Blood for Blood
June 14, 2010
Joseph Bottum
Absent a Board of Pardons intervention today, or some other unlikely event, Ronnie Lee Gardner will die this Friday, June 18—shot by firing squad in Utah as the penalty for his 1985 conviction for the murder of a lawyer during his failed attempt to escape while on trial for another murder.
Much of the commentary on Gardner’s execution has focused on the fact that he will be executed by the dated and now barbaric-seeming method of firing squad. But no traction against the death penalty is really to be found there: Gardner chose it himself over alternatives, and, besides, Utah has eliminated the method for all more recently convicted murderers.
In that phrase “more recently convicted,” however, are the real grounds for taking this case as a strong example of why we don’t need to use the death penalty—and why, as a consequence, we need not to use the death penalty. Twenty-five years have gone by with this man incarcerated. What could his death possibly gain us?
Nothing—except justice, of course, and justice of a particular kind. Take the strongest possible way to state that claim: Gardner is a murderer whose victims’ blood cries out from the ground. He deserves death, by any measure, and our clear intuition—an intuition manifested in nearly every culture that has ever been—is that the balance of the moral universe itself requires his death. Justice requires retribution.
Grant all that, as strongly as the argument for justice can be stated. But add one small question as well: Who has the authority to carry out this justice?
The question isn’t an arcane one. Everyone agrees that you and I, as individuals, lack the authority, and we would be immediately and correctly charged with murder if we did kill the man. But once we agree that authority may be lacking, the question is on the table. So where does the legal system of a modern democracy derive authority to act on this high level?
A government has two legitimate goals in its justice system: the protection of the state’s existence, and the maintenance of ordinary, common justice for its people. And sometimes these may require the death of criminals—as in treason, for example, or when citizens cannot be protected from someone except by that person’s death.
But where comes the other kind of justice, the particular kind of justice that would justify the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner—not the ordinary justice of the social contract but high justice, the justice of God, the balancing of the cosmic scales? We want to see good people find good ends and bad people find bad ends. And God, and God’s agents, could carry out this justice.
Of course, the foundation of a modern democratic state, born of a social contract, is exactly that the state is not God’s agent. The early modern thrones got around the problem with a theory of the Divine Right of Kings, but we rejected all that. The ancient pagan cities held the sword of punishment because, in however confused a way, they believed in the supernatural foundation for the earthly city, but that, too, we dismissed. Ancient Israel had direct revelation, but modern nations refused to hold revelations for themselves.
Without some form of the divine, who has the right to pay blood with blood? Who has the authority to undertake high justice? Not us. And our attempts to apply that justice are under constant threat of devolving back into barbarism and revenge: the prepolitical justice of family and individual. Listen to the language that swirls around every execution in this country: It’s the language of damage to the family, and closure for emotions, and repayment to the victims after their death.
All this is real, God knows—but that’s the point: God knows. We have let creep back into our justice system the dangerous idea that murder is a tort, a harm done individuals, and not a crime, an offense against the law.
I’ve made these arguments before, in greater detail, and answered objections to them. But Ronnie Lee Gardner is such a clear case where we gain nothing except this kind of unauthorized justice from his death.
Curiously, he might once have stood as an example of legitimate execution: On trial for one murder, he committed another, killing an officer of the court, in an escape attempt. The state has the duty to protect its citizens and its own existence. Given a man this uncontrollable and violent, the social contract could well have required his death.
That was a twenty-five years ago, however. In the intervening quarter century, Utah has proved its capacity to control him. The only reason to kill him now is that high justice demands it.
Shouldn’t we be afraid of a government that, without submitting itself to the divine, thinks it has divine power in its hands?
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.
Comments:
6.14.2010 | 7:53am
sanpietrini says:
Yep, I would say that keeping a person locked up for 25 years is proof enough that the person can be kept away from society. Proof enough to abolish the death penalty. I wonder how many unborn children were murdered in those 25 years....
6.14.2010 | 8:01am
Witold Chalupczak says:
I would recommend A. Scalia’s ‘Gdo’s justice and ours’ (May 2002) as a thoughtful response.
6.14.2010 | 9:17am
Sage says:
Sanpietrini, at that proves is that he can be kept away for 25 years. We were promised, as we so often have been by leftist "reformers," that doing away with the death penalty would not lead to that next inexorable step. We were promised that life really would mean life. Of course, it really doesn't, because 1) the absence of the death penalty itself creates more incentive to murder, thus stretching resources by adding more murderers to our prisons than we otherwise would have--that whole unintended consequences thing that liberals always seem to ignore, and 2) the ongoing, year-after-year existence of people in prison create a constant unspoken pressure on society's will, a pressure that cries "Enough! Sure, after all this time, it's enough!" So we wind up with a situation where life imprisonment only rarely really means life imprisonment, because there are always going to be arguments that in some case or another, this person is really no threat anymore. Which is what anti-death-penalty folks really want after all--no penalty at all that can not be curtailed, argued down, shortened, allayed.
But we need irrevocable sentences, and in the absence of a real, live death penalty, nobody really considers life imprisonment an act of mercy. They consider it the "ultimate" punishment, which must never really be acted out except in hypothetical cases. In just a few short years, we have already reached a point where people consider life imprisonment--as you call it, keeping the person away frpom society--too harsh, too cruel, for any concievable criminal. And in answer to the ridiculous question posed by Bottum, the state gets its authority to execute criminals from the same place it gets the authority to drop bombs on desginated enemies and blast them to pieces which, last I checked, constituted an act of killing.
But we need irrevocable sentences, and in the absence of a real, live death penalty, nobody really considers life imprisonment an act of mercy. They consider it the "ultimate" punishment, which must never really be acted out except in hypothetical cases. In just a few short years, we have already reached a point where people consider life imprisonment--as you call it, keeping the person away frpom society--too harsh, too cruel, for any concievable criminal. And in answer to the ridiculous question posed by Bottum, the state gets its authority to execute criminals from the same place it gets the authority to drop bombs on desginated enemies and blast them to pieces which, last I checked, constituted an act of killing.
6.14.2010 | 9:30am
Ars Artium says:
In Professor Nahum Sarna's "On the Book of Psalms", Chapter 9, "How Long Shall Evil Prevail?" presents a lovely reflection on the nature of retribution in connection with the first lines of Psalm 94: "God of retribution, Lord, God of retribution, appear!". Professor Sarna continues: "The specific epithet used here, 'God of retribution' is paralleled in verse 2 by 'Judge of the earth'. In this way, the understanding of 'retribution' is clarified: it is not an arbitrary or vindictive act, but a judicial intervention against the guilty. Moreover, the epithet itself indicates that such is an essential and intrinsic characteristic of the divine personality. It should be noted that the Hebrew term here translated 'retribution' is often misleadingly rendered 'vengeance' in many other English versions. But that word conveys to the popular mind a negative, primitive conception of religion. 'Vengeance' is usually taken to be synonymous with revenge and implies actions prompted by base emotions. The Hebrew root, however, means nothing of the kind, for in most instances, it signifies an action worthily motivated, purposeful, intended to serve the ends of justice. Unlike 'revenge' which is essentially antisocial, 'retribution' is concerned with vindication, not vindictiveness, with upholding or restoring a just social order, not primarily with retaliation. Leviticus 19:18 prohibits the private exaction of retribution, and Deuteronomy 32:35 affirms that such action is the exclusive prerogative of God." I offer this as another eloquent explication of the subject so well-addressed and explained today by Joseph Bottum.
6.14.2010 | 9:55am
J. Bob says:
Matt 15:4-5 "Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death"
JB
JB
6.14.2010 | 11:01am
Deborah says:
My favourite bumper sticker sums this one up. "Capital Punishment: what would Jesus do?"
6.14.2010 | 12:44pm
Charles R. Williams says:
Capital punishment should be inflicted only by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Vatican City. That's the implication of your argument and I don't think it's a ridiculous conclusion.
But as Christians we pay taxes to secular democratic states, we are conscripted into armies to defend them and we are bound to obey their laws. We must assure ourselves that we are rendering unto God what is due to God in all this.
You are right that the discussion surrounding an execution smells more like vengeance than high justice but it is still the case that people who support executions in the abstract do so largely because it is the just response to a crime. We must also admit a legitimate interest on the part of the state to prevent people from taking justice into their own hands when the state is perceived not to uphold high justice in these cases - lynchings, feuds and the like.
I do believe that we are unable to inflict capital punishment in such a way that it does not become a farce. For that reason alone we should stop doing it.
But this is not a right to life issue or any issue of injustice, nor do I consider it to be a high priority.
But as Christians we pay taxes to secular democratic states, we are conscripted into armies to defend them and we are bound to obey their laws. We must assure ourselves that we are rendering unto God what is due to God in all this.
You are right that the discussion surrounding an execution smells more like vengeance than high justice but it is still the case that people who support executions in the abstract do so largely because it is the just response to a crime. We must also admit a legitimate interest on the part of the state to prevent people from taking justice into their own hands when the state is perceived not to uphold high justice in these cases - lynchings, feuds and the like.
I do believe that we are unable to inflict capital punishment in such a way that it does not become a farce. For that reason alone we should stop doing it.
But this is not a right to life issue or any issue of injustice, nor do I consider it to be a high priority.
6.14.2010 | 1:43pm
Fr. Ralph+ OSB says:
The authority questioned is found in Romans 13:1-4. But before I am condemned to the gallows of humiliation allow me the question.....if this man needs to be punished for his sin(s) as mentioned in the article were they not left unforgiven by Christ's effort on the Cross? Shoot him, gas him, stab him with a needle or hang him on a Cross the result and the outcome are the same and fall under the sin of pride. "I Want blood for blood and nothing else will satisfy me. After all that is what the OT says, isn't it?"
6.14.2010 | 2:06pm
David T. Koyzis says:
I have just posted a response to this on the FT: Evangel blog: Retributive justice and the social contract.
6.14.2010 | 2:25pm
David T. Koyzis says:
The html code didn't come through on my last comment. Copy and paste this: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/retributive-justice-and-the-social-contract/
6.14.2010 | 2:26pm
Eric Matthews says:
I completely disagree with the conclusion and the premises.
1. "...the foundation of a modern democratic state, born of a social contract, is exactly that the state is not God’s agent. The early modern thrones got around the problem with a theory of the Divine Right of Kings, but we rejected all that."
On the contrary, the forefathers got the democratic principle correct:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...[read all]...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Though many reject, misunderstand, and abuse that principle, they nevertheless participate in it by the legislation, execution, and adjudication of law, the same as all authorities, all of which "have been established by God."
http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ro13.1-7
Despite democracy's flaws, in theory and practice it beats the alternatives.
2. For something as absolute as murder, all governments owe their people the absolute guarantee that murderers will never be able to murder again. Prison is not that guarantee.
3. Justice is paying precisely what is owed, and no debt to this world, to God, or even to self, is more evident than what is owed for taking a life unjustly. Even if nobody living or dead were to demand it, the murderer owes complete and absolute payment, and the living have been assigned that terrible (and imperfect) duty to exact it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ge9.5-6
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
4. "Shouldn’t we be afraid of a government that, without submitting itself to the divine, thinks it has divine power in its hands?"
YES. But our duty, especially in a democracy, is to attempt to submit governments to the divine. Nevertheless, Apostle Paul affirms that divine power to the same government that beat and executed him, his brothers and sisters, and even his Lord.
http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ro13.1-7
I recall further treatment of this topic by a C.S. Lewis article in the collection of _God_in_the_Dock_.
