Slava Novorossiya

Slava Novorossiya

Monday, December 30, 2013


NOTICE: The following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.

ARTICLE TITLE: Why bringing back hanging is the right thing to do
DATE: Saturday June 25, 2011
AUTHOR: Stephen Pollard
AUTHOR INFORMATION: Stephen Pollard (born c. 1965) is a British author and journalist who is currently editor of The Jewish Chronicle. He is a former Chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and a former president of the Centre for the New Europe, a free-market think tank based in Brussels. He has written columns for several publications, including The Times and the Daily Mail, and also has also maintained a blog. Pollard is an alumnus of John Lyon School and Mansfield College, Oxford.

Stephen Pollard

LET me ask you a blunt question. Do you think Levi Bellfield, the murderer of Milly Dowler and two other young women, should still be alive?

My answer is no. Milly’s sister Gemma agrees, observing: “Justice is an eye for an eye, you should pay a life for a life. In my eyes no real justice has been done.”

If the opinion polls are right, that view is shared by roughly half the population.

A poll in September 2010 found that 51 per cent supported reinstating the death penalty for murder, compared with 37 per cent who oppose it.

A few years ago I’d have been with that 37 per cent. I was opposed to capital punishment.

Of all the arguments against, one mattered most: better that 99 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be killed.

So my view was that murderers should be locked up but not executed. Keep them in spartan conditions.

Make sure life really means life. And do everything possible to ensure that they spend the rest of their lives in misery.

Then something happened which changed my mind. In December 2006 Saddam Hussein was hanged in Iraq.

Try as I might, I couldn’t think of a single reason why anyone could disagree with his execution.

There was no doubt about his guilt. He had murdered hundreds of thousands by deliberate actions, some in cold blood.

He expressed no remorse. He was as close to pure evil as any man can get.

To me the question wasn’t whether he should have been executed. It was whether there were any valid reasons not to kill him. And there were none.

But either capital punishment is immoral or it isn’t. It can’t be immoral occasionally. And if it was right that Saddam was hanged then it’s clearly not an issue of principle.

In which case why Saddam and not Ian Huntley? Or Levi Bellfield? After all, who could fail to be moved by the words of Milly Dowler’s mother Sally outside court yesterday?

“The lengths to protect his human rights have seemed so unfair compared to what we as a family have had to endure. I hope that whilst he is in prison he is treated with the same brutality he dealt out to his victim and that his life is a living hell.”

This is where so much of the opposition to the death penalty falls apart.

When Saddam was executed the condemnations were deafening in their silence.

With very few – entirely honourable – exceptions there was not a word of criticism of the Iraqi decision to hang him.

But if, as opponents of capital punishment believe, it is immoral to execute Ian Huntley, Ian Brady or any other killer, it was surely just as immoral to execute Saddam – or Martin Bormann, Hermann Göring and other Nazis who were convicted at Nuremburg.

Yet when Saddam was executed there was not a word of condemnation from the Labour government.

But to a man and woman its members oppose the death penalty here. It is a perverted moral calculus which holds that a death sentence is acceptable if there are hundreds of thousands of murder victims but unacceptable if there are only a few.

We can argue about the details – to which forms of murder the death penalty should apply and in what circumstances – but the principle is clear. That is why Levi Bellfield should hang.

Thank God it is impossible for most of us to have any real understanding of what the through over the past nine years.

To lose a child in any circumstances is an unimaginable nightmare. To lose a daughter in the way that Milly was taken is too painful to think about.

No normal human being could follow Bellfield’s trial without being stunned by the gut-wrenching tragedy suffered by the Dowlers and enraged by the depravity of her murderer.

As if that was not enough suffering for them to endure, Bellfield put them through further trauma at the trial by refusing to admit his guilt and attempting to switch the blame for Milly’s death to her father Bob Dowler.

Which of us could endure our every foible being exposed and picked over with forensic questioning from a barrister?

We all have areas of our life which are intensely private. Exposure alone would be bad enough, allowing everyone else to pick over and comment on.

But exposure as part of an attempt by your daughter’s murderer to insinuate that you, in fact, are the real cause of her death?

Like so much else in this terrible story that must have been unendurable.

