.
From 14,000 - 28,000 actual innocents have been murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers, just since 1973, in the US.

From The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues

Up to 200,000 actual innocents have been murdered in the US by those known offenders that we have allowed to harm, again, just since 1973, in the US.

From The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues


"Prisons and the Education of Terrorists", Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

"The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new membrs into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel."

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

"Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast."

" . . . in October 2003, John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being 'particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.'

"The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells."

"Hell in the heart of paradise",  4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
Cell phones in prisons.

Prisoners using contraband cell phones, in prison, to arrange murders of witnesses, murders of government officials, plan escapes, continue free world criminal enterprises, etc.

Google search -- "cell phones" prison --  with 5.7 million hits in .35 seconds
Anwar al Awlaki, released from prison based upon his word.

al Awlaki was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San'a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website.

Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree.

al Awlaki called upon other Muslim's to duplicate those acts. "Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter", Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET

"New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot"

al-Awalaki killed, no longer a threat

"Al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is dead, says Yemen", Martin Chulov in Beirut, The Guardian, Friday 30 September 2011 04.53 EDT

16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
Repeat murderer fakes paralysis, escapes, murders, again.

Twice convicted murderer Alva "Campbell, faked paralysis and escaped from custody when he was being taken to court in a wheelchair. Using a gun he took form a deputy sheriff, he carjacked (Joe) Dials, 18, robbed and killed him."

Younger brother Charles Dials called Joe a  father figure: “He was an awesome big brother, the go-to guy.  Everybody loved him. It was a devastating blow for our family.”

Campbell murdered another wonderful person, in 1972, William S. Dovalosky, from Cleveland.

Execution date set for Columbus killer, By Alan Johnson, The Columbus Dispatch, March 28, 2013 12:09PM
23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
Lifer fakes paralysis, escapes
Repeat sex offender,"cripple" serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
Prison Gang Runs Prison, Drug Trafficking, Money Laundering and Impregnate 4 Guards:

"13 corrections officers indicted in Md., accused of aiding gang’s drug scheme", Washington Post, 4/23/13

"The Black Guerilla Family was founded in California in the 1960s but now operates nationwide in prisons and on the streets of major U.S. cities, including Baltimore. It arrived in Maryland’s prison system in the 1990s, according to the Justice Department, and is increasingly involved in narcotics trafficking, robbery, assault and homicides. By 2006, federal authorities say, the BGF had become the dominant gang at the Baltimore City Detention Center."

“The inmates literally took over ‘the asylum,’ and the detention centers became safe havens for BGF,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephen E. Vogt."

Officials "embarrassed" by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005

". . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson's attorney." "After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner's booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General's office." "This was 100 percent human error; that's the most frustrating thing about it." "There were multiple failures." Trial jurors and victim's relatives were terrified.

goes on and on forever, with the Church, seemingly, oblivious.

5) "Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty", p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999): 511-552

6) ibid, p 522

7)  Kevin L. Flannery S.J. - Capital Punishment and the Law – 2007, Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame)

8) Luke 23:39-43 "Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (Jesus) replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (NAB).

It is not about the method of earthly death, but the message of eternal salvation.

9) Pope Francis

10) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007

11) Jesus and the death penalty: "They may become Christians", Dan Popp, June 23, 2013