"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Monday, April 20, 2015

Lies,Damned Lies, etc.

You know they've lost the argument when they resort to these tired canards.

The Catholic Left often attaches itself to arguments against the death penalty that are developed by hard left secular groups, not pausing to examine the groups or their specious claims in their rush to find some, any, plausible arguments against the just, limited, proportional use of the death penalty.

So the latest:  1) some cops and prosecutors are biased or corrupt, possibly even criminally so. Therefore, the death penalty must be abolished because we can't risk that capital defendants might have been set up.

And, a related point, 2) The Death Penalty Information Center says that loads of people on death rows have been "exonerated" and since we can't risk wrongful convictions and death sentences, therefore the death penalty should be abolished.

But it is abundantly clear, that as an advocacy outfit, the DPIC routinely abuses  the term "exoneration," often listing criminals as "exonerated" when their convictions are overturned for legal errors, for ineffective assistance of defense attorney claims, or for evidentiary issues that do not truly exonerate a defendant but throw some doubt on his level of guilt.

Others have noted this disingenuous use of the terms "exoneration" and the difference between actual innocence and legal innocence (legal innocence being trial errors casting doubt on the sufficiency of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not the same thing as "the defendant was innocent").  In a very detailed paper, the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, expanding upon a masterful concurring opinion of Justice Scalia in Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006), has thoroughly debunked the reliability of the DPIC methodology. Those who have not read Scalia's opinion and the IACJ paper, have no standing to defend the DPIC numbers.

It can be said, clearly:  there is no proof that, since restoration of the death penalty in 1976, an actually innocent person has been executed.  Not one.  If there had been, we would know the person's name because the Left and their media allies would trumpet it constantly.  The error rate in death penalty cases, in the sense of an innocent person being executed, is therefore really zero.

As to the issue of police and prosecutor corruption, I have some extensive thoughts here.  The gist of my observations is that the system itself impliedly allows for the potential of a certain number of innocent people being convicted (by not demanding a standard of "absolute proof" or "proof to a metaphysical certitude"), so then it can be understood that the system is no way broken simply because some very small number of mistaken convictions occur.  We do not, and have never had, a system that adopts the old saying of Blackstone, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" in the sense that we fashion our system to be absolutely infallible in assigning guilt. There is, in effect, a built-in error rate inherent in the process.  

Yet the error rate is probably somewhere around .025 percent precisely because we continually strive for a zero error rate through an adversarial trial, appellate review, and even "external" checks such as media reports of corrupt police.

And as my post just below this illustrates, in death penalty cases, there are even more stringent reviews in both state and federal courts, often lasting for years, and an executive clemency "backstop" to provide a failsafe if, after the years and years of appellate review, some issue of actual innocence arises.  And given modern developments in forensic science and DNA technology, error rates can be lowered even further.

In sum, no system devised and populated by humans is perfect, but ours, unlike that in any period of history (when the Church unequivocally endorsed capital punishment) is heavily weighted to reduce error to as close to zero as possible short of simply abolishing punishment for crimes.

Friday, April 17, 2015

The Stunning Ignorance of Missouri's Bishops

Missouri's bishops have issued a letter wherein they complain about the supposed speed of executions in that state.

The basis for their complaint is that there have been 15 executions in Missouri since 2013, a rate, they lament, of almost one per month.
"We wonder how much thought can be given to the circumstances of each defendant when these executions are carried out so routinely,” the letter read in urging the recipients to “take a stand for life, mercy and justice.”
The letter said clemency requests are ignored, “even when defendants are profoundly impaired by severe mental illness or traumatic brain injury.”“These cases rarely represent the ‘worst of the worst’ that the death penalty was intended for. Rather, they are evidence of a flawed death penalty system,” the Church leaders said.
 As in most states, the rate of executions has been trending downward in Missouri, despite a slight uptick in 2012:

(source: DPIC).