AS VICTIMS’ Commissioner Louise Casey said yesterday: “No one in this country can think what happened to them in that courtroom was right.”

The Dowlers’ private lives were torn to shreds at the Old Bailey. Milly’s mother Sally and her sister Gemma, 25, collapsed, unable to bear it any longer as the verdict was returned.

Yes, the legal process which allowed that to happen must be examined. But one man was responsible for their suffering, not the legal system.

It speaks volumes about Bellfield that he thought nothing of letting his victim’s family go through hell in the witness box.

So push me for a reason why he should not be executed and I struggle. All I can come up with is that idea of his remaining life being a “living hell” as Mrs Dowler put it.

But from what we know about the criminal justice system the idea of life meaning life is unlikely.

Who would bet against some human rights organisation campaigning for his release in 20 years’ time?

As for the idea that it is better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man is hanged: better for whom?




John Hardon
QUOTE: "There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world." "Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty."

AUTHOR: John Hardon A.K.A John A. S. A. Hardon, S.J., Servant of God (June 18, 1914 – December 30, 2000) was a Jesuit priest, writer, and theologian. He is the founder of The Holy Trinity Apostolate. Hardon was born into a devout Catholic family in Midland, Pennsylvania, and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. He obtained his bachelor's degree at John Carroll University before entering the Society of Jesus in 1936. He obtained a master's degree in philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, studied theology at West Baden College in West Baden, Indiana, and was ordained a priest on June 18, 1947 on his 33rd birthday. He received his doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Father Hardon was a very prominent member of the Jesuit community, which is known for its academic rigor, and wrote dozens of books on religion and theology, including: The Catholic Catechism (1975), a defining volume of Catholic orthodoxy; and the Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980), the first major Catholic reference dictionary published after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). Hardon was also a major contributor to Catholic newspapers and magazines and was executive editor of The Catholic Faith magazine. Hardon had a close working relationship with Pope Paul VI, engaging in several initiatives at the Pope's request, including his authoring of The Catholic Catechism. Father Hardon's Catholic Catechism was a significant post–Vatican II work in the sense that it essentially brought modern Catholic teaching and faith into one book, unlike any other before, and was a precursor to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the official codified teaching of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992. Hardon served as a consultant for the drafting of that document. Father Hardon died in Clarkston, Michigan, on December 30, 2000, after suffering from several illnesses. Having been known throughout his life as a holy man, there is interest among some Catholics for his beatification and a Church-sanctioned prayer for that cause has been written. According to Church law, Father Hardon could have his cause for beatification opened by the Church as early as December 30, 2005. If that happens it would place him on the path towards possible sainthood. An effort is underway to establish a Father Hardon library and study center at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse, Wisconsin. ... father John Hardon is beatified, and has been for a few years now.

Sunday, December 29, 2013


           The Feast Day of King David from the Bible is celebrated on December 29. I will blog about King David versus Joab: A Christian Case for the Death Penalty.

Statue of King David by Nicolas Cordier in the Borghese Chapel of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore
c. 1010 – 1002 BC (Judah)
c. 1002 – 970 BC (Israel)
c. 1040 BC
Bethlehem, Judah, Israel
c. 970 BC
Place of death
Jerusalem, Judah, Israel
City of David
Royal House
December 29 - Roman Catholicism
Psalms, Harp, Head of Goliath

David (/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דָּוִד, דָּוִיד, Modern David Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Arabic: داودDāwūd) according to the Hebrew Bible, was the second king of the United Kingdom of Israel, and according to the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, an ancestor of Jesus. His life is conventionally dated to c. 1040–970 BC, his reign over Judah c. 1010–1002 BC, and his reign over the United Kingdom of Israel c. 1002–970 BC.

The Books of Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles are the only sources of information on David, although the Tel Dan Stele (dated c. 850–835 BC) contains the phrase בית דוד (Beit David), read as "House of David", which most scholars take as confirmation of the existence in the mid-9th century BC of a Judean royal dynasty called the House of David.

He is depicted as a righteous king, although not without faults, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician, and poet, traditionally credited for composing many of the psalms contained in the Book of Psalms.

