Will Texas execute two innocent men? [CNA]

[CNA_News]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...te_Pen_Credit_Ken_Piorkowsk_CNA_728.jpgAustin, Texas, Aug 10, 2016 / 05:23 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In Texas, two scheduled executions could kill innocent men, Catholic and other Christian leaders have warned.

“In both cases, there are strong indicators that the defendants may be innocent. A gross misuse of justice does not serve the victims, our society or those who have been sentenced to death,” the Texas Catholic bishops said Aug 3.

They urged Texans to write to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles regarding Jeff Wood and Robert Pruett. Wood is scheduled for execution Aug. 24.

“Jeff Wood has not ever killed another person. He was not even in the building when the murder for which he is sentenced took place,” the bishops said. “His mental health and the witness of a now-discredited psychiatrist seem to be the primary reasons for his capital punishment.”

In January 1996 Wood, then 22, waited in a car while Daniel Runeau robbed a Kerryville convenience store. Runeau shot and killed the clerk, Kriss Keeran, the Texas Tribune reports. Wood was charged with capital murder under a Texas law that says a person can be charged with a crime if he helps commit another crime or should have anticipated that other crime as a result.

The Texas Catholic Conference’s executive director Jennifer Carr Alimon, in an Aug. 3 letter to Gov. Abbot and the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles, said his original sentencing hearing was “prejudiced by the false and perjured testimony” of a discredited psychiatrist.

“The jury also did not hear evidence that might have caused it to spare Mr. Wood’s life,” Alimon’s letter said.

Wood’s mental illness should have made him incompetent to stand trial, but he had instructed his attorneys not to present evidence on his behalf or cross-examine witnesses,” Alimon added. “It is extremely rare for any person in the history of the modern death penalty to have been executed with as little culpability and participation in the taking of a life as Mr. Wood.”

A group of Evangelical leaders also called for a halt to the execution of Wood and asked for a new sentencing hearing.

Full article…

 

[Tim_D]

Reading the article, one can hardly say that the two are “innocent men.”

One (Wood) waited in a car that was used in the commission of the murder of a convenience store clerk and the other (Pruett) had “possible false testimony” against him by fellow inmates in the killing of a prison guard.

The claim with Pruett is that there is “no physical evidence” tying him to the crime. Isn’t the fact that several eyewitnesses identified him enough? He claims that he was “framed.” Is there any evidence that can prove his allegation? He is currently serving a 99 year sentence as an accessory to murder.

And with Wood, many states consider a person, though they did not pull the trigger, to be equally guilty of murder if they were a participant in some way. The fact that he "was not even in the building when the murder for which he is sentenced took place" does make him innocent.

 

[ucfengr]

One may argue that these two men haven’t committed crimes that merit the death penaly, but claiming they’re innocent seems a bridge too far.

 

[St_Francis]

Reading the article, one can hardly say that the two are “innocent men.”

One (Wood) waited in a car that was used in the commission of the murder of a convenience store clerk and the other (Pruett) had “possible false testimony” against him by fellow inmates in the killing of a prison guard.

The claim with Pruett is that there is “no physical evidence” tying him to the crime. Isn’t the fact that several eyewitnesses identified him enough? He claims that he was “framed.” Is there any evidence that can prove his allegation? He is currently serving a 99 year sentence as an accessory to murder.

And with Wood, many states consider a person, though they did not pull the trigger, to be equally guilty of murder if they were a participant in some way. The fact that he "was not even in the building when the murder for which he is sentenced took place" does make him innocent.

WRT Pruett, yes, the other inmates might be falsely testifying against him. Without physical evidence, I agree, no DP. And I’m no opponent of the DP!

 

[Hatikvah]

What objective, reasonably convincing proof is there that these men are “innocent”? No wordly justice system is infallible. Even St. Joan of Arc had a retrial after her death and she was found to be not guilty!