Nevertheless, the bishops are worried about hasty justice.  Let's take a look at one of the cases they complain about to see if we agree that the murderer was railroaded to his death at the hands of the cruel, incompetent state:

Michael Taylor was executed on February 26, 2014 for the abduction and rape of a 15 year old girl.  As always, because the murder lobby hates focusing on the crimes committed by their beneficiaries, it's good to remember what they actually did to end up on death row:
At approximately 7 a.m. [March 22, 1989], Ann Harrison, a 15-year-old high school student, left her home and stood in front of her house to wait for the school bus. Within moments, Taylor and [co-defendant] Nunley drove by. According to Taylor’s subsequent confession, Taylor was driving and Nunley told him to stop the car “so he could snatch her purse or something.” Nunley pretended to ask Ann Harrison for directions, then grabbed her and dragged her into the car, whereupon Taylor drove away. Nunley did not take the victim’s purse or her other possessions, which remained on the curb next to the Harrison’s mailbox.
Taylor and Nunley took Ann Harrison to Nunley’s mother’s house. On the way, Nunley blindfolded the victim with a sock. After pulling the stolen car into the garage, Taylor and Nunley took Ann into a basement room and Nunley tied her hands with a length of cable. Taylor stated in his confession that he sat in the garage while Nunley raped the victim, and then he raped the victim himself. While Taylor claimed in his confession that he “didn’t finish,” blood-typing and DNA testing of semen found in the victim’s genitals and on her clothing established that the source of the semen was Taylor. As a result of this forcible sexual assault, Ann suffered lacerations to her vagina.
After being repeatedly raped, Ann Harrison pleaded for Taylor and Nunley not to hurt her said that her family could pay them for her safe return; she was allowed to write down her family’s address and telephone number, purportedly so that Taylor and Nunley could arrange for
her ransom. Nunley tied the victim’s hands in front of her, and he and Taylor put her in the trunk of the stolen Monte Carlo.
While Ann Harrison, bound and blindfolded, lay in the trunk, Nunley went upstairs and got two knives, a large butcher knife and a small serrated steak knife; he gave the steak knife to Taylor and kept the butcher knife for himself. According to Taylor’s statement to police, Nunley urged that the victim be killed to prevent her from identifying him, while Taylor was reluctant to participate, in part because Ann had not seen Taylor. By Taylor’s account, Nunley grabbed the victim’s neck and attempted to cut her throat, but the butcher knife was too dull, producing only scratches on her throat. Nunley then stabbed Ann Harrison through the throat and in the chest, while Taylor stabbed her two to four times in the torso. An autopsy of the victim revealed six stab wounds to her chest, side and back which penetrated her heart, lungs and other internal organs, and four more
the forgotten victim
stab wounds to her neck. After the stabbing, Taylor watched for a time as Ann Harrison lay in the trunk and futilely struggled to breathe through her damaged lungs.
Ann Harrison died from her numerous stab wounds, especially the one that penetrated her heart. Ann was alive at the time all 10 wounds were inflicted and remained conscious for up to 10 minutes after the time of her stabbing.
So much for the crime. (Side question:  this crime is not, according to Missouri's bishops, "the worst of the worst?")