David is central to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic doctrine and culture. Biblical tradition maintains that a direct descendant of David will be the Messiah. In Islam, he is considered a prophet.

Joab (Hebrew יוֹאָב Modern Yo'av Tiberian Yôʼāḇ) the son of Zeruiah, was the nephew of King David and the commander of his army, according to the Hebrew Bible.


The name Joab (יוֹאָב) is derived from Yahweh (יהוה), the name of the God of Israel, and the Hebrew word 'av' (אָב), meaning 'father'. It therefore means 'Yahweh [is] father'. Apart from David's nephew, the name is given to two other individuals in the Bible (see Ezra 2:6, 8:9). It is also a common name in contemporary Israel.

The name Yoav (Joab) may also be attributed to the district of Moav (Moab in Latin transcription),eastern bank of the Jordan, from where Ruth the Moabitess came.

Illustration from the Morgan Bible of a story in 2 Samuel 20 of Joab pursuing Sheba as far as Abel-beth-maachah and Sheba's head being thrown down to him.
Biblical narrative

Joab was the son of Zeruiah, a sister of king David, who made him captain of his army (2 Samuel 8:16; 20:23; 1 Chronicles 11:6; 18:15; 27:34). He had two brothers, Abishai and Asahel. Asahel was killed by Abner, for which Joab took revenge by murdering Abner against David's wishes (2 Samuel 2:13-32; 3:27).

After leading the assault on the fortress of Mount Zion, he was promoted to the rank of General (1 Chronicles 27:34). He led the army against Syria, Ammon, Moab and Edom. He also took part in David's murder of Uriah (2 Samuel 11:14-25).

Joab played a pivotal role as the commander of David's forces during Absalom's rebellion. Absalom, one of David's sons, rallied much of Israel in rebellion against David, who was forced to flee with only his most trusted men. However, David could not bring himself to harm his son, and ordered that none of his men should kill Absalom during the ensuing battle. However, when a man reported that Absalom had been found, alive, caught in a tree, Joab and his men killed him (2 Samuel 18:1-33).

Hearing of David's grief over the reported death of Absalom, Joab confronted and admonished David. The king followed Joab's advice to make a public appearance to encourage his troops (2 Samuel 19:1-8).

David later replaced him as commander of the army with his nephew, Amasa (2 Samuel 17:25; 19:13). Joab later killed Amasa (2 Samuel 20:8-13; 1 Kings 2:5).

Joab and other commanders began questioning David's judgment (2 Samuel 24:2-4). As David neared the end of his reign, Joab offered his allegiance to David's eldest son, Adonijah rather than to the promised king, Solomon (1 Kings 1:1-27).

On the brink of death, David told Solomon to have Joab killed citing Joab's past betrayals and the blood that he was guilty of, and for this Solomon ordered his death by the hand of Benaiah (1 Kings 2:29-34), who then replaced him as commander of the army. Joab was buried in 'the wilderness' (1 Kings 2:34). It is interesting to note that Joab fled to the Tent of the Tabernacle (where Adonijah has previously sought successful refuge (1 Kings 1:50-53)) and told Benaiah that he will die there. Benaiah, as ordered by King Solomon, kills Joab in the House of Yahweh.


According to Josephus, Joab did not kill Abner out of revenge, because he had forgiven him for the death of his brother, Asahel, the reason being that Abner had slain Asahel honorably in combat after he had twice warned Asahel and had no other choice but to kill him out of self-defense. If this was the case, the reason Joab killed Abner may have been that he became a threat to his rank of general, since Abner had switched to the side of David and granted him control over the tribe of Benjamin. Yet the narrative explicitly states that Joab killed Abner "to avenge the blood of his brother Asahel" (2 Samuel 3:27).

            Many Christians oppose to the death penalty have the habit of saying, “Only God has the right to take life.”

            If they read the case of how the dying King David told his son, Solomon to have Joab executed because he was a murderer. Was David playing God? No. He was obeying God in putting murderers to death. David was in authority and he had the right to take life. 

             Please see The Catechism of Trent on THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT: "Thou shalt not kill" on the section: Execution of Criminals

“Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David in Psalms 101 verse 8: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”