|
Published by Catholics Against Capital Punishment, PO Box 5706, Bethesda MD 20824-5706
E-mail: ellen.frank@verizon.net
Contents not copyrighted. Permission is granted to all to reprint all material herein in full or in part for publication.
CONTENTS:
1) VATICAN HAILS VOTE IN U.N. CALLING FOR WORLDWIDE MORATORIUM ON DEATH PENALTY
2) THE U.N. MORATORIUM: HOW THE CHURCH HELPED
3) NEW JERSEY BISHOPS COMMEND LAWMAKERS FOR REPEAL OF DEATH PENALTY
4) OTHER STATE NEWS
5) THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DEATH PENALTY, by Robert Valle
6) THE CROSS, TRANSFORMED, by Fr. Michael Doyle
7) OBSERVATIONS: 2007 UPS AND DOWNS
8) CACP’S ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2007
1) VATICAN HAILS VOTE IN U.N. CALLING FOR WORLDWIDE MORATORIUM ON DEATH PENALTY
... Holy See’s comments are latest in a series of statements asking for an end to executions and for commutations of US death sentences ...
Moments after the United Nations General Assembly’s Dec. 18 approval of a nonbinding resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with a view toward abolishing the death penalty worldwide, the vote was commended by the director of the Vatican Press Office.
“This vote should be interpreted as a sign of hope and a step forward on the road to peace,” said Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., in comments on Vatican Radio. Calling it “a very positive event,” he added: “It shows that despite the persistence of so much violence in the world, there is a growing awareness in the human family of the value of life, of the dignity of every person and of the concept of a nonvindictive punishment.” He said it indicated that people increasingly favor justice that respects human rights and refuses “every violent solution.”
Also hailing the vote was Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In a Dec. 20 interview with L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, he called it “an important step forward,” but added that he was “only half-satisfied,” and that he would be “fully content only when the death penalty is abolished everywhere and by everyone.”
Martino commended the wide range of Catholic organizations and individuals who worked on the issue. But, he added, they should not be complacent, “but rather quickly renew efforts to arrive at the final objective, which is complete abolition. The path ... is still a long one.”
The vote in the 192-member world body was 104-54, with 29 abstentions. Among those voting no were the United States, China, Iran, Singapore, Egypt and Syria.
Although the 27 member nations of the European Community were the driving force behind the resolution, it was jointly introduced by a total of 87 countries, including more than a dozen Latin American nations and eight African states.
Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the UN, commended the Italian government for its leadership on the issue. “Italy played an important role,” he said, “because it was able to involve the whole world, not just Europe.”
Although the resolution is not legally binding, backers say it carries moral weight and is seen as reflecting the majority view of world opinion. It calls upon countries that allow capital punishment to respect international standards that safeguard the rights of condemned inmates, to progressively restrict the use of capital punishment, to lessen the number of offenses for which it may be imposed, and to “establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.” It also calls upon nations that have abolished the practice not to reintroduce it.
A similar resolution in draft form had been passed on Nov. 15 by the General Assembly’s Third Committee (commonly referred to as the UN Human Rights Committee). The committee vote was 99 nations in favor, 52 opposed, and 33 abstentions.
Prior to the Nov. 15 vote, Egypt and other opponents of the resolution tried to attach an anti-abortion amendment to it in an effort to block its passage.
That move was defeated, however, after a debate in which the Vatican, the Philippines and other states that outlaw abortion said they would enthusiastically support such language as a separate measure, but they did not want the pro-life causes to be “instrumentalized” to block progress on the death penalty issue.
In a Nov. 16 interview with the Rome-based Zenit news agency, Cardinal Martino termed the committee’s action “a relevant step,” recalling that two similar resolutions before the General Assembly - in 1994 and 1999 - had been either narrowly defeated or withdrawn.
“I was the Holy See’s representative at the United Nations for 16 years, and during that time, I saw the attempts made in the 1990s in favor of such a moratorium,” he said. “I worked a lot, and was disappointed when these proposals were withdrawn because they lacked the necessary votes. This time, the number was sufficient, and I am very content. I can affirm with satisfaction that many Catholic organizations have worked for this and have the right to be satisfied.”
Robert Hagan, the US representative in the Human Rights Committee, had this to say after the Nov. 15 vote: “The United States recognizes that the supporters of this resolution have principled positions on the issue of the death penalty. But nonetheless it is important to recognize that international law does not prohibit capital punishment.”
Earlier, on Sept. 25, Richard A. Grenell, a spokesman for the US Mission to the UN, told the New York Times that “we strongly feel that the use of the death penalty in the US is a decision best left to democratically-elected governments at the federal and state levels.”
In a November 4 interview with the Zenit news service. Archbishop Migliore, the Vatican’s UN envoy, reiterated that capital punishment “undermines human dignity.” He made the comment in connection with the presentation to the UN that day of a petition signed by 5 million people from 154 countries calling for an end to executions.