Now, to the bishops' claims that there is too much haste, let's look at the legal process in getting Taylor from the crime to execution of the sentence:
Legal Chronology
1989March 22 – Michael Taylor and co-defendant Roderick Nunley kidnap, rape ad murder 15-year-old Ann Harrison.
July 28 – The state charges Taylor by indictment with first degree murder, forcible rape, kidnapping and armed criminal action
1991February 8 – Taylor pleads guilty to the charges
April 23 – The penalty phase begins before the circuit court
May 3 – The Jackson County Circuit Court sentences Taylor to death for the murder conviction, life for the rape conviction, 15 years for the kidnapping conviction, and life for the armed criminal action conviction
May 13 – Taylor files a notice of appeal
August 9 – Taylor files a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief in the Jackson County Circuit Court
1992July 1 – The Circuit Court denies post-conviction relief
1993June 29 – The Missouri Supreme Court remands for a new sentencing proceeding
1994May 2 – The second penalty phase begins
June 17 – The Jackson County Circuit Court sentences Taylor to death for the murder conviction, 15 years for the kidnapping conviction, life for the rape conviction and 50 years for the armed criminal action conviction, the sentences to run consecutively
September 15 – Taylor files a Rule 24.034 motion for post-conviction relief in the Jackson County Circuit Court
1995June 20 – The Circuit Court denies post-conviction relief
1996August 2 – The Missouri Supreme Court affirms Taylor’s conviction and sentence and the denial of post-conviction relief. State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209 (Mo.banc 1996)
1997February 24 – The United States Supreme Court denies certiorari review. Taylor v. Missouri, 519 U.S.1152(1997)
1998February 23 – Taylor files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court of the Western District Missouri
2000July 10 – The District Court denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus in an unpublished order.
2003August 18 – The Court of Appeals affirms the denial of habeas corpus relief. Taylor v. Bowersox, 329 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2003)
2004March 22 = The Supreme Court denies discretionary review. Taylor v. Bowersox, 541 U.S. 947 (2004)
2005June 3 – Taylor rifles civil suit challenging constitutionality of lethal injection as method of execution.
2006January 31 – The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri finds lethal injection is constitutional.
February 1 – The Court of Appeals issues a stay of execution pending review of district court decision. The Supreme Court upholds the stay. Crawford v. Nixon, 126 S.Ct. 1192 (2006)
April 11 – The Missouri Supreme Court issues write to Jackson County Circuit Court prohibiting it from reopening Rule 24.035 litigation. State ex rel. Nixon v. Daugherty, 186 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. band 2006)
April 27 – The Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction and remands to district court for further hearing. Taylor v. Crawford, 445 F.3d 1095 (8th Cir. 2006)
June 26 – The district court find’s Missouri’s method of execution unconstitutional and suggests changes to improve it. Taylor v. Crawford, 2006 WL 1779035 (W.D. Mo2006)
August 9 – The Court of Appeals relinquishes jurisdiction to district court. Taylor v. Crawford, 457 F. 3d 902 (8th Cir. 2006)
September 12 – The district court finds Missouri’s written protocol unconstitutional
2007June 4 – The Court of Appeals reverses district court judgement and finds the written protocol constitutional. Taylor v. Crawford, 487 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2007)
2008May 20 – The Missouri Supreme Court affirms the denial of post-conviction relief by the Jackson County Circuit Court. Taylor v. State, 254 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. band 2008)
2009February 24 – The Missouri Supreme Court rejects a claim by Taylor and others that written protocol did not conform to state law. Middleton v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 278 S.W.3d 193 (Mo. band 2009)
November 10 – The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concludes the protocol is applied constitutionally. Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2009)
2011May 31 – The Missouri Supreme Court rejects Taylor’s challenge to judge sentencing. State ex del. Taylor v. Steele, 341 S.W.3rd 634 (Mo.banc 2011)
I can assure the good bishops of Missouri that this tortuous 25 year legal history is in no way unusual.  In fact, it's entirely typical of how a death case goes up and down the court system, both state and federal, and is viewed from many different angles, considering many different issues from the sufficiency of the evidence to any bias in the imposition of the penalty to the effectiveness of the defense attorneys.

For each of the 15 murderers executed by the state of Missouri, the same process was followed, including executive clemency reviews.

One would imagine the bishops have access to a lawyer who could explain this simple fact to them.  I'd rather believe it's ignorance than a sleazy attempt to advance an agenda, that led the bishops to make such a disingenuous, deceptive complaint.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Rendering Offenders Harmless, Pts. 39 & 40, With a Clerical "Oops" Moment

Violent felon thought to have killed cellmate.   It's reported that in the same prison, another inmate was killed by a fellow inmate in an unrelated incident.

