THEOLOGY
Biblical and Historical Events
The author started from the Old Testament pertaining to the offenses declared by the Mosaic Law to which execution by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation. was implemented to those found guilty of idolatry, magic, blasphemy, violation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty, and incest. This is further justified by the supposed revelation from God to Noah, as quoted by the author, a biblical passage found in Genesis 96. The author observes that In many cases God is portrayed as deservedly punishing culprits with death and In other cases individuals such as Daniel and Mordecai are Gods agents in brining a just death upon guilty persons.
The author then cites events from the New Testament pertaining to Jesus Christs admonitions against violence but also the fact that Jesus did not deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. This is supported by some instances from the Bible, as quoted by the author, where Jesus displays his recognition of the imposition of capital punishment to those who deserved it and his respect to the authority that imposes it.
The author then transitioned the narrative from the early Christians, the middle ages, and to the modern times. The events that have occurred and the historical facts about how capital punishment was viewed, recognized, and practiced, during those eras have shown that capital punishment was regarded as a justifiable and in some instances - a necessity. He also references certain people, in the modern times, who believed that certain criminals should be punished by death and that the magistrate had the right to bear the sword, and that the Catholic Church should sanction its use. He then states the favoring of the death penalty by the consensus of Catholic theologians and the inclusion of it in the Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 penal code as a punishment for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope.
Opposing Voices
The author also includes the voices of certain parties, within and outside the Catholic Church, who expressed their opposition towards capital punishment. Their main advocacy, as pointed out by the author, is the true significance of the image of God in man, which implies that even the terrestrial life of each individual person is sacred and inviolable.
The author also states that although Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century it is lesser of a result of moral progress than the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice.
The Aims of Capital Punishment
As stated by the author, rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution are the four aims of capital punishment. Rehabilitation since capital punishment does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. Defense since capital punishment is obviously an effective way of preventing the wrongdoer from committing future crimes and protecting the society from him. Deterrence since capital punishment may create a sense of horror that would prevent others from being tempted to commit similar crimes. Retribution since guilt calls for punishment and the graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be.
The author then concludes that capital punishment does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. He also generalizes the concept that capital punishment somehow has value but its necessity is open to doubt.
Personal Reflection
In general, I agree with Cardinal Dulles summary of the aims of capital punishment. Indeed those four factors are sensibly the objective of death penalty.
However, as I finished reading his article, I realized that he did not state whether he agrees or opposes capital punishment. Instead he poses an important question. He concluded his article by stating that capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt. In other words he is imposing the thought that the benefits of capital punishment is limited therefore, considering the vast premise and numerous factors society must consider when dealing with a persons life, is it necessary Or do the limited benefits of capital punishment outweigh the many factors to consider about a persons life
Lets look at a worst case scenario of a criminal of the worst sort. For the sake of the topic, lets isolate the case of the criminally insane. This individual is a rapist, drug addict, and murderer, name it. Every inch of his existence has resulted to the destruction of the lives of those around him. The society, to which he belongs, believes that there is very little chance of rehabilitation for him, they believe he will only do more destruction, they all fear him and they all feel that without him life will be a lot safer.
Should he then be terminated or absolutely removed from society through the execution of death penalty My answer is, it is the decision and prerogative of the governing authority to which that criminal is subjected to as long as they have performed the due process of civil law that is required. If the governing authority deems that society is benefited with the absolute absence of the criminal after they have carefully processed the case, then I personally feel that death penalty should be imposed. Anything lesser than that means the criminal should be abstained from death penalty and should be given the chance of rehabilitation.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment