Saturday, December 09, 2017

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

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. 

Edward Feser's Blog, here:

Reviews and defense 

1) Edward Peters, Professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Canon Law,May 23, 2017,

"Feser and Bessette’s defense of capital punishment is a triumph of truth over platitude, of fact over fiction, of argument over emotion.  In response to recent condemnations of the death penalty issued by various ecclesiastics, Feser and Bessette calmly and methodically set forth the philosophical, Scriptural, doctrinal, and sociological arguments grounding the Catholic Church’s hitherto unquestioned – and ultimately unquestionable – support for the death penalty when it is justly administered."

" . . . all contributions to the capital punishment debate, especially as conducted by and among Catholics, must incorporate the work of Feser and Bessette or risk irrelevance."

"Defenders of capital punishment will find in these pages persuasive arguments upholding the proper exercise of this momentous state power and opponents of the death penalty will see their challenges accurately depicted and soberly answered." "This exactly is what Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette provide in their recent book, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, the most comprehensive case ever assembled. Yes, one can avoid becoming persuaded by not looking into that telescope. But if you do, you may see so clearly the unchanging nature of the question that you will quip, Eppur non si muove,“Nevertheless it does not move.” 

2) Reviews: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, Janet Smith, moral theologian, Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2017 

" . . . the arguments are so strong, I timidly suggest, that perhaps the authors should have allowed readers to “draw their own conclusions” more often.  But let me say, the book simply flattens its opponents." "(Bessette)  uses this data to refute claims made by the (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) that capital punishment has no deterrent power, that innocent persons are regularly executed, that the application of the death penalty has been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor." 

"Feser systematically refutes the arguments of those who think the Church now teaches that capital punishment is intrinsically unjust.  He helps readers to see how weak our attachment to justice has become and how little we allow tight reasoning about justice to govern our thinking…" 

3) Yes, traditional Church teaching on capital punishment is definitive, Dr. Edward Feser, The Catholic World Report, 11/21/2017, 

"Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the popes for 2000 years have taught that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle . . .  this teaching is irreformable." 

"Given the “hermeneutic of continuity” emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI – and given especially the teaching of the First Vatican Council that popes have no authority to introduce new doctrines  . . . " 

4) Capital Punishment: Eppur non si muove, Michael Pakaluk, The Catholic Thing, NOVEMBER 4, 2017, 

“If bloodless means suffice, they must be used instead.” But what if bloodless means do not suffice? Then bloody means must be used. The man already in solitary confinement who finds his chance to murder the visiting physician or pastor. The revolutionary who remains a rallying point. Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Hermann Goering, Arthur Seyss-Inquart – you think bloodless means suffice to uphold justice? You are entitled to that minority opinion, but you cannot say that it is against reason, against conscience, to hold otherwise." 

"But in our day, when even the heavens apparently do move, we need a different sort of telescope for seeing the changelessness of the other – one that has the clear lens of reason, and the long extension of history, and which is situated in a calm and still observatory." 

5) Reply to Brugger and Tollefsen 

Part 1

Traditional Catholic Doctrine on Capital Punishment is Irreversible: A Reply to E. Christian Brugger, by  Edward Feser, The Public Discourse, November 19th, 2017, 

"The Catholic Church has always taught that capital punishment can be legitimate under certain circumstances. Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and every pope who has commented on the topic up to Benedict XVI have all clearly and repeatedly affirmed this teaching." 

Part 2 

St. John Paul II Did Not Change Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment: A Reply to E.Christian Brugger by  Edward Feser, The Public Discourse,  November 20th, 2017, 

"To change (the Church's 2000 year old teachings) would be to contradict the clear and consistent teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the popes, and no pope has the authority to do that." 

Part 3 

Capital Punishment, Catholicism, and Natural Law: A Reply to Christopher Tollefsen, by Edward Feser, 11/21/2017,  

" . . . the reason a person can be deprived even of the highest good, God, is that a person can do something to deserve such a loss. The same thing is true of life. A person has a right not to be killed unless—by virtue of having committed a sufficiently heinous crime—he has, as Pope Pius XII put it, “deprived himself of the right to live.” Tollefsen’s argument against capital punishment simply ignores the fact that the right to the enjoyment of a good any good—depends on whether or not one is guilty or innocent." 