1. "...the foundation of a modern democratic state, born of a social contract, is exactly that the state is not God’s agent. The early modern thrones got around the problem with a theory of the Divine Right of Kings, but we rejected all that."
On the contrary, the forefathers got the democratic principle correct:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...[read all]...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Though many reject, misunderstand, and abuse that principle, they nevertheless participate in it by the legislation, execution, and adjudication of law, the same as all authorities, all of which "have been established by God."
http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ro13.1-7
Despite democracy's flaws, in theory and practice it beats the alternatives.
2. For something as absolute as murder, all governments owe their people the absolute guarantee that murderers will never be able to murder again. Prison is not that guarantee.
3. Justice is paying precisely what is owed, and no debt to this world, to God, or even to self, is more evident than what is owed for taking a life unjustly. Even if nobody living or dead were to demand it, the murderer owes complete and absolute payment, and the living have been assigned that terrible (and imperfect) duty to exact it.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ge9.5-6
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
4. "Shouldn’t we be afraid of a government that, without submitting itself to the divine, thinks it has divine power in its hands?"
YES. But our duty, especially in a democracy, is to attempt to submit governments to the divine. Nevertheless, Apostle Paul affirms that divine power to the same government that beat and executed him, his brothers and sisters, and even his Lord.
http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ro13.1-7
I recall further treatment of this topic by a C.S. Lewis article in the collection of _God_in_the_Dock_.
6.14.2010 | 3:01pm
Paul says:
Setting aside for the moment the issue of capital punishment, Joseph Bottum's blog would seem to present an instance of the fallacy of equivocation--for he conflates two modally distinct proposition: The ground of the authority of the state, on the one hand, and the state's recognition of the source of it's authority, on the other. These are distinct things--the former can, quite logically, be present even when the latter is not (which explains, for instance, Romans 13 and the relevant passage in the epistles of Peter). But it is worthy of note that the Apostle Paul refers to the higher power as being ordained by God (without any mention of whether the higher power acknowledges the source of its authority) and that is ordained to bear the sword for the sake of justice. So the sword is born for justice and not just to protect individuals from internal or external threat. Joseph Bottum's piece seems to breeze right by this point. But the commission of the fallacy of equivocation, to which I just alluded, is perhaps of even greater danger to his argument.
6.14.2010 | 4:02pm
Martial Artist says:
Mr. Bottum,
Your argument would be persuasive, and I don't intend this response to be consequentialist, were it not for the simple fact that "justice delayed, is justice denied." Were there a modern equivalent of Devil's Island, something along the lines of Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," then I could see abolishing the death penalty. The reality of modern technology, organized crime, etc., is that such a solution is no longer an assured permanent removal from society. Perhaps the one valid argument I could see for supporting the latter President Bush's suggestion of sending humans to Mars would be one way trips to a penal colony there, specifically for those who may never be restored to society.
However, you and I, and every other American reading here is fully aware that life imprisonment is not only no longer excruciatingly unpleasant for the inmates, it is horrendously expensive for all those of us who do not violate the law. I have a counter proposal to what I have alluded to above. It is as follows:
Those people who actually believe that a humane yet inescapable form of life imprisonment can be achieved without inordinate public expense, might join together to form a not-for-profit organization which will take over the expenses of running a maximum security prison for those who have received the death penalty. All prisoners remanded to the institution will be provided with clean clothing, a clean and secure cell, three nutritious meals per day, required health care, requisite personal hygiene items, and clean bedding. Every prisoner will be entitled to be employed within the prison and paid for his or her work. The not-for-profit can establish the details of how this is to be set up. Earnings from their pay received for the in-prison work will be divided equitably between three accounts:
(a) funds for restitution for the victims/survivors,
(b) funds for the maintenance and operation of the facility,
(c) funds for the use of the prisoner in making his life more pleasant (better food, reading materials, television)
Additionally, every prisoner will have the right to be visited by family, friends, and, if the prisoner so desires, persons participating in prison ministry.
In the event that this is extended to non-capital prisoners, a fourth fund would be established to provide a 'nest egg' for the prisoner which would be disbursed upon his or her parole.
In the event that funds are left in (c) or the 'nest egg' upon the prisoner's death in prison, they would be inherited by the heirs of the prisoner.
I would also require that no one may be sentenced to life without physical evidence, sufficient in and of itself to convince the jury of a guilty verdict. This precludes sentencing a suspect to death if convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and/or personal identification by a witness not personally known to the suspect.
My aim in this suggestion is not to attain vengeance or retribution, but rather to limit the public costs of imprisoning for life those we would otherwise execute. The would be limited to those essentials that are humanely necessary for the prisoner to retain some dignity, and therefore some hope of 'redemption.' In the absence of some similar solution my aim in advocating execution is to permanently remove the offender as a threat to society and is rather closely related to, or inspired by, the USMC slogan: "It is God's job to judge. Our job is to arrange the meeting."
Pax et bonum,
Keith Toepfer, LCDR, USN [ret]
Bothell, Washington
Your argument would be persuasive, and I don't intend this response to be consequentialist, were it not for the simple fact that "justice delayed, is justice denied." Were there a modern equivalent of Devil's Island, something along the lines of Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," then I could see abolishing the death penalty. The reality of modern technology, organized crime, etc., is that such a solution is no longer an assured permanent removal from society. Perhaps the one valid argument I could see for supporting the latter President Bush's suggestion of sending humans to Mars would be one way trips to a penal colony there, specifically for those who may never be restored to society.
