Mr. Dudley Sharp has went on with another letter to the Caribbean Net News today. I have nothing more left to say to Mr. Sharpe in regards to commentary to the Net News. He can have the last word on that forum. Here is his latest article on the Net News, with a rebuttal of my second part of the Capital Punishment debate...
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/letters/letters.php?news_id=12860&start=0&category_id=7
My second part....(also posted in the Caribbean Net News.)
http://globalviewtoday.blogspot.com/2008/12/capital-punishment-in-caribbean-pt-2.html
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/oped/oped.php?news_id=12845&start=0&category_id=6
The article posted here, has had a large debate on the issues as you will see in the replies. All I can say to the readers is I report, in fact, we, reported and you should decide.
His main point is that I qualified the capital punishment debate as subjective, but with my subjective outlook, he qualifies it as baseless because it would ultimately mean that the entire argument, is subjective including mine and hence valueless.
Well, perhaps he is right. My total underpinning on the merit of capital punishment is that it can't be proven as a universally accepted mode of deterrent....there simply is no evidence, where it aids or disrupts criminal activity, and in particular violent crime. Mr. Sharpe in fact agrees. So, I don't know why he would want to argue, or counter argue, from that premise?
My point is, however, and was always, is that in the Caribbean, it is not a deterrent and we have serious issues in regards to creating more college graduates than we do criminals.
I can say no more than that just there...
Best,
Youri
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I will presume that you, unintentionally, misunderstood my position.
You write: "My total underpinning on the merit of capital punishment is that it can't be proven as a universally accepted mode of deterrent....there simply is no evidence, where it aids or disrupts criminal activity, and in particular violent crime. Mr. Sharpe in fact agrees. So, I don't know why he would want to argue, or counter argue, from that premise?"
I do not, agree, at all. And I cannot surmise from which comments of mine that you found such a conclusion.
I know the death penalty is a deterrent, because all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There is no exception. The most severe criminal sanction is the least likely to contradict that truism.
What I have stated is that I do not need deterrence to support the death penalty. I support it because I find it a just and appropriate sanction for some crimes.
The underpinning of all criminal sanctions is that they should be just and appropriate for the crime.
You state that your underpinning agisnt capital punishment is that it cannot be proven to be a universal deterrent.
That may be your underpinning, but it is an immoral or amoral one, if truly based upon that underpinning. If your support for a criminal just sanction has its underpinnings on deterrence, you neglect whether someone deserved to be punished for the crime committed.
We cannot punish people based soley upon deterrence. That had to have committed a crime and we must assign some sanction for that crime.
Secondarily, the death prenalty also spares more innocent lives, in at least three ways.
But, they are very secondary, to the just and approprite deserved sanction based upon the commission of the specific crime.
Hi Dudley,
1. Capital punishment--since it would make you feel better-- is not a statistically correlative deterent to punishment. Deterence of one out of one thousand, is not an affective way to administer justice that depends on numerical significance.
2. Capital Punishment is neither appropriate, from the New Testament scriptures or human rights considerations of economics, urbanization and social classs.
My underpinning, to explaining the obvious fact that it is not detering, is enough for me to base other theories of stopping violent crime, before it happens.
Capital punishment, the word punishment signifies something that would happen after the fact, is what it is--after the fact.
Unless you have a Minority Report type of future machine in your closet, Dudley, I suggest you leave the sci-fi to Steven Speilberg and Co.
Best,
Youri
reply
1) Yes, the death penalty is a statistically valid deterrent. That is how the 16 studies, inclusive of their defenses, found for the deterrent effect.
For some of the recent 16 deterrence studies, go to:
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2) On the New Testament:
Jesus: Support for the death penalty
from an essay by Andrew Tallman , complete attribution at end
"If Jesus elsewhere opposes capital punishment, then He is not only contradicting the Father but even His own words. "
"Typically, (the anti death penalty) view is that the harsh and mean God the Father of the Old Testament established execution, but the loving and kind God the Son of the New Testament abolished it."