6) Review: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, Daniel Lendman, Reading Religion, a publication of the American Academy of Religion, June 29, 2017, 

"Feser and Bessette… insist that the legitimacy of capital punishment is the ancient and long standing teaching of the Catholic Church.  [They] go even farther, laying out a compelling case that denying that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle is proximate to heresy…" 

"While the context of this argument is decidedly and purposefully Catholic, readers of different religions and belief systems can still find forceful natural law arguments supporting capital punishment in this book.  The authors also offer arguments claiming the prudence of using capital punishment in the United States, . . . "

7) "Can the Church ever bless the death penalty?", by Dan Hitchens, deputy editor of the Catholic Herald, 25 May 2017, 

"As Feser remarks  . . .  some theologians “have turned the notion of development into a euphemism or lawyer’s trick whereby outright reversals of past teaching are magically made orthodox by slapping the label ‘development’ on them.  You might as well say that denying Christ’s divinity or the doctrine of original sin can be reconciled with past teaching as long as we call them ‘developments’ and get enough people to go along with this sleight of hand.” 

“Punishment,” Feser and Bessette write, “is a matter of restoring the natural connection between pain and acting contrary to nature’s ends.” "They quote Aquinas as saying that since an offender “has been too indulgent to his will”, he should suffer “either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish”,for the sake of the “restoration of the equality of justice”. The same idea is affirmed by the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Punishment has the primary aimof redressing the disorder introduced by the offence.' " 

8) Capital Punishment Revisited, By CHRISTOPHER MANION, The Wanderer, 12/9/2017, 

From the book: “ . . . no Catholic may condemn capital punishment as intrinsically unjust, though a Catholic may still oppose the use of the death penalty on prudential grounds. But we will also show that there are no good prudential grounds for opposing it and that there are powerful prudential grounds not only for maintaining it but for applying it with some regularity." " . .  a highly recommended book that sheds the patient, clear light of reason on the issue of capital punishment  . . .  beautifully researched and clearly written work will now become the standard Catholic work on capital punishment." 

"Every U.S. bishop should read it." " . . . will it convince even one bishop? That prospect is a false hope and a distraction. In this and all efforts, the writer must have the goal not of persuading the hierarchy but of telling the truth, and letting the truth tell its own story. And the story told by this brilliant work is indeed worth telling." 

" . . . leaders and bureaucrats at the USCCB routinely violate that magisterial teaching, and pretend that theirs is the only permissible “Catholic” position when they choose a particular agenda item to champion." " . . . this bad habit has put the faithful in a position of delicacy, patiently and charitably reminding the bishops that they are trespassing in the realm that is the property of the laity." 

" . . . today it falls to the laity to explain the principles underlying the issues of crime and punishment, laying out the arguments to explain the principles in the light of the rich tradition of Catholic thought." " . . . the laity has a fundamental right to the truth, including when it comes to capital punishment . . . And the truth is exactly what Feser and Bessette offer in their impressive study.  . . . . they take great care in presenting a clear and rational discussion to shed the patient, clear light of reason on the issue . . .  from the point of view of the Natural Law, Church teaching, and theological and philosophical anthropology."

“Unfortunately, churchmen have in recent years not been equally respectful of the authority and duty of public officials to exercise their prudential judgment in applying Catholic social teaching when it comes to the death penalty.” 

F&B  “many Catholics today glibly assert that capital punishment is incompatible with promoting a ‘culture of life’….It is simpleminded sloganeering, not serious thinking.” "With this particular point the authors put their finger on a regrettable tendency that has become a bad habit of hierarchs when defending their opinionated agendas. The pro-life movement — led since its inception by the laity, not the hierarchy — has championed the powerful symbol of “pro-life” as an irrefutable tribute to the reality of the unborn child’s humanity. So it is distressing, but not surprising, that many peddlers of political palaver have tried to hijack the “pro-life” label and apply it to their personal political agenda, on particulars ranging from foreign aid and tax policy to immigration and “global warming.” "That rhetorical dodge  . . . smacks too much of an acquiescence to what Pope Benedict called the “Dictatorship of Relativism.” It serves only to dilute the Church’s adamant defense of life, as well as to delude the public regarding the honest use of words." 