However, you and I, and every other American reading here is fully aware that life imprisonment is not only no longer excruciatingly unpleasant for the inmates, it is horrendously expensive for all those of us who do not violate the law. I have a counter proposal to what I have alluded to above. It is as follows:
Those people who actually believe that a humane yet inescapable form of life imprisonment can be achieved without inordinate public expense, might join together to form a not-for-profit organization which will take over the expenses of running a maximum security prison for those who have received the death penalty. All prisoners remanded to the institution will be provided with clean clothing, a clean and secure cell, three nutritious meals per day, required health care, requisite personal hygiene items, and clean bedding. Every prisoner will be entitled to be employed within the prison and paid for his or her work. The not-for-profit can establish the details of how this is to be set up. Earnings from their pay received for the in-prison work will be divided equitably between three accounts:
(a) funds for restitution for the victims/survivors,
(b) funds for the maintenance and operation of the facility,
(c) funds for the use of the prisoner in making his life more pleasant (better food, reading materials, television)
Additionally, every prisoner will have the right to be visited by family, friends, and, if the prisoner so desires, persons participating in prison ministry.
In the event that this is extended to non-capital prisoners, a fourth fund would be established to provide a 'nest egg' for the prisoner which would be disbursed upon his or her parole.
In the event that funds are left in (c) or the 'nest egg' upon the prisoner's death in prison, they would be inherited by the heirs of the prisoner.
I would also require that no one may be sentenced to life without physical evidence, sufficient in and of itself to convince the jury of a guilty verdict. This precludes sentencing a suspect to death if convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and/or personal identification by a witness not personally known to the suspect.
My aim in this suggestion is not to attain vengeance or retribution, but rather to limit the public costs of imprisoning for life those we would otherwise execute. The would be limited to those essentials that are humanely necessary for the prisoner to retain some dignity, and therefore some hope of 'redemption.' In the absence of some similar solution my aim in advocating execution is to permanently remove the offender as a threat to society and is rather closely related to, or inspired by, the USMC slogan: "It is God's job to judge. Our job is to arrange the meeting."
Pax et bonum,
Keith Toepfer, LCDR, USN [ret]
Bothell, Washington
6.14.2010 | 4:44pm
Peter Leavitt says:
St. Paul in Romans 13 IS right that the state is ordained by God to rule firmly and if necessary with awful retribution and justice. It matters not whether the state is monarchic, aristocratic, or democratic.
Justice Scalia in his excellent First Things article on the subject remarks that, according to Vatican canon law authorities, the church's present dubious catechetical view on the subject is not magisterially binding on faithful Catholics.
Justice Scalia in his excellent First Things article on the subject remarks that, according to Vatican canon law authorities, the church's present dubious catechetical view on the subject is not magisterially binding on faithful Catholics.
6.14.2010 | 5:32pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
Our governments assert the right to take human life through its agents when (a) a person reasonably believed to have just committed a dangerous felony is fleeing arrest, (b) a prisoner accused of committing a violent felony is trying to escape, (c) a prisoner convicted of a violent felony is trying to escape, (d) any person is unjustly attempting to commit grievous bodily harm on another. If government has the right to take life in those cases, why shouldn't it have authority to take life after a deliberate examination of evidence that concludes the defendant is guilty of murder and that the best sentence is execution? If the issue is not necessity but sheer authority, it seems to me the authority is the same for all these cases. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution certainly asserts for the Federal government the authority to deprive a person of "life, liberty or property" so long as it gives him "due process of law."
Additionally, the Constitution gives Congress authority to declare war and the President the power to act as Commander-in-Chief, actions which will certainly involve taking human life. No nation can defend itself against attack if it refuses to take the lives of its attackers. And once that nation is conquered by its less scrupulous enemies, there will be executions with no due process, and no questioning of authority. Indeed, typically such regimes take the lives of those who question their authority.
One can argue that our governments should deny themselves the power to take human life, but then it will be asserted by drug gangs and terrorists like Major Abu Nidal Hasan, and American citizens will be forced to to either die with nobility or live with their (alleged) guilt.
Additionally, the Constitution gives Congress authority to declare war and the President the power to act as Commander-in-Chief, actions which will certainly involve taking human life. No nation can defend itself against attack if it refuses to take the lives of its attackers. And once that nation is conquered by its less scrupulous enemies, there will be executions with no due process, and no questioning of authority. Indeed, typically such regimes take the lives of those who question their authority.
One can argue that our governments should deny themselves the power to take human life, but then it will be asserted by drug gangs and terrorists like Major Abu Nidal Hasan, and American citizens will be forced to to either die with nobility or live with their (alleged) guilt.
6.14.2010 | 9:37pm
bill bannon says:
I agree with the above posters who note Romans 13:4 as affirming the death penalty as one job of any government from God whether they ackowledge it or not and whether it deters or not since the passage speaks only of executing the wrath of God on the evil doer (catechism #2266 rather than #2267 and its deterence ruminations). Paul was writing within the Roman Empire which was hardly the perfect government and he was inspired by the Holy Spirit unlike the multitude of Catholic commentators on the net. John Paul II never cited Romans 13:4 while talking of the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae nor did he cite Genesis 9:5-6 wherein it gives to gentiles and Jews the same mandate regarding murder while basing the death penalty on the image of God within man. John Paul II did not cite either passage because true to modern biblical hermeneutics, he didn't believe that violent passages were really from God (read section 40 of Evangelium Vitae wherein he attributes such passages to unrefined Jewish culture which was superceded by the Sermon on the Mount). Apparently John Paul forgot Acts 12 wherein Herod is given a disgusting death by an angel sent by God and at that after the Sermon on the Mount. Ananias and Sapphira's deaths at the verbal announcement of Peter cause fear in all the community according to Acts but we are the community that can talk for hours without reference to what God actually inspired within the Bible. Wiki has 10 out of 20 of the top murder rate countries as predominant Catholic with one or two only having a death penalty at all. The lack of one is doing wonders in Mexico. Meanwhile pagan Japan is the fourth safest country as to murder rates and it hangs as the form of execution...that is... it comes closer to Romans 13:4 and its synecdoche of the sword than most Catholic countries which are in chaos in the Catholic continent below us partly from ignoring Romans 13:4. It remind me of how we ignored another NT passage in the sex abuse cases: the passage where Paul says to expel the incestuous man from their midst. Let's just keep giving praise to the Bible in our papal documents as we ignore it in practice.