The petition was delivered to Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, a group founded in 2002 under the auspices of of the Community of Sant’Egidio. Also in the delegation was Sr. Helen Prejean, CSJ, author of Dead Man Walking.
In the Zenit interview, Migliore stated: “Our delegation has been insisting on the conviction that the right to life is the proper context in which to deal with the issue, because if we respect life in all its stages - from the womb to the tomb - we really can adequately resolve the issue of the death penalty.”
Mario Marazziti, spokesperson for Sant’Egidio and a leader of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, told Zenit that the petition was the result of nine years of work, and added: “To have and collect five million signatures, you need to talk to about 50 million people in the world, in 154 countries.
“For the first time a real moral interfaith and also lay/secular front was created,” Marazziti he said. “It is a demonstration of the strong will of the world, and not just an idea of human rights that is rooted in the Italian or European tradition.”
The General Assembly vote came at the end of a year in which Catholic leaders repeatedly cited the church’s teachings on the issue. In an Oct. 30 address to the UN General Assembly, Archbishop Migliore noted that peace cannot be had without respect for the rights and dignity of the person, and that human rights are based in human nature, not determined merely by a decision-making body.
Life, from conception until natural death, he said, is the first right that must be respected as the base of all other rights. “Life is not at anyone’s disposal,” he added. “It is in this continuum of respect for life that the abolition of the death penalty should be put in context.”
In a meeting in late October with the president of the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, Cardinal Martino said that “Christians are called to cooperate for the defense of human rights and for the abolition of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against the human person in time of peace and in case of war.” He said that these practices “are grave crimes against the human person, created in the image of God, and a scandal for the human family in the 21st century."
In a Sept. 7 message to Texas government authorities, Cardinal Martino appealed for the life of death row inmate, Joseph Lave, 42, whose execution was to be carried out a week later.
During an international meeting in Rome on the pastoral care of prisoners, Martino asked that Lave’s death sentence be commuted to life. He called the death penalty an inhumane and ineffective form of punishment that “impoverishes the society that legitimizes and practices it.”
(On Sept. 12, a state district judge in Texas agreed to spare Lave’s life at the request of the Dallas prosecutor’s office, which said it had discovered evidence it believed had been withheld from defense attorneys during Lave’s original trial.)
Pope Benedict XVI asked in July that the life of Troy Davis, an inmate sentenced to death in 1991, be spared. The pope’s message was conveyed in a July 13 letter to Georgia’s Republican Governor, Sonny Perdue, by Rev. Msgr. Martin Krebs, charge d’affaires for the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C.
In February, the Holy See reiterated its long-standing opposition to capital punishment, this time calling it “not just a negation of the right to life, but also an affront to human dignity.” Those comments came in a message to participants in the Third World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris.
A month earlier, following the December 30, 2006 execution of Saddam Hussein, the Vatican’s spokesman, Fr. Lombardi, called the execution “tragic,” and said it would not help efforts to promote justice. “The position of the Catholic Church against the death penalty has often been reiterated,” he said in a statement issued hours after the former Iraq president was hanged in Baghdad. “The killing of the guilty is not the way to rebuild justice and reconcile society; rather, there is a risk of nourishing the spirit of revenge and inciting fresh violence.”
2) THE U.N. MORATORIUM: HOW THE CHURCH HELPED
Following are excerpts from a Dec. 21 interview with Mario Marazziti, a spokesman for the Rome-based Community of Sant’Egidio, by John L. Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter newspaper. The Sant’Egidio group was instrumental in forming the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, which since 2002 has gathered more than five million petition signatures asking the United Nations to pass an anti-death-penalty resolution similar to the one the UN approved on Dec. 18. The full text of the interview is available on NCR’s Web site (http://ncronline.org/mainpage/documents2.htm). )
Allen: Why is this happening now?
Marazziti: About 90 countries have abolished the death penalty, and 43 countries are de facto abolitionists, in that it’s been at least 10 years since they executed anyone. Until 1977, only 17 countries in the world had abolished the death penalty.
In other words, for 20 centuries only 17 nations had formally abolished capital punishment. Over the last 20 years, more than 50 countries have done so; the acceleration has been dramatic. Over the last two years, we focused on Africa and Central Asia.
Allen: Why those two places?
Marazziti: Africa is where the climate on the death penalty is changing the fastest. Previously, there were only four countries there that had abolished it. Two years ago, that number had risen to 13. Then Senegal did so, and this year Rwanda, Burundi and Gabon abolished it. Gabon specifically mentioned the work of Sant’Egidio. We accompanied some of these countries in the legal process or in the parliamentary process.
Central Asia was the closest place to Europe to have the death penalty: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. We have been working there with Mothers Against the Death Penalty, who are fantastic women - lawyers, activists and so on. In Uzbekistan, they didn’t even say where they put the body after an execution; now, Uzbekistan is going to abolish the death penalty.
Some countries have reached the conclusion that they cannot have internal reconciliation with the death penalty. Rwanda and Burundi are examples. Abolition becomes a tool to prevent future violence. Those countries have 800 people on death row, and if they kill them, another cycle of violence could begin.
