As expected, the parole board in Utah has unanimously rejected Ronnie Lee Gardner’s appeal for commutation of his death sentence.
I’ve written on Gardner this week, part of my ongoing attempt to build a political-theory argument against the barbaric and unnecessary punishment.
We live in a culture that can’t bring itself to defend the unborn. What makes us want to confirm the government of that culture in the power to take life—to spill yet more blood?
June 15th, 2010 | 5:19 am
On the other hand what makes us think that a culture that won’t defend the unborn will — ultimately — defend murderers?
June 15th, 2010 | 8:55 am
“Shouldn’t we be afraid of a government that, without submitting itself to the divine, thinks it has divine power in its hands?”
I used to think that the State was allowed, for the common good, to have/use the death penalty. The understanding of common good is of course the Catholic one from our catechism :
“By common good is to be understood “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority.”
Letting violent criminals run around interrupting and ending the lives of others thereby denying them the chance to reach their fulfillment is a very strong for the death penalty. In this case as you so rightly point out Jody, the violent criminal has been successfully kept away from the public. Is it important – 25 years later- to point out his murder came about as he tried to escape justice? I think it is but do we still put him to death all these years later?
It’s easy to see how it goes from that point to a numbers game – how much it costs the State to keep him — and will we soon be in a country where, thanks to Obamacare Granny won’t receive clemency – a surgery because she’s old and not worth it– but a murder will get it and study Computer Science/Business Administration in jail hoping for the day a judge sets him free? Then there is the issue of the remaining family. And justice for the dead.
*sigh*
The “passing” of health care (and yes those scare quotes are most real) by our Congress opened my mind to that our government/state has evolved into something to fear. Really fear. I never used to feel this way but healthcare was the game changer. What started out as a social justice issue – health care for the uninsured–became a grab of the entire health care industry as well as an enormous assault on religious beliefs and individual liberties.
If the State would like to continue its use of the death penalty, then it needs to regain its credibility. A good place to start would be to not to allow the slaughter of the unborn as well as defend marriage and the family.
June 15th, 2010 | 9:35 am
From the Hebrew Bible, fourth commandment:
“Not shall you murder”.
Murder, the shedding of innocent blood. A bit different then killing, which includes guilty & innocent.
June 15th, 2010 | 10:29 am
“We live in a culture that can’t bring itself to defend the unborn. What makes us want to confirm the government of that culture in the power to take life—to spill yet more blood?”
Uh, maybe because abortion is prohibited by God and capital punishment is commanded? Just sayin’
June 15th, 2010 | 10:31 am
Mr. Bottum,
While it may effectively tap into today’s anti-government sentiment, this man was sentenced to die by a jury of his peers. While I’m personally conflicted about the death penalty, could we at least stop invoking the canard that the “government” is taking this man’s life. His fellow citizens reached that verdict….
June 15th, 2010 | 10:51 am
Dear Mr. Bottum: Your argument is subtle and well-stated, but in the end it boils down to moral equivalence: If we’re against the abortion of innocents, we also should be against the execution of convicted murderers.
This simply isn’t true. These actions of the state are not equivalent.
June 15th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
$100,000 + / year in taxes to keep the life-imprisoned there.
A bullet costs $.04 or so.
Why do we take away the dignity of these persons by stretching out their existence interminably in a monochromatic, stifling imprisonment? God’s justice is kinder than man’s mercy.
Give ‘em adequate time on death row to repent and prepare to meet their maker. Then send ‘em on their way.
June 15th, 2010 | 5:07 pm
Yoshem Itisham is right and concisely hits upon two of the reasons, and one of the implications.
1. Cost. The Catholic position is that we ought not to execute where we can avoid it. We are nearing the point where we can’t avoid it. We’re going broke. And since clawing back some of the wealth and power that the top 1% have accumulated these last 30-40 years or so seems unlikely, things will probably have to get a lot tougher for convicted murderers than easier. Think: there are 37 million americans on food stamps; millions without any reasonable chance of paying upfront for medical care if they’re in a catastrophic accident; etc. etc. Who should eat? Who should get taken care of? Let the rich pay for their own moral feel-good principles. Let Bill Gates set up lifetime incarceration as a charity.
2. Cruel and unusual punishment –not only for the convicted murderer but often for those others convicted of lesser crimes. At the time the Constitution was written, lifetime imprisonment –40-50 years, was unheard of. It had simply never been done. Hence the current system is unusual. Meanwhile, the way things have worked out, today’s prisons are hellish places. They’re not places to quietly and safely contemplate the good. More often, they are places to constantly be on guard from violent attack, sexual degradation, extortion and virtual enslavement. And that’s just the prisoners. It’s not unheard of for the guards to sink into these and other shameful behaviors.
