Do a GOOGLE search for entrapment “John 8:7″ and read the results.

Here are a couple, below. Kat, if you have disagreements with either, there are emails for you to direct questions.

John 6-23 The woman Caught in Adultery John 7:53-8:12 04/22/07

http://www.windycitycommunityc.....22.07.html

and

http://www.quodlibet.net/gunby-sanctity.shtml

The Woman Taken in Adultery
By Rousas John Rushdoony

During the course of our analysis of the law, repeated references were made to the confirmation of the law in the Gospels. It is not our purpose here either to repeat those confirmations or to attempt an exhaustive catalogue of every reference to the law in the Gospels. One event, however, although cited in some detail earlier, deserves further attention: the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11.

Because this particular incident has been cited as an instance of the setting aside of the law, as the prime example, in fact, it needs further attention because it in fact is a confirmation of the law. Had the incident been at all antinomian, it would have provided the scribes and Pharisees with exactly the charge they wanted with which to condemn Jesus.

The charge of Jesus against the scribes and Phari- sees was precisely their antinomianism; He had strongly denounced them publicly for their neglect of the law for tradition (Matt. 15:1-10). No answer was possible against this charge: clearly, the leaders of the people had set aside the law by means of their humanistic legal tradition.

The whole point of the attack of these leaders was to try to show that Jesus, when confronted by the hard facts of a concrete case, would be no more a strict champion of the law than they were. The culminating example of this attempt to embarrass Jesus was this incident of the woman taken in adultery. To ask for the full enforcement of the law, the death penalty, would have been to invite hostility, because the pre- vailing attitude was one of moral laxity.

To deny the death penalty would have enabled the Pharisees to charge Jesus with hypocrisy: He would then have been in the same school of thought as the Pharisees He condemned. Quite obviously, Jesus did not take an antinomian stand, because the Pharisees left, confounded, and the incident obviously confirmed Jesus as the champion of the law. A woman had been “taken in adultery, in the very act” (John 8:4).

The woman was “brought unto him.” We cannot assume that she came voluntarily. She may have been dragged there, but the text does not indicate this. Apparently “the scribes and Pharisees” involved had police powers, or had, with the assistance of the authorities, used such legal powers as were necessary to compel her compliance. Having such legal authority, they were also requiring that Jesus preside at the hearing.

The man involved in the act was not brought forward; we have no knowledge of the reason for this, although it would appear that it would have aggravated the “offense” of Jesus had He either demanded the death penalty for a woman, or, on the other hand, allowed an adulterous woman to go free. More emotional reaction could be milked by the use of an adulterous woman than an adulterous man.

“Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him” (John 8:5-6). The reason for the incident is plainly stated: grounds for an accusation against Jesus were sought. Would Jesus persist as the champion of the law, or would He retreat into the use of some aspect of the pharisaic tradition? “But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not” (John 8:6). At this point, the comment of Burgon is most telling and deserves full citation:

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our SAVIOR on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our LORD is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by bitter water, or water of conviction (See Num. v. 11-31), was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But ac- cording to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband himself was innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife. Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now considered.

The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before the LORD, the priest took “holy water in an earthen vessel,” and put “of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.” Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.

And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypo- critical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnate JEHOVAH verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground. it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced “in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle” and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have “taken of the dust and put it on the water,” and “caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.” For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them with living water (v. 17. So the LXX) “in an earthen vessel” (2 Cor. iv. 7; v. 1)? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, “If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from the bitter water: but if ye be defiled”—On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they had shewed them- selves so impatient? Surely it was “the water of conviction” as it is six times called, which they had been compelled to drink; where- upon, “convicted by their own conscience,” as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other’s acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself declining to “condemn” the accused woman, our LORD also did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His “book.”1

Because this incident took place in the temple (John 8:2), Burgon’s comment is all the more to the point. The temple dust He wrote in met the requirements of the law. His action placed every accuser on trial immediately; that they were aware of this, the text makes clear, for we are told that all felt “convicted by their own conscience” (John 8:9). Charges had been made against the woman by the “scribes and Pharisees.” Their charges represented a clear-cut case against a woman taken in “the very act” of adultery. The counter-charges by Jesus, by His actions and by His declaration, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), broke them. As themselves guilty men, they suspected secret evidence on His part against them They were busy trying to collect evidence against Jesus; this made it easier for them to believe that Jesus had done the same to them. These scribes and Pharisees had preferred charges against the woman in the place of her husband; Jesus placed them in the husband’s category by invoking Numbers 5 by His writing in the dust.

If they were guilty, and Jesus knew of their guilt, then, if He invoked the death penalty, could He not charge them also? By invoking

Numbers 5, Jesus in effect placed them on trial also: did they come to judgement with clean hands? It will not do to plead the “high moral standards” of Pharisees, These men were planning the death of Jesus. In the face of their deliberate and calculating plans against God’s Messiah, the sin of adultery was a trifling matter to such men. They had no stomach for an accusation against them which could cite God’s requirement a death penalty. When Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), He was not referring to sins in general but to the sin of adultery. A general statement would mean no court of law is possible; the specific reference meant that men (1. John W. Burgon, The Woman Taken in Adultery, p. 239 f. On the evidences for the authenticity of this passage, see p. 246 ff.) guilty of a crime were not morally free to condemn that crime in another unless they condemned it in themselves.

We are told that all these scribes and Pharisees were then “convicted by their own conscience” (vs. 9). Moreover, Jesus had confirmed the death penalty; He had simply demanded honest witnesses to step forward and execute her, to “first cast a stone at her” (vs. 7). To remain as witnesses against her was to invite witnesses against themselves; to testify to a witnessed fact and confirm a death penalty against the woman was to invite a witness unto death against themselves. They left.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: Go, and sin no more (John 8:10-11).

At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between civil or juridical forgiveness. Civil forgiveness occurs when a condemned person pays the penalty for his crime, when restitution is made and the moral claims of the law are satisfied. A thief who had robbed a man of an ox and restored fivefold is thereupon forgiven. Religious forgiveness requires as a prior condition restitution, or civil forgiveness. A thief cannot be forgiven religiously if he has not made restitution. There is a similar distinction between civil condemnation and religious condemnation. Civil condemnation is for offenses against the civil law; religious condemnation is both for offenses against the civil law and for disbelief of God and His law-word.

The two kinds of forgiveness and condemnation are distinct but related. Jesus had been asked to make a pronouncement on the civil law with respect to adultery; He affirmed the death penalty. The witnesses, however, had withdrawn their charge and had disappeared. There was thus no legal case against the woman. Legally, Jesus could not therefore sustain a case: “Neither do I condemn thee.” But a moral case existed. The humility of the woman, who acknowledged Him to be “Lord,” indicates some evidence of change in her, and perhaps regeneration. But Jesus simply said, “Go, and sin no more,” an echo of His words in John 5:14, “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” It is more than possible that she was religiously a changed person, and forgiven by God’s grace. We are simply told that no ground for legal condemnation existed at the moment. This does not rule out subsequent legal condemnation; her husband, if she had one, is not evident in this episode, but he would have had grounds for some kind of action, under existing law, if he chose. This is not the concern of the text.

She was granted acquittal in terms of the evidences of the immediate “hearing.” Jesus recognized the reality of her offense by His warning, “Go, and sin no more.” The fact of this warning indicates some evidences of a change in her, since it was contrary to our Lord’s practice to warn those who would not be warned (Matt. 7:6). For Christ to tell an unregenerate person to “sin no more” is unreasonable. The particular sin referred to was adultery. She was charged with a responsibility to chastity as an aspect of her new life in Christ.

The woman addressed Jesus as “Lord” (John 8:11); the scribes and Pharisees simply called Him “Master” (vs. 4), and the disciples themselves often spoke of Him as simply “Rabbi” (John 1:49). Her con- duct here indicated a changed person. In brief, instead of any evidence of antinomianism, this episode confirmed emphatically the position of Jesus as the champion of the law, and He confounded the attempts of the scribes and Pharisees to prove otherwise. The sin of Phariseeism was thus exposed. Phariseeism, first of all, denied the necessity of conversion. Man, by his unaided free will, is able to save himself, to choose between good and evil and make himself good. Both free will and self-salvation were thus affirmed, and pre- destination and conversion or regeneration denied.2

Second, the Pharisees had, while professing to hold to the law of God, converted it into the traditions of men. Thus, they had denied the Biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification and were accordingly the particular target of Christ’s denunciation. The Pharisees, professing to be champions of God’s word, were in fact its enemies and perverters.