6.14.2010 | 9:52pm
Ben says:
Everything in the article is unbiblical, from the claims about the 'legitimate' purposes of justice to the conclusions and statements about the divine. This man (and every other murderer) brings his own blood on his own head. He has done it, the state simply 'incarnates' his own actions - as is called out for by God, in passage after passage.
6.14.2010 | 11:18pm
Mark says:
As a non-Christian, it seems to me the death penalty supporters are on pretty solid ground from a scriptural viewpoint. Romans 13:4 has always been interpreted as saying that the government rules with divine authority: government is "ordained" by God.
John Locke provided a somewhat softer interpretation by claiming that in order for government authority to claim divine support, it must be lawful. But in this view, constitutional democratic republics have even more claim to acting under divine authority than the autocrats of the old Roman Empire.
To get out of this problem, it seems to me one has to renounce St. Paul's words to the Romans in that oft-cited passage. It would be highly dubious to say that in St. Paul's time, Rome wielded divine authority but since the advent of democracy, governments no longer do so. That would be an extraordinary renunciation of not just John Locke but the whole Enlightenment project.
John Locke provided a somewhat softer interpretation by claiming that in order for government authority to claim divine support, it must be lawful. But in this view, constitutional democratic republics have even more claim to acting under divine authority than the autocrats of the old Roman Empire.
To get out of this problem, it seems to me one has to renounce St. Paul's words to the Romans in that oft-cited passage. It would be highly dubious to say that in St. Paul's time, Rome wielded divine authority but since the advent of democracy, governments no longer do so. That would be an extraordinary renunciation of not just John Locke but the whole Enlightenment project.
6.15.2010 | 1:55am
Don Roberto says:
Psalms 31: 2, 6, 17:
Incline thy ear to me, rescue me speedily! Be thou a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me! Thou hatest those who pay regard to vain idols; but I trust in the LORD. Let me not be put to shame, O LORD, for I call on thee; let the wicked be put to shame, let them go dumbfounded to Sheol.
It's absolutely crazy to delay justice by 25 years. Even two years would be too much. If we are so incompetent, then we deserve our misery.
But what foolishness. Our resources are limited! If we look at the opportunity cost of keeping "the wicked" incarcerated, it becomes clear society *cannot* truly afford to do so, i.e., we should not think we "have the means to defend ourselves short of capital punishment." For every one imposing these expenses on society (a substantial second offense), a hundred children die for want of basic necessities. We are led astray by ludicrous, left-wing notions of liberality. We refuse to use the tools at our disposal to defend the innocent, lest we risk our peace. That is, we are so weak in our belief that we worry we might make a mistake. And by doing nothing (or worse than nothing), we guarantee failure, and are ourselves culpable.
We should do as Samuel, when he called for the captured king and said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
Incline thy ear to me, rescue me speedily! Be thou a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me! Thou hatest those who pay regard to vain idols; but I trust in the LORD. Let me not be put to shame, O LORD, for I call on thee; let the wicked be put to shame, let them go dumbfounded to Sheol.
It's absolutely crazy to delay justice by 25 years. Even two years would be too much. If we are so incompetent, then we deserve our misery.
But what foolishness. Our resources are limited! If we look at the opportunity cost of keeping "the wicked" incarcerated, it becomes clear society *cannot* truly afford to do so, i.e., we should not think we "have the means to defend ourselves short of capital punishment." For every one imposing these expenses on society (a substantial second offense), a hundred children die for want of basic necessities. We are led astray by ludicrous, left-wing notions of liberality. We refuse to use the tools at our disposal to defend the innocent, lest we risk our peace. That is, we are so weak in our belief that we worry we might make a mistake. And by doing nothing (or worse than nothing), we guarantee failure, and are ourselves culpable.
We should do as Samuel, when he called for the captured king and said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
6.15.2010 | 9:00am
Merriel Sanders says:
May I refer you to the following Scripture?
Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-14
Matt 15:3-4, 26:52, John 19:10-11
Yes, if someone is sentenced to death, it should not take 20+ years to carry out the sentence.
Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-14
Matt 15:3-4, 26:52, John 19:10-11
Yes, if someone is sentenced to death, it should not take 20+ years to carry out the sentence.
6.15.2010 | 9:51am
J. Bob says:
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.
"Not shall you murder".
Murder, the shedding of innocent blood. A bit different then killing, which includes guilty & innocent.
6.15.2010 | 12:58pm
Jim N says:
I don't see this as a biblical issue. The bible can be used to support either side. (Although I don't think you can question that Jesus would take a dim view of capital punishment based on his own experience with it.) I see this as a big government issue. I'm against big government. I have found that our federal government has trouble delivering mail. I question its competence to take a census. No way should our government, our politicians, have the power to decide who lives and dies. To be honest I have a little trouble with the idea of killing a defenseless person (by firing squad or otherwise) who is categorically not a threat to society. I also don't believe that the victim's family is given any meaningful healthy consolation when the perpetrator is killed rather than sentenced to life in prison. I think John Paul II got this one right.
6.15.2010 | 1:53pm
As a Catholic state legislator, I cannot in good conscience support legislation that would permit or promote an intrinsically evil act such as abortion or euthanasia. To the extent that our Constitution has been construed to permit such acts, my oath of office is to uphold the Constitution as it is written.
But with respect to capital punishment, it has always been my impression that the decision to authorize and implement the death penalty rests within the prudential judgment of state authorities. Traditionally, the Church has taught that retribution is an important objective of our penal system. The Catechism states:
"Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense." Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2266
Therefore, if capital punishment is "proportionate" to aggravated murder, then IMHO, state authorities have the right and the duty to impose the death penalty. If capital punishment is disproportionate to aggravated murder, then the state cannot resort to capital punishment.
