The morally emasculated: Death for Death Penalty Opponents

[777]

JimO:

My sister was murdered in 1965 when she was 19. She was stabbed to death by a guy who spent most of his childhood and adult years in prison. He was on parole for burning down an elementary school at the time. He was robbing employee lockers at a popular college hangout - The College Inn (most recently The Purple Porpoise) - when she walked out of the ladies’ room and surprised him. She lived long enough to give the police a description of him that resulted in his capture. She was a sweet, loving girl who was devoutly Catholic and loved Jesus.

I was 5 years old at the time of her murder and was very close to her. Needless to say, it devastated my parents, my sister and four brothers, one of which was attending UF at the time and was having dinner with her when it happened. As a result of this, I grew up as a young child terrified of being left alone and afraid I was going to be killed.

The prosecuter was afraid that if they went for 1st degree murder, he might walk, so they tried and convicted him of 2nd degree murder. He spent 10 years in jail and we were informed of his release (on good behavior) by a Gainesville Sun reporter who called and asked my mother, “How do you feel about your daugher’s murderer being released?” I still carry her photo in my wallet.

Given all that, I am not a proponent of the death penalty. If given the opportunity to pull the switch on this guy, I would not and could not. I wouldn’t want the fate of his soul on my conscience. And, I wouldn’t want someone else to do it for me. I would, however, have preferred that he stayed in jail until he died. I did hear through a piece in the UF newspaper that he had died in recent years. I’d be willing to bet that his life was not a happy one, but I take no joy in that either.

At the risk of sounding overly pious, I genuinely hope this guy is in heaven. God gave me the grace to forgive him; something I could not have done on my own. Losing my sister was tragic and it was a defining event in the life of my family. However, I don’t see that killing this guy would have done anything for any of us other than satisfy some need for revenge, especially if he went unrepented to hell. It would have been an empty revenge. On the other hand, if this guy repented and is in heaven, I see my sweet sister as forgiving him like Christ forgave his own murderers.

Our sense of justice is not like God’s. I know Christians who are bothered by the possibility that the Ted Bundys of the world might have repented and been shown mercy. “How could that scum make it into heaven while so many good people don’t?” God’s mercy and God’s justice are a mystery to me, but I know that they are perfect. I’m just thankful that He’s willing to show me mercy and my sister.

You tell them. It’s everyone should know you can’t return evil for evil. Death penalties suck, and all they do, is allow peole to play God and Jesus, when revenge is only used by our heavenly father. An eye for an eye makes the world blind!! And death penalties, (not to mention just wars, abotion and mercy kills) only ranks as revenge any way you slice it. And it won’t bring the victims back.

 

[vern_humphrey]

777:

You tell them. It’s everyone should know you can’t return evil for evil. Death penalties suck, and all they do, is allow peole to play God and Jesus, when revenge is only used by our heavenly father. An eye for an eye makes the world blind!! And death penalties, (not to mention just wars, abotion and mercy kills) only ranks as revenge any way you slice it. And it won’t bring the victims back.

So we were wrong to fight Hitler in WWII? We should have just let him conquer all of Europe and finish the job with the Jews?

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

So we were wrong to fight Hitler in WWII? We should have just let him conquer all of Europe and finish the job with the Jews?

What about WWI? If there had been no WWI then Hitler would not have come to power in 1933. So the War to end All Wars 1914-1918 created the worst ever war. So if the answer to evil is more evil then you must be asking the wrong question.

Note the words of John Paul II

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20041216_xxxviii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

. For the theme of this 2005 World Day of Peace I have chosen Saint Paul’s words in the Letter to the Romans:* “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (12:21). Evil is never defeated by evil; once that road is taken, rather than defeating evil, one will instead be defeated by evil*. The great Apostle brings out a fundamental truth: peace is the outcome of a long and demanding battle which is only won when evil is defeated by good. If we consider the tragic scenario of violent fratricidal conflicts in different parts of the world, and the untold sufferings and injustices to which they have given rise, the only truly constructive choice is, as Saint Paul proposes, to* flee what is evil and hold fast to what is good* (cf.* Rom* 12:9).