2. See Hugo Odeberg, Phariseeism and Christianity (St. Louis: Concordia, 1964).

I am very happy to have presented the above extended passage which is quoted from Rousas John Rushdoony’s INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, The Craig Press, 1973

“I most heartily recommend this, his central and finest work, to the reader.”

Richard Eric Gunby currently resides in the central North Carolina town of Graham, located halfway between Durham and Greensboro, and approx. 35 minutes from Chapel Hill. Holding a fully accredited B.A. (1976) in Bible and Philosophy, with two years of graduate seminary work, he is a published writer of nutrition & alternative health, and Pre-Columbian studies concerned with ancient exploration.

He has also previously self-published a Biblical/Theological study on God’s Omniscience, entitled The Future. Another of his self-published works details and thoroughly documents the voyage of Prince Henry Sinclear to America almost a hundred years before Columbus, in, Little Known Facts of Gunn(by) History.

He has been in the faith since the Lord Jesus Christ brought Eric to Himself in 1972. He is a member in good standing of Beacon Baptist Church, Burlington, NC. A moderate size independent fellowship (approx. 350) that adheres to and promotes the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the doctrines of grace, also emphasizes expositional preaching, discipleship, and missions.

Eric welcomes all civil correspondence:

Richard Eric Gunby
Lot 18 Sleepy Hollow<
2833 South Hwy. NC #87
Graham, NC 27253-9429
1(336) 570 – 1237
email: ericgunby@earthlink.net

You certainly are filled with charm.

Again, you fail to fully read and then, simply presume. I would have hoped that you may have learned not to do that, anymore.

That is not a good way to review issues, btw. Try looking at all that I sent.

Again,

Misuse and misunderstanding of John 8:7 is quite common. See Forgery in the Gospel of John
www(dot)religioustolerance.org/john_8(dot)htm

Futhermore,I think you will find many scholars who agree with the entrapment position on the story. I think you are a bit unwise to dismiss it.

Here is one, from a pretty thoughful guy, from my list of references:

What about the woman caught in adultery?

In John 8:1-11, the Pharisees bring Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery to see if He will authorize her execution. After He famously says, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” they all depart, and Jesus sends the woman on her way, saying, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more.” Of all passages in the Bible, this one most clearly shows that Jesus opposed capital punishment.

First, we should note that this passage is textually dubious. The best manuscripts don’t include it, and both its placement and style controvert its authenticity.

Even so, the Christian community has long considered this an iconic story of Jesus’s mercy. So, to merely throw it out would be inappropriate. Besides, it may well be a legitimate story, just not one included in the John autoscript. Hence, an interpretation would be more helpful than a dismissal.

The trouble is that most people wildly misunderstand this story. The Pharisees’ only reason for bringing this woman to Jesus was to put Him in a dilemma. On the one hand, He couldn’t call for her execution since Roman law prohibited anyone other than a Roman court from doing this. The Pharisees proved they knew this when they later brought Jesus to Pilate rather than killing Him themselves. On the other hand, He couldn’t oppose her execution because this would have proven He was a false prophet for contradicting God’s Law. The passage even explains this in verse 6, “they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him.”

So, the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, two thousand years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as. If Jesus was in fact repudiating capital punishment in this story, then He was neither the Divine Son of God nor even a true prophet. As I’m apparently more reluctant than others to embrace this conclusion, I can’t interpret Jesus as rejecting the Old Testament here. Had He been, His enemies would have left jubilant rather than ashamed. There are many theories on the meaning of this story, but the one thing we must not do is use it to say Jesus overturned God’s Word as His enemies intended.

Oh, not the “John 8 is an entrapment story” crap again. The people who claim that have no knowledge of how Judaism worked in Jesus’s day. Rabbis and “teachers of the law” like Jesus were, legally, judges, whose opinions on legal matters were sought. There was no entrapment, Jesus was being asked to do his job.