Other countries want to have stronger relations with Europe. Others have simply changed their minds, which is the case of the Philippines. They had a moratorium, then the death penalty was reintroduced, then they abolished it. They were very active in the General Assembly in favor of the moratorium.
It’s the same rationale as South Africa or Cambodia. It’s very interesting that the three nations with the greatest genocides of the 20th century - Rwanda, Burundi, and Cambodia - are now without the death penalty.
Allen: How important has the church been?
Marazziti: Very important. The Catholic church, especially under John Paul II and continuing with what it’s doing now, has had a real role in accompanying this change over the last 20 years. The Philippines is one of the cases where you see that most clearly.
“We’ve worked side-by-side with Cardinal [Renato] Martino [president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace]. He gave me a short interview to be used on Nov. 30, when we had our “Cities Against the Death Penalty” event. He said something to us that I think has never been said at such a high level before: “The death penalty is homicide.” Unfortunately the media didn’t pick up on it, but the clear meaning is that you can’t answer one crime with another.
Allen: What were the behind-the-scenes tussles like?
Marazziti: After 1999, Amnesty International had consistently advised against going to the General Assembly, out of fear of losing. The problem is that in the General Assembly, it’s not enough just to add up the number of countries that are against the death penalty. Politics also enters into it. We were in favor of going to the General Assembly, but in an intelligent way … not out of desperation, but on the basis of serious advance work. Then there were the radicals and groups such as Nessuno Tocchi Caino (“Hands Off Cain,” the main anti-death penalty activist group in Italy) that wanted to go to the General Assembly no matter what, because whether they won or lost, they’d be on the front pages. So there were three different logics completely.
Together with an American group, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, I mediated between these two other positions. At the end, between phone calls to New York, London, and so on, in a restricted committee with Amnesty International, we wrote a key phrase: “Given that a successful resolution approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations would be of incredible importance towards the final abolition of the death penalty, we call upon member states to do all they can to work towards it.” This compromise introduced the idea of a moratorium as a global theme. At this point, we all started to work towards the same goal.
From that point, we were in weekly contact with all the NGOs to coordinate how to carry out the lobbying in the various countries … who was stronger in one country, who was more effective in another, and so on. We wanted to avoid that it would be seen as a project of the European Union, reflecting a neo-colonial vision of human rights. For that reason, we ended up with Brazil and Mexico as the initial supporters, and then in the Third Commission, the resolution was presented by Gabon.
Within the Third Commission - with 192 countries, just like the General Assembly - there was a ferocious debate. The first effort was to say that this is a matter of the internal affairs of nations, and not of human rights; it can’t be discussed because it’s an internal question.
Once they lost on this, the opponents argued that it shouldn't be voted on by the UN because it’s something that divides nations rather than unites them. Of course, that would mean never doing anything, because everything is divisive in some sense.
The third point was that it represents the imposition of a Western vision of human rights on other countries.
There were three principal centers of opposition: Singapore, representing some Asian countries; Egypt, for the Arab and Muslim states; and finally Barbados, for the Caribbean countries. The Caribbean countries were ferocious … they're tiny, but they put up a fight line-by-line, word-for-word.
At one point, the opponents proposed an amendment to add a paragraph saying that in the name of always defending life, it’s also necessary to be against abortion. It was presented by Egypt, in the name of the Arab states.
The response came from the Philippines, saying that this is a very important theme, and, if there’s a consensus, we should present a new resolution on this subject and we will be a cosponsor. It has nothing to do, however, with this resolution. The Vatican also responded …
Allen: By “the Vatican,” you mean in this case Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the nuncio of the Holy See as a Permanent Observer to the UN?
Marazziti: Yes. The central point was that the Holy See supports the defense of life in every circumstance, but on this very important subject we don’t want to see [the resolution] instrumentalized for other questions.
It was a very interesting position. Of course, the Vatican doesn’t vote at the UN. Nevertheless, they said the defense of life is an important subject, but exactly for that reason it has to be without exceptions.
In substance, the point was that the Holy See doesn’t support the way some say, “We have to abolish the death penalty” but don’t care about abortion; and meanwhile, those who were now proposing something against abortion were doing so to uphold the death penalty. We shouldn't get into deciding which lives are worth defending. It was a very sharp, well-constructed position, and I thought it was quite clear.
In the end, the death penalty can be justified only by a fundamentalist reading of the Bible. Using Scripture in an intelligent fashion, it’s very clear that the death penalty is a great violation. it begins with the idea of a disproportionate vendetta. Then comes the law of one-for-one retaliation - an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Then, with the Book of Job, the idea began to grow that life is a breath in the hand of God, and only God has a say over life. With Jesus, not only the death penalty, but even smaller acts of violence were rejected.
Hence, the trajectory is very clear. In a certain sense, the Bible reflects the story of humanity with regard to violence. For virtually all its history, humanity regarded the death penalty as something normal. Recently, a different sensibility has begun to take hold.