"I’m pretty sure such people don’t realize they’re denying the Trinity when they say this."
"The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the eternal unity of all three persons of the Godhead, but such a fundamental disagreement between the Son and the Father would rupture this unity. In fact, if Jesus had contradicted any of the Father’s principles, let alone such a well-established one, that very disagreement would have immediately disproved His claims to be the divine Son."
"This was exactly the heresy the Pharisees were hoping to trap Him into when they brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus. Even His enemies knew that He absolutely had to affirm capital punishment in order to prove Himself not a false prophet. "
"How truly strange, then, that those who claim to love Him assert that He did exactly what His enemies failed to trick Him into doing! Far from opposing capital punishment, Jesus actually advocated it, as His unity with the Father required."
"Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.”
"Just a few verses later, He extends the prohibition against murder to hatred and condemns haters to “the hell of fire” in verse 22, which is very strange talk for someone who opposes capital punishment. It’s very hard to dismiss these verses because they occur smack in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which is so often mistakenly offered as the repudiation of Old Testament justice."
"Later, Jesus scolds the Pharisees and scribes for teaching leniency toward rebellious children by quoting the Old Testament, “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’” (Matthew 15:4)"
"Subsequently, when the Romans come to arrest Jesus, Peter rather ineptly tries to defend Him by killing Malchus, but only succeeds in slicing off his ear. Jesus rebukes him with the warning, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Far from advocating pacifism, as this passage is often misused to do, Jesus here teaches Peter that using the sword (for murder) will only get the sword used against him (for execution)."
"Shortly thereafter, Jesus tells Pilate in John 19:11, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above…” This authority to put Jesus to death would be odd if it didn’t entail the general power to execute criminals."
"Finally, when He is dying of crucifixion, Jesus accepts the repentance of the thief on the cross, who says to his reviling companion, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds….” (Luke 23:40-41)"
"Had Jesus disagreed with this statement, responding to it with the promise of eternal salvation was a rather obtuse way to express the correction."
"Beyond all this evidence that Jesus affirms the consistent Biblical principle of capital punishment, there is yet one more vital concept to grasp. Christians believe that Christ died on the cross to pay for the sins of us all."
"Although His sinlessness merited eternal life, He endured the death we deserved to extend that gift to us. As Prof. Michael Pakaluk so perfectly expressed the point, “If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins….” If we didn’t deserve the death penalty ourselves, then why would Christ need to suffer it on our behalf in order to satisfy the justice of God? Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of the Father, Who required His own Son to pay precisely that price in our stead."
"What about the rest of the New Testament?"
"Since both Jesus’s teaching and His death affirm the capital punishment, it should come as no surprise that the rest of the New Testament reinforces this view."
"When confronting Governor Festus, Paul says in Acts 25:11, “If I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of these things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. He both affirms capital statutes and accepts them as binding on him if he has broken one."
"Later, in the New Testament’s most famous passage on the nature of government, Paul explains, “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:4)"
"Finally, the same Bible which begins in Genesis 9:6 with the establishment of capital punishment, then carries the theme consistently throughout the text, and ends by reiterating it in Revelation 13:10, “If any one is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if any one kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.”
"Literally from beginning to end, the Bible teaches that capital punishment is authorized and required by God."
"Why I Support Capital Punishment", by Andrew Tallman
sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review
http://andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/search?q=Capital+punishment
also published at TOWHALL.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/05/09/difficult_bible_passages_and_the_penalty_of_death
2) Human rights
The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.
The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.
Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.
Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws. So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.
No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not. It depends specifically on the circumstances.
How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.
Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.
Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.
In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.
Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation. Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim. What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."
copyright 2005-2009 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA 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.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www.dpinfo.com
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www.coastda.com/archives.html
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www.prodeathpenalty.com
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Post a Comment