Is it licit for Governors to pardon unrepentant criminals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mythbuster1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mythbuster1

Guest
I have had an idea about a way to shut down abortion clinics, but I cannot find a source for whether or not it is licit: Suppose the Governor of a state told abortionists that if they did not shut down, he would pardon murderers convicted of killing abortionists, who are adamant about the righteousness of their cause and not repentant in the slightest. Would doing so be licit? There are two moral issues here: 1. Can the Governor use his pardon power to threaten people engaging in otherwise legal behavior? 2. Would it constitute scandal to pardon an unrepentant criminal in this context, as it could be seen as an outright blessing of vigilantism?
 
That wasn’t the question, because the Governor isn’t the one issuing the death threat. The death threat, such as it exists, is on the part of the convicted murderer.
 
The governor in this scenario is choosing someone to do the killing on his behalf.

Perhaps we should review what the Church teaches about the sources of morality:
CCC 1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
Click to expand...
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.
Click to expand...
1756 … One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Click to expand...
The object, that is, the concrete act that the governor is actually choosing to do, is to release a killer, which is evil. His intention, to save lives, which is a good intention, does not make the release of a killer morally acceptable.
 
Now, if the killer were sincerely repentant and committed to nonviolence going forward, would that change the assessment? In this case, the only threat would be in the paranoia of the abortionists, as it is written, “The wicked man flees, though no one pursues him.”
 
This would be a stupid act of injustice. The guvornor would be materially complicit in any murders those serial killers would commit when let out.

That’s a threat of violence and murder. The principle of double effect would not apply to save it. You cannot use a threat of violence in order to attain a good.

Besides it would just make it so the guvorner was replaced by someone who was judged sane, and would have the effect that Pro-Life candidates forever would have to reassure people that they “Weren’t that crazy guy who proposed letting serial killers lose on society if abortion didn’t stop.”

Yesh…
 
mythbuster1 said:
Now, if the killer were sincerely repentant and committed to nonviolence going forward, would that change the assessment?
Click to expand...
You’ve just changed the question. I too will change my approach.

Did Jesus ever make a sinner repent through fear or threats?
 
Yes, for He spoke at great length of the fiery Gehenna that awaits those who do not repent.
 
Yeah, I was pretty much expecting this result, but since I couldn’t find any references to such a scenario, I figured this question needed asking.
 
I note that in a number of states, the Governor does not have pardon power and the pardons are done by a Board of Pardons and Parole. In some states the Governor may sit on the Board, but he isn’t the sole person deciding the pardon. Presumably the use of the Board is so that one person doesn’t misuse the pardon power, as in the case of some governors who grant controversial pardons just before they leave office.

In other cases Governors get recommendations about pardons from a board of some sort, though they don’t have to follow them.

I would presume in the states where a Governor might have the broad pardon power, if he exercised it as you described (saying in advance he would pardon a certain group of unrepentant murderers), the legislature would move quickly to legally limit his pardon power and/or perhaps even remove him from office.
 
On that note, I’m not sure if such acts would stand up in federal court anyway, because a de facto open season on abortionists would run afoul of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
 
I get it, but realizing that peaceful solutions aren’t always possible, I do consider what appropriate uses of force exist to stop this atrocity. When I heard about the Abortion Ship project from Women on Waves, my immediate reaction was to say that nations who outlaw abortions should announce that it will be regarded as a pirate ship, subject to being sunk without warning by the Navy upon entering their territorial waters.
 
Well that’s a novel “solution”. In essence though you end up with more deaths, forcing abortion underground does nothing for the overall background rate. So women who need terminations still seek them, but in less safe conditions and are more likely to die as a result, then you’ve added more deaths by having murderers running around killing abortionists.

If you actually want to reduce the abortion rate, then you really need to improve access to contraception and improve sex education. Those are practical steps that will move the needle.
 
Last edited:
Inquisitor85 said:
If you actually want to reduce the abortion rate, then you really need to improve access to contraception and improve sex education. Those are practical steps that will move the needle.
Click to expand...
I note that the person posting this suggestion is identified as an atheist on their profile and that promoting contraception is against Catholic teaching.
 
Any governor who acted the way you suggest would be overstepping and abusing his power.

Yes, he could threaten to release the unrepentent murderers. But if he followed through, he would be putting more than the lives of the abortionists in danger.

And he would quickly be booted out of office.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
If you actually want to reduce the abortion rate, then you really need to improve access to contraception and improve sex education. Those are practical steps that will move the needle.
Click to expand...
Unwanted pregnancies occur regardless of whether or not contraception is used. Those engaging in it are often unwed teenagers who just want the experience of having sex and often already know the facts of life. What needs to be taught and ingrained in young people is self respect and confidence so that they will be willing to wait until marriage before giving themselves to their husband or wife.

And if an unintended or unwanted pregnancy occurs and the mother to be is adamant about not keeping the baby, adoption should be encouraged.
 
lilypadrees said:
Unwanted pregnancies occur regardless of whether or not contraception is used.
Click to expand...
This is a bit disingenuous. Yes, pregnancy can occur when contraception is used…no one claims it’s 100% foolproof. It does, however, lower the likelihood dramatically. It’s like saying “deaths in car accidents occur regardless of whether a seatbelt is worn.” Literally true, but misleading.

I’m not suggesting we tell teens to go have all the sex they want provided they use condoms, but we also lose credibility if we pretend that contraception doesn’t actually prevent conception.
 
Last edited:
Your proposal is utterly nonsensical and flagrantly contrary to civil and moral justice.
 
“Pardon” by a governmental official is a worldly action, not a sacramental, so it the question as to whether it is valid or licit is not applicable.

Is it right in the eyes of God? I can’t say. Leave that to scholarly theologians to decide.

Perhaps the verses to give us peace are:

Matthew 22:21 and Romans 13:1.

Rejoice in the Lord Always. I will say it again, Rejoice (Phil 4:4)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top