John Paul II’s clear public position was, “Never again the death penalty,” even if the Catechism’s refusal of capital punishment is more practical than radical. In a conversation I had with Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, France, he said he thinks, like me, that a total refusal of the death penalty would also reinforce the church’s position on abortion and the defense of life. For Sant’Egidio, life can’t be divided. Life must be defended wherever it’s vulnerable, without exceptions.
For this reason, I believe that our friends at Amnesty International have made a serious mistake in using the word “right” with regard to exceptional cases of abortion for women who have suffered violence. Abortion can never be a right. It might become a terrible necessity, but that’s something else.
Allen: The U.N. passes resolutions all the time that have little practical effect. Isn't it easy to see this as hollow symbolism?
Marazziti: My response is that if this is truly meaningless, then why was there such fierce opposition for 15 years? There was strong, at times almost violent, debate in the hall. The best of the UN were involved, first as individual states and then as groups, going over the resolution line-by-line and word-for-word. It was extremely arduous work. It's hard to imagine so many people would have invested this much time and effort on something that doesn't mean anything.
Allen: In the end, what does this result mean?
Marazziti: First of all, the death penalty has officially become a question of human rights. From the point of view of the international community, this is new.... It fixes an official standard of justice without death.
Even if it’s not obligatory, it creates a moral standard. It will become ever more embarrassing for those countries that still use the death penalty.
From an American point of view, of course, one could say, “Who cares what the United Nations says?” But this puts the United Sates officially in the company of Iran, Iraq, China, and so on. The United Nations has now said, “The international moral standard is something else.”
Interestingly, the United States and China were not really proactive in this debate. They let things go forward, and in the end it was almost a position of neutrality. The theory of the United States was that because some states in the country have the death penalty and others don’t, officially the government is agnostic on the question.
In the Second World War, Europe experienced more deaths than at any other time in history. After World War II, we started to imagine a world without war and without state-sponsored death. This is, in a way, a gift of Europe to the world. In America, on the other hand, the arguments are usually that the death penalty is too expensive, and that there are too many people who are innocent that are killed. It’s not about whether the death penalty is right or wrong.
Yet I also sense that in America, there’s a change in the feeling of the population - not against the death penalty, but against the necessity of using it. I think the Catholic church in America has played a role in this.
3) NEW JERSEY BISHOPS COMMEND LAWMAKERS FOR REPEAL OF DEATH PENALTY
The repeal of New Jersey’s death penalty law has been hailed by the Catholic bishop of Trenton, the state’s capital city, who said lawmakers had shown “a great deal of courage” in their willingness to take an unpopular position against capital punishment.
A bill to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life in prison was signed by Gov. Jon Corzine (Dem.) on Dec. 17, after passage by the Senate and by the General Assembly during the previous week.
“With today’s repeal of the death penalty, the State of New Jersey has made a statement that the civilized world will justifiably applaud,” said Trenton Bishop John M. Smith, who attended the signing ceremony.
Also in attendance was Msgr. Michael Doyle, pastor of Sacred Heart Parish, Camden, who called the signing “a big step forward in civilization, in Christian morality, and a step forward in the right to life.”
In signing the bill, Gov. Corzine thanked the New Jersey Catholic Conference and other groups that, he said, “created a fundamental grassroots groundswell that put pressure on those of us in public service to stand up and do the right thing.”
In an earlier interview with Catholic News Service, Smith said he hoped New Jersey’s repeal move would encourage other states to pass similar measures.
The bishop said he was pleased to be a part of the repeal effort, noting that “there is confusion in the church” over the issue. He noted that in recent years the US Catholic bishops have been actively campaigning against the death penalty and that New Jersey's bishops have issued three statements opposing it. The main message of those statements, he said, was that the death penalty “takes human life and should be abolished.”
In testimony before the General Assembly on Dec. 10, Smith said the Catholic Church is guided by its belief “that every person has an inalienable right to life.” Earlier, on Nov. 26, the state’s Catholic bishops reiterated their belief that “the death penalty is not consistent with evolving standards of decency.”
In the CNS interview, Smith affirmed the state’s duty to “punish criminals and to prevent the repetition or occurrence of crime,” but said he also believes “greater efforts must be made to bring the criminal to repentance and rehabilitation.”
Also praising the repeal was retired Galveston-Houston Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza, a former president of the U.S. bishops’ conference and a longtime opponent of the death penalty.
“I hope it is a harbinger of things to come,” he said, “and that people will realize, like New Jersey, that the death penalty is no longer necessary in order to properly deter horrendous crimes. The use of the death penalty usurps God’s absolute dominion over human life. That’s what states do when they put someone to death. They are usurping God’s power over all human life.”
New Jersey is the first state to legislatively abolish capital punishment since the US Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976 after a three-year hiatus. No one has been executed in the state since 1963, although a death penalty law was reinstated in 1982. The eight men currently on the state’s death row will all serve life sentences, in accordance with a commutation order issued by Gov. Corzine the day before he signed the repeal bill.
