PRO LIFE: THE DEATH PENALTY

updated Oct 2024

PRO LIFE: THE DEATH PENALTY

From:  Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom   

The "pro-life" term was, originally, identified with the anti-abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.

Based upon biblical and theological teachings, as well as secular realities, one can, reasonably and responsibly, find that an anti-death penalty view is not pro-life. 

All sanctions are given because we value that which is being taken away. Whether it be fines, freedom or lives, in every case that we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can't.

Death Penalty: Pro Life Since Genesis 9:6  

 

SUMMARY

 

There are two types of pro-life considerations. One is religious, the other secular and both support the other, in regard to the death penalty being pro-life. 

 

I.  Religious

 

For 4,500 years (biblical timeline), the death penalty has had a pro-life religious position (1), staring with Genesis 9:6. Anti-death penalty teachings did not occur, in major Christian denominations, until the 1950's, with the Roman Catholic Church not joining that chorus until 2018 (2).

 

Did the bible or basic theology, suddenly change? Of course not (3), as reviewed, in detail (3).

 

Through today and for more than 2000 years, there has been Christian New Testament support for the death penalty, from Genesis to Revelation, Jesus to St. Dismas, The Holy Ghost to Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians that, in breadth and depth, overwhelms any teachings to the contrary (2) particularly those wrongly dependent upon secular concerns such as defense of society, the poor standards of criminal justice systems in protecting the innocent and the alleged revelation of newly found dignity, which is 4500 years old.(2).

It must be noted that Pope Francis wants to end the death penalty, life imprisonment and solitary confinement, which means many more innocents will be harmed and murdered, by those known unjust aggressors, of which we are all, very, aware:

 

II. Secular

 

The death penalty/executions protect innocents, in six ways, better than does life without parole (LWOP) (4): enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation, enhanced probability, in three ways, and enhanced deterrence (4):

a) Enhanced due process - No knowledgeable party disputes that the death penalty has the greatest of due process protections (5), what the US Supreme Court has called "super due process", meaning that actual innocents sentenced to LWOP are more likely to die as innocents in prison, by a huge margin, than are innocents likely to be executed. Even many death penalty opponents, publicly, agree. It is not, factually, disputed.

 

b) Enhanced incapacitation - Living murderers are, infinitely, more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers - No one disagrees.

       Since 1973, about 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers. 

      We MIGHT have proof of factually innocents executed, as recently as 1915.

c) Enhanced  Probability: 

1) 4000-5000 persons die, annually, within US criminal custody. We execute about 30 murderers/yr. By numbers and by lesser due process, we know that many more innocents will die in non-death penalty custody, than by execution, by a huge margin, further supported:

       a) As some death penalty opponents, now, argue that LWOP is more cruel than execution, this takes on greater importance, as their position is to a) support the more cruel sanction, LWOP  and with 2) all non-death penalty, in custody deaths with much higher numbers than by execution, thereby preferring more innocent deaths;

       b) Since 1973, we have had about 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents murdered by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals.

       . . . . and as rapes, robberies and other assaults are some 7 times greater than murders, such would equate to . . .

      c) Since 1973, 3.5 million ADDITIONAL innocents raped, robbed or otherwise assaulted by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals.

       d) We might, BIG MIGHT, have proof of innocents executed, as recently as 1915. 

      

Where are the innocents at risk, by the hugest of margins?

       e) Executed criminals do not harm/murder, again,

2)  Murderers have three choices: 

a) they can stay the same, very bad; 

b) they can become worse, very bad indeed; or 

c) they can become better, which can mean, still pretty bad, all the way to sainthood, 

. . . meaning the probability of remaining a danger is much higher than the probability of becoming much better, or a continuing threat while in prison, after escape or after release.

3) If the death penalty is abolished and murderers can, only, receive a maximum sentence of LWOP, then they can murder as many as they wish, with no additional punishment.

                  

Since 1973, for some perspective, we have had 900,000 murders and 60 million violent crimes, THAT WE KNOW OF. In the US, only 25% of crimes result in conviction.

 

It's not hard to see where the innocents are at risk, unless a fact avoiding anti-death penalty person.

 

d) Enhanced deterrence - All severe sanctions deter some. Never has the deterrent effect of the death penalty or any other severe sanction been negated. They cannot be.

The death penalty/execution is the most severe sanction. 

 

Why do nearly 100% of murderers do all they can to avoid the death penalty and get life, instead? No, those murderers were not deterred, at least not that time, but they reflect the same basic nature that potential murderers and the rest of us do, which is:

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more, deters more. Rationally, indisputable.

The death penalty/executions are an enhanced deterrent over LWOP. 

 

Nobel Prize Laureate Gary Becker:

 

“the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” (Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate, by Adam Liptak, NY Times, NOV. 18, 2007)

"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (1964-2014) (The New York Times May 5, 2014). Becker was an economist, sociologist and empiricist at the U of Chicago.

 

Would you rather "risk" saving more innocent lives or risk sacrificing more innocent lives?  . . .  those are your two choices.