This is just an excuse for the reiteration of anti-death penalty arguments. There were claims that the 9/11 hijackers had stolen identities so that they could perpetrate the attacks! That could mean that the men we thought who did it were “innocent.” Maybe we should give them posthumous trials?

God knows the truth, we cannot guess omnisciently like He can… Besides, being on death row takes many years nowadays, it’s a long process costing lots of money. Many people just die on death row anyhow. This is a rare case. The death penalty has been handed down a lot less often than in recent years: deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

 

[Allegra]

What objective, reasonably convincing proof is there that these men are “innocent”? No wordly justice system is infallible. Even St. Joan of Arc had a retrial after her death and she was found to be not guilty!

This is just an excuse for the reiteration of anti-death penalty arguments. There were claims that the 9/11 hijackers had stolen identities so that they could perpetrate the attacks! That could mean that the men we thought who did it were “innocent.” Maybe we should give them posthumous trials?

God knows the truth, we cannot guess omnisciently like He can… Besides, being on death row takes many years nowadays, it’s a long process costing lots of money. Many people just die on death row anyhow. This is a rare case. The death penalty has been handed down a lot less often than in recent years: deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Are you suggesting that we should just say, “Ho Hum, well that happens sometimes…” when a person is about to be executed for a crime there is very little proof he participated in, or in the other case, where it is known that he did not the one that pulled the trigger? Why is it so important that criminals should die that we should be so laissez faire about the lives of these men, who might not deserve the death penalty?

 

[Thom18]

(Pruett) had “possible false testimony” against him by fellow inmates in the killing of a prison guard.

The claim with Pruett is that there is “no physical evidence” tying him to the crime. Isn’t the fact that several eyewitnesses identified him enough? He claims that he was “framed.” Is there any evidence that can prove his allegation?

The “witnesses” may have gotten a deal to have their sentences reduced if they pointed out anyone else. They may have been desperate enough to falsely accuse Pruett.

 

[Hatikvah]

Are you suggesting that we should just say, “Ho Hum, well that happens sometimes…” when a person is about to be executed for a crime there is very little proof he participated in, or in the other case, where it is known that he did not the one that pulled the trigger? Why is it so important that criminals should die that we should be so laissez faire about the lives of these men, who might not deserve the death penalty?

I’m saying that we can freelance with this situation. This is a serious case (well, all cases are because they are cases in the first place?). Of course, we can and should always strive for the nearest to perfection in it as we can be, whichever direction that takes us in. This case is very specific, and no case is “typical” with its peculiar evidence and whatnot. That is the duty of those involved to sort out.

If these men are innocent, it’s a little late to prove it, but this may be the men’s final opportunity. It might be too far to say that they are “innocent,” especially after they’ve been sentenced – it’s not a matter of who is deserving and who is not, it is a matter of administering justice.

 

[Allegra]

it’s not a matter of who is deserving and who is not, it is a matter of administering justice.

Huh? Isn’t the act of administering justice determining the appropriate sentence for an individual that’s been convicted of a crime? It’s exactly about who deserves what sentence. That’s what it’s about. How can you say otherwise?

 

[Tim_D]

The “witnesses” may have gotten a deal to have their sentences reduced if they pointed out anyone else. They may have been desperate enough to falsely accuse Pruett.

A quid pro quo should be easy enough to discover. What if you’re wrong and the “witnesses” were truthful? The defense is the one who made the allegation about false testimony. They are the ones who need to prove it.

 

[J_Peterson]

Reading the article, one can hardly say that the two are “innocent men.”

One (Wood) waited in a car that was used in the commission of the murder of a convenience store clerk and the other (Pruett) had “possible false testimony” against him by fellow inmates in the killing of a prison guard.

The claim with Pruett is that there is “no physical evidence” tying him to the crime. Isn’t the fact that several eyewitnesses identified him enough? He claims that he was “framed.” Is there any evidence that can prove his allegation? He is currently serving a 99 year sentence as an accessory to murder.

