Nonetheless: you cannot kill another human being except in self-defense. Period. No economic rationalizations, no revenge, no deterrence. Can’t do it. No capital punishment. No abortion. No embryo-destroying medical research. No euthanasia. No unjust war. Nope. The Gospel of Life is a coherent moral package.

And aren’t you just a little concerned about innocent people being convicted? Didn’t you ever read “To Kill A Mockingbird” (or watch the movie)? You think our justice system always gets it right?

Mike, I am a lot less concerned about the rights of convicted felons than I am of the rights of the victims and their families for justice. Yes, every once in a great while someone who is convicted of something turns out to be innocent. However, most of these cases are reversed based on DNA evidence which was not available when the person first went on trial. Today, most people who are convicted of murder are convicted with DNA evidence, therefore reducing the chance of a wrongful conviction about 99.98%.

And in case you forgot, To Kill A Mockingbird was fiction.

My feelings on this matter can be summed up thusly: When it comes to criminals who commit the most egregious of offenses, such as murder, rape, child rape and/or molestation, the death penalty is not only appropriate but necessary in order to protect society in general. Removing such people from the population via life terms in prisons is not sufficient punishment; why should I pay taxes to support these animals while they get thee hots and a cot everyday? Especially in the case of a child rapist or murderer, by committing the crime I believe the criminal has forfeited any rights he had beforehand to his own life. Put bluntly, I see no reason why someone who abuses the most defenseless among us should be entitled to live out the remainder of their life at the taxpayers’ expense.

And aren’t you just a little concerned about innocent people being convicted? Didn’t you ever read “To Kill A Mockingbird” (or watch the movie)? You think our justice system always gets it right?

The point is that we can remove these people from society and protect the children. Therefore, the death penalty only serves as a tool of vengeance.

If he is sentenced to life in prison without parole, then you mean he will murder a fellow inmate or guard? Regrettable, and certainly occurs, but that’s different from society itself acting in self-defense to execute him preemptively. Prison guards are performing a valuable social function in guarding such miscreants at risk of their life…as do the policemen who apprehended him in the first place. But they are trained, armed and accept the risk as part of their service to society. I don’t agree that someone should be killed rather than permanently incarcerated because they “might” kill someone else in the prison in the future.

But here’s an example where, in my prudential judgment, Church teaching would support capital punishment: Osama bin Laden. Should he be captured, and President Obama (after certifying his habeas corpus rights, of course) sees him sent to prison without parole for life, there would undoubtedly be many, many instances of kidnappings and indiscriminate slaughter performed by Osama’s Muslim followers aimed at forcing his release. Thus, imprisoning Bin Laden would not suffice to keep society safe. He must be executed. Just as Saddam Hussein required execution for similar reasons, and especially due to the likelihood of a violent prison breakout in chaotic post-invasion Iraq. Saddam’s incarceration “for life” could hardly have been guaranteed, as it could here in the States.

As for liberal hypocrisy on the issue, far worse is the inconsistency of those who rightly oppose capital punishment while at the same time supporting abortion. Opposing the killing of the guilty but supporting the killing of the innocent: an absolutely incoherent, inconsistent moral position.

Child rapists are the same kind of animal; once they start, they’re going to keep on going. The only way to stop them is to make them assume room temperature.

Life imprisonment without parole.

Child rapists are the same kind of animal; once they start, they’re going to keep on going. The only way to stop them is to make them assume room temperature. I mean, liberals love doing things “for the children”, don’t they? Why don’t they want to permanently get rid of people who are convicted of raping children?

Not true. True for abortion, an instrinsic evil without exception, but not for capital punishment:

*****
CCC 2267

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

******

But, yes, the conditions that would make capital punishment morally permissable as self-defense are lacking in a society such as ours with SuperMax prisons. And, thank God, we now have life without parole in Texas, so there is no excuse for capital punishment.

You cannot take someone out of a jailed cell in handcuffs, strap him down to a table and inject him with poison to kill him. That is not self-defense. It’s murder, no less than the murder (or child rape) he himself committed. If he would never be released into society again, there is no future threat, either.

This has nothing do with the heinousness of his crime. It has everything to do with the fact that God wills all people to be saved. Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous. What sinner is worse than a depraved murderer? Who needs more time than anyone to come to repentance? How dare we cut short their time to do so, in opposition to the will of God? Once society has been protected from further murders, by a “life without parole” sentence, then the murderer must be given as much time, and the proper humane conditions, in which to find his salvation through Jesus Christ.

Ezekiel 18:23
“Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live?”