But it's just fine, don't you know, because as the Vatican's UN representative has opined:
twenty years ago, during the papacy of St. John Paul II, the position of the Holy See was “framed within the proper ethical context of defending the inviolable dignity of the human person and the role of the legitimate authority to defend in a just manner the common good of society”. He continued, “Considering the practical circumstances found in most States, as a result of steady improvements in the organisation of the penal system, it appears evident nowadays that means other than the death penalty are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. For that reason, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person”.
Oh yes, it's abundantly "evident" that "means other than the death penalty are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor."

Except when they're not.  Which is frequently and regularly.

Apparently it's now the position of the Church that the lives of inmates and prison staff are worth risking in order to advance the fairy dust position that we've found a humane way to render offenders harmless.

It seems there is no "preferential option" for the poor when the "poor" is an inmate or prison guard who gets shanked by some violent convict who evaded the death penalty.

The Pope, these bishops, clerics, and Catholic Leftists who so desperately advocate on behalf of vicious murderers ought to compelled to serve 30 days as a prison guard in a maximum security prison before they're heard to pontificate about the penal system.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

LA Bishop An Expert Criminologist?

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez opines that "through advances in law enforcement and criminal justice, our society has many ways to punish violent offenders and to prevent them from committing further violence." Therefore, he says, while capital punishment is theoretically permissible according to Catholic teaching (oops!  it seems he's now a dissenter from Pope Francis' newly-announced teaching) it is not needed in the U.S.

I only wish in his article, the good bishop would have been so kind as to enlighten us as to just what these "advances" are which prevent criminals from committing further violence.

Can he point us to the studies which he's conducted that show that some particular technique or process that we have in this country has wondrously de-fanged the murderers who otherwise would have to be executed?

Can he at least point us to the study group or expert panel that the American bishops or that Vatican have established in order to illuminate and expound upon the marvelous innovations in criminal justice and penology that have obliterated violent recidivism?

I'd like to know, because it seems to me we're having a heck of a hard time rendering offenders harmless.

But what do I know?  I'm sure Apb. Gomez is a criminologist of the first order, or that he, or the US bishops, or the Vatican, or the Catholic Left, all of whom constantly refer to these amazing breakthroughs in penology and criminal justice, can point us to the studies, surveys, or research that support their view.

Commence cricket-chirping.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Another Pope John XXII?

This, if true, would mean the Pope as a private person adheres to a materially heretical view.
In a lengthy letter written in Spanish and addressed to the president of the International Commission against the death penalty, Pope Francis thanks those who work tirelessly for a universal moratorium, with the goal of abolishing the use of capital punishment in countries right across the globe.
Pope Francis makes clear that justice can never be done by killing another human being and he stresses there can be no humane way of carrying out a death sentence. For Christians, he says, all life is sacred because every one of us is created by God, who does not want to punish one murder with another, but rather wishes to see the murderer repent. Even murderers, he went on, do not lose their human dignity and God himself is the guarantor.
Capital punishment, Pope Francis says, is the opposite of divine mercy, which should be the model for our man-made legal systems. Death sentences, he insists, imply cruel and degrading treatment, as well as the torturous anguish of a lengthy waiting period before the execution, which often leads to sickness or insanity.
The Pope also condemns the use of the death penalty by “totalitarian regimes” or “fanatical groups” who seek to exterminate “political prisoners”, “minorities”, or anyone seen as a threat to political power and ambitions.
But he makes quite clear that the use of capital punishment signifies “a failure” on the part of any State. However serious the crime, he says, an execution “does not bring justice to the victims, but rather encourages revenge” and denies any hope of repentence or reparation for the crime that has been committed.
The view that the death penalty is never just under any conditions and that human dignity or the sacredness of life is violated by the state executing a criminal clearly contradicts Catholic teaching, including the current CCC and Pope St. John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae, both of which clearly reiterate that the state may justly execute offenders in certain cases.

A Pope professing private (e.g., not formally promulgated or taught in a formal way, such as by an encyclical) error is not unprecedented. It's not surprising to see a Pope from a country without the death penalty and imbued with European sensibilities, with their prejudice against the American justice system and use of the death penalty, express personal opposition to it.

