Currently, the USCCB is waging a campaign against the death penalty in the United States, from the position that modern technology/systems can detain a person and reasonably guarantee they won’t continue to kill again (some 52.5 murders committed in the prison system per year, last time I looked). The tradition of the Church, however, is that the state has a moral obligation to protect the innocent, and if the only way to stop a killer from continuing to kill is capital punishment, then such is permissible, though not preferable (preferably, other means could be employed that wouldn’t end the life of a child of God).

In other words, if a society can safely incarcerate for life, they should. This distinction tends to lead to support for the death penalty in undeveloped countries, where they lack the ability to incarcerate safely and persistently, and opposition to it in “advanced” ones. It may seem like hypocrisy, but it is not, as both protect a principle in favor of saving the most lives.

and on July 6 the SD spokesman said “While Iran’s leaders hypocritically claim to promote tolerance, they continue to detain, imprison, harass, and abuse those who simply wish to worship the faith of their choosing.” Read the rest here:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/07/167733.htm

I hate to disagree with you when you are given me credit, but I’m probably the only staffer at FT that supports the death penalty, at least in the case of murder.

But I don’t understand why you are turning this in a debate over capital punishment. Both stories are about executing people because of religious motivations, not because they have committed some capital crime.

FT’s expressed outrage on the death penalty differs by President.

Where has FT condemned President Obama for his support of the death penalty?

FT’s expressed outrage on the death penalty differs by President.

I find that hypocritical.

Or, what Wes said.

Wesley J. Smith,

I certainly can see a distinction between a murderer who confesses and asks for mercy and a man who may be martyred for his Christian faith. But according to my understanding of Catholic teaching on the death penalty, neither the confessed murderer who presents no danger to society nor the would-be martyr deserves to die. Killing either one is wrong. In a very real sense, those on death row who present no danger to society have just as much right not to be executed as Pastor Nadarkhani.

Joe McFaul,

Your retro-diction is correct. A Google search reveals no appeals from or in First Things to spare Karla Faye Tucker. Click this link. There is an article by James Nuechterlein that appeared shortly after her execution in which Nuechterlein, a defender of the death penalty, confesses his ambivalence about that particular execution. There are also shortly after that article two letters commenting on it. There are no references to Karla Faye Tucker in First Things prior to her execution and also no others besides the Nuechterlein article and the two letters until years later, or at least none to be found with Google.