 

FN

1)  Pro Life: The Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/01/pro-life-death-penalty.html

2) a) The Catholic Church & The Death Penalty

13 (15) Factual Errors: 2018 CCC 2267 amendment

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/02/7-factual-errors-2018-ccc-2267-amendment.html 

  b)  Saint/Pope John Paul II marks the beginning of the Catholic Church's disastrous anti-death penalty run, 1995 forward, intentionally, avoiding the most basic of reason, research, fact checking and vetting, as detailed, throughout:

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors 

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/04/october-1997-pope-john-paul-ii-his.html 

3) Here are over 4000 pro death penalty philosophical, biblical and theological references, which either

a) support the death penalty or which

b) refute the biblical and theological objections to the death penalty.

Religion and The Death Penalty

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/03/religion-death-penalty.html 

4a) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

b)  Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/deterrence-death-penalties-executions.html  

5)  a) Texas Death Penalty Procedures

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/texas-death-penalty-procedures.html

b)  THE DEATH PENALTY: LEAST ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS SANCTION
Both the guilty & the innocent have the greatest of protections

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-death-penalty-neither-arbitrary-nor.html

more

 

The Woman Caught in Adultery, the Death Penalty & John 8:2-11

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-woman-caught-in-adultery-death.html

 

Pre-Constantine Death Penalty Support

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/pre-constantine-death-penalty-support.html

 

Judaism & the Death Penalty

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/02/jews-israel-death-penalty.html

 

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html

 

Quakers & The Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/quakers-death-penalty.html

 

A Refutation of the ELCA Social Statement on the Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-refutation-of-elca-social-statement.html

 

The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 

 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000 

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-exoneratedinnocent-frauds.html 

 

Forgiveness and Murder

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/10/forgiveness-and-murder-compiled-and.html

 

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge" 

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/05/death-penalty-revenge.html 

 

many others

 

======

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victims' families &

3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history

http://prodpquotes.info/ 

====== 

Victim Services

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/victim-services.html  

 

Victims' Voices

https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices 

======

 

Research, with sources, fact checking, vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.

 

Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and , then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts, for decades. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:

 

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html

and

Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research

(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html

======

 

Partial CV

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html

DEATH PENALTY COSTS: FLORIDA

Florida Adjusted Total Costs
Death penalty cases $500,000
Life without parole cases $1,953, 000

 As Virginia averages 7.1 years of appeals prior to execution, there is no doubt that Florida can do it within 10 years, unless all of the obstructionists are immovable.

 Let's presume Florida can be both accountable and responsible and can complete appeals by adding a whopping 41% more time than Virginia uses.

 That will save, on average $450,000/case on incarceration time/costs (1) and likely $50,000 or more to litigation time/costs, or a total of $500,000 per case, bringing the costs of the average death penalty case to $500,000, providing 5 1/2 years for state appeals and 4 1/2 years for federal appeals.

 Only obstructionists can fail to make this work.

 That would be considerably cheaper than lifers, who will cost about $1,953,000 total, or $1,453,000 more expensive than a death penalty case.

 LWOP cost calculations.

 Lifers would spend an average of 46 years in prison, at a cost of $1,104,000 at $24,000/yr, NOT including pre trial, trial, appeals or geriatric care costs.

 Presuming average incarceration at age 28, with an average 46 yr prison stay, dying at age 74 (2), geriatric care costs likely add $41, 000/yr (2) for 19 yrs., age 55-74 (1) ($779, 000 more), with all trial and appeals costs averaging at least $70,000/case (3).

 Of course, present valuing the cases will bring the costs closer together.

 These costs do not include a cost benefit of the death penalty, which is a plea bargain to a LWOP sentence, only possible with the presence of the death penalty. Therefore, if you save all trial and appeals cost in those plea bargained LWOP cases, it shows up as a credit to the death penalty side of the ledger, even more pronounced, if you present value the costs, which, at $70,000 per LWOP case, would equate to a full credit if present valued. a significant cost reduction for death penalty cases.

======================================

MANY ADDITIONAL STATE COST REVIEWS

DEATH PENALTY COST: SAVING MONEY
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

=======================================

1) Treasure Coast Death Row: Special report: Cost of Florida's death row easily exceeds $1M per inmate, Melissa E. Holsman, October 7, 2012 at 4:05 am
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/oct/07/newspaper-investigates-florida-death-row-cost/

These are only three cases, but this is the only cost review that I have seen, out of Florida, that attempted to get accurate costs, per case.

"Determining how much post-conviction death row appeals cost taxpayers is nearly impossible, especially in cases spanning decades. Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers took an in-depth look at the available expenses in three cases and here’s what was found:

ALFONSO CAVE:

Sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of Frances Julia Slater in the same year in Stuart.
$711,750: Estimated cost of housing Cave on Florida’s death row for 30 years
$348,000: Verified costs of post conviction appeals, which in part includes $163,025 in appellate attorneys fees; $27,904 in state attorney’s expenses; and $61,758 in costs for experts, witnesses and investigators

 J.B. “PIG" PARKER:
Sentenced to death in 1983 for the 1982 murder of Frances Julia Slater in Fort Pierce.
$688,025: Estimated cost of housing Parker on Florida’s death row for 29 years.
$296,000: Verified costs of post conviction appeals, which in part includes $31,016 in appellate attorneys fees (Parker also has received 29 years of free legal representation from a New York law firm); $3,020 in state attorney’s expenses; and $63,977 in costs for experts, witnesses and investigators.

