Every Sunday morning during Mass, Catholics make our Profession of Faith, which ends:

I look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of world to come. Amen.

Other than Christ Jesus, we believe that no one has yet been resurrected from the dead. That is the case with the victims of murder here on earth, but some people seem to believe that those who commit murders should be released from prison before the person they killed is resurrected from the dead.

Should life without parole be mandatory for second-degree murder? The Pa. Supreme Court is weighing the issue.

Efforts to challenge the statute and the penalty have been persistent but unsuccessful over the years

by Chris Palmer | Tuesday, October 8, 2024 | 2:07 PM EDT

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court justices on Tuesday debated whether the state’s mandatory sentence of life without parole for second-degree murder is constitutional — an issue that has long been eyed for reform by a mix of advocates and some legislators.

Under state law, people who participate in a deadly felony — such as a robbery — can be charged with the crime, also known as felony murder, even if they didn’t commit the killing or intend for anyone to die. A conviction leads to an automatic life sentence, and more than 1,100 people are serving that penalty in Pennsylvania, which is one of only two states nationwide to mandate incarceration for life for felony murder convictions.

The law is Pennsylvania Title 18 §2502(b), reproduced above. I point out here that even if the perpetrators did not go into their crime intending to kill anyone, if they were committing a crime, while carrying weapons, they had to know that someone being killed was a possibility, and that they might not have intended for someone to be killed does not make someone who was killed during such a crime is no less dead than the victim in an intentional murder. Title 18 §1102(b) specifies the penalty as life imprisonment.

Efforts to challenge the statute and the penalty have been persistent but unsuccessful over the years. The issue landed before the state’s high court this week because an attorney for one of those defendants — Derek Lee, who took part in a fatal robbery in Pittsburgh in 2014, but whose coconspirator committed the killing — filed an appeal saying that the penalty is unduly cruel.

Isn’t killing someone “unduly cruel”?

Further down, we get the typical leftist argument:

Legislators have debated Pennsylvania’s sentence for felony murder for years. Beyond the challenge to the sentence as potentially cruel, advocates have pointed out that those imprisoned for the crime are disproportionately Black, that about half are from Philadelphia, and that hundreds have already served decades in prison, putting them beyond the age at which they’re likely to commit another crime.

Is the purpose simply to lock them up until they have passed the ages “at which they’re likely to commit another crime,” or is the purpose also to punish them for the crimes they have committed? Perhaps they will have passed the ages in which they are likely to commit other crimes, but their victims are still stone-cold graveyard dead.

“(A)bout half are from Philadelphia”? Perhaps they are, but it’s also true that about half of all murders in the Keystone State occur in the City of Brotherly Love.

“(D)isproportionately black”? According to the Philadelphia Shooting Victims Dashboard, accessed at 8:58 AM EDT on Wednesday, October 9^th, the data on fatal shootings in the city from 2015 through October 7^th, 75.71% of all fatal shooting victims were black males, and another 5.85% were black females. 11.1% were Hispanic males, while 1.25% were Hispanic females. Only 3.97% were white males, 1.25% white females, and less than 1%, 0.78% were Asians of either sex. Of course the criminals who killed them are going to be “disproportionately black”!

(Bret)Grote^[1]How unserious is Mr Grote? He couldn’t even be bothered to clean up his beta male beard before going before the state Supreme Court. has been among the most vigorous advocates for change. He and the organization he works for, the Abolitionist Law Center, filed a lawsuit in 2020 contending that the state’s ban on parole eligibility for felony murder was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected that appeal two years later.

Image from main page of Abolitionist Law Center website, screencaptured on October 9, 2024.

Ahhh, the Abolitionist Law Center, which we have previously mentioned. What reporter Chris Palmer failed to mention, and did not hyperlink, is that the Abolitionist Law Center is opposed to incarceration for anything, opposes all prison sentences, and would, if they could, free every murderer, every rapist, every drug dealer, and every assailant locked up in Pennsylvania’s prisons.

We challenge every point on the criminal punishment conveyor belt including policing, courts, jails and prisons, and various forms of legal supervision, as well as other aspects of the carceral machine.

Boldface in the original.

TribLive.com carried more on this story:

Grote told the seven justices that if his client’s sentence is not struck down, Lee will some day die in prison because of the unintended consequences of his crime.

“This must no longer be the case in Pennsylvania,” Grote said.

Why not? After all, Leonard Butler of Pittsburgh died in his own basement, the result of a crime committed by Paul Durham and Derek Lee! Why shouldn’t Mr Lee die in prison?

Lee ordered Butler and his girlfriend into the basement and demanded money from them. Butler handed over his watch, and Lee went upstairs in the home, leaving Durham and Butler in the basement.

Butler attempted to lunge at Durham, the girlfriend testified at trial, and Durham shot him. . . . .

Justice P. Kevin Brobson countered (Mr Grote’s argument, saying) that Lee engaged in a violent home invasion, entered with a gun and pistol-whipped the victim.

So, Mr Lee was armed just as the actual shooter was!

Justice Brobson questioned whether Mr Lee’s case was the right one on which to base the Abolitionist Law Center’s case. I have to ask: what good would be served by releasing Mr Lee, either now, after he has served only eight years, or ever, for the people of Pennsylvania, or the family of Mr Butler?

Perhaps Mr Lee will find faith in God while he’s locked up; perhaps he already has. Perhaps he will be able to do some good while in prison, counseling others who do have hope of eventual release. Regardless of that, he participated in a felony murder, and should not be released until the day his victim comes back to life.