9) Hot Air vs. Capital Punishment: A Reply to Paul Griffiths and David Bentley Hart, Dr.Edward Feser, The Catholic World Report, November 28,2017, 

"Griffiths’ review in First Things . . . is rich in condescension, high in dudgeon, and largely devoid of substantive engagement with the book’s arguments." "Hart’s review in Commonweal is so rhetorically over-the-top and dishonest that the effect is more comical than offensive"

Friday, December 01, 2017

Sonny Jacobs & Peter Pringle

The Scam of Sonny Jacobs & Peter Pringle
Dudley Sharp

"(Pringle) , along with two other men, was convicted of the murder of two gardaí in 1980. Detective John Morley and Garda Henry Byrne had five young children between them when they were shot dead during a robbery in Co Roscommon. The killers were acting under a republican flag of convenience.

Two of them, Colm O’Shea and Pat McCann, were captured in the vicinity. The third man managed to flee the scene, but gardaí believed him to be Pringle. He was arrested in Galway 12 days later after a manhunt. He had shaved off his beard and dyed his hair. He denied any involvement and later claimed he had been on a drunken bender since the day before the robbery." (3)

"The evidence against him was largely circumstantial, including sightings of him in the Roscommon area in the immediate aftermath of the robbery and evidence that he’d been in the company of the other men in the days prior to the robbery, despite claiming he hadn’t seen them in months. There was forensic evidence involving hair and paint samples and gun residue. This was in the days before the development of DNA evidence. The clinching aspect to his conviction was a partial admission while in custody." (3)

"In 1995, Pringle succeeded in an appeal against his conviction. He had discovered evidence about a blood sample of his that had not been examined in his trial. The appeal judges decided that a dispute over the sample between two gardaí may have given rise to a credibility issue of Garda evidence. As such, the conviction was deemed unsafe and it was up to the State to try Pringle again.

Pringle attempted to portray this development as a miscarriage of justice. In a memoir entitled Surviving Ireland’s Death Row, he claimed evidence was “concocted” by retired detective superintendent Tom Connolly. In fact, the appeal judges made a point of noting they were not suggesting any officers had acted anyway dishonestly." (3)

"(The book, published three years ago, prompted Connolly to write his own memoir which included a more detailed account of the case, backed up by records.) The retrial never went ahead because the senior officer who had sanctioned an extension to Pringle’s time in custody 15 years earlier had since died. That was a lucky break for the recently-released Pringle.

"A week after his release, his solicitor wrote to the State demanding £50,000 as an interim payment for wrongful imprisonment. The demand was given short shrift. Since then, Pringle has not initiated any action that could result in obtaining a certificate of miscarriage and a huge compensation payout. Over the last 20 years he has frequently stated that he is still “trying” to get his case into the High Court, but it’s unclear who on earth might be stopping him." (3)


below sent   11/19/2017 

To: The Cast of  The Exonerated & Galway Actors Workshop 

cc: Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Galway Town Hall Theatre, Galway Advertiser, An Garda Siochana

The Marshall Project 

Re: The play, The Exonerated,  at Galway Town Hall Theatre, 11/19/2017 

Subject: The Exoneration Frauds 

From: Dudley Sharp 

Fact checking is a requirement. 

As these two, just below, are actors in the production: 

Sonny Jacobs was on death row for less than 4 years, not 17.  She has not been exonerated. She pled guilty to second degree murder and those confessions and legal status remain, as they should. Case detailed below, at 1 & 2. 

Peter Pringle states: "I came within 11 days of execution. I spent 20 years on death row and saw 53 of the people around me I knew executed. But I was never afraid to die," Pringle smiled. (From: 

Such is, complete, utter nonsense. 

Pringle was sentenced to death in 1980, spent 6 months on death row and the last execution in Ireland was Michael Manning, in 1954, Pringle was probably laughing at the reporter. See, also 3 Fact checking matters.

Also see the absurd:

Two Wrongful Convictions. One Happy Marriage.“It felt like the universe put us together.”By MAURICE CHAMMAH, The Marshall Project, 


 1) Detailed Review of Sonny Jacobs Crime and Guilt, at pages 511-516 within: The Myth of Innocence, Josh Marquis, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 95, Issue 2 Winter, Article 4, Winter 2005,

2) Play, The Exonerated: Are Any Actually Innocent? 