STATEMENT OF BISHOP JOHN M. SMITH ON THE SIGNING BY GOV. JON CORZINE OF THE BILL REPEALING THE DEATH PENALTY IN NEW JERSEY, December 17, 2007:
I was both honored and humbled to be able to represent the state’s Roman Catholic Bishops and the entire Catholic community at the historic signing by Gov. Jon Corzine of the bill repealing the death penalty in New Jersey.
The issue of the death penalty carries with it deeply felt emotions, particularly among those who have had a loved one taken from them through violent crime. We must continue to be sensitive to the feelings people bring to this issue, and offer effective, ongoing assistance to the loved ones of victims.
The Church recognizes the rights and duties of the state to punish criminals and protect its citizens from crime. But we cannot teach respect for life by taking life. We believe that non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is an alternative to the death penalty which is more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and with the dignity of the human person.
With today's repeal of the death penalty, the State of New Jersey has made a statement that the civilized world will justifiably applaud. I congratulate our State Assembly, State Senate and Governor Corzine for their courageous action in bringing this repeal to fruition.
EXCERPTS FROM A STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF NEW JERSEY ON THE DEATH PENALTY, November 26, 2007:
Consistently, over many decades, the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey have called for the abolishment of the death penalty. Our message always is simple - the death penalty takes a human life and should be abolished. Many others have pointed out that the death penalty is not consistent with evolving standards of decency.
On Holy Thursday of 2005, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a campaign to end capital punishment across the nation with a theme: “The death penalty diminishes all of us. Its use ought to be abandoned not only for what it does to those who are executed, but what it does to us as a society. We cannot teach respect for life by taking life.”
The Catholic Church is guided by our belief that every person has an inalienable right to life, because each human being is made in the image and likeness of God, who alone is the absolute Lord of life from its beginning until its end (cf. The Book of Genesis 1:26-28).
We acknowledge that the subject of capital punishment is controversial, emotional and not an easy matter to address. All murders are violent and shocking; some are savage. They all stir emotions of revulsion and anger. We grieve for the victims of murder, for the brutalization and loss of life. We commiserate with the families and friends of victims who must suffer with their loss through the years.
We recognize the need to improve our criminal justice system and the need for a greater societal commitment to preventing crime and to providing assistance for victims of crime. We do affirm that the state has the duty to punish criminals and to prevent the repetition or occurrence of crime. We believe that greater efforts must be made to bring the criminal to repentance and rehabilitation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the right of public authorities to impose criminal punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense, “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 more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”
Because the State of New Jersey has other means to redress the injustice caused by crime and to effectively prevent crime by rendering the one who has committed the offense incapable of doing harm and because we recognize the dignity of all human life, we continue to oppose the use of capital punishment vigorously. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is an alternative to the death penalty.
As pastors and teachers we urge the State of New Jersey not to impose the death penalty in our state.
Most Rev. John J. Myers, Archbishop of Newark
Most Rev. Andrew Pataki, Bishop of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic
Most Rev. Joseph A. Galante, Bishop of Camden
Most Rev. Joseph Younan, Bishop of Our Lady of Deliverance Diocese
Most Rev. Paul G. Bootkoski, Bishop of Metuchen
Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli, Bishop of Paterson
Most Rev. John M. Smith, Bishop of Trenton
Most Revs. Edgar M. da Cunha, Thomas A. Donato and John W. Flesey, Auxiliary Bishops of Newark
4) OTHER STATE NEWS
CALIFORNIA: A federal appeals court, divided sharply over the use of biblical quotations in the jury room, has reinstated a Los Angeles man’s death sentence for the murder committed nearly 30 years ago.
The 9-6 decision of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, issued Sept. 10, leaves Stevie Fields, 51, with only one appeal route remaining, to the US Supreme Court. His case is one of the oldest on California’s 667-member death row.
Fields’ murder conviction has been upheld during a series of appeals, but his death sentence was overturned in 2000 by a federal judge who said Fields should get a new penalty trial because the jury foreman had cited biblical teachings to his fellow jurors.
After one day of deliberations - which, according to Fields’ lawyer, ended with a 7-5 vote for a life sentence - the foreman returned the next morning with a list of reasons for and against death. The rationales for execution included several biblical passages, such as, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” and “He that smiteth a man, so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.” The jury voted unanimously for death later that day. Defense lawyers argued that the passages
violated Fields’ right to be judged solely on courtroom evidence and were also an improper injection of religion into the case.
But 9th Circuit Judge Pamela Rymer said in her majority opinion that the biblical language merely expressed “notions of general currency that inform the moral judgment that capital-case jurors are called on to make.” Although it would be improper for a prosecutor to invoke the Bible in support of a death sentence, she said, jurors are entitled to rely on their life’s experience and morality in reaching a penalty verdict. She also said the foreman’s conduct, whether proper or not, had no effect on the verdict because the prosecution’s case was strong and jurors had been instructed to follow the law.
Dissenting Judge Ronald Gould said the biblical passages, which prescribed death for all murderers, probably influenced a jury that was previously inclined to spare Fields’ life. In a separate dissent, Judge Marsha Berzon said the verses counseled jurors to disregard the judge’s instructions in favor of a higher law.