And with Wood, many states consider a person, though they did not pull the trigger, to be equally guilty of murder if they were a participant in some way. The fact that he "was not even in the building when the murder for which he is sentenced took place" does make him innocent.

Even so, looking through the Catholic lens we have to ask if society will be safe without killing these two men. I don’t know anything about Pruett but Wood should absolutely not be killed. Prison sure, but the death penalty is draconian and unnecessary.

ETA: I’m with the Bishops on this issue. Nobody should be executed.

 

[Hatikvah]

Huh? Isn’t the act of administering justice determining the appropriate sentence for an individual that’s been convicted of a crime? It’s exactly about who deserves what sentence. That’s what it’s about. How can you say otherwise?

Oh, no, I meant that this case is not a matter of determining whether the death penalty is “deserved” in general, not just in this case – this is an actual case of justice vs injustice, not a case of “let’s make this into a civil rights issue.”

 

[PatrickC]

Texas will execute just about anyone. It’s the rootin’ tootin’ wild west down there.

 

[Ender]

Even so, looking through the Catholic lens we have to ask if society will be safe without killing these two men.

Despite what is said in CCC 2267, the safety of society is not the primary objective of punishment. That would be justice - retribution.

I don’t know anything about Pruett but Wood should absolutely not be killed. Prison sure, but the death penalty is draconian and unnecessary.

That really is the question: is the death penalty necessary? Based solely on the consideration of whether it is necessary for protection an argument could be made that it is not, but we would likely come to a different conclusion if we ask whether it is necessary as a matter of justice. Is the punishment deserved? Is it just?

Given that the church has always recognized the legitimacy of capital punishment it can only mean that she considered it a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. If, then, it is a just punishment - and deserved by the murderer - what is the argument that it should not be applied? Is it not necessary because it is deserved?

Ender

 

[PatrickC]

I prefer this approach:

Glory to God For All Things

Orthodox Christianity, Culture and Religion, Making the Journey of Faith

blogs.ancientfaith.com

St. Isaac – Mercy and Justice
Fr. Stephen Freeman

IsaacTheSyrian-headerThere is a strain within some forms of Western theology that is deeply concerned with the “justice” of God. Some even go so far as to say that God is constrained by His justice – that He cannot deny its demands (to do so, they argue, would make Him “less than just”). It is common for Orthodox theology to find this problematic. Here St. Isaac of Syria states the case quite clearly:

Mercy and justice in the same soul is like the man who worships God and idols in the same temple. Mercy is in contradiction with justice. Justice is the return of the equal. Because it returns to man that which he deserves and it does not bend to one side neither is it partial in the retaliation. But mercy is sorrow that is moved by grace and bends to all with sympathy and it does not return the harm to him who deserves it although it overfills him who deserves good. … And as it is not possible for hay and fire to be able to exist in the same house, the same way it is not possible for justice and mercy to be in the same soul. As the grain of sand cannot be compared with a great amount of gold – the same way God’s need for justice cannot be compared with his mercy. Because man’s sin, in comparison to the providence and the mercy of God, are like a handful of sand that falls in the sea and the Creator’s mercy cannot be defeated by the wickedness of the creatures.

I understand that many have a passion for the justice of God – believing that in the end everyone will be requited in the proper manner and this “balancing” will somehow make right all of the evil that may have been tolerated for a while. There is no doubt that many times our evil actions bring evil consequences on us (not as punishment from God but as our own self-willed estrangement from His Divine Life). But the vision of the Fathers and the vision of Christ’s revelation of the Father as received in the Church is of the infinite mercy of God.

Abba Ammonas states:

Love is not in enmity with anybody, it does not abuse anybody, it does not detest anybody neither believer nor unbeliever or foreigner or fornicator, or unclean. On the contrary it loves more the sinners and the weak and the negligent and for their sake it toils and mourns and weeps. It empathizes with the wicked and the sinners more than it does with the good, imitating and drinking with them. Therefore when He wanted to show us which is the true love he taught saying ‘be then compassionate as your Father is compassionate’(Luke 6:36) and as he sends his rain on the good and the wicked and makes His sun rise on the honest and the dishonest, the same way he who truly loves, loves everybody and has compassion for all and prays for all.