Peace is a good to be promoted with good: it is a good for individuals, for families, for nations and for all humanity; yet it is one which needs to be maintained and fostered by decisions and actions inspired by good. We can appreciate the profound truth of another saying of Saint Paul: *“Repay no one evil for evil” *(Rom 12:17). The one way out of the vicious circle of requiting evil for evil is to accept the Apostle’s words: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (*Rom *12:21).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

What about WWI? If there had been no WWI then Hitler would not have come to power in 1933. So the War to end All Wars 1914-1918 created the worst ever war. So if the answer to evil is more evil then you must be asking the wrong question.

Note the words of John Paul II

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20041216_xxxviii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Note these words:

“We know now that Wilhelm was a virulent anti-semite, although not a murderous one like Hitler. We also know that Imperial Germany’s war aims in World War I were not disimilar to that of the NAZIs although without the extreme murdeous racial policies. The Treaty of Brest-Listosk with the Bolshevicks in 1918 showed just what would have been in store for Europe if Germany had won World War I. Germany which complained of vengefull treatment by the Allies were prepared to pursue just such a peace if they had won.”

Note also that Benexict XVI has pointed out that it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on the issues of war or the death penalty, but not on abortion and euthanasia.

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

Note these words:

“We know now that Wilhelm was a virulent anti-semite, although not a murderous one like Hitler. We also know that Imperial Germany’s war aims in World War I were not disimilar to that of the NAZIs although without the extreme murdeous racial policies. The Treaty of Brest-Listosk with the Bolshevicks in 1918 showed just what would have been in store for Europe if Germany had won World War I. Germany which complained of vengefull treatment by the Allies were prepared to pursue just such a peace if they had won.”
.

Try finding a reputable historian who agrees with that. I have studied the history of the era and I think that the comment you quote is nonsense. The Kaiser met Theodore Herzel the founder of Zionism in Jerusalem and they considered a project for a Jewish State in Palestine as part of the German Empire.

German harshness to the bolshevik regime may have had something to do with hatred of communism. There is no particular evidence that other Capitalist regimes conquered by the German Regime suffered anything remotely comprable to the post 1939 anguish of Europe. The Irish Revolutionary Socialist James Connolly several times suggested that German Colonial rule was markedly less authoritarian than that of the British.

 

[Lisa_N]

777:

You tell them. It’s everyone should know you can’t return evil for evil. Death penalties suck, and all they do, is allow peole to play God and Jesus, when revenge is only used by our heavenly father. An eye for an eye makes the world blind!!.

Sorry but not only is that statement a trite cliche, it belies a lack of understanding regarding the philosophy behind “an eye for an eye.” The point was to make the punishment EQUAL to, not greater than the crime. IOW you would not cut off the hand of a thief because the punishment would be in excess of the crime.

Death penalties ‘suck?’ My that is an original statement. Come on, please give this group credit for being a little above schoolyard jargon. Also FWIW I don’t think either Jesus or God are in the revenge business.

777:

And death penalties, (not to mention just wars, abotion and mercy kills) only ranks as revenge any way you slice it. And it won’t bring the victims back.

Death penalties also function to protect society and in fact that is the one reason that the death penalty may be possible within Catholic doctrine. What do abortions or ‘mercy killings’ have to do with revenge?

Lisa N

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

Try finding a reputable historian who agrees with that. I have studied the history of the era and I think that the comment you quote is nonsense. The Kaiser met Theodore Herzel the founder of Zionism in Jerusalem and they considered a project for a Jewish State in Palestine as part of the German Empire…

I suggest you read “Germany’s Aims in World War One.”

The fact that the Kaiser met Herzl is one thing – his actons, had he won is another.

Matt25:

German harshness to the bolshevik regime may have had something to do with hatred of communism. There is no particular evidence that other Capitalist regimes conquered by the German Regime suffered anything remotely comprable to the post 1939 anguish of Europe. .

The Imperial German plans for Western Europe are remarkably like the policy the NAZIs actually carried out.

Matt25:

The Irish Revolutionary Socialist James Connolly several times suggested that German Colonial rule was markedly less authoritarian than that of the British.

It was?

Connolly had little experience in German colonies, never lived under German colonial rule, and hoped (with Roger Casement) to draw Germany into providing material help for Irish freedom – in other words, he was not an unbiased speaker!

 

[mlchance]

legeorge:

Obviously, this author has never met Christ! Let alone read the Bible! Hence, he has no authority to judge someone’s morals.

Admittedly this is coming in a bit late from a bit early, but puh-leeze. At no point in time are Christians forbidden from making moral judgements about the actions of others. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth.