FLORIDA: On Nov. 14, Florida’s Catholic bishops urged Gov. Charlie Crist (Rep.) to halt the execution of Mark Schwab, noting that more than a dozen stays of execution have been granted in other states since the beginning of October. Schwab, 38, was sentenced to death in 1992.
“At this time, while the US Supreme Court is considering the case of Baze v. Rees to determine whether the drug combination used in lethal injection executions is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, it seems both prudent and judicious for you to follow the example of another governor and many state and federal courts,” the bishops wrote.
(Fields’ execution, scheduled for Nov. 15, was upheld the morning of that day by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. But it was blocked later in the day by the high court, pending its decision in the Baze v. Rees case.)
The bishops said they opposed the use of the death penalty, given “the option of life in prison without possibility of parole, that will punish the offender and keep society safe.
“Incarceration for life is a severe punishment, allows the possibility of conversion for the wrong doer, and gives us the opportunity to forgive their wrong doings,” they said. “Killing those who have harmed others only perpetuates the use of violence in society.
“We express our sincere sympathy to the family and loved ones of the victim,” they continued. “Carrying out the death penalty for Mark Dean Schwab will not compensate for their loss and encourages vengeance rather than forgiveness.... State-sanctioned killing coarsens us all.
“It is only when society cannot be protected in any other way that the death penalty is justified,” they explained. “We urge you to lead Florida toward a standard of decency that calls us to turn away from killing as a solution for crime.”
KENTUCKY: The Catholic Conference of Kentucky commended outgoing Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s commutation of the death sentence of Jeffrey Leonard to life in prison without parole. Leonard, said to be brain damaged, had been represented by a lawyer who did not even know the defendant’s name before the trial began and who was subsequently disbarred and indicted.
“This decision honors the sacredness of human life, while holding Mr. Leonard accountable for his behavior and insuring the safety of our communities,” CCK executive director Ed Monahan said in a Dec. 11 statement.
Monahan noted that the families and friends of murder victims deserve compassion and support. “Standing with families of
victims, however, does not compel support for death as a penalty,” he said.
MASSACHUSETTS: Edward F. Saunders Jr., executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, reiterated the opposition of the state’s four Catholic bishops to House Bill 1511, which would have reinstated the death penalty for a narrow range of first-degree murder cases. House members rejected the bill by a 112-46 vote on Nov. 7.
“In opposing the death penalty as unnecessary and cruel in a society with sufficiently advanced alternative means to protect the public,” Saunders told an Oct. 23 hearing of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, “the Catholic Church joins a broad alliance that includes prosecutors, security officials and criminologists, other faiths, victims’ families, and a growing segment of the general public.
“It would be better to invest the Commonwealth’s limited resources in programs for crime prevention, drug rehabilitation and maintaining well equipped police forces,” he said.
Saunders also took note of the bill’s limitation of the death penalty to cases involving particularly egregious circumstances. He cited the US Catholic bishops’ 2005 statement, “A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death,” in which they said that “the existence of a ‘rare’ occasion when the death penalty may be used is not determined by the gravity of the crime, but by whether it would be possible to otherwise defend society. No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.”
NEW YORK: The state will be saving an estimated $300,000 per year now that the death row at its Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate New York has been closed, according to a report in the Oct. 29 New York Law Journal.
The move came in the wake of an Oct. 23 New York Court of Appeals decision (in People v. Taylor), which turned down the final appeal of the court’s 2004 ruling that the state’s death penalty law was unconstitutional.
Even more savings will be realized by the closing of the state’s Capital Defender Office, established when the death penalty law was enacted in 1995. Kevin M. Doyle, who has served as the executive director of the office since its inception, said that there is no point in keeping it open now that New York is a non-death-penalty-law state, and that he intended to close it “as soon as practically possible.” At one time the office had a staff of more than 70 and a budget of $14 million.
The advocacy group New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty estimates that the state has spent over $200 million pursuing capital cases since the 1995 reinstatement of the death penalty. No one has been executed in New York since 1963.
TEXAS: Among those scheduled to be honored by the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty at its Jan. 26 annual meeting in Houston is Most Rev. Joseph Fiorenza. The former Galveston-Houston archbishop will be cited for his work against capital punishment over the years.
5) THOMAS AQUINAS AND THE DEATH PENALTY, by Robert Valle
Following are excerpts from “Thomas Aquinas on the Death Penalty” a chapter in the new book, “Beyond the Death Penalty: The Development in Catholic Social Teaching,” edited by Joe Holland and D. Michael McCarron and published by the Pax Romana Center for International Study of Catholic Social Teaching at St. Thomas University (16401 NW 37th Ave., Miami Gardens FL 33054; 305-474-6913; www.pax-romana-cmica-usa.org). Robert Valle, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of philosophy at St. John Vianney College Seminary, Miami, Fla.
