My recent posts on this subject were intended to be the beginning of a series of posts concerning the sancity and dignity of life--itself. But my posts have brought some response to me in the form of e-mails and comments here, which evolved to the church and its interference with the publics right to execute people under their sovereign secular laws. Or at least that appears to me to be a valid question posed to me.
What does the church {Catholic Church} say about the death penalty? Well actually the thought process has evolved over time as society has evolved. Morality evolves as we humans become more capable of grasping "GOD'S" desire on these subjects.
Concerning capital punishment--the Church has asked whether society may take the life of the guilty? In answering-- the Church has always turned first to what "GOD" reveals to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Yet Scripture alone is not conclusive on the matter. In the Old Testament-- the first murderer's punishment is not death. "GOD" cursed and banished Cain for slaying Abel-- but also threatened a sevenfold vengeance on anyone who harmed him (Gen 4:15). However, when Noah leaves the Ark-- the Lord blesses him and says to him: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for "GOD" made man in his own image."(Gen 9:6).
When "GOD" gives Moses the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against killing is not absolute. The ordinances given to Moses in conjunction with the commandments prescribe death for murderers and others. Despite this-- "GOD" occasionally calls for restraint and mercy. As He says to Ezekiel: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from his ways and live"(Ez 33:11).
Like the Old Testament, the New Testament is not conclusive about capital punishment. On one hand-- Jesus certainly stresses the need to be merciful. Consider the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt 13:24-30). In this parable, the wheat and the tares represent the righteous and the evildoers. Both are allowed to coexist. Unrepentant evildoers will be punished only at the end of time. The point is that ultimately "GOD" alone punishes grave offenders.
On the other hand-- Jesus seems to tolerate the practice of capital punishment. When Pilate tells Jesus he has the power to release him or have him crucified, Jesus answers: "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above."(Jn 19:11) Jesus refers only to the divine basis of civil power, and does not judge the morality of capital punishment. Nor does he contradict the good thief crucified next to him: "We are receiving the due reward of our deeds---"(Lk 23:41)
St. Paul addresses the issue of capital punishment in his Letter to the Romans. He writes: "Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom 13:3-4, emphasis added) Here St. Paul simply tolerates a ruler's authority to carry out capital punishment, without commenting on its morality. Certainly his toleration need not imply his approval.
Neither does the Church in the post-apostolic age establish a clear consensus regarding capital punishment. The views of this period range from accommodation to limited acceptance to outright prohibition of the practice. St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) was the first Christian teacher to attempt to devise a theory accommodating capital punishment. He justified his position from the standpoint of self-defense. He suggested that one could become evil beyond any expectation for reform or "cure." In this case the evildoer may be removed by death to prevent further evildoing. He was the first to argue that an evildoer is like an infected limb that plagues the body. If it cannot be cured, the physician (the judge and executioner) must remove it to prevent the infection from harming the rest of the body (society). Others like Tertullian (c.160-220) and Origen (c.185-220) accepted capital punishment as a civil reality-- but condemned Christian participation in it. St. John Chrysostom (349-407) and St. Augustine (354-430) recognized the Christian emperor's "power of the sword," even while they thought its application severe on occasion. Still others like Lactantius (d.317) believed that the Fifth Commandment's prohibition against killing allowed no exceptions, even civil.
By the Middle Ages, Christians widely accepted the civil power's right to put evildoers to death. Even so-- the Church was quick to condition this right. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for example-- points out that only a public authority may judge and execute a serious offender where the society's defense is at stake, and where the offender's reform is not expected. St. Thomas leaves no room for private vigilantism.
Following St. Thomas, Catholic moral theologians down to our own day continued to qualify the situations where the death penalty may be applied. Eventually, they formulated three general prerequisites:
For the defense of society, only a public authority may impose capital punishment. This condition excludes both individual and mob acts of vengeance.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if it corresponds to the gravity of the crime. In peacetime, capital punishment is chiefly reserved for the crime of murder.
Capital punishment may be imposed only if the accused person's guilt is morally certain. In normal circumstances this means the accused has the right to a fair trial and a reasonable defense.
The Church Asks: Should We?
Up to this point, we have only examined whether-- according to Catholic teaching-- society has the right to impose capital punishment. There is another pertinent question Catholic teaching considers, namely-- "Should society exercise that right?" Those answering in the affirmative traditionally appeal to three arguments:
Capital punishment as retribution. It restores the balance of justice by inflicting punishment in exchange for the harm done to an individual and society. Opponents of this argument criticize it for being vindictive. They argue capital punishment cannot be applied in degrees. Yet a convict's culpability for a capital crime often does admit of degrees.
Capital punishment as deterrence. The threat of death discourages someone from committing heinous acts against individuals and society. Critics dispute the deterrent capability of capital punishment. They say capital punishment may even harden a criminal, who-- to avoid arrest and the prospect of execution-- is driven to further acts of desperation. Nor will capital punishment effectively deter murders committed "in the heat of passion"--or by the mentally ill or those under the influence of drugs. Finally, critics wonder how executions performed in the presence of just a few witnesses can publicly deter potential wrongdoers.
