Posted on 02/02/2006 10:14:02 AM PST by sefarkas
Alito sided with the majority in a 6-3 vote that rejected a last minute request to allow Missouri to carry out the execution of Michael Taylor, 39, by lethal injection at midnight, a court spokesman said on Thursday.
He has challenged his death sentence on the grounds that the three-drug cocktail of lethal chemicals used in executions carry the risk of undue suffering, violating the U.S. Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Repeat after me:
"Knee Jerk. Knee Jerk"
Not saying it's the answer, but it's a ventured guess.
This is going to set a record for number of reposts! Enough already!
As much as the MSM is going to try and get us PO'd its not what it seems.
Wishful thinking by the MSM. This vote was procedural, to grant a stay until the appeal could be considered on the merits. Doesn't indicate anything about his philosophy.
What boggles my mind is the number of people who suddenly believe what the MSM is saying/printing, as you say, "without even LOOKING to see what the facts are".
All by Gina Holland of the AP.
When did FReepers start believing, in what the lamestream old media printed, as Gospel?
All by Gina Holland of the AP.
When did FReepers start believing, in what the lamestream old media printed, as Gospel?
"I wonder if this is part of his faith. Certain Catholics believe life is not to be taken by men of faith, even when serving in their role according to Romans.
Not saying it's the answer, but it's a ventured guess."
Certain Catholics include the Pope and the Curia. The Catechism of the Church opposes the death penalty in modern times as unncessary. Since there are alternatives, the Church opposes its use in this day and age.
Alito's response on the matter reflects a mature Catholic's view on the subject. Catholics are not REQUIRED to oppose the death penalty in the way that they are required to oppose abortion, but those who take their faith seriously, as Alito does, will be very careful before agreeing to mete out death. It is always wrong to slay the innocent. It is murder, whether an individual does it or the state does it, and those who commit the murder are liable to God for it.
So, Alito said that he was going to take the time to be very sure on each death case. Very sure of WHAT, one might ask? Sure of procedural matters? Probably not that. If he reasons like the serious Catholic that he appears to be, he is going to take the time to be very, very sure that the man to be executed is really, actually, beyond a shadow of doubt in his own mind, guilty of the underlying murder. If he is, then a serious Catholic like Alito might not stand in the way of the application of the death penalty, because there is no danger of an innocent person being executed in that case.
I expect that this will be a pattern for Alito in death cases. I expect he'll be "Go slow Alito" on death sentences. It perfectly fits the Catholic philosophy on this, and Alito's responses and history show me, anyway, that he thinks like a Catholic.
Could be because of his faith, although 100% opposition to the death penalty is not Catholic doctrine. Anyway, as a Catholic, I have no problem with that, as long as he is consistent with Catholic teaching with regards to the unborn when abortion cases come before the court.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito....I just love saying it.
his vote in this case is not remotely illustrative of his take on the death penalty itself, it was a procedural matter only.
just like hitler did in the '30s! yes, a purge!
Execution Of Criminals Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment? is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.Catechism of Pope St. Pius X
Q: Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill? A: It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one's own life against an unjust aggressor.Catechism of the Catholic Church
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67] 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm#commandments
Did he give the 15year old child waiting at the bus stop that he killed a painless death? Or her parents? I honestly can not understand the those who refuse to realize that there are some people in this world who are so evil, society dare not keep them around.
The MSM LIED/SPUN AGAIN??? I'm surprised /sarc
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.