If his issue had been with the proceedings rather than the DP itself, he would have inquired as to whether there were sufficient witnesses to convict the woman (yes, you read that right–contrary to Christian interpretation, Jewish law prior to, during, and since Jesus’s time imposed/s such stringent restrictions on what constituted admissible and sufficient evidence in death penalty cases that not a single death sentence was imposed or carried out by the Sanhedrin during its existence). Instead, Jesus claimed that the men who were charging her with adultery were not qualified to kill her because they themselves were sinful–a grounds for dismissal not found anywhere in existing Jewish law at the time, and which would de facto ban all executions if accepted as precedent (as all people are sinful).

Therefore, viewed in the context of history, the “entrapment” interpretation holds no water. Sadly, many people do indeed fall for that phony interpretation, because they know nothing of Jewish history.

I’ll deal with the rest of your “case” later, when I have time.

Death penalty opponents say that the death penalty has a foundation in hatred and revenge. Such is a false claim.

A death sentence requires pre existing statutes, trial and appeals, considerations of guilt and due process, to name but a few. Revenge requires none of these and, in fact, does not even require guilt or a crime.

The criminal justice system goes out of its way to take hatred and revenge out of the process. That is why we have a system of pre existing laws and legal procedures that offer extreme protections to defendants and those convicted and which limit punishments and prosecutions to specific crimes.

It is also why those directly affected by the murder are not allowed to be fact finders in the case.

The reality is that the pre trial, trial. appellate and executive clemency/commutation processes offer much much greater time, money and human resources to capital cases than they do to any other cases, meaning that the facts tell us that defendants and convicted murderers, subject to the death penalty, receive much greater care and concern than those not facing the death penalty – the opposite of a sytem marked with vengeance.

Calling executions a product of hatred and revenge is simply a way in which some death penalty opponents attempt to establish a sense of moral superiority. It can also be a transparent insult which results in additional hurt to those victim survivors who have already suffered so much and who believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for those who murdered their loved one(s).

Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do.

The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances.

Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US – unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge – an unreasonable, unfounded position

Far from hatred and revenge, the death penalty represents our greatest condemnation for a crime of unequaled horror and consequence. Lesser punishments may suffice under some circumstances. A death sentence for certain heinous crimes is given in those special circumstances when a jury finds such is more just than a lesser sentence.

Less justice is not what we need.

A thorough review of the criminal justice system will often beg this question: Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims?

The punishment of death is, in no way, a balancing between harm and punishment, because the innocent murder victim did not deserve or earn their fate, whereas the murderer has earned their own, deserved punishment by the free will action of violating societies laws and an individuals life and, thereby, voluntarily subjecting themselves to that jurisdictions judgment.

In comparing the cost of death penalty cases to other sentences, the studies are woefully incomplete.
 
Generally, such studies have one or more of the following problems.
 
1) Most studies exclude the cost of geriatric care, recently found to be $60,000-$80,000/inmate/yr. A significant omission from life sentence costs.
 
2) All studies exclude the cost savings of the death penalty, which is the ONLY sentence which allows for a plea bargain to a maximum life sentence. Such plea bargains accrue as a cost benefit to the death penalty, such benefit being the cost of trials and appeals for every such plea bargain. The cost savings would be for trial and appeals, estimated at $500,000 to $1 million, which would accrue as a cost benefit/credit to the death penalty.
 
Depending upon jurisdiction, this MIGHT result in a minimal cost differential between the two sanctions or an actual net cost benefit to the death penalty, depending upon how many LWOP cases are plea bargained and how many death penalty cases result in a death sentence.
 
3) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. “Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal.” The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (1)
 
That is a cost benefit of $70 million per execution.  15 additional recent studies, inclusive of their defenses,  support the deterrent effect. 
 
No cost study has included such calculations.
 
Although we find it inappropriate to put a dollar value on life, evidently this is not uncommon for economists, insurers, etc.
 
We know that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. There is no doubt that executions do save innocent lives. What value do you put on the lives saved? Certainly not less than $5 million.
 