As many Catholics know, great thinkers in the Catholic tradition have allowed use of the death penalty. However, disregard for human life is surely not part of the Christian tradition.
First, the death penalty is not considered by either Augustine or Aquinas in the cool and dispassionate air of calm reflection. In both instances - the 5th and 13th centuries - the church was racked by the problem of heresy.
Second, the death penalty is not considered, as it would be today, as the exclusive prerogative of the secular government. Indeed, it was part of an innately theological discussion as to how to deal with heretics.
Third, each great thinker struggled with the tensions involved; neither was at ease with this final solution for heresy.
Thomas, and to a lesser degree Augustine, approved of the use of the death penalty under certain conditions and for certain reasons. However, to simply say that they were “for” the death penalty is a highly distorted view of their positions.
The texts of Thomas Aquinas are complex and problematic on many levels. Nevertheless, Thomas could indeed have been for the death penalty in the 13th century and yet, by his own logic, against the death penalty in the 21st century, due to the fact that the historical context has dramatically changed. The work of Brian Calvert holds that “there is a more than even chance that if Aquinas were alive today he might well turn out to be an abolitionist.”(1)
Punishment, for Thomas, has no intrinsic value. The death penalty, if it is justifiable, is only justifiable because it accrues to some proximate end - actually to three specific proximate ends: 1) the individual order of goodness, 2) the social order of goodness, and 3) the divine order of justice upon which the good of the universe depends.
Given the very serious matter involved with the taking of life, it is necessary that punishment meet these proximate goals to justify killing. So the answer to that question - even if Thomas were for capital punishment in the 13th century, would he be for it in the 21st? - depends on whether capital punishment meets these goals. Does it preserve the order of the good in the individual? Does it preserve the order of the good in society? Does it preserve the order of divine justice upon which the good of the universe depends?
Obviously, capital punishment does not restore the order of the good in the individual. Infliction of death implies that we have despaired that the person ever reforms. Aquinas was cognizant of this, as is evident in his reasoning that the soul separated from its body could never achieve its final end, insofar as the soul requires the body to attain its proper perfection.
However, the Angelic Doctor held that the social order was restored, since the fool, seeing the wicked scourged, would grow wiser. The question here is not a logical one, but a practical one: Is society better because of the use of capital punishment? When the fool sees the wicked punished, is the fear of God put into him? Does he grow wiser?
The answer today would seem to be no. Some argue that the use of the death penalty in a given state may actually increase the rate of criminal homicide, because the exercise of the death penalty weakens socially-based inhibitions against the use of lethal force to settle disputes. States that practice the death penalty appear to be more violent than others that do not. The social order, far from being restored, may be positively harmed by capital punishment.
Hence, the first two proximate goals seem not to be attained. The human order is demolished, with no hope of redemption, and the social order is positively harmed.
The third level - the order of divine justice, upon which the good of the universe depends - is not even at stake in the modern discussion. The modern state does not presume to speak in the name of divine justice. If the modern state is going to make an argument for its rightful use of capital punishment, it is going to have to do so within the immanent realm of rights, duties, and obligations, and not by some appeal to transcendent or theological justifications.
Thomas’ view of the death penalty, and his view of punishment in general, is thoroughly consequentialist in nature. He explicitly holds that punishment for the sake of revenge, spite, or even pure retribution, is morally wrong and inadmissible. Hence, modern theories which justify the death penalty as some form of retribution are very far from the mind of Thomas.
In the final analysis, Thomas would ask if, given the seriousness involved with the taking of a life, would there not be some other way in which these proximate goals could be met, especially if they are not even being presently met by capital punishment.
The fact that Thomas Aquinas did not even consider this possibility points not to the fact that Thomas was in any way a dullard or a coward. Thomas, who looked at every question from seemingly every side, does not consider the most obvious possible alternatives. This is due, I think, to the raging polemical fires of his day and the pervasive, creeping tide of the Inquisition, which would drown all of Europe in its bitter wake. As James Megivern holds, “Capital punishment was by this time so firmly entrenched, especially for dealing with obstinate heretics, that it was shielded from serious criticism, even from one so astute as Aquinas.”(2)
There is no significant reason to presume that Thomas Aquinas in the 21st century would be any more for the death penalty than he would for his Aristotelian biology (e.g., that a girl is conceived if a wind is blowing from the south and a boy if the wind is blowing from the north during conception, or that a women is an imperfect man). In short, the Thomistic doctrine of the death penalty was a result of his time, as was his faulty biology. His texts, read interpretively and consistently, point toward abolition of the death penalty, not its perpetuation.
Footnotes:
(1) Brian Calvert, “Aquinas and the Death Penalty.” American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1992; 37: pp259-281.
(2) James Megivern, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997: p118.
6) THE CROSS, TRANSFORMED, by Fr. Michael Doyle
(Excerpted from “A Few Words ... Christmas 2007,” a reflection by Fr. Michael Doyle, pastor of Sacred Heart Church, Camden, N.J., on the parish’s Web site (www.sacredheartcamden.org)
The Coliseum in Rome was opened in 80 A.D. Soon, its floor was saturated by the blood of gladiators, other participants in bloody combat, and hordes of executions. In recent times, it has been lit up by protests against the death penalty.
