Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Federal Government to Resume Capital Punishment After Nearly Two Decade Lapse
Attorney
General William P. Barr has directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) to adopt a proposed Addendum to the Federal Execution
Protocol—clearing the way for the federal government to resume capital
punishment after a nearly two decade lapse, and bringing justice to
victims of the most horrific crimes. The Attorney General has further
directed the Acting Director of the BOP, Hugh Hurwitz, to schedule the
executions of five death-row inmates convicted of murdering, and in some
cases torturing and raping, the most vulnerable in our society—children
and the elderly.
“Congress has expressly authorized the death penalty through legislation adopted by the people’s representatives in both houses of Congress and signed by the President,” Attorney General Barr said. “Under Administrations of both parties, the Department of Justice has sought the death penalty against the worst criminals, including these five murderers, each of whom was convicted by a jury of his peers after a full and fair proceeding. The Justice Department upholds the rule of law—and we owe it to the victims and their families to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.”
...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide”.
(Latest revision, approved by Pope Fracis)
“Congress has expressly authorized the death penalty through legislation adopted by the people’s representatives in both houses of Congress and signed by the President,” Attorney General Barr said. “Under Administrations of both parties, the Department of Justice has sought the death penalty against the worst criminals, including these five murderers, each of whom was convicted by a jury of his peers after a full and fair proceeding. The Justice Department upholds the rule of law—and we owe it to the victims and their families to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.”
...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide”.
(Latest revision, approved by Pope Fracis)
Disappointing.
ReplyDeleteOn this topic, it's almost providential that our last three popes come from nations with histories, within the living memories of those popes, of being ruled by totalitarian regimes. Those popes have witnessed those regimes using the power of the state to murder political opponents. I'd suggest that it's difficult to overstate the importance of that witness, and the theological reflection that that witness must have engendered, regarding the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Francis's development of the church's tradition of teaching on the death penalty has been "received" in the United States, including by quite a few American Catholics. And I suspect that among the chief reasons is that Americans haven't witnessed first-hand what the last three popes have witnessed. Many, probably most, Americans perceive the death penalty as fundamentally just: a criminal commits a heinous crime, and is given a proportionate sentence.
I don't claim to be a historian, but I also suspect that what the last three popes have witnessed is more the rule than the exception when it comes to how the death penalty has been used and abused throughout human history. Men come to power, and then they use that power to murder their opponents and rivals. Cf. Shakespeare's canon.
I think you are right about Americans and the death penalty, though support for it among Christians--regardless of sectarian teaching--is waning. A Barna poll from 2014 was the latest I could find. It showed about only about 40 percent of Christians said they supported the death penalty, but the support among Millennial Christians was at only 28 percent.
DeleteA stat last night on PBS showed starker divisions along political party lines, Republicans supporting it at a higher percentage than the 54 percent of all Americans who support it overall.
So a lot of people glibly spouting "an eye for an eye" over "forgive 70 times seven."
Proof text out of context is pretext of proof text.
DeleteAbout life issues...the so-called pro-life movement is already obfuscating about this, saying it doesn't really mean what people think it means, because of the church's previous assumed imprimatur on the death penalty. If they are claiming an interstice big enough for their pro-death penalty stance, I feel free to claim another loophole when it comes to voting. One provided by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, which says that one may vote for a pro-choice candidate, not because of their support for abortion, but in spite of it.
ReplyDeleteHardly a surprise. Trump loves advocating the death penalty--drug dealers, cop killers, terrorists--most notoriously for the Central Park Five, all of whom have been exonerated.
ReplyDeleteAll Dem candidates condemned the resumption of the death penalty, which is a no-win issue for them. It just makes them look like they care more about criminals than aborted babies to the pro-life vote.
And to listen to some of the pro-life people, one would get the idea that pre-born life is the only kind they care about. "Seamless garment" is the life ethic that makes sense to me.
DeleteWell, this is the precise point on which Cox Newspapers, when I was there, hung the stylebook ruling that opponents of abortion should be called anti-abortion, not pro-life. The rule was made because their definition of life was too exclusive.
DeleteI agree with changing the label "pro-choice" to "anti-abortion". But I think "pro-choice" should be changed to "pro-abortion access", "pro-abortion choice" or something similar. Anti-vaccination people are pro-choice. Gun nuts are pro-choice. Are they supportive of every choice?
Delete