4) a) Some studies compare the cost of a death penalty case, including pre trial, trial, appeals and incarceration, to only the cost of incarceration for 40 years, excluding all trial costs and appeals, for a life sentence. The much cited Texas “study” does this.  Hardly an apples to apples cost comparison.
       b) The pure deception in some cost “studies” is overt. It has been claimed that it costs $3.2 million/execution in Florida. That “study” decided to add the cost of the entire death penalty system in Florida ($57 million), which included all of the death penalty cases and dividing that number by only the number of executions (18). One could just have easily stated that the cost of the estimated 200 death row inmates was $285,000 per case.
 
5) There is no reason for death penalty appeals to take longer than 7 years. All death penalty appeals, direct and writ, should travel through the process concurrently, thereby giving every appellate issue 7 years of consideration through both state and federal courts. There is no need for endless repetition and delay. This would result in a reduction in both adjudication and incarceration costs.
 
Judges may be the most serious roadblock in timely resolution. They can and do hold up cases, inexcusably, for long periods of time.  Texas, which leads the nation in executions, by far, takes over 10 years, on average, to execute murderers. However, the state and federal courts, for that jurisdiction,  handle many cases. Texas has the second lowest rate of the courts overturning death penalty cases. Could every other jurisdiction process appeals in 7-10 years. Of course, if the justices would allow it.
 
Justice
6) The main reason sentences are given is because jurors find that it is the most just punishment available. No state, concerned with justice, will base a decision on cost alone. If they did, all cases would be plea bargained and every crime would have a probation option.
 
1). “State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder”, Paul R. Zimmerman (zimmy@att.net), March 3. 2003, Social Science Research Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/de.....tid=354680

Please try to be more civil.

Kat writes: “your laughable assertion that DNA evidence will make the execution of innocents impossible (admissible DNA evidence only exists in a minority of cases, as any lawyer worth his salt knows), save yourself the trouble, because I don’t suffer fools or liars kindly.”

Dudley responds: Please, try to read what I write, as opposed to making up what you think I write. It will save time and aggravation. I have never stated “that DNA evidence will make the execution of innocents impossible “. Nor will I. Of course, DNA helps to convicxt the guilty and clear the innocent.

Kat writes: “I notice that you conveniently overlooked the issues of cost (DP is significantly more expensive than life without parole), recidivism (both DP and life without parole prevent it entirely), mental illness (there is no dispute that severely mentally ill or disabled persons have been and continue to be executed), and ethical questions about the justice/vengeance issue raised by the DP(with the exception of your laughably out of context and irrelevant Bible quote, your interpretation of which is flatly contradicted both by context and by my citations of John 8 and Romans 12).

Dudley responds: Please don’t make up false accusations. Please. I never overlooked any of those issues. They had not come up within the context of the discussion. I try to stick to topic.

Of course, as we all know, and to state the blatantly clear, again, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.

No one disputes that lifers can harm and murder, again, although you, apparently, disagree.

Niether your John 8 not Romans 12 contradict anything I have stated.

Should you have any rebuttal to the Saints, theologians and Popes and others, which are in the review, let me know.

No one disputes that many on death row have mental illnesses, however, as most know, many mental illnesses will not remove culpability for a capital murder.

I deactivated all links. you need to add “www.” before each one to get them to work.

Kat, there is no biblical evidence that the death penalty is evil, harms the peace or is revenge, as depicted in the bible.

God cannot contradict God, therefore the texts you cite can not contradict God’s implementation of the death penalty.

I hope you find these useful. These cover Romans 12.

(1)”The Death Penalty”, by Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment.
domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

titled “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007

(2) “Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty”, at
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

(3) “Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective”,
by Br. Augustine (Emmanuel Valenza)
sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm

(4) “Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice”, Prof. J. Budziszewski, First Things, August / September 2004 found at
orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BudziszewskiPunishment.shtml

(5) “The Death Penalty”, by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm

(6) “Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says”, Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987.
The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.

(7) “Why I Support Capital Punishment”, by Andrew Tallman
sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review
andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/search?q=Capital+punishment

(8) Forgotten Truths: “Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty”
by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
tfp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=957

(9) “A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World” by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).

(10) “God’s Justice and Ours” by US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022

(11) “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
st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

(12) “MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?”,
KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

(13) “THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS’ MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS”,
KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp