Blog | Balancing the Scales

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Dudley Sharp
The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.
Anti death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.
The majority populations of all countries may support the death penalty for some crimes (1).
Why? Justice.
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html
MORAL FOUNDATIONS: DEATH PENALTY PT. 1
1) 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).
2) Pope Pius XII; “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.
3) John Murray: “Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life.”
“... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty.”
“It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit.” (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).
4) Immanuel Kant: “If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.”.
“A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral.”
5) Billy Graham: “God will not tolerate sin. He condemns it and demands payment for it. God could not remain a righteous God and compromise with sin. His holiness and His justice demand the death penalty.” ( “The Power of the Cross,” published in the Apr. 2007 issue of Decision magazine ).
6) Theodore Roosevelt: “It was really heartrending to have to see the kinfolk and friends of murderers who were condemned to death, and among the very rare occasions when anything governmental or official caused me to lose sleep were times when I had to listen to some poor mother making a plea for a criminal so wicked, so utterly brutal and depraved, that it would have been a crime on my part to remit his punishment.”.
7) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.” (The Social Contract).
8) John Locke: “A criminal who, having renounced reason… hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security.” And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Second Treatise of Civil Government.

“Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx
“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

1) US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html
Much more, upon request. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Of course the death penalty is constitutional.
Twice, the 5th Amendment authorizes execution.
(1) “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ” and
(2) “. . . nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ”.
The 14th amendment is, equally, clear:
” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”
Over 200 years of US Supreme Court(SCOTUS) decisions support those amendments and the US Constitution in authorizing and enforcing the death penalty.
Some wrongly believe that the SCOTUS decision, Furman v Georgia (1972), found the death penalty unconstitutional. It did not.
The decisions found that the “statutory enforcement”, the laws as written enforcing the death penalty, were a violation of the 8th Amendment. Laws were re-written and new death penalty statues gained SCOTUS approval, in 1976, under Gregg v Georgia, with 39 states, the federal government and the military, eventually putting new death penalty laws into effect.
SCOTUS did not find, nor can it, that the death penalty, per se, violates the 8th Amendment.
Based upon the death penalty being integral within the constitution, through the 5th and 14th amendments, I do not believe it will ever be found unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court was established in 1789 and has had 112 Justices through 2011, only 3 of which found the death penalty unconstitutional, on extraordinarily weak grounds, as is obvious.

Ms. Jones:

Fact checking is important.

Marvin Wilson was not retarded.
As shown in the appellate ruling, below, all indications in Wilson’s life are that he was not mentally retarded, as the additional IQ tests, also below, confirm.
When I first heard about this case, it took me about 30 seconds to find this decision, below.
Wilson murdered police informant Jerry Williams, to protect Wilson’s drug dealing.
Obviously, he knew exactly what he was doing and he planned it.
Wilson claimed to be a chess player.
“The following evidence was presented in two hearings during the state habeas proceedings.”
“Wilson presented school and prison training records, including standardized testing results. Five I.Q. scores are reflected in those reports. The first I.Q. test, the Lorge-Thorndike, was administered by Wilson’s school when he was approximately 13 years old. Wilson’s full-scale score on this test was 73. At age 29, Wilson was given an I.Q. test by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and scored 75. In April 2006, when Wilson was 46 and during the post-conviction proceedings, Wilson scored 61 on the WAIS III I.Q.”
“Case: 09-70022 Document: 00511667534 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/16/2011 test.”
“On further testing by the defense, Wilson scored 75 on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices and 79 on the TONI-II I.Q. tests. A score of 70 or below supports a finding of mental retardation. “
from
http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/marvin-wilson-rick-thaler-director-332585578