DAVID ALAN GORE:

Executed April 12, after being sentenced to death in 1984 for the 1983 murder of Lynn Elliott in Vero Beach.
$664,300: Estimated cost of housing Gore on Florida’s death row for 28 years.
$210,000: Verified costs of post conviction appeals, which in part includes $149,489 in appellate attorneys fees; $7,442 in state attorney’s expenses; and $37,934 in costs for experts, witnesses and investigators.

(2) The Lives of Juvenile Lifers: Findings from a National Survey, p 33, March 2012, Ashley Nellis, Ph.D.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf

"The average cost of incarcerating a person is $22,000 annually. A life sentence that begins in one’s late teens can be expected to last at least 55 years. But with rising costs of older inmates, beginning at age 55, the annual cost is closer to $65,000."

3) The $70,000 assumes a 77% cost reduction in pre trial, trial and appeals going from a death penalty case ($300,000 average) down to $70,000 for a LWOP case.

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

DEATH PENALTY SUPPORT: CIVILIZED & INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES

DEATH PENALTY SUPPORT: CIVILIZED & INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
Dudley Sharp, updated 2021

The idea that some subjective definition of civilized countries or an objective description of industrialized countries matters in regard to the death penalty is nonsense.

There are a lot of nasty countries that don't have the death penalty, such as:

countries on 1 of 3 Amnesty Intl death penalty abolitionist countries lists: Yugoslavia, Algeria , Burma, Mexico, Congo, Rwanda, Angola, Uzbekistan, Croatia, Togo, Tunisia, Senegal, Nicaragua,

Some poorly industrialized and poorly civilized:

Some of the countries from the AI death penalty retentionist list: Bahamas, Barbados, United States, Belize, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Singapore, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines;

Some highly industrialized and very civilized.

So what?

Of much greater importance is that most people are good people and that it seems the majority of people in all countries support the death penalty for some crimes (1).

Why? Justice.

Folks find the death penalty just and appropriate for some crimes, the same moral foundation of support for all criminal sanctions.

Let's say I am right, that innocents are more protected with the death penalty (2). What is so civilized about countries that knowingly spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents?

In complete disregard for the truth, some say that jurisdictions with the death penalty have higher crime rates than those without it. Such claims are absolute nonsense (3) Some do, some don't.

NOTE:

countries with no death penalty law: 96
countries with the death penalty: 101
source: Amnesty Intl. AI plays with the numbers, but when you weed through their nonsense, this is the reality.

 FOOTNOTES

1) "Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

and

Death Penalty Support 72-86% depending upon question (8/2021)

New Evidence of Broad Support for Death Penalty | RealClearPolicy

Joseph M. Bessette & J. Andrew Sinclair, RealClearPolicy August 16, 2021 https://www.realclearpolicy.com/2021/08/16/new_evidence_of_broad_support_for_death_penalty_790059.html#! 

 

This study reflects well known polls, for the last 15 years, proving much higher  death penalty support than by the oft quoted, much less accurate Gallup.

2) a) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

b) "Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands", Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

c) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

d) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

e) "The 130 (now 141) death row "innocents" scam"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

3)    a)  Regarding violence - Detailed country by country review: "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

       b)   DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

       c)  DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html

RELATED ISSUES

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

"Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution--very-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES

DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
Dudley Sharp

updated 2015

Gross murder rates cannot be a consistent method of measuring deterrence, for a variety of well know reasons (1).

A measurement of net changes in murders, meaning that there would be more or less net murders, based upon executions or the lack, thereof, is the proper calculation, whether or not gross murder rates, go up, down or stay the same, just as with deterrence, all crimes and all crime rates.

As many anti death penalty folks, including academics, wrongly, present some gross murder numbers as a foundation for arguing against deterrence, I present this:

HISTORY: MURDER RATES AND EXECUTION CYCLES

Gross murder rates, by themselves are not the normal, accurate method of measuring deterrence, although some studies show reduced murders, soon after executions (1), however . . . .

1. The United States has had double digit executions, annually, from 1984 - 2014 (3).

Murders went to  46 year low (2),

Murder rates went to a 57 year low. (2).

It's not surprising that death sentences went to a 40 year low (3).

2. Double digit annual executions stopped in the US in 1964 and resumed in 1984 (3).

During that period, murders increased by 100%

murders in 1964 9,360 (2)

murders in 1984 18,670 (2)

3. There was a moratorium on all executions in the US from 1967 to 1977 (3).

During that period, there was a 56% increase in murders (2).

murders is 1967 were 12,240 (2)

murders in 1977 were 19,120 (2)

TEXAS

Capital murders may have dropped by 80% or more in Texas since 1991 (2).

Murder in combination with robberies makes up, by far, the largest percentage of death penalty eligible murders.

Murders have dropped 55%, robberies 35% (2).

A much lower occurrence of robbery/murders equals a much lower number of death sentences.

The per capita robbery/murders will have dropped even more dramatically, because Texas has seen a population explosion during this period.

Murders rates have dropped 71%, robberies 60% (2).

The drop in capital murders is but the most obvious and pronounced explanation for a drop in death sentences.