A child-abucting, child-raping, child-murdering person is guilty of horrible crimes. His morals, insofar as these actions are concerned, are self-evidently evil.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Lisa_N]

ansel123:

The “kill 'em all” paragraph is not connected to the first. It was a reply to a separate issue being discussed amongst a few posters.

And furthermore, the evidence isn;t obvious that the death penalty is very very very rarely practiced. The Pope said that the criteria are practically impossible to meet and that is hardly the case in the U.S. justice system.

The US justice system is not subject to the Pope’s philosophies. I think it would be an appropriate standard but you cannot hold us to a standard that was not adopted by this country.

I still maintain that capital punishment is very very rare when you consider the size of this country and the number of capital crimes committed. That there is a different standard than would be approved by the Pope, doesn’t mean this is a common occurrance. It just means that people might be subject to capital punishment under our standard but not that of the Pope. I gave Scott Peterson as an example. Still given our history of using this punishment and given public sentiment in support of capital punishment, frankly I think we are doing well to keep it as low as it is.

FWIW I don’t see ANY posters suggesting 'kill ‘em all’. Those who do support the death penalty appear to support it only in extreme cases such as the one Vern H posted. How many of us think Peterson deserves the death penalty? I don’t.

Lisa N

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

I suggest you read “Germany’s Aims in World War One.”

By whom?

The Imperial German plans for Western Europe are remarkably like the policy the NAZIs actually carried out

.

Where can I see a copy of these plans? Other than in the source you mentioned above that is.

Connolly had little experience in German colonies, never lived under German colonial rule, and hoped (with Roger Casement) to draw Germany into providing material help for Irish freedom – in other words, he was not an unbiased speaker!

I said he was an “Irish Revolutionary Socialist” so its a little remarkable that you somehow understood that to read “an unbiased speaker” although it reveals something about your ability to comprehend. He did live under British Colonialism so knew more about being subject to an Empire than you do. His comparisons were marxists.org/archive/connolly/1916/03/germbrit.htm

Nothing warms the cockles of my old heart so much as when some British Socialist kind-heartedly approves of my attitude – approves of it ‘except,’ ‘but,’ and ‘only for.’ Especially am I pleased when I learn from his letter that he has only read one copy of the Workers’ Republic, is only just arrived in Ireland, but nevertheless understands our position thoroughly, and is only filled with pity for the “sweet innocence” that inspires our little mistakes in such matters as a desire to vindicate the character of the enemies of the British capitalist Government.

Perhaps after he has been here as many years as he has been days he will begin to understand that the instinct of the slave to take sides with whoever is the enemy of his own particular slave-driver is a healthy instinct, and makes for freedom. That every Socialist who knows what he is talking about must be in favour of freedom of the seas, must desire that private property shall be immune from capture at sea during war, must realise that as long as any one nation dominates the water highways of the world neither peace nor free industrial development is possible for the world. If the capitalists of other nations desire the freedom of the seas for selfish reasons of their own that does not affect the matter. Every Socialist anxiously awaits and prays for that full development of the capitalist system which can alone make Socialism possible, but can only come into being by virtue of the efforts of the capitalists inspired by selfish reasons.

The German Empire is a homogeneous Empire of self-governing peoples; the British Empire is a heterogeneous collection in which a very small number of self-governing communities connive at the subjugation, by force, of a vast number of despotically ruled subject populations.

We do not wish to be ruled by either empire, but we certainly believe that the first named contains in germ more of the possibilities of freedom and civilisation than the latter.

 

[beate]

legeorge:

And in such a technically advanced society as ours, do you see any reason why we should not just keep these people locked up for life, make them earn their keep, work hard, and perhaps have the opportunity to repent of their crimes? I think hardened criminals should be punished, and kept where they cannot harm anyone else, but I’m not convinced that killing them is the ultimate solution. Maybe in extremely rare cases. But I think that making these types of criminals work hard for their living while incarcerated would be a good thing. Why should they get cable t.v., weight rooms, computers, etc.? That’s ok for minimum security, but not maximum. They should have to grow their own food, cook, clean, make their clothes, and work for their keep. That would help keep the financial burden of life imprisonment off the taxpayers and maybe be a good deterrant to criminals.