Finally, why? I submit it’s because as a culture, as a political grouping, we don’t believe in the soul or eternal life anymore. ‘You’ve got one life, right here, and that’s it.’ I could be wrong on individual cases. I’ve met people I take to be serious believers who were against the death penalty. But broadly, across a largely non-Christian culture, significantly atheist or atheistic, I think the opposition to the death penalty probably has more to do with a hesitation to take away that which is seen as the one, only, and most important thing: this life on earth.
June 15th, 2010 | 5:56 pm
The reason we have trouble defending the unborn is BECAUSE we are unable to make moral distinctions about justice. In your last paragraph you just compared the shedding of innocent blood (in abortion) to the shedding of guilty blood (in execution).
And you wonder why the UN can condemn Israel for shedding blood?
June 15th, 2010 | 7:34 pm
Let us not forget the advantage to the prisoner of capital punishment: that he will not have a sudden and unprepared death.
I note that not many years ago, California executed a man who had been serving life without parole when he commited the crime that merited execution, hiring a hit man to kill all the witnesses to his crime, in hopes of being freed after a new trial. It is not easy to protect us from them.
June 15th, 2010 | 8:15 pm
Mr. Bottum, I have never bought your argument about “high justice, the justice of God, the balancing of the cosmic scales”. Are we to believe that you have lifted the curtain, peeked into Heaven, and are now prepared to enlighten us about “God’s justice”? Ordinary earthly justice is what we have to work with. The Church has not spoken definitively on the issue of capital punishment, and “The Gospel of Life’ has not listed capital punishment as one of those acts which are intrinsically evil. Perhaps the Church knows, as everyone with common sense knows, that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for some crimes – appropriate because justice demands the death penalty in some cases. I have always found your arguments on this issue a bit too precious to be taken seriously.
June 16th, 2010 | 12:24 am
Ronnie, just pretend that you’re a big buck in deer season . . . . . i bet these guys won’t field dress you!
June 17th, 2010 | 3:45 am
I someone who lives in Utah, I will, unfortunately, be too close to this. For me, ambivalence is the supreme feeling. I simply am unsure where to go on this issue.
Mr. Gardner murdered, two people, and attempted to kill a third. So it seems that if the death penalty is for anyone,perhaps it’s for him.
On the other hand, there’s no danger (or very little danger) of him escaping, so why kill him? There seems to be no ratioale, except for vengence, to kill him. He also had a very bad childhood. That’s no excuse, certainly, but it would also be illogical to claim that it had NO affect on him.
Clearly, I have no doubt that “firing squad” is barbaric, and should have been outlawed long ago.
Mr.Bottom, I’m sorry, though, there can be no eqivalence, between the terrible injustice of abortion and capital punishment. Abortion is the killing, frankly, of completely innocent human beings, whereas capital punishment, even if, and I’m inclined to think that there are, good arguments against it, involves the killing of those guilty of murder.
June 17th, 2010 | 8:04 am
Bret Lythgoe: The rationale is not vengeance, but justice. Let’s take the Oklahoma City bombing as an example. One hundred fifty people killed, including 15-20 little toddlers playing in their day care. A society that refuses to execute McVeigh for such a crime is a society that has given up on the concept of justice and embraced a mindless compassion. A society that is morally weak and corrupt.
June 17th, 2010 | 12:36 pm
CMC, I was under the impression the costs of execution outweighed those of life imprisonment. Not only are those under sentence of death held for 15 to 20 years before they executed, there are numerous appeals.
The greater moral concern is that of accidentally putting an innocent man to death, not whether or not it is just to kill a murder. While I would grant the latter is an important question, it is, at any rate, more unjust to kill a man who is innocent, than one who is guilty.
June 18th, 2010 | 5:08 am
Feeney: I understand your concerns. But the death penalty may, in a way, be the easy way out. It could cause the one being put to death as being perceived by some as a “martyr”, or the murderer himself could see himself that way, thereby preventing himself from experiencing proper guilt and remorse.
Like I’ve said, I’m ambivalent regarding this. Some killers are so terrible and so evil that I wonder if their executions are a good thing.
But, if we can be assured that the person will never get out, and therefore is not a threat, then I can live with them spending the rest of their lives in prison.
June 18th, 2010 | 7:14 pm
Bret Lythgoe: Thanks for your response. Respectfully, I would say that it does not matter how the murderer perceives himself, or how others perceive him. What matters is the criminal act and the just punishment. The convicted murderer will have plenty of time to “get right with God”, and hopefully he will make the most of this opportunity.
June 19th, 2010 | 4:12 am
Freeney: Thanks for writng. Jody Bottom, in his most recent post, responding to Stephen Barr, made a good analogy. He said, we don’t rape rapists, or assualt assaulters, be we don’t think that justice is somehow not being carried out, by giving them a prison term, so why the argument that we must kill killers, in order for justice to be carried out? so far, I have not heard anyone give a response to Mr.Bottom here.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact