Bobby Jindal wavers on life issue
I was surprised to see that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is responding in a rather un-Catholic manner to the recent Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana that recourse to the death penalty cannot be had in cases of non-homicidal child rape. Jindal has described the Court’s decision as “incredibly absurd.” Not content merely to voice his displeasure, he is now pressing for a reconsideration. This opens up questions over the degree to which his Catholic faith informs his political choices.
Let us take a liberal interpretation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the use of the death penalty by states. According to paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, the state my have recourse to the death penalty if:
- The offender’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined
- The death penalty is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the offender
- Nonlethal punishments are insufficient to defend and protect its citizens
The permissibility of using the death penalty in paragraph 2267 is conditioned by paragraph 2266, which states that public authority may inflict punishment “proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” Given the clear teaching of the Catholic Church, the use of the death penalty by the state in the case of non-homicidal child rape is not permissible. The death penalty as a punishment is not proportionate to the gravity of the offense (whereas it would be in the case of homicide), and there are plenty of nonlethal means to protect children in the United States from convicted child rapists.
So when Jindal declares that the five Justice majority of the Supreme Court “do not share the same ‘standards of decency’ as the people of Louisiana,” I reply that Jindal does not share the same “standards of decency” as the Catholic Church.
Comments are closed.
He appears to certainly be pandering, as all governors do, but has he issued a statement or response concerning his view? It’s possible he is making a constitiutionalist or federalist point, meaning that the Court has gone too far in usurping legislative priority in the application of the death penalty.
Disapointing. Well…”put not your trust in princes” and all that…
And last I checked, the death penalty was not an intrinsic evil, as abortion is, for instance. The catechism explicitly allows for it — in extreme, regrettable cases. This one’s not black and white.
2267 Assuming that the [fetus's] identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to [abortion], if this is the only possible way of effectively defending [the mother] against the unjust [fetus].
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect [the mother's] safety from the [fetus], 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 [unwanted pregnancies], by rendering the [fetus] incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which [aborting the fetus] is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.
That’s #2267 after I replaced every reference to the death penalty with “abortion,” every instance of the “people” with the term “the mother,” and every instance of the term “aggressor,” “offender,” “guilty party,” or “one who has committed an offense” with “fetus.” So perhaps your attempt to exact on Gov. Jindal some vengeance for Gov. Sibelius’ ecclesial reprimand or for His Holiness Barack’s unpopularity among pro-lifers is a bit of stretch.
The Catechism does not tell us who has the competence to override a determination by the voters of a state that death penalty for child rape does in fact satisfy the requirements of Catholic moral teaching. Just because you don’t think it does doesn’t mean that the Catechism agrees with your personal opinion on whether the Louisiana legislature and governor met the standard. And to be brutally frank, the Catholic hierarchy sadly is not in the most authoritative position these days to instruct others how to deal with child rapists. Someone else can pick up on the separation of powers argument for Jindal.
Let’s not forget the LA law simply made child rape a capital crime. It did not mandate that every convicted child rapist must be put to death. That remains a matter for judge & jury as protected by the 6th Amendment. If only fetuses had such luck.
Wow Bobby gets two post in one day on VOX NOVA. However not even a year ago he did not merit one post when the Louisiana State Democrat Party was running a anti Catholic ad campaign against him marketed to Protestants and Evangelcals. A Ad campaign that was marketed mostly in my DIocese at a time we had no Bishop to stand up to it
I am glad that people are concerned about Bobby’s Catholicism now
And last I checked, the death penalty was not an intrinsic evil, as abortion is, for instance. The catechism explicitly allows for it — in extreme, regrettable cases. This one’s not black and white.
You’re right to note that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, though I did not suggest that it was. However, your blanket assertion that the application of the death penalty is a gray area is imprecise. In certain situations, the death penalty can be and ought to be ruled out as an option because it is a moral evil. The Catechism is black and white on those situations when it is not 1) proportionate; 2) the last resort of the state to protect its citizens. Non-homicidal child rape is just one such situation.
Be careful not think (and you have not said that you do) that if a action is not intrinsically evil that it is not, therefore, evil in certain cases.
I am glad that people are concerned about Bobby’s Catholicism now
Okay.
In certain situations, the death penalty can be and ought to be ruled out as an option because it is a moral evil.
I agree with that.
The Catechism is black and white on those situations when it is not 1) proportionate; 2) the last resort of the state to protect its citizens. Non-homicidal child rape is just one such situation.
Leaving aside the second criteria for the moment, I wonder just how black-and-white it is that death is a disproportionate punishment for child rape.
Policraticus,
Any thoughts on Bobby Jindal’s signing a bill allowing chemical and physical castration for such crimes as he thinks merit the death penalty?
While I’ve not come to any difinitive conclusions on this issue, I think that it is certianly plausible that the death penalty IS proportionate in the types of cases the LA law was addressing.
I would agree with Ben. There may be lots of valid objections to imposing the death penalty on child rapists, but a lack of proportionality between crime and punishment isn’t one of them.
Not to cheerlead, but I’m not immediately convinced. I do however believe the death penalty should not be offered in the U.S.
Isn’t it possible Mr. Jindal thinks this ruling is a violation of the rule of law?
The court is taking on a legislative role and deciding what is and what is not moral, which is not its job.
A couple of points.
First, Jindal is yet another Catholic Republican for whom ideology comes first, Catholicism second. Surprise, surprise.