Although Pope John Paul II believed that recourse to the death penalty should be rare, he did not preclude its use. To my knowledge, neither John Paul nor the magisterium has suggested that capital punishment is a disproportionate punishment for murder. In fact, the Catechism describes murder as gravely sinful.
"The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance...Infanticide,fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break." Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2268
I certainly welcome any links to information indicating that the Catholic Church has taken the official position that capital punishment is disproportionate to the crime of murder.
But with respect to capital punishment, it has always been my impression that the decision to authorize and implement the death penalty rests within the prudential judgment of state authorities. Traditionally, the Church has taught that retribution is an important objective of our penal system. The Catechism states:
"Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense." Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2266
Therefore, if capital punishment is "proportionate" to aggravated murder, then IMHO, state authorities have the right and the duty to impose the death penalty. If capital punishment is disproportionate to aggravated murder, then the state cannot resort to capital punishment.
Although Pope John Paul II believed that recourse to the death penalty should be rare, he did not preclude its use. To my knowledge, neither John Paul nor the magisterium has suggested that capital punishment is a disproportionate punishment for murder. In fact, the Catechism describes murder as gravely sinful.
"The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance...Infanticide,fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break." Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2268
I certainly welcome any links to information indicating that the Catholic Church has taken the official position that capital punishment is disproportionate to the crime of murder.
6.15.2010 | 3:27pm
Stilbelieve says:
Thumbs up to "Catholic State Legislator!" It's refreshing to hear a common sensical Catholic, especially one who is a state legislator, speak to the issue directly, backing it up with the Catechism, without the "holier than thou" verbiage many Catholics mouth - thanks to the misguidance of the liberal leaning USCCB.
The problem with this case is not the sentence, but the length of time it has taken to administer it...and that's just another example of the Catholic human problem of "good intentions" gone awry.
The problem with this case is not the sentence, but the length of time it has taken to administer it...and that's just another example of the Catholic human problem of "good intentions" gone awry.
6.15.2010 | 5:23pm
bill bannon says:
Catholic Legislator,
Pope John Paul II verbally (not in writing) called the death penalty "cruel" in his 1999 St. Louis speech in the U.S.A. (which means it is never moral) and the US Bishops then placed that verbal statement of his within their own written document on the topic which means their written document contains an internal contradiction since it also cites ccc #2267 which supports rare use of the death penalty. Pope Benedict early in his reign congradulated the president of the Phillipines for doing away with the death penalty entirely there. Hence there is the support for the death penalty if modern penology fails to protect in the catechism but that support is simply in the catechism while the behaviour or verbal activity of the last two Popes off record contradicts that support.
Pope John Paul II verbally (not in writing) called the death penalty "cruel" in his 1999 St. Louis speech in the U.S.A. (which means it is never moral) and the US Bishops then placed that verbal statement of his within their own written document on the topic which means their written document contains an internal contradiction since it also cites ccc #2267 which supports rare use of the death penalty. Pope Benedict early in his reign congradulated the president of the Phillipines for doing away with the death penalty entirely there. Hence there is the support for the death penalty if modern penology fails to protect in the catechism but that support is simply in the catechism while the behaviour or verbal activity of the last two Popes off record contradicts that support.
6.15.2010 | 7:43pm
Ross Burton says:
"The question isn’t an arcane one. Everyone agrees that you and I, as individuals, lack the authority, and we would be immediately and correctly charged with murder if we did kill the man. But once we agree that authority may be lacking, the question is on the table. So where does the legal system of a modern democracy derive authority to act on this high level?"
I do not agree with the above statement. The authority to execute a murderer is granted by society. If I can delegate the authority to execute a murderer, I can also retain the authority.
For those who follow the New Testament there should be little question. Murderers should be executed. You can call it vengence, retribution or whatever you want. I don't identify so well with the criminals, I identify with the victims; I call it justice.
I do not agree with the above statement. The authority to execute a murderer is granted by society. If I can delegate the authority to execute a murderer, I can also retain the authority.
For those who follow the New Testament there should be little question. Murderers should be executed. You can call it vengence, retribution or whatever you want. I don't identify so well with the criminals, I identify with the victims; I call it justice.
6.16.2010 | 12:31pm
Ima Gunnassen says:
Well said and not untrue.
But I think I agree with Ross Burton.
Just because our republic is not divine, doesn't our effectual sovereignty as 'the people,' mutually responsible for our own welfare, compel us to treat murder as a crime against the citizen body itself?
Do we need to specify our metaphysical or theological presumptions in order to claim that mere blood, soil, or human compact can somehow be authoritative, sacred, and even cosmically significant, as long as it is believed by most, as it still is?
I don't see why we need the official, explicit blessing or authority of the divine over our laws if we can simply take God's effectual tolerance of men's various attempts to govern and order themselves through imperfect conventions. Can't this suffice - that we are temporary stewards of a temporary world that is still impure, fallen and beneath the dignity of God to rule directly as he did for his own people for time? Why do we imperfect mortals deserve or need a higher, more perfect law to appeal to than their own if we are incapable of even abiding by it. I think that God's simultaneous disdain and tacit endorsement of man's imperfect laws and corrupt rule should be sufficient grounds for a lesser, worldly, and temporal sense of sanctity and absolute righteous authority to punish the guilty regardless of the actual harm they pose to us. This is why, although Jesus and Paul had little to say about the principles of justice or the right order of government outside the church, the little they did say may have been the greatest gift he could have bestowed to human society and political theory - at once Jesus grants Caesar his right to claim men's lives while at the same time undercutting the glory and pride any man should take in his authority, as ultimately trivial, fleeting, contingent upon, and ultimately subject to, God's will - but in a more perfect future time of purification when all will be called to accounts and made right. A lukewarm and sobering endorsement to be sure, but still seems to grant at least the temporary absolute right of rulers to rule.