3) Peter Pringle is no death-row poster boy, Michael Clifford, Irish Examiner, September 03, 2016,

4) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

Pope Francis' Many Problems

Pope Francis' Many Problems
compiled by Dudley Sharp

"Your Holiness (Pope Francis), a chronic confusion seems to mark your pontificate." "The main source of concern is the manner of your teaching." " . . .  your guidance at times seems intentionally ambiguous . . . "." " To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth." (1)

"The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it." (1)

" . . .  (Pope Francis) seems to regard every aspect of the Church’s tradition as a plastic instrument to be stiffened here or relaxed there in accord with ever-changing pastoral judgments." (2).

" . . .  it’s reasonable to think the pontificate (of Pope Francis) will seek to muddy the Church’s teaching . . .". (2) "This papacy’s goal of aligning the Catholic Church with the bourgeois consensus has other dimensions that show how unprincipled this process will be." (2)

" . . . Francis also will denounce where denunciations are wanted. Recently, he declared capital punishment always and everywhere forbidden. " While . . . "this pronouncement is inconsistent with the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition of moral teaching on the matter, . . .  that’s beside the point. The notion of Pope Francis defining any act as intrinsically evil is laughable on its face, given how often he attacks the “doctors of the law” who speak about objective moral norms. And didn’t Fr. Antonio Spadaro very clearly tell us that the time has passed when we can speak of “a norm that stands above all”? (2)

"Moreover, only where there is truth can there be authentic love, for truth is the light that sets women and men free from the blindness of sin, a darkness that kills the life of the soul.  Yet you seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism." (1)

" . . . (Pope Francis) has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church." "(Pope Francis) has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith. The Church teaches no pope can claim that God has revealed some new truth to him, which it would be obligatory for Catholics to believe." "The signatories  . . . respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld." (3).

"This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry.  Some of your advisors regrettably seem to engage in similar actions.  Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by "ad hominem" arguments." (2)

"The details don’t matter. Pope Francis and his closest associates have no interest in the sacramental coherence of their positions on matters such as divorce and remarriage, nor do they care one whit about defending the logic of the arguments they put forward." (2).

" . . . too often your manner seems to demean the importance of Church doctrine.  Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life.  Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology.  But it is precisely Christian doctrine – including the fine distinctions made with regard to central beliefs like the Trinitarian nature of God; the nature and purpose of the Church; the Incarnation; the Redemption; and the sacraments – that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel." (1)

"Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth.  What they then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death." (1)

"Christianity orients us upward and toward the divine. Bourgeois religion is horizontal. It takes its cues from the consensus of the moment, the opinions of the good and responsible people. This reduces Christianity to a political religion organized to buttress the status quo. The Francis papacy largely follows this pattern, making it quite predictable." (2)

" . . . faithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your (Pope Francis') choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them.  What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice.  This weakens the zeal of the many women and men who have championed authentic Catholic teaching over long periods of time, often at the risk of their own reputations and well-being.  As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the "sensus fidelium," are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd." (1)

" . . . you are commissioned by the Lord himself to promote and strengthen (Church) unity.  . .  . your actions and words too often seem intent on doing the opposite" .  Encouraging a form of "synodality" that allows and promotes various doctrinal and moral options within the Church can only lead to more theological and pastoral confusion.  Such synodality is unwise and, in practice, works against collegial unity among bishops." (1)

" . . . many have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it.  Many bishops are silent because they desire to be loyal to you, and so they do not express – at least publicly; privately is another matter – the concerns that your pontificate raises.  Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse." (1)

" . . . your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness.  In recognizing this darkness, the Church will humbly need to renew herself, and so continue to grow in holiness." (1)

"May the Holy Spirit lead you to the light of truth and the life of love so that you can dispel the darkness that now hides the beauty of Jesus’ Church." (1)

More here:

The Pope’s Pedophile?, Andrew Sullivan,  New York Magazine,  June 30, 2017,


1) Letter found here:

A Theologian Writes To the Pope: There Is Chaos in the Church, and You Are a Cause, L'Espresso, 01 nov, 2017

Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap. July 31, 2017, Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola

Weinandy is among the most eminent theologians, lives in Washington at the College of the Capuchins, the Franciscan order to which he belongs, is a member of the international theological commission, the commission that Paul VI set up alongside the congregation for the doctrine of the faith so that it could avail itself of the cream of the crop among the world’s theologians. He has been a member of this commission since 2014, having been appointed to it by Pope Francis.