Second, there is some muddy thinking going on here. The death penalty is only licit when there is no other way to protect society. Teaching that, in Evangelium Vitae, that “the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society”, John Paul concludes that “today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Some of you are getting bogged down in retributive justice, which is a valid purpose of punishment– and yet John Paul teaches clearly that rettributive justice on its own cannot justify the death penalty. The underlying principles are clear. So no, neither raping a child nor murdering a child are valid reasons for the death penalty if society can be protected from the malefator by bloodless means.
“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.”– Cardinal Renato Martino (2007).
MM,
First, your calumny of Gov. Jindal violates the 8th commandment.
Second, I don’t see a single comment here endorsing the death penalty.
MM,
As to Bobby Jindal putting idealogy before his Catholic Fatih or he did not try to inform his views by his Catholic Faith I think that is a big jump to assert at this point
As to another “Republican Governor” Suprise statement. THis case did not materalize magically when Jindal became Governor last year. DEMOCRAT CATHOLIC Governor Blanco is in the background too and as it went through the system I heard no objections from her as to the State’s position.
Both Blanco and Jindal are serious Catholics
Ben I will say that Bobby is not opposed to State execution.
In fact there has been no Governor In Louisiana History whether Catholic, Protestant , Republican, or Democrat that has opposed State Execution
Yes I know that Jindal is in favor of the death penalty, but cleary such a policy belief does not mean that he loves the republican party more than God.
However, no one on this tread has made any satements that could be taken as a personal endorsement of the death penalty.
It means that Jindal is in the thrall of the “party of death”, to use that phrase. And why are you comparing him to people like Blanco when I am not defending these people on this issue?
MM,
I bring up Blanco because your comment starts out about A “Republican Governor” that puts Ideology before his Catholic Faith faith
I am pointing out that there was Democrat Governor and Devoiut Catholic that seems not to have had a much different view than Bobby
As to the “Party of Death” I think it is time to get with the times. On a local level the State Democrat Party is not running on a anto State Execution platform
On the National Level as to the Democrat party the issue of State Execution has generally gone to the back burner if it is there at all. I suppose once Bill Clinton during the democrat primaries ran back to Arkansas to execute a man that was so mentally deficient he told them to keep hs dinner for him after he got back from being executed that there was a sea change.
Look at Obama
The queston is why does a a very Christian State like Louisiana and a very Catholic one have the views that Jindal has on this issue. THose are the hard questions and much more intriguing and gets to the heart of the matter.
Poli,
Echoing Blackadder, it’s not at all clear to me why the death penalty would not be proportional in certain cases of child rape. I think that it could be argued that in a number of cases a particularly brutal rape of a particularly vulnerable individual could be considered a worse moral action than many murders.
MM,
While this would mean slowing down on your one-man-partisan-chair-of-Peter routine, your analysis on the death penalty and Catholic teaching is far from the only reasonable one. First of all, even the quote from Evangelium Vitae (which I concede to be fairly strongly anti death penalty) is not as conclusive as you pretend. Surely, it is only reasonable to give a bit of thought to the meaning of the term “defend society”, which it seems to me means not only physically protect people but also defend the common good in the broader sense. A Catholic case (well in keeping with the thinking of the Church over the last 1000 years) certainly be made it is necessary for the defense of society that there be a general understanding that those who brutally rape the most innocent and defenseless members of society will be put to death.
I’m ambivalent leaning negative towards the death penalty as it exists in the modern US, but unless we totally close our eyes to the history of the Church the question of the death penalty is not nearly as open as shut as you would like (in your partisan frame of mind) to imagine.
MM treats the Church’s teaching on legislation against abortion as optional. He has no standing to complain about such comparative trifles as Jindal’s position here.
Darwin:
The problem is that, with the death penalty, retributive justice almost always morphs into vengeance. I don’t fully understand how you can make the case for executing rapists that involves protecting society without hint of vengeance. In his application of the teaching to the present day, John Paul talks about the “organization of the penal system”. Clearly, he has in mind protecting society from the rapist, not exacting vengeance.
Anyway, this is all based on a previous post: http://vox-nova.com/2007/08/23/my-contribution-to-the-great-vox-nova-death-penalty-debate/
Maybe, a la Gerald Campbell, Bobby Jindal could just say that the concept of subsidiarity proves that it’s legitimate for Louisiana to have the death penalty. Then Poli and MM and the rest would defend Jindal. (Just kidding: he’s a Republican, after all.)
So no, neither raping a child nor murdering a child are valid reasons for the death penalty if society can be protected from the malefator by bloodless means.
That is the second criteria though.
I have no brief for Jindal. I don’t know him from Gerald Campbell. The very specific point I was making is that it seems to be simply assumed that death is never a proportionate punishment for child rape. I expect, to the contrary, that it can be, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular crime.
Whether other criteria are or are not met is neither here nor there when it comes to the specific point about what is proportionate. A disproportionate punishment would be unjust even if it was ‘necessary’ under some other criteria, or met all other criteria.
One thing to be pointed out in this (and I did not read all the post so this may have been brought up) is that this was a third strike punishment. The Death Penalty for child rapists was reserved for those that were convicted twice previously and released twice. That being said, can the state protect it’s citizens in the current system of “catch and release.”
Also it is important to be noted that the point of our justice system is not merely to punish but to rehabilitate. But how much rehabilitation can be done on individuals that commit these types of crimes?
Just some things I wanted thoughts on.