He will never, however, attempt to promulgate his erroneous views in an authoritative way to the Church.  You can bet the ranch (and the Barque of Peter) on that.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

A Passing

Bad news for Jay Anderson, who is a past Mayor of this little town-that-was, and who recently gave up active blogging at his excellent blog..


Populorum Progessio

Progress is slow, but we'll take it where it comes.

A disciple of Shea's pacifist errors about capital punishment asks for help from Sacred Scripture in supporting the reader's effort to convince a "Bible Protestant" that Scripture is against the death penalty... and Shea can't point the reader to any such Scriptural support.

Because there ain't any.

Monday, March 09, 2015

Part IV: America's Death Penalty Does Not Contradict Any Catholic Teaching

Even if one takes for granted that the "modified" or "updated" or "developed" position of Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (#2267) with regard to the death penalty is absolute, true, correct, and binding always and everywhere as the only moral justification for the death penalty, the death penalty in this country is-- surprise!-- still in conformity with that position.

The two "new" conditions under which the DP would seem to approved by the current teaching are:  1) the DP can only be resorted to when the "improvements" (the nature of which we're left guessing about) to the penal system are not sufficient to render offenders harmless;  and 2) given these "improvements" we expect to see that the DP is used only "rarely."

With this in mind, let's review the actual situation in the United States, and not the cartoon characterizations by some fevered bloggers.

As to the first point, it is difficult to know just what "improvements" the churchmen who penned these documents are referring to.  We can assume they mean life without parole;  or perhaps they mean that we have high-security prisons.  Since we are left without clear direction on this point, it's hard to fathom how the authors of the current teaching expect the laity charged with implementing a criminal justice system to respond to their new teaching.

But assuming for the sake of argument that the "improvements" referred to are life imprisonment and secure prisons, in the United States at any rate these "improvements" have certainly not been effective in rendering offenders harmless.  I've pointed out at some length and without contradiction that despite life sentences and high security prisons, some offenders continue to be very real threats to the safety and lives of prison personnel and fellow inmates, and to the public when they escape or have their sentences reduced or commuted for some reason.  I won't repeat here the myriad concrete cases where mere imprisonment has utterly failed to restrain offenders.  Suffice to say, there are enough of these examples to reach a sound conclusion that "life imprisonment" or lengthy incarceration, cannot guarantee to a moral certainty that an offender will be rendered harmless.

All of which is to say, whatever "improvements" these authors imagined that would render offenders harmless have yet to exist in the U.S.  That some offenders might not kill or assault in prison is certainly true;  but to speak of a causal relation between some general "improvement" and the propensity of an offender to commit violence, is to evince a woeful lack of understanding of actual conditions in the criminal justice system.

Whether or not the "improvements" have been made and are successful, however, the good news (if one views it as such)  is that as to the second desire of the authors, that the DP should only be "rarely" resorted to, imposition of the death penalty continues to decline.

In 2013, the last year available for murder statistics, there were about 80 death sentences handed down nationally (source: Death Penalty Information Center, an abolition group which boasts that death sentences are near a historic low) for the 14,196 murders committed (source: Bureau of Justice Statisticsa rate of 0.56%, which is a rate consistent with recent years.

So whatever view one takes of the current Catholic teaching, the simple fact is, the death penalty is imposed very rarely in the US, in less than one percent of murder cases.  This is easily explained as the result of death--eligible cases (usually aggravated forms of murder) being relatively rare; prosecutor caution in seeking the most serious of sentences, considering the cost and trauma to the state and the victims' families during long and contentious appellate procedures that go far beyond those experienced in non-death cases; and of course, jury caution in imposing this type of punishment.

Thus, for all the sturm und drang of the Catholic Left, and overblown rhetoric about blood lust, the death penalty is a very rare occurrence in relation to the number of murders in this country.

Would that these tender souls reserve some of their tears for all the forgotten victims of murder (the 14,000-plus), instead of for the very small number (80, and only 72 in 2014) of the worst offenders who receive a death sentence.

Alas, dead victims do not make good fodder for ostentatious moral preening by the living Left.