(2)  LIBERAL TRADITION, YES; LIBERAL IDEOLOGY, NO, by R. R. Reno, Editor, First Things, December 2017

(3)  Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis (‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’), July 16th, 2017, Feast of our Lady of Mt Carmel

full summary, here:

Full correction, here:

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Carol Steiker & Jordan Steiker: Anti Death Penalty Nonsense


REBUTTAL:  Opinion  Op-Ed "The more we confront the death penalty, the less we like it", Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, Los Angeles Times, 11/23/16

From: Dudley Sharp

The Steikers' Common Anti Death Penalty Nonsense

Without nonsense, the anti death penalty folks would have very little to say.

The Nebraska legislature abolished the death penalty, based, solely, upon a common deception campaign, easily exposed by fact checking, which the media did not reveal - also quite common.

The popular vote of Nebraskans negated the death penalty repeal, based upon justice - a concept the Steikers never considered.

The superior Steikers labeled those citizens "often-impulsive voters".

Possibly, the Steikers are "often impulsively superior".

The Steikers identify the "six state legislatures (that) have jettisoned the death penalty — New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, and Nebraska — " while failing to mention that would have been impossible without 5 of the 6 states having Democratic anti death penalty Governors and anti death penalty, majority Democratic legislatures, all of whom voted contrary to the wishes of their citizens and all of whom used common, false anti death penalty arguments, easily exposed by fact checking, which the media did not reveal - also quite common.

Yes, "New York and Delaware — have declined to revive the death penalty after their highest courts struck it down.", but that is because, in New York,  the Republican majority Senate has passed new death penalty legislation, twice, with the Democrat controlled Assembly, twice, not allowing it to proceed.

Democrats want to make sure that all murderers live.

As The Delaware  Supreme Court found their death penalty statute unconstitutional, in August, 2016, one might instruct the  Steikers: "There has been no opportunity for Delaware to reinstate the death penalty, yet.", as, of course, the Steikers well know.

This is a beauty: The Steikers write: "When voters grapple with the death penalty in their backyards, they also turn against it.  In recent contests in major death penalty states — Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida — voters in local elections have ousted prosecutors who championed the death penalty and sought it indiscriminately."

All those recently elected prosecutors, with an Alabama exception, support the death penalty. In addition, there are 31 total states, with hundreds of prosecutors that support the death penalty, wherein most of those prosecutors are still in power.

There is zero evidence that prosecutors are seeking the death penalty "indiscriminately". The evidence is, overwhelmingly, to the contrary, as the Steikers are aware.

This is hysterical: The Steikers state: "Consider Angela Corey’s fate.  As district attorney in Jacksonville, Fla., she led her county to produce more death sentences per capita than any other locality in the United States.  Her constituents responded by voting overwhelmingly to oust "the cruelest prosecutor in the country," as the Nation magazine once called her."

Corey was vanquished by fellow Republican Melissa Nelson, who campaigned that Corey was too soft on crime, the opposite of what the Steikers' would have you believe. Nelson supports the death penalty.

The three defining criminal cases, contributing to Corey's ouster, were that of George Zimmerman, Marissa Alexander,  and 12-year-old Cristian Fernandez, none of which were death penalty cases.

The Steikers think the death penalty has fallen out of favor, based upon "From a high of more than 300 yearly in the mid-1990s, death sentences have fallen more than 80% to fewer than 50 last year."

Are the Steikers unaware that capital murders have dropped dramatically since 1991, that murder rates are at 50 year lows, that robbery/murder, the most common death penalty eligible crime may have dropped by 80%, that 8 fewer states have the death penalty and that the categories of cases eligible for the death penalty have been reduced, which are all responsible for that 80% drop? Of course not.

The Steikers state: 'The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2012 that there is no reliable evidence that the death penalty  helps to deter murder."

Total nonsense.

No study has ever found that the death penalty, or any other criminal sanction, deters none. Never.

The NRC only published the paper, and had nothing to do with how, massively, problematic the paper was.

The head of the study was Prof. Nagin, whose academic chair is funded by a well known anti death penalty group. The study was, also, funded, by two additional, also, well known, anti death penalty groups.