This sort of discourse can provoke anger in some readers – particularly those who demand that justice must, in the end, be done. I cannot help but feel that those who demand justice of God are like those who stood about the woman taken in adultery and demanded her stoning. Christ rebuked them, seeking to show them the sin in their own heart (“he who is without sin let him cast the first stone). By a strange quirk of Christian theology, there are those who feel “righteous” in their own heart, arguing that, having accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, they now have the righteousness of Christ (“imputed righteousness”) and thus feel safe in calling for justice to be done to others (thinking, I suppose, that this threat will provoke repentance). But justice is a very dangerous thing indeed. Though it may be called for in the interest of provoking someone to repentance, it can quickly become a thing in itself, and gather us up into the company of those who are outwardly righteous but inwardly “full of dead men’s bones.”

Spiritually, it is of far greater benefit and safety to simply beg the mercy of God for those who are trapped in sin, and see and treat them with the mercy of God. We are commanded to love even our enemies. I can think of no commandment that says we are to judge the unrighteous.

By the same token, I think it becomes theologically dangerous for us to project this judgment onto God who has shown us His mercy in that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” This unbounded love of God is limited only by theologians who seek to set requirements on the reception of the love of God. Let them return to His mercy and first determine where it ends before they suggest the beginning of something else.

 

[J_Peterson]

Despite what is said in CCC 2267, the safety of society is not the primary objective of punishment. That would be justice - retribution.
That really is the question: is the death penalty necessary? Based solely on the consideration of whether it is necessary for protection an argument could be made that it is not, but we would likely come to a different conclusion if we ask whether it is necessary as a matter of justice. Is the punishment deserved? Is it just?

Given that the church has always recognized the legitimacy of capital punishment it can only mean that she considered it a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. If, then, it is a just punishment - and deserved by the murderer - what is the argument that it should not be applied? Is it not necessary because it is deserved?

Ender

This doesn’t need to be another one of those threads. I’m going by my own personal opinion and what the Church currently teaches. In this case my opinion and the Church’s agree. We are talking about human life here and there’s nothing more important.

These men don’t need to die. You can theologize about punishing people all you want, I don’t want the state to kill people any more.

 

[lmachine]

Despite what is said in CCC 2267, the safety of society is not the primary objective of punishment.

You can punish someone without killing them.

 

[Ender]

I’m going by my own personal opinion and what the Church currently teaches. In this case my opinion and the Church’s agree.

You may surely hold the position that capital punishment ought not be used, but it is not accurate to hold that the church has a moral objection to its use.

We are talking about human life here and there’s nothing more important.

If that was true the church would never have supported capital punishment, nor for that matter killing in self defense or in a just war. She has always recognized these as legitimate exceptions to the commandment not to kill.

These men don’t need to die. You can theologize about punishing people all you want, I don’t want the state to kill people any more.

I’m not “theologizing”; I’m doing nothing more than reiterating what the church teaches.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You can punish someone without killing them.

Yes you can, but the obligation exists that the severity of the punishment must (not may) be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is not clear that diminishing the severity of the punishment for (at least) murder doesn’t also diminish our belief about the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[lmachine]

Yes you can, but the obligation exists that the severity of the punishment must (not may) be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is not clear that diminishing the severity of the punishment for (at least) murder doesn’t also diminish our belief about the severity of the crime.

Ender

You’re making a weird argument that because the Church taught something in the past it must be okay now which is not going to fly for most people. The Church’s current teaching on the death penalty is very clear. There may be circumstances where it is acceptable for the safety of others, but those circumstances are “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” and certainly don’t exist in America today. If you disagree with that it’s fine, but you can’t appeal to Church authority to support your position.