Contributions to that drop also include:

1) Plea bargains to life without parole (LWOP) , a plea only possible with the death penalty;
2) Two classes of murderers have been excluded from the death penalty, that being those under 18 and those with mental retardation; and
3) Depending upon conditions within individual jurisdictions, with a downturn in the economy, the up front costs of the death penalty may have caused some jurisdictions to offer either plea bargains or lesser than death penalty option trials, to a degree more than in the past.

and others

=================

1) a) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

    b)  DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

     c) "DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED"

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html

NOTE:  There are some deterrence studies which find a reduction in murders, soon after executions. However, I am, primarily, dealing with murders and murder rates for any given year.

2) United States Crime Data, from FBI UCR
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The Disaster Center is a convenient and reliable source for crime data

and see 1957, from
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

Texas
             murders    robberies
1991      2652           47900
2014      1192           31021
dif          1460           16870
less         55%            35%

US
              murders      robberies
1991        24,700      687,730
2014       14,164        322,905
dif           10,536        364,725      
less          43%              53%

Source: Disaster Center, from FBI UCR
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/


3) Capital Punishment, 2013 - Statistical Tables, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Tracy Snell, Dec 2014, Table 11, page 14, and Figure 5, page 3.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp10st.pdf

RELATED ISSUES

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

"DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html

Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED

DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED

Dudley Sharp

There is much confusion about deterrence, some, understandable and, some, intentional.

There are many examples of murder rates dropping or being lower in death penalty jurisdictions.

And many examples of murder rates dropping or being lower in non death penalty jurisdictions.

In different instances, murder/crime rates might suggest deterrence or non deterrence of sanctions.

In other words, gross murder/crime rates are not, necessarily, a consistent or accurate method of showing or understanding deterrence (1). There are some deterrence studies which find a reduction in murders, soon after executions.  However, I am, primarily, dealing with murders and murder rates for any given year.

Some anti death penalty folks work hard to muddy the waters - as with this study, wherein some thought the criminologists had agreed that the death penalty deters none, a finding not confirmed within the study and which cannot be confirmed, ever.

"Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

Confusion and understanding, respectively, are revealed by these two questions from a death penalty opponent.

Confusion: "If the deterrence contention holds true, why does the enthusiastic application of the death penalty not suppress the overall murder rate across all death penalty states?"

Then, with understanding:

"I understand your point that the death penalty has some deterrent effect. Perhaps the citizens of South Dakota are simply more homicidal than their northern neighbors, and without the death penalty keeping them in check, the murder rate would go through the roof."

Yes, it has some deterrent effect, but it is clear he had not read the provided deterrence studies because they contradicted his comment about murder rates going through the roof.

The deterrent effect has a small impact on murder rates, but a substantial savings in innocent lives, as reviewed below.

The death penalty, as all criminal sanctions, deters some, which will be reflected in net murder/crime rates, but not gross ones, consistently, as explained: Whether murder/crime rates are high or low, whether they are rising, falling or staying, roughly, the same, all sanctions deter some, in all jurisdictions.

A perfect example of this is:

"Henderson, Nev., takes the No. 2 spot (America's Safest Cities) despite its location within the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Las Vegas-Paradise, which ranked ninth this year on Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities." (2)

Does this mean no potential criminals are deterred in Las Vegas-Paradise and yet some are deterred in Henderson?

Of course not. Some are deterred in both.

It means that there are different factors in each jurisdiction which provide for different crime rates, as with all jurisdictions, inclusive of the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, within both jurisdictions.

This should come as no surprise.

Death penalty opponent response: "However, the fact that murder rates are lower across the board in non death penalty (USA) states suggests that there is something else, some more effective deterrent which you would do well to investigate, if you weren't hidebound by your single minded advocacy of the death penalty."

They are not lower across the board. Even if they were, it could not contradict the clear and accurate point.

Furthermore, anti death penalty folks neglect the obvious reality that there are a very wide range of murder/crime rates between communities/cities/counties, within each individual state, be they death penalty or not, revealing the obvious error of the opponents intended point (3).

I think everyone knows that there are multiple deterrents to committing crime: Morality, change of social status if caught, the prospect of being caught and/or sanctioned, being the four most obvious (3)

Note that the 24 recent studies, finding for deterrence (4), find for deterrence of from 1-28 murders prevented per execution. Deterrence was also found to exist just by the presence of the death penalty statute.

While this represents a substantial and very important savings of innocent lives, it has a small impact on murder rates.

The US has averaged around 33 executions per year since 1973, which equals a deterrent savings of innocents lives of from 33 to 924 per year.

My estimate is that the US has averaged about 18,000 murders per years since 1973 (5).

The deterrent effect provides a near negligible impact on the murder rate (min 0.2% to max 5%), based upon those deterrence studies, but provides a huge savings in innocent lives.

Even without those studies, most of us realize that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is an unqualified truism, for which no exception exists. Some are so hidebound by their opposition to the death penalty that they must find that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the ONLY criminal sanction that deters none - a truly absurd notion.

1)   a)  "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

      b)  DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

2) "America's Safest Cities", Lifestyle section, Forbes, 12/15/2011,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethgreenfield/2011/12/15/americas-safest-cities/

and also

Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America, NeighborhoodScout
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods/

11 have no death penalty,  4 of those are the most violent. 