Conflicts of interest, very seldom, are this blatant. It is, simply astounding, that the NRC allows such nonsense to be published under the NRC banner, which is a citizen funded, government program.

Are the Steikers unaware?

So tiresome, the Steikers continue: "Indeed, the states that are most committed to retaining the death penalty, such as China, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are those least committed to justice in the form of fundamental human rights."

The only relevant country is the United States, which retains the death penalty for justice, as the Steikers well know. And let's not forget our allies in Japan, Singapore and South Korean, where the death penalty is supported and used.

Some of the most foul countries in the world do not have the death penalty. If the US repealed the death penalty, would the Steikers compare the US to them? Guess. It is just the standard, idiotic anti death penalty illogic that the Steikers are pushing.

The Steikers stagger on: ' . . . those who directly encounter the death penalty fear the risk of executing the innocent and imposing the death penalty not on the “worst of the worst” but on the basis of race and other illegitimate factors."

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since the 1930's.

16,000 innocents have been murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers, - just since 1973.

Where are the innocents at risk?

White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers and white death row inmates are executed at a 41% higher rate than are black death row inmates.

Sadly, Carol and Jordon Streiker are teachers in US law schools.

Poor students.

Friday, November 03, 2017

Guilty: Hurricane Carter

Guilty: Hurricane Carter
Dudley Sharp

What the movie "The Hurricane" "missed":

All from "Media missed the real story of the late Hurricane Carter", Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger, April 23, 2014 (1)

Assault victim "(Carolyn Kelley) has this explanation for how Carter has gotten the nation to ignore his thuggish past and treat him as a hero. "He's Satan, and Satan can fool a lot of people."

Carter: ''I couldn't begin to tell you how many hits, muggings and stickups (I committed). No use even trying to count them. We'd just use the guns like we had a license to carry them.".''If I committed a crime in the eyes of society, I took no blame. I felt no more responsible for my actions than for the winds."

. . . "(Carter), the tough middleweight boxer beat the 112-pound Kelley into unconsciousness and left her lying in a fetal position on the floor of his hotel room. Kelley called me after she read my columns pointing out that the movie ("The Hurricane") distorts virtually every fact of Carter's life story."

''If (Carter) could do that to me, a woman who was no threat to him, then he has erased in my mind any doubt that he could kill three or four innocent people," Kelley says.

"(Carter's)  rage was just bad timing on my mother's part; it could have been me. But his thing was always mugging women anyway." - Michael Kelley on Carter's beating of Michael's mother, Carolyn (Kelley).

"Chuck Stone, a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, broke the story of the beating in a front-page article. Stone had been a strong supporter of Carter's. But he knew Kelley from other civil rights struggles. He was troubled by the beating. In his column, Stone quoted Kelley: 'Rubin used to tell me time and time again, 'You've met Rubin and you know Carter, but you've never met the Hurricane. The Hurricane's bad. The Hurricane's mean.' "

"Juries twice found Carter guilty of a triple murder. The evidence against him was overwhelming. He finally was granted a third trial on a technicality, but no judge ever said or implied that he was framed or that he did not commit the murders."

"There were a lot of lies at the last trial,' testified ex-alibi witness Catherine McGuire, who at the first trial had testified she was with Carter at the time of the killings."

"At Carter's second trial, Hardney testified that Carter had asked him to back up a false alibi that had him drinking at a bar called the Nite Spot at the time of the killings. Three other Carter alibi witnesses also testified that they had lied at the first trial."

"Then there was the matter of the alleged recantation of Alfred Bello, the eyewitness who in the first trial testified that he had seen Carter leaving the murder scene but who later said he had made up that story. At the second trial, he recanted his recantation, saying he had been offered money by people close to Carter. The jury quickly convicted Carter and co-defendant John Artis once again."

Carter's alibi involves Artis in a complicated story of how the two men spent the night of the murders driving from one bar to another. . . .  Artis said he had no idea what Carter was doing during the hours when, according to Carter, the two were together." "I asked Artis whether it is possible Carter could have killed three people in the moments before he offered Artis a ride home." ''Good question," Artis said.

Thus, "Carter was the natural choice for executive director of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted." (2) Incredible. 

It's a well known pattern (3).