Last Tuesday [Dec. 18], it was lit up again to celebrate a resolution against the death penalty passed by the United Nations, and also for New Jersey's historic action the day before, when the state became the first one in 40 years to abolish capital punishment.
The Coliseum was always the symbol of the imperial Roman Empire, the clout of which sanctioned the execution of Jesus on the Cross outside Jerusalem in a horrendous, painful form of capital punishment.
One does not need much faith to believe in the power of God at work in the transformation of the Cross - the vilest form of execution - into a holy sign of hope that we hoist to the top of our churches, inscribe on the backs of our Bibles, wear around our necks, ritually make the sign of on our bodies, and kiss as a sacred instrument of our salvation.
And the glorious conclusion of that thought is this: If a vicious form of execution can be so transformed, what of us in our great inadequacy?
Jesus was born to transform. To transform the worst into the best, hate into love, and death into life. And when he took his first breath, the air was better. His first step, the earth was better. His first word, truth was clearer.
O Jesus, the animals quietly warmed you in the cold. Look at our global warming and help us to change our ways.
O Jesus, in your kindly attitude, help us to be nonviolent.
O Jesus, in your loving ways, help us to stop the war that is killing and wrecking people.
O Jesus, in your sharing ways, help us to share the earth more fairly.
O Jesus, in not being welcomed at the inn, help us to welcome the poor in our neighborhoods.
O Jesus, in your death by capital punishment, help us to rid the world of injustice, revenge, and execution.
O Jesus, come! Come again! Take your place in the manger of each moment we live. Amen.
7) OBSERVATIONS: 2007 UPS AND DOWNS
Only 42 people were executed in the US in 2007 - the lowest number since 1994. One reason was that many death row inmates received stays after the US Supreme Court on Sept. 25 decided to hear a challenge to lethal injection, the usual means of execution in the US. Another is that US jurors are handing down fewer death sentences nowadays; in 2007 there were 60% fewer than in the peak year of 1999, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).
The DPIC’s year-end report notes that only 10 states held executions in 2007 (26 of the 42 executions were in Texas), and that three governors commuted the sentences of death row inmates to life without parole (in 2006, there were no commutations).
All the above - along with the actions taken in New Jersey and at the United Nations last month - is good news. Not-so-good news is that the issue of the death penalty seems to have been downplayed, or at least given non-priority status, at the highest levels of the US Catholic Church, during the past year.
When the US Conference of Catholic Bishops launched its “Catholic Campaign Against the Use of the Death Penalty” in March 2005, it indicated it would be placing increased emphasis on the issue as a key component of its overall pro-life message. “To be truly pro-life, we have to be pro-life in every instance,” said the then-Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, at a press conference introducing the campaign.
Somehow, those promising words seem to have been forgotten. Last year, the materials contained in the USCCB’s “Respect Life Month” program - an annual event designed to encourage parish grassroots efforts on human life issues - contained absolutely nothing relating to the death penalty. Nor did the statement introducing the program by the chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Pro-Life Activities, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia,. Nor did Cardinal Rigali’s homily at the Jan. 21, 2007 Pro-Life Vigil Mass in Washington.
Nor was the death penalty given priority status when the bishops issued their voters’ guide, “Faithful Citizenship: A Guide to Political Responsibility,” in November. In it, they maintain that “the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life ... is always wrong.” Inserting the word “innocent,” of course, excludes capital punishment. The latter is lumped with other social ills such as hunger, lack of health care, war crimes and unjust immigration policies, which, the bishops say, are merely “serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.”
Such language does two things. It exempts from the bishops’ disapproval politicians who oppose abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, but who, after “challenging their consciences,” see nothing wrong with executing fellow human beings. And it condemns those whose anti-war, anti-poverty and anti-death-penalty voting records are perfectly in accordance with the church’s stance on those issues, but who are unwilling, often for complex political reasons, to support laws banning abortions.
Let’s pray for a stronger emphasis on the issue this year by our bishops. Let’s respectfully encourage them not only to oppose executions on a local basis, but also, as members of the USCCB, to ensure that condemnation of capital punishment becomes an integral component of the US Catholic Church’s pro-life message whenever that message is broadcast.
We ask you to keep the above comments in mind in terms of the coming local and national elections. We thank you for your prayers, financial support, letters and e-mails. We hope that 2008 will be a good year for you and your loved ones.
Ellen and Frank
8) CACP’S ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2007
Income:
Contributions $9467.27
Expenses:
Printing $5201.52
Postage/PO Box rental $3457.63
Bank charges $94.00
Supplies/publications $228.85
Advertising/contributions to other org’s. $177.80
Website/computer/fax charges $16.72
Salaries/travel $0
Total expenses: $9776.52
Deficit as of 1/1/07: - $26.93
Deficit as of 1/1/08 - $336.18
|
