Will a Catholic City Put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to Death?

[rug]

April 28, 2015 7:54 a.m.
By Lisa Miller

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces the death penalty during the sentencing phase of his trial, which started April 21 and is currently ongoing in Boston. And as the defense mounts arguments endeavoring to convince a jury that this 21-year-old — who, with his brother, killed three people at the 2013 Boston Marathon, injured 264, and then shot and killed an MIT police officer three nights later — has a life worth saving, it’s useful to remember that Boston is a Catholic town. And the court system in which the drama is unfolding is pretty Catholic, too. Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. attorney in Boston who has said she supports seeking the death penalty in the Tsarnaev case, was raised a Catholic. The federal judge presiding over the case, George O’Toole, went to Boston College, a Jesuit school. Odds are about even that any one of the lawyers prosecuting the case, the members of the public defender’s team, or any member of the jury was raised in Boston as a Catholic.

This is notable for many reasons, but one of them is that, at the moment, U.S. Catholics are having an anguishing war with themselves — with their individual consciences and their tradition — over capital punishment. In general, they support it, but with far less avidity than they used to. Their leaders, including conservative intellectuals and an overwhelming number of American bishops, are finding fewer and fewer rationales to legitimately approve of state-sanctioned executions. The new pope, Francis, has repeatedly said that he’s adamantly opposed. Yet for centuries the tradition has permitted states to execute criminals, and, even today, the Catechism doesn’t outlaw it completely, saying instead that it should be “very rare.”

Thus the Tsarnaev trial can be seen as a test case, a measure of how Catholics in a Catholic town are considering, or reconsidering, the way they think about that most Catholic of first principles: “the sanctity of human life.” Earlier this month, Bill and Denise Richard — the parents of 8-year-old Martin Richard, a bombing victim — made a public plea not to impose the death penalty on Tsarnaev. Two years ago, they held a Catholic funeral mass for their son. They didn’t invoke religion when making their case, but alluded to it, perhaps, when they begged Bostonians to remember the “resiliency of the human spirit” and not to reach for vengeance. Cardinal Sean O’Malley, head of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the bishops of Massachusetts have issued statements against the death penalty in this case — statements that appear to reflect the broader views of Bay State residents, fewer than 20 percent of whom support executing Tsarnaev, if a recent Boston Globe poll is to be believed.

Still, many of the maimed victims of the bombing insist that Tsarnaev deserves to die. And when Pew polled Americans on the death penalty last week, a majority of white Catholics said they supported it: 63 percent.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/04/will-a-catholic-city-put-dzhokhar-to-death.html

[nil desperandum]

1. Even

if they do it's only the needle...traitors, terrorists, and saboteurs should be hanged.

It's far more appropriate for those who kill children by design.

[rug]

2. Are you looking for the A&A Group?

This Group is not here for the promotion of hanging.

But, since you're here, educate yourself on the Catholic doctrine on capital punishment.

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 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 nonexistent."68

[nil desperandum]

3. Hanging is appropriate,

life in prison without parole is not a guarantee.

I am a former catholic and well aware of where to find the current catechism and read that before responding.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

For what it's worth I would read that first paragraph of 2267 and take it to mean that since life in prison without parole is not actually life in prison without parole because as long as the offender is alive anything is possible including the release.

At that point would someone who placed a bomb next to a child on the basis of his religious jihad be prone to repeat that offense or teach someone else to do the same, I say he might and for that reason the best defense for society is a dead Tsarnaev.

You have my apology for stumbling in here and leaving a reply as it appears that was inappropriate.

My best to you and your group.

[rug]

4. Feel free to post again.

We're here to discuss things Catholic and Orthodox, positive, negative, or mixed. Just without the bullshit.

[nil desperandum]

5. Thank you

without bullshit is indeed preferable.

I will diligently try and avoid being full of that where possible, and when not I will refrain from comment.

Best to you.