3) See Sections C and D within:

The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

4) 28 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrencefull.htm

5) The Disaster Center, from FBI, UCR Reports

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Related Issues:

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION

99.7% of murderers tells us "Give me life, not execution"
Dudley Sharp

Do potential murderers prefer life over death and fear death more than life?

Of course, just as we all do.

Since 1973, there have been about 50,000 murderers (1) who may have qualified for the death penalty, based upon post Furman laws.

As of 2012, only 0.3% of those "volunteered" for execution, by waiving their appeals, and were executed.

 The rest, 99.7%, have fought for life and against the death penalty/execution, using plea bargains, trials, appeals and commutation, in any fashion possible to avoid death.

No surprise. Death is feared more than life. Life is preferred over death, not just with murderers, but with all of us, save for the determined suicidal.

That's a fact based review of which sanction murderers find to be more severe and is just one example of why executions are found to deter more than life (2).

Would a more reasoned group, potential murderers who chose not to murder, also, overwhelmingly fear death more than life? Of course, just as we all do.

I don't think it even arguable, that had those 0.3% "volunteers" been given the option of life over death, that they would have chosen life.

I am aware of only 1 murderer, in the modern death penalty era, who pled guilty, sought the death penalty and then, after receiving it, waived appeals.

Arguably, then, 99.99% prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

That which we fear the most, deters the most.

FOOTNOTES:

1) a) As of 2012, there have been about 8300 sent to death row since 1973. Of those, about 140, or 1.7%, have "volunteered" for execution. So far, 98.3% of those sent to death row prefer life over execution.

b) Only about 1/3 of all death penalty cases that go to trial end with a death sentence; 2/3 of the defendants received sentences less than death, as they wanted. (Source: Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty, by Mark Costanzo)  Total, that is about 25, 200 cases.

c) Even more death penalty eligible cases, an additional 24,800 or so, are otherwise, given sentences less than death, as they wished.

 Of the 50,000 eligible cases, only about 140 "volunteered" for execution.

 99.7% chose life.

NOTE: I estimate that about 10% of all murders (that being 700,000, post Furman, 1973-2012) are death penalty eligible, or about 70,000 murders. I reduced that to 50,000 murderers, based upon some cases of multiple capital murders per murderer.

Some estimate the percentage of capital murders to be as high as 15-20%, as a percentage of all murders., which would mean it much less likely they prefer death over life, than my review shows.

(2)   See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

"DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html

DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

======

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html

FORGIVENESS and MURDER

updated October, 2023

FORGIVENESS and MURDER

compiled and written by Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

 As Mary, from the blog, Broken Alabaster, writes:

"(Mary) was aware of the souls who would not receive her son's (Jesus') grace. She had the spiritual awareness of knowing that for some her son's death would be in vain. This caused her great grief - as it did Christ." (1)

Exactly, some did not receive her Son's grace. Why?

Because forgiveness has some requirements. It is not automatic. Nor should it be. If forgiveness was automatic, there would have been no need for Christ.
==========

Please review:

Who gives forgiveness for murder? Dudley Sharp
July 10, 2007 - Victoria Advocate

Cornelus Garza told the murderer of his wife, Janie Elizabeth, "I don't forgive you"("You should be locked up forever," July 07, 2007, Victoria Advocate).

Even if he wanted to forgive the murderer, does he have that right?

It is not up to Mr. Garza to forgive the murderer. It is up to the principal party harmed - Janie Elizabeth.

No one disputes that all of those who loved and knew Janie Elizabeth were terribly wronged and hurt, severely, by her murder.

If my uncle was robbed, what does it mean for me to forgive the robber? If anything, it is an insult to the harm my uncle has suffered.

The act of forgiveness is quite unique.

If we go by biblical instruction, it includes that the wrongdoer confess their wrong, find honest sorrow and remorse and state that they will do all they can to not harm again - to change their ways, prior to any forgiveness being given, by the specific party harmed.

To forgive those who have not repented is to give approval of what they have done, while rejecting the importance of responsibility and atonement. It would not be mercy, but insult.

Murder is unique, both biblically and secularly.

Biblically, the crime of murder is viewed as, exactly, a crime against God, because man is made in the image of God. It is an eternal crime. Murderers can take responsibility for their crimes, they can work to change, but there can be no atonement for murder.

Secularly, meaning, with no expectation of a godhead or afterlife, it is only this earthly life that we have, so murder curtails an even greater portion of our lives.

Can murderers be forgiven by God? Biblically, the answer is clearly yes. Can murderers receive true forgiveness on earth? The answer is clearly no.

Please read, below.
=================

"The Sin of Forgiveness", Dennis Prager

http://metaphysicalperegrine.blogspot.com/2009/02/sin-of-forgiveness.html

The Limits of Forgiveness:

Forgiveness needs to be earned, not dispensed lightly,

Geraldine K. Piorkowski Ph.D., Psychology Today. October 22, 2023

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-pipe-dreams-and-platitudes/202310/the-limits-of-forgiveness  

"Forgiveness Comes Cheap", Pamela Fitzsimmons

http://www.heldtoanswer.com/2011/07/forgiveness-comes-cheap/

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

"TOLERANCE, UNDERSTANDING, AND FORGIVENESS",  GARY W. SUMMERS
http://www.spiritualperspectives.org/articles/documents/forgive.html

"The More Given, The Less Earned", Dennis Prager

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/21/the_more_given_the_less_earned_96085.html

======

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &

3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history

http://prodpquotes.info/ 

 

Victim Services

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/03/victim-services.html  

 

Victims' Voices

https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices 

======

 

Additional research,w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.  