So I don't see why members of his kingdom cannot still agree, in light of such contingencies, with their fellow non-believing, 'secular' citizens that each legal member of their common society, even if not officially acknowledged as a special creation, should still be seen as inherently, incomparably precious, simply by being part of his sovereign republic, and view his murder as a sort of assassination and treason? Perhaps a king cannot make the same claim on behalf of his subjects on the same grounds, but it seems to me that, at least on this issue, there is some harmony and room for agreement between believers in God's laws and modern secularized conventionalists. If not, it seems there are also never any just grounds for any modern liberal states that are not based on natural law to go to war, killing those special creations beyond its borders. Many do contend exactly this. But it doesn't seem right, naturally or otherwise, to me.
But I think I agree with Ross Burton.
Just because our republic is not divine, doesn't our effectual sovereignty as 'the people,' mutually responsible for our own welfare, compel us to treat murder as a crime against the citizen body itself?
Do we need to specify our metaphysical or theological presumptions in order to claim that mere blood, soil, or human compact can somehow be authoritative, sacred, and even cosmically significant, as long as it is believed by most, as it still is?
I don't see why we need the official, explicit blessing or authority of the divine over our laws if we can simply take God's effectual tolerance of men's various attempts to govern and order themselves through imperfect conventions. Can't this suffice - that we are temporary stewards of a temporary world that is still impure, fallen and beneath the dignity of God to rule directly as he did for his own people for time? Why do we imperfect mortals deserve or need a higher, more perfect law to appeal to than their own if we are incapable of even abiding by it. I think that God's simultaneous disdain and tacit endorsement of man's imperfect laws and corrupt rule should be sufficient grounds for a lesser, worldly, and temporal sense of sanctity and absolute righteous authority to punish the guilty regardless of the actual harm they pose to us. This is why, although Jesus and Paul had little to say about the principles of justice or the right order of government outside the church, the little they did say may have been the greatest gift he could have bestowed to human society and political theory - at once Jesus grants Caesar his right to claim men's lives while at the same time undercutting the glory and pride any man should take in his authority, as ultimately trivial, fleeting, contingent upon, and ultimately subject to, God's will - but in a more perfect future time of purification when all will be called to accounts and made right. A lukewarm and sobering endorsement to be sure, but still seems to grant at least the temporary absolute right of rulers to rule.
So I don't see why members of his kingdom cannot still agree, in light of such contingencies, with their fellow non-believing, 'secular' citizens that each legal member of their common society, even if not officially acknowledged as a special creation, should still be seen as inherently, incomparably precious, simply by being part of his sovereign republic, and view his murder as a sort of assassination and treason? Perhaps a king cannot make the same claim on behalf of his subjects on the same grounds, but it seems to me that, at least on this issue, there is some harmony and room for agreement between believers in God's laws and modern secularized conventionalists. If not, it seems there are also never any just grounds for any modern liberal states that are not based on natural law to go to war, killing those special creations beyond its borders. Many do contend exactly this. But it doesn't seem right, naturally or otherwise, to me.
6.17.2010 | 7:17am
Tony says:
Joseph, I would refer you to Genesis 9:6. "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his
blood be shed, For in the image of God He made man."
God tells us that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for some crimes.
But He tells us more: He says that this punishment is to be applied BY MAN, not only
by God. There is your writ of authority: God has placed the death penalty in man's
hands, not reserving it for His own special use alone.
But He tells us still more: "For in the image of God He made man." Not only is the
death penalty the right penalty for some crimes, but it is right SPECIFICALLY because
man is made in God's image. So all those commentaries have it backwards, when
they claim that using death undermines human dignity. Not so, says
God: when done rightly, the death penalty re-states that most fundamental truth
about man himself: we are made in His image, which is exactly the foundation of
our human dignity. And that's exactly why we should put Gardner to death, even
after 25 years: it states more forcefully, more certainly, more perfectly than any
thing else, just how grave it is to violate the human dignity of an innocent person.
To fail to state this in its most perfect form is to fail to manifest justice and truth. It
is to fail the common good.
Even if this were not the case, the 25 year argument should STILL be laughed out
of court, dismissed as a retarded red herring. That period only came about due to
the many appeals processes trolled through the courts, trying to find a single judge
to lend a sympathetic ear. Appeals that had no merit. If anything, the right
conclusion from this excessive application of caution is that if you can't overturn
your conviction within a reasonable limited period, society shouldn't allow you to go on
and on with more appeals, the state should get on with the sentence.
Since the Catholic Church, in a number of encyclicals, has rejected the notion that
the origin of political authority resides in a theoretical "social contract", it is odd to
hear a Catholic thinker put this forward as a reason to uphold the novel idea of 2
kinds of justice. But this novel idea is a chimera: there is only ONE kind of justice,
God's justice. Everything that is just is just in reference to God's authority, and the
state's authority exists only because it comes from God. But that authority is real,
as St. Paul declares, and that authority includes the prince being the avenger of
wrongs done to the innocent. Whenever the state does this, it does so as God's
agent for truth and justice, not only in capital punishment, but in all punishments.
And since God did not reserve the death penalty for His own hand alone, but
expressly put it in man's hand, then the state is the proper and normal authority for
applying it in capital crimes.
blood be shed, For in the image of God He made man."
God tells us that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for some crimes.
But He tells us more: He says that this punishment is to be applied BY MAN, not only
by God. There is your writ of authority: God has placed the death penalty in man's
hands, not reserving it for His own special use alone.
But He tells us still more: "For in the image of God He made man." Not only is the
death penalty the right penalty for some crimes, but it is right SPECIFICALLY because
man is made in God's image. So all those commentaries have it backwards, when
they claim that using death undermines human dignity. Not so, says
God: when done rightly, the death penalty re-states that most fundamental truth
about man himself: we are made in His image, which is exactly the foundation of
our human dignity. And that's exactly why we should put Gardner to death, even
after 25 years: it states more forcefully, more certainly, more perfectly than any
thing else, just how grave it is to violate the human dignity of an innocent person.
