In his latest mug shot, Charles Manson's wild-eyed stare is gone, as is most of his hair. Except for the swastika he carved into his brow during his murder trial, he could be any gray-bearded senior citizen.
Yeah, ya just don't see many seniors walking around with one of them Nazi insignia carved into their heads. I'll give you that.
If the photo authorities released early this week is any indication, the leader of a murderous band called "The Family," has mellowed some after almost 40 years in a California state prison.
Betcha he hasn't. Betcha is you asked, he would say he would do it all over again. And kill anyone he thought did not deserve to live. Whether he physically could is a different thing.
I am a Catholic and I am undecided about the death penalty. I will be thinking about this and blogging more. But I ask you, if you feel there is something you would say to me to help me decide, please do so.
17 comments:
Those eyes still look pretty deadly to me.
I am sure you are familiar with CCC 2267 and 2306.
And then there is the problem of who gets to give the needle/flip the switch/whatever. I would never want that on my conscience but if the accused escaped and did more harm that would be worse. Good question, Digi. Sheesh - and I thought I was going to be bored today! Now I will be thinking about this!
The only reason this scumbag hasn't been given a pass out of the system is precisely because what he'd done was SO notorious.
I've heard of too many killers being released from prison who went on to kill again. Remember Edgar Smith...the guy who because he was erudite, had convinced many, including Bill Buckley, that he was innocent of his crime? He was released, and tried to kill again.
I don't trust the bastard judges NOT to let some of these dirtbags out NO MATTER IF the jury said "life." 150 years means "serve 18, and if no one notices, and you've been a good boy and have eaten your veggies, will let you skip."
Some really deserve the death penalty because no other punishment is enough. You can damn well guarantee they will never do it again.
As to is it justifiable, probably the best defense of it I ever saw was the one given by Cardinal Avery Dulles. I thought his logic and application of moral theology was impeccable. It drives me crazy when some Catholics (clergy in particular) who claim it should never be applied.
The only reason this Manson scum isn't dead is because of the stupid supreme court decision which had put the death penalty out of commision for a while. He should have been six feet under decades ago.
There is a link to his position on this page.
[There's some correspondence on the question too, which is why I didn't link it directly.]
It drives me crazy when some Catholics (clergy in particular) who claim it should never be applied. - gemoftheocean
Including His Holiness John Paul II?
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml
I'm on John Paul II's side. There is no need to execute people today. We have the means to protect society without killing someone.
And, in support of Angela M's comment, check out C of the CC #2267, particularly.
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 more in conformity with 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."
It seems pretty obvious that Catholics are obligated, even when faced with sociopaths and their crimes, to choose life first.
"There is no need to execute people today. We have the means to protect society without killing someone."
Unfortunately, we don't. Aside from the very real chance that they will be released or escape, the guards and other prisoners are still at risk.
In addition to this, there is the fact that protection is not the only reason for the death penalty. There is the little matter of justice--some offenses simply merit death.
I was twenty three or so years old when this took place. It had a profound effect on me.
I understand the teaching of the church and in many cases I worry about the possibility of an innocent person being put to death.
On the other hand, when there is no doubt of guilt, I have to agree with Father Erik that there is the matter of justice.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, Father.
With all due respect, we do have the means. Whether or not we utilize those means is another thing, entirely.
Some will say it's too expensive and a burden on the taxpayers to keep people in prison for life.
That may be true but, frankly, I don't want to stand before God and have Him say to me 'You chose death for these people because of money?'. Ouch.
As for justice, this is something I've always questioned and worried about. Is it truly justice, or is there just a hint of revenge in there, too? Personally, I think there's some revenge involved, and even the tiniest hint of revenge negates the justice, IMO.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious where I stand, so I'll bow out now. But, I'll check back to see what everyone has written. I, too, am curious about how Catholics feel about this.
Oh, wait ... one question. If our current Pope, or a future Pope, comes out and declares the death penalty to be wrong, elevating it to the same level as abortion or euthanasia, and says no Catholic can support the death penalty, will you (generic 'you') obey, or will you continue to support the death penalty? I'm just curious about that.
Okay, I'll quit taking up space, now. :^)
I lean heavily against the death penalty, with the caveat that (as per the CCC) there may be some extreme cases in which it may be applied.
If nothing else, the death penalty should be used only sparingly because (a) there are sometimes wrongful convictions, and (b) in cases of guilt, the perpetrator may repent over a lifetime in prison in a way that immediate death does not necessarily encourage.
Example: the Manson Family. I agree that Manson probably hasn't repented (though I don't know that for sure). However, there was a documentary some years ago about one of the women who actually carried out the murders.
She said, in essence, that at the time she would have happily died for Manson. She didn't fear death or the death penalty at all. However, as the years in prison ticked by, the spell (for lack of a better term) wore off...and she found herself looking at herself in the mirror each morning, another day older, and knowing that it was another day that Sharon Tate and her baby hadn't lived to see...and to feel remorse for what she'd done.
That's a soul that may be saved.
I do realize that there's the flip side of that - she talked about it herself - which was that Manson himself was terrified to die.
But...it wasn't a deterrent for him. Either he thought (as so many people do) that they'd never be caught, or he thought (also common) that he'd not be convicted. The death penalty is only a deterrent insofar as people understand that they might be caught and it might be applied to them.
As for justice...well, that's hard to say. Is it just that the interviewed Manson girl saw so many new mornings that Sharon Tate and her baby didn't? Probably not...but she saw them from inside a prison cell, knowing that she'd almost certainly never see another day outside of prison, and when the remorse did kick in...well, that's something I'd never want to live with.
Long story short, I don't know what justice should look like. I do think that our efforts should be toward preserving life whenever possible; but I'll concede that there may be some cases where it just can't happen. Manson? Maybe...
My understanding, if it can be avoided, let's do so, I agree with Fr. Erik, some cases merit justice...
The terrorists that we're releasing from Gitmo for example have been caught trying to kill us again
Then there are the gang leaders who can still direct killings from prison.
Maybe the beef is with the prison system and the notion that prisoners have rights. In January the Digidaughter and I visited Alcatraz while in Frisco and the prison's handbook read that prisoners have a right to food, clothing, and medical treatment when they are ill . . . nothing else. Everything else, like a radio, was considered a privilege and had to be earned.
El, I always laugh when people think "revenge" is involved. Not "revenge" it's called "justice."
NOTHING and no one can bring back your dead loved ones.
I guess the prison guard who dies at the hands of an already "lifer" is SOL.
Karen
Wow Digi - that is a hard question to answer. Even though I am not Catholic, I still find this one of the hardest questions for any Christian. I tend to flip flop depending on the crime. Involving kids, aged...I go with Yes. Then I read where someone was incarcerated erroneously, and I bend the other way. I don't think there is a "good" answer. It's one of those "God 'n Me" moments I'm afraid. We each have to dig deep spiritually and emotionally. Sorry...can't help you my friend.
El, I always laugh when people think "revenge" is involved. Not "revenge" it's called "justice." - Karen
ROFL! You're not trying to start a fight with me, are you? Because we don't agree on this? Oh, dear. You made me laugh. Too funny.
Anyway ... Yes, I believe there's a degree of vengeance involved, particularly in death penalty cases, and more so depending on how heinous the public believes the crime to be. It's human nature. We all do it.
However, in my opinion, there is no room for vengeance when someone's life is in our hands. It clouds our minds, and renders us incapable of meting out a just punishment. It's impossible to be just when you've already executed the person in your mind.
BTW, death penalty proponants always say it's not revenge. Always.
I know a man who supports the death penalty with every fiber of his being. He says the same thing as you. 'It's not revenge, it's justice'.
And then, he goes on to tell you about his imaginary Chamber of Justice, where he's devised different methods of twisted medieval-like ways of executing someone, depending on their crime.
Does that sound like someone who needs to be in the position of having someone's life in his hands?
Hi Digi, Are we not allowed to defend ourselves when attacked? To use deadly force to defend against deadly force? If somebody has used deadly force to attack and there is every reason to believe that person will use deadly force again I see no problem with using deadly force to defend future victims.
gsebes
I remeber when this crime occurred. It was prior to Roe v. Wade, but the abortion debate was still hot.
I had always been against the death penalty until this crime, but
Manson scared the daylights out of me. I thought the death penalty was appropriate.
Then the abortion debate heated up. I was a cradle Catholic in college, and I kept trying to wrap my mind around the logic of why abortion was wrong. I couldn't hear the logic for all the strident voices on either side of the debate.
Then I sought guidance from the C of CC in 1972, who at that time (I read) had not decided if the death penalty was wrong.
They HAD decided that abortion was wrong, even though the fetus was not yet born, but they HADN'T decided if the death penalty was wrong, and that affected people about whom there was no debate as to whether they were alive or not.
Manson's crime has been dealt with successfully. He is still in prison. I am still against the death penalty. To me it is the only way to be pro-life.
Besides, death is not the worst punishment. The worst punishment is exile. That is where prisoners are--they are all in exile.
Our church does support the death penalty in rare cases--I think this is one.
Oh, well the scum bag will be visiting Hell soon enough.
Tara
No...you don't know that because he could be in God's eyes simply insane. But I am totally for the death penalty and John Paul II's campaign against it was personal and he injected his personal prudential judgement into the catechism which was wrong. In Evengelium Vitae, he never once made mention of the many death penalties that God gave the Jews and he certainly did not mention the death penalty permission that God gave the Gentiles in Genesis 9:5-6 and repeated in the New Testament in Romans 13:3-4.
And he pretended that modern penology alone has life sentences.
Life sentences have existed for centuries including during the Inquisition and all that is required is affluence: a locked room and food for the person for life. The massive acceptance of his personal position as a development in Catholic theology is a testament to a whole generations of Catholic lay and clergy who do not read their tradition with any close attention.
Fr. Erik's post should be in the catechism instead as #2267.
Post a Comment