 

1) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html

and

Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html

======

 

Partial CV

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/08/partial-cv-dudley-sharp-independent.html 

A Refutation of the ELCA Social Statement on The Death Penalty

A Refutation of the ELCA Social Statement on The Death Penalty
By Kenneth Lohr

The statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on The Death Penalty is a confusing document. It says that its teaching authority is not coercive and that the moral deliberation on the death penalty is not finished; yet it commits the ELCA to work for the abolition of the death penalty. It claims to affirm the Lutheran Confessions1 and then proceeds to negate them. In my analysis of the statement, I begin with the Confessions.

The Augsburg Confession states:

It is taught among us that all government in the world and all established rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake of good order, and that Christians may without sin occupy civil offices or serve as princes and judges, render decisions and pass sentence according to imperial and other existing laws, punish evildoers with the sword. . . . (XVI.1-2).2

The Apology further explains:

[T]he Gospel does not introduce laws concerning the civil state,but is the remission of sins and the beginning of a new life in the hearts of believers. . . . [P]rivate redress is prohibited not by advice, but by a command. Public redress, which is made through the office of the magistrate, is not advised against but is commanded, and is a work of God according to Paul3 (XVI.58, 59).4

The Large Catechism also states:

[N]either God nor the government are included in this [fifth] commandment.5 Nor are they deprived in this commandment of their right to take human life. For God has delegated his authority to punish evildoers to the civil government. . . . Therefore what is forbidden here applies not to governments but to private individuals. . . . [T]he hangman does not sin against God’s commandment because God himself instituted that office (I.180-181, 274).6

The Formula of Concord places under a list of “intolerable articles in the body politic” the following “errors of the Anabaptists”:

That as occasion arises no Christian, without violating his conscience, may use an office of the government against wicked people, and that subjects may not call upon the government to use the power that it possesses and that it has received from God for their protection and defense. . . . That in the New Testament the government cannot with a clear conscience inflict capital punishment upon criminals (Epitome XII.14,16).7

The last two condemnations are reiterated elsewhere (Solid Declaration XII.19,21).8 Furthermore, in Romans 13, Paul states that the civil authority is the ordinance of God, and that in bearing the sword the civil ruler is “the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (v. 4).9

Retribution Negated

The social statement declares that members of the ELCA continue their deliberation, “upholding together the authority of Scripture, Creeds, and Confessions” (p. 2).10 Then under “An Affirmation,” it again refers to “Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions,” but what follows is anything but an affirmation. Rather, it attempts to show that capital punishment is objectionable, and offers the fact that it is retributive as a reason why Christians should object to it: “Capital punishment focuses on retribution, sometimes reflecting a spirit of vengeance. . . . The death penalty exacts and symbolizes the ultimate personal retribution” (p. 3). Here the social statement negates the biblical and confessional position that retribution by the state is ordained by God.

The argument preceding the previous quotation must be examined. It claims that,
Renewed by the Gospel, Christians, as salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13) and light of the world (5:14), are called to respond to violent crime in the restorative way taught by Jesus (5:38-39) and shown by his actions (John 8:3-11) [p. 2].

I note from Matthew 5:38-39 that, although striking someone on the cheek may technically qualify as a violent crime, it is certainly not the clearest of examples. The illustrations that follow (5:40-42) are not violent crimes, nor is adultery (John 8:3-11). The phrase quoted in Matthew 5:38—“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” 11 —denotes a principle of the Law of Moses. In Matthew it is not an illustration of actual maiming. “Do not resist one who is evil” would indeed be an unwise counsel if the evil included life-threatening crimes. My contention is that Jesus presumed the validity and propriety of civil punishments to bind the evildoer’s hands, and that this is precisely the reason why he condemned personal retribution. (For instance, Luke 23:39-43 implies that civil punishment is morally sound: Jesus voices no protest to the criminal’s statement, “We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.”)

Two Kingdoms Improperly Distinguished

The section of the social statement under discussion begins by making a distinction between the Law and the Gospel. The concept of “Gospel” is developed, but the concept of “Law” is apparently transformed into “restorative justice,” which has little to do with the Law. What is really meant by this term is restorative righteousness, or charity, which pertains to the Gospel. The word “justice” when applied to civil law means “the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.”12 The social statement has failed to distinguish between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth. The Apology addresses this very mistake:

How poor the judgment of many writers in these matters has been is evident from their erroneous view that the Gospel is something external, a new and monastic form of government. Thus they failed to see that the Gospel brings eternal righteousness to hearts, while it approves the civil government (XVI.8).13

Such poor judgment in the social statement becomes apparent in the following:
It is because of this church’s ministry with and to people affected by violent crime that we oppose the death penalty. Executions focus on the convicted murderer, providing very little for the victim’s family or anyone else whose life has been touched by the crime (p. 3).