To fail to state this in its most perfect form is to fail to manifest justice and truth. It
is to fail the common good.
Even if this were not the case, the 25 year argument should STILL be laughed out
of court, dismissed as a retarded red herring. That period only came about due to
the many appeals processes trolled through the courts, trying to find a single judge
to lend a sympathetic ear. Appeals that had no merit. If anything, the right
conclusion from this excessive application of caution is that if you can't overturn
your conviction within a reasonable limited period, society shouldn't allow you to go on
and on with more appeals, the state should get on with the sentence.
Since the Catholic Church, in a number of encyclicals, has rejected the notion that
the origin of political authority resides in a theoretical "social contract", it is odd to
hear a Catholic thinker put this forward as a reason to uphold the novel idea of 2
kinds of justice. But this novel idea is a chimera: there is only ONE kind of justice,
God's justice. Everything that is just is just in reference to God's authority, and the
state's authority exists only because it comes from God. But that authority is real,
as St. Paul declares, and that authority includes the prince being the avenger of
wrongs done to the innocent. Whenever the state does this, it does so as God's
agent for truth and justice, not only in capital punishment, but in all punishments.
And since God did not reserve the death penalty for His own hand alone, but
expressly put it in man's hand, then the state is the proper and normal authority for
applying it in capital crimes.
6.17.2010 | 8:13pm
Charles Cassil says:
Tony--How about wrongfull convictions, and the execution of the innocent?
6.19.2010 | 10:09am
Dudley Sharp says:
Bottum is dead wrong.
Whether Bottum knows it or not, the government is God's agent.
Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11
The litany of Catholic teachings, biblical and theological, which discuss the rights and obligations of man's governments to impose the death penalty must be known by Bottum.
St. Augustine: "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21
St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146
and on and on and on . . .
Whether Bottum knows it or not, the government is God's agent.
Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11
The litany of Catholic teachings, biblical and theological, which discuss the rights and obligations of man's governments to impose the death penalty must be known by Bottum.
St. Augustine: "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21
St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146
and on and on and on . . .
6.19.2010 | 10:15am
Dudley Sharp says:
In addition, we have the evidence for deterrence and other innocent life saving benefits of the death penalty.
Some, both wrongly and illogically, state that deterrence is undermined by Gardner's 25 year stay on death row.
That is not the case. It is the act of the execution, itself, which provides the greates evidence for deterrence, within the recent studies.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
Some, both wrongly and illogically, state that deterrence is undermined by Gardner's 25 year stay on death row.
That is not the case. It is the act of the execution, itself, which provides the greates evidence for deterrence, within the recent studies.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
6.19.2010 | 5:03pm
Tony says:
Charlie, yes, how about the incorrect execution of the innocent?
Let me ask that question a couple different ways: (1) If we put a convict in prison for life, and 5 years after he dies we prove definitively that he was innocent, was our action less unjust than putting him to death? We still took away whatever life-experience he would have had free. We still subjected him to suffering every moment of his remaining life.
(2) What about the after-conviction innocent victims of convicted murderers? Of which there are quite a few, at least as many innocent death row inmates. How is our so-called protection of the innocent true protection if a known percentage of these murderers will kill again, or will order the death of innocents through their gang compatriots?
I will answer (1): We do the best we can to identify the guilty. If we make no MORAL error in that process, then an accidental error in convicting an innocent man is not a moral evil, it is an evil of a lesser order. That evil is due to our living in a fallen world, and due to God's permitting some evils to befall good men for the salvation of others. It would be a far graver evil to REFRAIN from imposing what is, to our best judgment, the fair and just punishment merely because we may have made an error in fact though against our will - such a refusal to attempt justice insofar as it lies in our hands is to turn our backs on justice and embrace moral relativism.
Let me ask that question a couple different ways: (1) If we put a convict in prison for life, and 5 years after he dies we prove definitively that he was innocent, was our action less unjust than putting him to death? We still took away whatever life-experience he would have had free. We still subjected him to suffering every moment of his remaining life.
(2) What about the after-conviction innocent victims of convicted murderers? Of which there are quite a few, at least as many innocent death row inmates. How is our so-called protection of the innocent true protection if a known percentage of these murderers will kill again, or will order the death of innocents through their gang compatriots?
I will answer (1): We do the best we can to identify the guilty. If we make no MORAL error in that process, then an accidental error in convicting an innocent man is not a moral evil, it is an evil of a lesser order. That evil is due to our living in a fallen world, and due to God's permitting some evils to befall good men for the salvation of others. It would be a far graver evil to REFRAIN from imposing what is, to our best judgment, the fair and just punishment merely because we may have made an error in fact though against our will - such a refusal to attempt justice insofar as it lies in our hands is to turn our backs on justice and embrace moral relativism.
10.18.2010 | 12:52pm
Debby Florist says:
Additionally, the Constitution gives Congress authority to declare war and the President the power to act as Commander-in-Chief, actions which will certainly involve taking human life. No nation can defend itself against attack if it refuses to take the lives of its attackers. And once that nation is conquered by its less scrupulous enemies, there will be executions with no due process, and no questioning of authority. Indeed, typically such regimes take the lives of those who question their authority. Everything in the article is unbiblical, from the claims about the 'legitimate' purposes of justice to the conclusions and statements about the divine. This man (and every other murderer) brings his own blood on his own head. He has done it, the state simply 'incarnates' his own actions - as is called out for by God, in passage after passage.
10.21.2010 | 12:00pm
Chaya Strzalkowski says:
Do we need to specify our metaphysical or theological presumptions in order to claim that mere blood, soil, or human compact can somehow be authoritative, sacred, and even cosmically significant, as long as it is believed by most, as it still is? The litany of Catholic teachings, biblical and theological, which discuss the rights and obligations of man's governments to impose the death penalty must be known by Bottum.
