In a recent NYT editorial titled “Innocent but Dead” by Bob Herbert, we get a paraphrase of a lengthy New Yorker article about Cameron Todd Willingham, the very likely innocent victim of the death penalty.

I’ll be up front and state that I fully agree that it is the right of the state to determine for itself whether the death penalty should exist for the good of society. The catechism backs that up in 2266. But 2267 sets conditions on that that clearly weren’t met in Mr. Willingham’s case, leading one to wonder how many other cases of homicide have occurred of those wrongly convicted by the state .

At this point, I’m not even exploring the paragraph in 2267 addressing the sufficiency of “non-lethal means” to protect society. I simply wonder if we have the proper structure to truly defend the innocent in our courts. It seems that more and more we are hearing about wrongful convictions thanks to groups like The Innocence Project, and news like the overturning of the conviction(s) of Sen. Stevens of Alaska for prosecutorial misconduct. While one might say that “the system worked” in the latter case, I suggest that the system failed in that he was convicted in the first place.

While I’m still vacillating about a full-blown rejection of the death penalty in the US, I am thinking that it may be time for a moratorium, at all levels of government, in order to address the issue of whether it can truly be applied so that, while some guilty may go free, no innocent is subject the consequence of such a tragic error.

My husband and I was just talking about this, this morning and he says his biggest problem with the death penalty is we are limiting a persons chance at redemption.

Post edited 4:17 am – September 2, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

While I’m still vacillating about a full-blown rejection of the death penalty in the US, I am thinking that it may be time for a moratorium, at all levels of government, in order to address the issue of whether it can truly be applied so that, while some guilty may go free, no innocent is subject the consequence of such a tragic error.

Michael, It is impossible to error when you allow Christ to be the Judge that He is. As Christ said, “The measure that you measure with shall be measured back to you”. When you or I condemn a man to death, we condemn ourselves to death according to the Judgment of Christ.

The Catechism assumes that a faithful Catholic has also studied Scripture and the Catechism like the Bible is meant to be interpreted for us by the teaching authority of the Church.

Of course I am not the teaching authority of the Church although I have already experienced pronouncing judgment on others from my own acts of vindication and I can testify it is not a pretty sight.

My vote is thumbs up as the Romans used to signal as to whether the man should live or whether he should die. Thumbs up means let him live and leave the driving to Christ. You will arrive at your destination if you let Christ drive and you may crash and burn if you drive.

Furthermore, there is not one part of the world in this day and age where the local law makers and enforcement authorities can honestly say that they have not received the recommendations in writing from the teaching authorities of the Catholic Church. The Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican councils to the Ambassadors to the Vatican have seen to that at the order of Benedict XVI par excellence.

The teaching of the Church is clear that capital punishment is NOT for judgment nor for revenge nor for justice. Its sole purpose is to be for the protection of society. Period.
Given that, it is very difficult to defend the notion that the United States cannot defend its society from any particular person in the country.

Technically, the 5th commandment is "Thou shall not murder." That is why killing in self-defense is not a breaking of the commandments.

Personally, I am on the side that th US does not need capital punishment. But I cannot blanketly label capital punishment as ALWAYS immoral…as the Church does not.

Loretta,
it is great to hear from you again.

I hope we will have many more of your posts, as they are always balanced, sound and solidly Catholic.

It is good to hear you playing the drum in defense of solid Catholicism.

Hi Noel,
You are always too kind! I do hope to get back to being in here much more often.

Michael, I wouldn't dare try to label, as I don't know enough of the system and how it truly works. I doubt any one proclamation could be made regarding the US system since we cannot address or know the future. Is there a chance that in the future, our system now will fail us in protecting our society? If so, then no.

But in individual cases, I could see one being able to decide definitively one way or the other.