This is mere caviling. It’s not reasonable to condemn something because it fails to accomplish some end that is irrelevant to its purpose. It’s not the purpose of the death penalty (or any punishment) to address the hurt of victims of violent crime or of their families. This silly objection rises out the previous application of an inapposite sense of “justice.”

Root Causes vis-à-vis Contributing Conditions

Another example of a crafty, manipulative use of ambiguous words is this remark: “Lutheran Christians have called for an assault on the root causes of violent crime, an assault for which executions are no substitute” (p. 3). Checking the supporting quotations in the footnote, one finds that the statement is not an accurate paraphrase. The LCA document14 speaks of “social conditions which breed hostility toward society and disrespect for the law.” The ALC document15 speaks of “conditions which contribute to crime.” The term “root cause” has a far different connotation than merely a contributing condition.

The social statement’s deviations from the Lutheran Confessions up to this point are located in matters pertaining primarily to civil punishment. The previous quotation, however, is an implicit deviation from central Christian doctrines, and as such warrants the designation “heresy.” The root cause of violent crime is the same as that of all sin: it is in human nature. There are two important aspects of this nature, one of which is freedom:
It is also taught among us that man possesses some measure of freedom of the will which enables him to live an outwardly honorable life and to make choices among the things that reason comprehends. . . . On the other hand, by his own choice man can also undertake evil, as when he wills to kneel before an idol, commit murder, etc.” (Augsburg Confession XVIII.1,7).16

The other aspect of human nature is our disposition toward evil, which theology calls original sin:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men . . . are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs. . . . (Augsburg Confession II.1).17

Human beings have the inclination toward evil, but they also have the freedom and capability of restraint in the outward matters of life. Moreover, the need for such restraint is easily grasped by human reason. Hence, in the Christian view, the single factor that may be considered the preeminent cause of violent crime is the individual’s own conscious decision—barring, of course, instances of insanity or diminished mental capacity.

The social statement, in calling social conditions the root causes of crime, suggests that violent criminal behavior is essentially the result of external conditions. Thus it implicitly denies both human freedom and the natural human disposition toward evil, which exists independently of any negative external stimulus. If its use of the term “root cause” does not seem to be sufficient grounds for this charge, then one should note that the statement goes on to say that executions “are no substitute” for an assault on the causes of crime. The implication is that the threat of punishment is completely ineffective in influencing human behavior. This also implies that people are somehow compelled to acts of violence by external forces. But it is not reasonable to hold that human beings have an inherent disposition toward evil and the freedom to act accordingly, yet maintain that these aspects of human nature play no significant role in acts of violence. Conversely, there is no logical reason to suggest that violent crime is fundamentally the result of external causes, but that less egregious evils are not the results of such cases. Hence, if one believes that violence at the individual level is caused by external conditions, the only reasonable next step is to deny human freedom and original sin. If human beings are without original sin, then they have little need of Christ for righteousness’ sake. If they do not have some measure of freedom, then both sin and righteousness are meaningless.

It should be said that social conditions do contribute to violence. Violent crime is not exclusively the failure of the individual, although it ultimately is. There are social factors that supply motives for crime. But, a motive, under the law, is not an excuse but a consideration that indicates the degree of a person’s guilt. Nevertheless, Christians in a democracy may and should strive toward correcting social conditions that foster crime.

Determinism and Innate Goodness

The social statement calls for a moral deliberation on this subject, “informed by reason and knowledge, including the social sciences” (p. 5). Here a note of caution is needed: the idea of the freedom of the human will is not necessarily a guiding principle of the social sciences. The philosophy of determinism maintains that all human behavior is the result of genetic and environmental causes, and that freedom of the will is an illusion. Determinism is popular in all quarters since it absolves human beings from all wrongdoing, real or imagined, but it is especially common among scholars of the human sciences. Thus, what is to the Christian mind a contributing factor is often to the sociologist a cause (that is, a determinant).

Likewise, the idea that humans are naturally inclined toward evil is not universally accepted. Even where some measure of freedom is acknowledged, many observers believe that people are innately good. Thus criminal behavior is seen as abnormal, and so must have an external or abnormal physiological cause. These facts must be borne in mind by the Christian. It is important to ascertain the researcher’s bias and read his or her work critically. Christians must remember that while we can improve society, we cannot improve human nature. Even an ideal society would always have need of punishment.

Impartiality or Unfairness

So far, I have considered the social statement’s departure from the Lutheran Confessions. Now I shall critique it on the basis of reason. There is a faulty argument in the following: “. . . the death penalty has not been and cannot be made fair. The race of the victim plays a role in who is sentenced to death and who is sentenced to life imprisonment. . . .” (p. 4).