Capital punishment as reform. The threat of imminent death can spur the conversion and repentance of the convicted-- aptly preparing him or her for the next life. Yet, execution poignantly eliminates a converted criminal's period of earthly grace and penitence-- since one's lifetime is the only period of "probation" one can enjoy.
Authoritative Catholic teaching draws upon all that has been discussed thus far. It distinguishes between society's right to inflict capital punishment-- and the need to do so. While the Church does not deny the death penalty's proper legitimacy under certain conditions, she does oppose its modern application, given the particular circumstances of our culture.
Various national conferences of Catholic bishops have defended this teaching. The U.S. bishops have observed how the abolition of capital punishment would reaffirm the Church's teaching on "the unique worth and dignity of each human person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God" (U.S. Bishops Statement on Capital Punishment, Nov. 1980). Along this line, the Filipino bishops have rejected the classic notion comparing a criminal execution to the removal of a diseased organ. They note that a "human being is not only a member of society as an organ is a member of a living body---". A human being has a value in himself/herself and is not---.a limb or organ---." ("Restoring the Death Penalty: 'A Backward Step,'" Catholic International, 15-31 Oct. 1992, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 886-887).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II-- remains a definitive source of recent authoritative Catholic teaching on capital punishment. It states that the "defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm"(CCC 2266). The Catechism is clear about what this implies: "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (CCC 2267).
Thus-- the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however-- the Catechism adds an important caveat: "If...non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (CCC 2267).
Papal teaching also plays a most instructive role in elaborating Catholic teaching on capital punishment. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul writes:
The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent (Evangelium Vitae, 56, emphasis added).
According to the Holy Father, a society's inability to protect itself by any other means is the determining factor in the decision to execute a criminal. Since our society can remove those guilty of serious offenses by means of life imprisonment, the Holy Father judges as negligible society's need to use the death penalty. Inflicting capital punishment when it is not necessary would transgress Catholic teaching. The pope's opposition to the use of the death penalty is therefore a legitimate exercise of his pastoral leadership as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Finally-- Catholic teaching on capital punishment is an opportunity to examine our own attitudes. While we must show compassion for the victims of crime and support society's legitimate and just self-defense-- in Christ we are not free to direct revenge or hate toward anyone. This includes those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. To aid the new evangelization in the new millennium-- we must take the words of the American bishops' 1999 Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty to heart:
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life--. Through education, through advocacy, and through prayer and contemplation on the life of Jesus-- we must commit ourselves to a persistent and principled witness against the death penalty-- against a culture of death, and for the Gospel of Life.
In my orginal post on this subject which did not include nor consider my church's position, I gave my own thoughts on this subject, as I do on all matters of life. I--after decades of thought and study have determined that it is best to always defer to life. That "GOD" is the ultimate judge and keeper of life and death. but i felt it is important to include this post from my soapbox --so that the subject can be contemplated from not only my point of view--but my church's point of view as well.
And it is now time for me to stumble off to bed and see if Yodi has left me any room for my weary body. He decided to take advantage of my late night musings to grab as much covers as possible.
Blessings my friends--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Consider the possibility that Pope John Paul II was in error in his death penalty position and that the Church neglected 2000 years of rational, biblical, theological and traditonal foundations when it adopted its new position (since 1997).
---------------------
Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07
SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.
Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."
This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.
Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration.
First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.
When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them.
Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers.
Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.
History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions.
If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.
If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, saving more innocent lives.
No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 10 recent ones, find that executions do deter.
As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives.
If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.
Thirdly, we know that some criminals don't murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it.
Executions save more innocent lives.
Therefore, the Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered -- a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope's, and other's, conclusions.
Contrary to the Church's belief, that the Pope's opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.
Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended -- unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims.
When the choice is between
1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or
2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered,
the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)
Pope John Paul II's death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.
Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all.
A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important fact.
Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.
Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.
These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope's position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Pope John Paul II's prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.
Most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction.
1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression.
4. Deterrence
It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was incomplete and improper.
At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.
The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.
For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution.
(read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
"In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)
Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment." ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.
Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.
The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from 'paramount obedience' to God's eternal law to a civil standard reflecting 'steady improvements' . . . in the penal system?". Such teachings hadn't changed. The Pope's position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings.
If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent "paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?
The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.
Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society -- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)
The Pope's position is now based upon the state of the corrections system -- a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before -- meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then -- were and are well aware of.
Since it's inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it would have been revealed long before 1995.
There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard. The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder.
If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.
The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.
Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope.
"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)
Again, with regard to the Pope's prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent.
Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.
In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes.
Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?
Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.
So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?
It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.
The Pope's position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstruct the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops.
(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,
in a blog (replace dot) domid.blogspot(DOT)com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007
NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.
(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at
homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective" at
www(DOT)sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm
(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
www(dot)st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
(5) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?", KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
(6) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS" , KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp
(7) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty", by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
www(dot)tfp.org/crusade/crusade_mag_vol_87.pdf
(8) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
www(dot)firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022
(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld(DOT)compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm
(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
copyright 1997-2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharp(at)aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
Post a Comment