Posted on 12/14/2004 10:14:44 AM PST by SmithL
When I was in my late teens, a Catholic girl grappling with her own emerging definitions of right and wrong, I remember coming across a disquieting quote from Thomas Aquinas.
"If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended," he wrote.
I say disquieting because I did not believe that death was an appropriate response to criminal action.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The State has reserved the power of justice, and including killing, to itself. Individual citizens do not have that power, not legally, anyway.
Which is why you are living in the amoral cess pool called San Francisco.
And a good general rule to follow is: whenever Joan Ryan disagrees with St. Thomas, go with St. Thomas.
You have to admit it, Ted Bundy is never going to harm anyone ever again (unless you dropped him off a building, but then, as an inanimate object, he would only be a murder weapon). Ted Bundy in a jail cell is just a murderer waiting for his next opportunity, and that is a safety risk we can't tolerate.
Ted Bundy is guaranteed to never kill and mutilate girls again.
I don't either. It's the eventual outcome of justice applied. Justice being the comforting of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty. The necessity for "Justice" is always precipitated by the guilty. Since Laci and Connor cannot be comforted, their parents and grandparents can be, in a small way, by Scott Peterson's sentence, Even if Scott's execution is not carried out in their lifetime, the community has consecrated the value of their daughter and grandson's lives by condemning the man who took their lives to forfeit his own.
The essay by the author is like reading a mathematical equation that begins with the equal sign. The information that occurs in the computation to reach the equal sign, is left out. Her reasoning is incomplete.
"And a good general rule to follow is: whenever Joan Ryan disagrees with St. Thomas, go with St. Thomas."
You said it!
Once you start to question the validity of a belief, it's easy to come up with more reasons to question it. Here's a few I like.
1. The death penalty is just not worth the cost. It's far more expensive to impose death than life in prison.
2. The death penalty process is a joke. It's endless, convoluted and full of loopholes. The process itself says we really don't want to put people to death, and give ourselves every excuse not to. So why don't we just eliminate all that doubt and quit doing it?
3. My sense is that taking a life is immoral accept in the sole case of self defense. Dragging a a person bound hand and foot to lethal injection or electrocution is not self defense. A common rebutal to that argument is, "well what if they escape or get out on a technicallity?". To me that's the incompetence excuse. If the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth can't keep a low life like Scott Peterson on 'ice' for the rest of his life than shame on us.
Anyway, since you've taken the first step, it might be an interesting excercise to think of more reasons. Let me know if you come up with any more good ones. The one you posted above is excellent.
In the 13th century France of Aquinas there was probably not enough disposable wealth to consider paying to incarcerate people for a lifetime. What a waste of money.
The problem is not with the death penalty in the abstract. As others have pointed out, the modern state is the vessel into which we place the power of War and the power to take away rights from criminals.
The problem is that far too many police and judges are corrupt and and incompetent. It just doesn't work well in practice.
Contrast the death penalty with war: As Rumsfeld said, "Stuff happens." When you are not in a war zone, you expect to get justice at a pretty high quality level. In the U.S., education has been dumbed down to the point where graduates of the 2 year law enforcement programs at community colleges have on clue what the Constitution means. They are the willing armed force of the bureaucracy.
I couldn't DISagree more. On all three counts.
ALL arguments that advocate abolishing the death penalty for reasons of high expense, inefficiency, legal incompetence, misapplication, inability to console the victim's families, etc. etc. blah-rah-rah, are ALL fundamentally specious and fail to address the REAL REASON the death penalty is sanctioned in the first place.
In accordance with Aquinas and traditional Catholic theology, the purpose of the death penalty is EXPIATION. The guilty person who immorally and illegally (under God's law) takes the life of one of God's children offends God himself! The murderer has, thus, forfeited any claim to the right to life and must pay with his own life. The application of the death penalty is intended to make the perpetrator of this heinous crime right before God. "He who sheds man's blood shall his own blood be shed." By administering the death penalty, the malefactor is brought before God, who alone can administer any ultimate justice, and prepares the way for the salvation of the malefactor's immortal soul (if the killer is penitent)!