If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that death is an appropriate punishment for murder, then a person who commits murder and is sentenced to death has received a just punishment. The fact that another murderer receives a somewhat more lenient sentence is not an injustice to the person receiving the death sentence. The study cited in the social statement may demonstrate that courts have not been impartial in their sentencing, but this lack of impartiality (unfairness) in people is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the death penalty. One might explain this point by using an analogy. Employers are required by law, and rightly so, to be impartial with respect to race, sex, etc., in their hiring practices. Now if it were proved that employers were practicing flagrant discrimination in their hiring, one could not infer from this fact that employment is unfair and should be abolished. The maxim—“Misuse does not destroy the substance, but confirms its existence”—may be applied here (cf. Large Catechism IV.59).18 There is another observation that should be made in comparing employment and punishment: applicants for employment are competing against one another for a limited number of openings. If favoritism is involved in hiring, then the winners of the competition may not truly deserve to win; consequently, the losers may not deserve to lose. But there is no similarity here with civil punishment. Those accused of crimes are not competing against each other for a limited quantity of punishment or mercy. Thus the fact that one criminal receives undue leniency has no bearing whatsoever on the justice of another criminal’s sentence. The social statement’s argument that discrepancies in sentencing are an injustice cannot be confined to its present application. If the death penalty is unjust because some of its candidates are sentenced only to life imprisonment without parole, then life without parole is unjust because some of its candidates receive an even lesser sentence, and so on.

Retribution and Necessity

Many of the social statement’s other objections to the death penalty are also irrelevant. The most important is that capital punishment is retribution. All punishments repay evil for evil. In fact, most punishments are acts that might otherwise be considered immoral. Killing, if it is not a punishment by the state, is murder. Fines are akin to extortion, seizure of property, theft; and imprisonment, kidnaping. Moreover, life imprisonment is a permanent revocation of freedom.

If one denounces retribution, what logical reason is there to claim that imposing such a penalty as life imprisonment is not immoral? The answer commonly proposed today is that evil is justified when it is necessary; and imprisonment is necessary, whereas death generally is not. This view is implicit in the social statement’s comment, “God entrusts the state with power to take human life when failure to do so constitutes a clear danger to society” (p. 2), that is, only when it is necessary for the safety of society, which is seldom or never. Although this moralization seems reasonable at first glance, it is nearly useless in justifying civil punishment. The fact that a person has committed a crime does not indicate with certainty that he or she will do it again. A crime committed in the past poses no threat to society in the present. Therefore, if the punishment of any particular person must be necessary for the safety of society, that person must clearly be a habitual criminal. The idea that evil is justified when it is necessary is thus impracticable as a general moral guideline.

The social statement ignores Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and reason in favor of the current popular philosophy. The statement—“God entrusts the state with power to take human life when failure to do so constitutes a clear danger to society”—amends the commandment of God. Thus it teaches as doctrine the precepts of human beings, but it is the nature of the amendment that is truly dangerous. It substitutes necessity for retribution as the justification for evil. The condemnation of retribution condemns nearly every civil penalty, and it implies that the imposition of punishment negates social moral standards. Consider the following statements: “Executions harm society by mirroring and reinforcing existing injustice” (p. 3); and, “The practice of the death penalty undermines any possible moral message we might want to ‘send’” (p. 4).

The suggestion here is that the death penalty is the state’s implicit endorsement of murder. Though this suggestion is half-baked, it is nevertheless widely received in today’s intellectual climate. Moreover, this argument is inapplicable. It follows that imprisonment is the state’s implicit endorsement of kidnaping; seizure of property, of theft; and fines, of extortion. The former LCA called for “a massive assault on those social conditions which breed hostility toward society and disrespect for the law.” Such an assault must begin by publicly condemning the ELCA statement on the death penalty.

To summarize, the social statement is crafty, illogical, implicitly heretical, and undermining to civil government. It should be rescinded, and the procedure for developing social statements revised. The fact that these documents are not coercive in their teaching authority should not be a license for them to contradict the Lutheran Confessions.

Notes

1 The “Lutheran Confessions,” i.e., the Book of Concord, published 1580. Cf. the Model Constitution for Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, sections C2.05 and C2.06.

2 Theodore G. Tappert et al., trans., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), p. 37.

3 Friedrich Bente et al., trans., Triglot Concordia: The Symbolic Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, German-Latin-English (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921). http://bookofconcord.org

4 Sections 6 and 7 in Tappert.

5 The fifth (or sixth) commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”

6 F. Samuel Janzow, trans., Luther’s Large Catechism: A Contemporary Translation with Study Questions (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978), pp. 41, 56.

7 Tappert, p. 499.

8 Ibid., p. 634.

9 Cf. I Peter 2:13-14.

10 A Social Statement on the Death Penalty (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1991). http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements.aspx (accessed 23 Sept. 2012). Page numbers cited refer to the first printing of the social statement (or PDF format).

11 Ex. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21.

12 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 1987).

13 Tappert, p. 223.

14 Capital Punishment (Lutheran Church in America, 1966).

15 Capital Punishment (American Lutheran Church, 1972).

16 Tappert, pp. 39, 40.

17 Ibid., p. 29.

18 Ibid., p. 444.
Further Recommended Reading
Andreski, Stanislav. Social Sciences as Sorcery. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973.
Lewis, C.S. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.” God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper. Grand Rapids, Mich.

Eerdmans Publishing, 1970: 287-300. Posted at:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/IssuesInReligionAndPsychotherapy/article/viewFile/273/272
______________________________________________________________________________

© 1999, 2012 by Kenneth Lohr. This article was first published in Lutheran Forum 32, No. 4 (Wint. 1998), pp. 29-31. Reprinted at prodpinnc by permission of the author.