"The Carter case fits a familiar pattern, one that might be called the cult of the avenger. There is always one of these cases in the news. There's always some guy who claims he was unjustly convicted of killing someone. And there's always a cult of true believers devoted to proving their hero was denied a fair trial."

"The interesting thing is that the weight of evidence against the hero is irrelevant. In fact, the guiltier the better."

"That is proven by the case of the man who has succeeded Carter as a cult hero, Mumia Abu-Jamal. Unlike Carter, who at least had the good sense not to be stopped at the scene of the crime, Jamal was literally caught with a smoking gun. He was sitting just a few feet away from the Philadelphia cop he had shot to death."

"But Jamal's lack of an alibi put him at no disadvantage. In the years since his conviction in 1982, Jamal has assembled what may be the largest such cult in history. From his cell on death row in Pennsylvania, Jamal inspired a riot in San Francisco. He is idolized in Paris, London and Amsterdam."

"But Jamal has virtually no support in Philadelphia, just as Carter has few supporters in New Jersey. Those who know the reality are not prone to buy the myth."

"Perhaps the only one of these characters who hasn't become the subject of a cult of innocence was a man spawned by Hollywood itself. This guy had it all. An intriguing look, a nonconformist lifestyle, a charismatic message. And there were quite a few holes in the prosecution's case that sent him to prison."

"But this guy made one crucial mistake: Instead of killing a cop, he killed an actress. If not for that minor oversight, we might have been treated to the spectacle of a Sheen or a Baldwin up there on stage tonight with one hand clutching a statue and another wrapped around the waist of Charles Manson."

This pattern is endless (3).

See also

"The Hurricane: the facts of Rubin Carter's life story are beaten to a pulp" History grade: D– , Alex von Tunzelmann, The Guardian, 24 April 2014


Hurricane Carter: The Other Side of the Story,


1)" Media missed the real story of the late Hurricane Carter", Paul Mulshine,, April 23, 2014,

2) Rubin “Hurricane” Carter dead at 76, By RACHEL MENDLESON, "Investigative Reporter", The (Toronto) Star,  April 20, 2014

3) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

Saturday, October 14, 2017

All Catholics May Support the Death Penalty

All Catholics May Support The Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

There is a very robust debate countering both the Church's 20 year old anti death penalty teachings (CCC, amended 1997) and the statements by Pope Francis, both of which are contradicted by fact, reason, the Gospel and 2000 years of Catholic teachings, through today, as detailed.

1) as per Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (2004):

All Catholics may support the death penalty and more executions, today, and remain Catholics in good standing (1).

2) The Catholic Church cannot reverse 2000 years of pro death penalty teachings (2016-2017) (2).

For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty is a morally licit, just, appropriate, if not obligatory, sanction.

All of a sudden, since 1997, Bishops are telling us that the death penalty is unjust and cruel. Not only is that not true but, based upon those 2000 years of teachings from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians, it cannot be true.

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

"Paramount obedience".

Archbishop Charles Chaput (2005): “Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment . . . " "The Church cannot repudiate (the death penalty) without repudiating her own identity." (3)

3) The factual and rational problems within the Church's newest death penalty teachings have been well known since the Catechism's CCC 2267 was first amended (1997) (4).

4) The Bishops use well known, false anti death penalty claims to support their positions, which are, easily, rebutted, here (5).

Also review:

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


1) "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."

"Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles", from then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, the top authority of the body responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine,  in a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick, made public in the first week of July 2004.
2) A thorough rebuttal to any effort to end the death penalty, based upon Catholic teachings.

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (2017),  Edward Feser & Joseph Bessette

Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, The Catholic World Report, July 17, 2016,

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

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
3) "Archbishop Chaput clarifies Church’s stance on death penalty", CNA, Catholic News Agency, Oct 18, 2005. Chaput was then archbishop of Denver, now of Philadelphia
4) Catholic Church: Problems with Her Newest Death Penalty Position: The Catechism & Section 2267


Catechism & State Protection

Why the Death Penalty is Still Necessary, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette,  The Catholic World Report, July 21, 2016

5) Rebuttal to all the Church's secular anti death penalty nonsense

Catholic Bishops: So Wrong on Death Penalty

The Death Penalty: Fair and Just

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

The Death Penalty: Saving Innocent Lives