Aquinas rightly points out the benefits of removing the murderer from the community by establishing a general peace and equilibrium. Even so, Aquinas states that all other considerations made for (or against) the death penalty are secondary to EXPIATION. Look it up!
I agree with Bowzer regarding expiation, but I also wonder if Aquinas, in Ryan's quote, also implies that death for the wrongdoer brings finality, closure and enables the healing process for society as a whole, and is therefore worth it.
Personally, I am extremely attracted to another philosopher's view of the death penalty:
Now, suppose that the Judgment of the Supreme Court regarding them had been this: that every one should have liberty to choose between the punishment of Death or Penal Servitude for life. In view of such an alternative, I say that the Man of Honour would choose Death, and the Knave would choose servitude. This would be the effect of their human nature as it is; for the honourable man values his Honour more highly than even Life itself, whereas a Knave regards a Life, although covered with shame, as better in his eyes than not to be. The former is, without gainsaying, less guilty than the other; and they can only be proportionately punished by death being inflicted equally upon them both; yet to the one it is a mild punishment when his nobler temperament is taken into account, whereas it is a hard punishment to the other in view of his baser temperament. But, on the other hand, were they all equally condemned to Penal Servitude for life, the honourable man would be too severely punished, while the other, on account of his baseness of nature, would be too mildly punished. In the judgment to be pronounced over a number of criminals united in such a conspiracy, the best Equalizer of Punishment and Crime in the form of public Justice is Death. And besides all this, it has never been heard of, that a Criminal condemned to death on account of a murder has complained that the Sentence inflicted on him more than was right and just; and any one would treat him with scorn if he expressed himself to this effect against it... Emmanuel Kant, "The Philosophy of Law"
We seem to forget that life in prison is not a man's life, but worse than a dog's. Imagine a society that views the stripping of all of one's dignity and humanity for the rest of one's life as 'more humane' than death. That's us. If, God forbid, I am condemned of a capital crime, I will ask to die, rather than be treated like a rat in a cage.
SAN FRANCISCO
Man suspected in gang killings is slain
21-year-old gunned down while waiting at car repair shop
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
A reputed gang member whom San Francisco police linked to five homicides was himself killed over the weekend, authorities said Monday.
Ronnie "Uda" Allen, 21, was shot to death when he came to pick up a friend's car after it was serviced at a shop at 269 Bayshore Blvd. at 4:30 p.m. Saturday, investigators said.
Police said the gunman confronted Allen as he waited at the cashier and opened fire, then chased him down and shot him in the head, execution style.
The gunman then got into a waiting silver Acura, authorities said. No arrests have been made.
Investigators said Allen was a member of the Big Block gang, which has engaged in an on-and-off war for several years with a rival Bayview gang called Westmob.
Allen was on probation for a drug offense and was charged last year with robbery and attempted murder, but the case against him fell apart.
Police suspected he was involved in gang killings and had arrested him several times in recent months in an effort to get him off the streets, though never on suspicion of murder. On one day, Allen was arrested twice for the same probation violation.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/14/BAG75ABDTC1.DTL
Man shot in car shop
By Alison Soltau | Staff Writer
Published on Monday, December 13, 2004
Police fear an end-of-the-year surge in gang-related homicides, which already have haunted The City this year, after a reputed gang leader was executed in a Bayview auto shop on Saturday.
A gunman burst into the store at 269 Bayshore Blvd. just before 5 p.m., and accosted Ronnie "Uda" Allen, 24, as he stood at the cash register waiting to pick up a friend's car, police said.
Allen ran into an office in the building and the gunman pursued him, shooting him multiple times in the head and body. He died at San Francisco General Hospital, said Officer Maria Oropeza.
Homicide investigators could not be reached Sunday, but police speculated it was gang-related because Allen was thought to be the head of the Big Block gang, which is feuding with other gangs.
"The department is concerned there could be more violence in terms of Allen's gang arming themselves and looking for revenge," said Officer Len Broberg of the Violent Crimes Taskforce.
The chilling slaying in the high-crime neighborhood pushed The City's homicide rate to 82 -- more than half of them gang-related -- officers say. In 2003, the total number of killings was 72.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/121304n_shooting
I never thought of execution as revenge. It is more punishment or mere elimination of waste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.