I humbly agree, but without exceptions:
THOU SHALL NOT KILL
God created these people as well.Of course, outrage, hatred, revenge do strike some chord in all of us.
As I see Catholicism, it is the everlasting search towards a transcendence of our"flesh"pitfalls.
If I’m wrong, do correct me.

 

[pnewton]

beate:

I humbly agree, but without exceptions:
THOU SHALL NOT KILL

“Thou shall not kill” does not apply to the death penalty. This is a quote from the same code of law that included a death penalty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

I said he was an “Irish Revolutionary Socialist” so its a little remarkable that you somehow understood that to read “an unbiased speaker” although it reveals something about your ability to comprehend. He did live under British Colonialism so knew more about being subject to an Empire than you do. His comparisons were marxists.org/archive/connolly/1916/03/germbrit.htm

If he is not an objective observer, why reference him at all?

If you wish to make the point the United States should have stood aloof and let Germany win WWI, make it straight out.

 

[dirtydog]

wjhii:

This author hopes to bring awareness to the lily-livered eunuchs who oppose the death penalty and make all of our lives miserable.

Why don’t you come down here and call me that to my face? Look cowboy, there are those of us who appose the death penalty on an unemotional basis. I have no moral objections to the penalty, but on a purely practical level, I’d prefer that we not spend more money on the scum than we have to. It costs more to put someone to death after all the required appeals than to just let them sit and think about their crimes for the rest of their lives. Granted, if someone raped my daughter, he wouldn’t live to see his sentence even handed out. However, I personally think that a lethal injection or being gassed is too good for these guys. If we really want to put them to death, it ought to be painful. If we can’t quickly put them to death in an old time “purging” sort of way, they ought to live their lives out in the company of their brethren, on an island far out at sea - like that French prison island back in the day.

O.k. - all bravado aside - besides the fact that the death penalty costs more, there is lots of evidence that MANY who get the death penalty truly are innocent and that racism plays a part in who does or does not get the death penalty. My first paragraph still stands, but as a college senior in debate class I had to argue against the death penalty even though I was a fervent supporter at the time. I don’t support it as long as there is a significant possibility that we are sentencing innocent people to death.

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

If he is not an objective observer, why reference him at all?

If you wish to make the point the United States should have stood aloof and let Germany win WWI, make it straight out.

I cited an anti-Imperialist who was killed by the British because his opinions about colonialism were founded on personal experience.

My point about WWI has nothing to do with the US belated intervention. It is that every person who suggests that the only way Hitler could have been deposed from power was by a World War deliberately ignores the fact that he would never have come to power if there had not been a prior World War. One great evil was used to ‘undo’ the effects of another. I’m sure this is the kind of thing you think noble but Christians are called to overcome evil with good.

As for who won the First World War actually it had nothing to do with freedom in Europe, Germany was a darn sight more democratic than Tsarist Russia, and everything to do with a struggle over control of colonies around the world. Victory for Germany would have made little difference to Britain. Except that there would not have been a Second World War. A war incidentally in which many more British than Americans died.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

I cited an anti-Imperialist who was killed by the British because his opinions about colonialism were founded on personal experience…

James Connolly doesn’t fit that description.

Matt25:

My point about WWI has nothing to do with the US belated intervention. It is that every person who suggests that the only way Hitler could have been deposed from power was by a World War deliberately ignores the fact that he would never have come to power if there had not been a prior World War. One great evil was used to ‘undo’ the effects of another. I’m sure this is the kind of thing you think noble but Christians are called to overcome evil with good.

To paraphrase an old Ozark saying, “If the dog hadn’t stopped to perform a bodily function, he would have caught the rabbit.”

Your re-interpretation of history and wishful thinking notwithstanding, there were evil forces at work in Europe, and the only solution was to oppose them with force – both in WWI and WWII.

 

[tcreek1]

“Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life." Orin Hatch.​

*“ If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture.” *Avery Cardinal Dulles

---

These websites from the U.S. Dept of Justice clearly show the connection between executions and the murder rate. When executions go down, murder rates go up.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm

--------------------------

The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment.

The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope. Pope Pius XII, in an important allocution to medical experts, declared that it was reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of their crimes.

Pius XII, in a further clarification of the standard argument, holds that when the State, acting by its ministerial power, uses the death penalty, it does not exercise dominion over human life but only recognizes that the criminal, by a kind of moral suicide, has deprived himself of the right to life. In the Pope’s words,

“Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.”