Shame on Kaine
“An unjust law is no law at all.” ~Augustine
Last night, the State of Virginia killed a man. The State has put someone to death—again!—in the (false) name of justice. The Catholic governor of that State, Tim Kaine, who many see as the hope for a more robust, Catholic, position on issues of life in Democratic Party, has now overseen 11 executions during his gubernatorial term. And he could have prevented it, but instead he commented, “I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence…”
Given that he sees nothing compelling about this case I think we should find nothing compelling about his politics or the politics of the party that declares that state-sponsored killing is objectionable on websites and during campaigns, but then forgets about it in the act of governing.
Yes, many will wring their hands over this as a way to engage in “gotcha!” politics. Also, many of the Democrat faithful are hoping that this nasty little event slides through the news-cracks and, if pushed, they will try to weasel out by pointing fingers in the other (Republican) direction to claim that others are far worse than they are.
But let me be clear about my own stance: Kaine not only violated the very clear teaching of the Church, he also broke from his own personal stance on Capital Punishment—for an eleventh time! This is tantamount to a Republican politician seeing no compelling reason to oppose late-term abortions (and there are many prominent names that come to mind).
We see here that neither major ticket party really has a reliable position or platform that informs much more than their prepared campaign speeches, plastic debate replies, and soothing promises to the hand-clapping, good-hearted grassroots fundraisers and supporters who they fool again and again and again into thinking that they really mean it this time.
It is shameful and despicable and should galvanize our efforts to re-think the politics we suffer from—and, perhaps, even the state apparatus itself.
I mean, if Augustine is right and “an unjust law is no law at all,” then, what is an unjust state?
Anarchist whispers aside: Shame on you, Gov. Kaine.
Comments are closed.
Exactly. Talk is cheap, governor.
I am also dissapointed in Gov. Kaine. I guess you can say he is “personally opposed but…” to the death penalty.
I live in the DC area and James Buchanan, one of the first victims on the day of the initial rampage, was gunned down a few blocks from my wife’s office. For many weeks my community lived paralized in fear. However, what happened last night was not the answer. They said that he showed no emotion or repentance to the end but it was not the state’s decision to choose when the end should come.
“Exactly. Talk is cheap, governor.”
And party.
And yet when the topic is abortion all that happens on this site is crickets.
Colin
Two things. One, we talk about abortion quite often here. Second, interestingly enough, the topic of abortion is not found in any of the Gospels. Hmm. Are you going to condemn the Apostles for not bringing it up?
Gormley,
Two points:
1. I wrote, “..many will wring their hands over this as a way to engage in “gotcha!” politics.” and your comment seems to have made me look like something of a prophet. Thanks, but no thank. I am nothing of the sort.
2. You must have not been reading VN for very long. Abortion is one of the most reoccurring topics on this blog. Here is recent example from standmickey:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/10/02/worth-a-thousand-words/
And here is one of my first of many post on the topic:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/30/abortion-the-cult-of-science-and-the-body/
Crickets, really?
Colin,
Almost every single contributor has written on abortion. And usually the discussion following is fulsome. I really don’t know what you could be referring to.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/09/24/abortion-and-the-failure-of-imagination/
Heck, we even discuss abortion when the topic isn’t abortion. Like here.
Okay. Gormely, I will cue you up one rejoinder, but no more of this sort of discourse will be accepted in this thread. After all, it is about some thing, not merely not about things.
This includes VN contributors!
From the Catechism:
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 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 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.”
There is a certain hedging going here. It is matter of prudence.
Lamartine wrote of the death penalty:
“Que messieurs les assassins commencent”.
One must, I think, remember that according to our beliefs, death is not the end of existence.
Unfortunately, for some people, abortion is the only issue and everything is about abortion.
Unless a governor makes it crystal clear before he is elected that he will not permit any executions (did Kaine do this?) I think the people of the state have a right to expect their governor will make decisions based on law rather than on personal or religious belief.
I find the death penalty abhorrent. It is perhaps the ultimate in cold-blooded, premeditated killing when the state takes 7 years (in this case) and often much longer to execute someone.
Of course, the Church justified executions for almost 2000 years and carried out its own fair share, so while the recent about-face of John Paul II on the issue is welcome, I find it a little strange that some now see opposition to execution by the state for capital crimes to be the “orthodox” Catholic position after almost 2000 years of justification for the death penalty by some of the finest minds of the Church.
Personally, I see no greater affront to human dignity than to cage a person like an animal for the rest of his life, even denying him the hope of parole. At the same time this action exposes other inmates to his violence, and him to theirs, not to mention the threat to guards at the prison and the possibility of escape with further violence to the population.
Someday I believe that we might be able to cure the criminal, but today I think the Catechism still points to the right of the state to exercise capital punishment for the common good. With the refusal of John Allen Muhammad to show any remorse or willingness to change his behavior, I think that perhaps Gov. Kaine would have been violating the admonition of the Catechism that at times those responsible for the safety of the public good MUST be willing to take a life.
Would you be willing to condemn the officer that stopped the killing at Ft. Hood?
I am a very active pro-lifer and have seen first hand how death is not the answer.
This man could have been kept in prison for life.
Will we ever stop killing – abortion, war, the death penalty – as a means to solve our problems.
The posts used as examples don’t exactly carry the same tone or condemnation that this post does, but fair enough.
The charge is widthdrawn.
Was it Thomas Merton who said you either live a spiritual or you don’t. Life or death…no buts. I wonder if the governor loved the man he killed?
Mike L: You asked, “Would you be willing to condemn the officer that stopped the killing at Ft. Hood?” Not in the same way, he used what seems to have been proportional force. Capital punishment in a modern industrialized nation violates the requirements of proportionality of Double Effect.
he used what seems to have been proportional force . . .
He — Sgt. Kimberly Munley, a civilian police officer — was a she.
David: I stand corrected on the officer, sorry. I stand by my assertion that her use of force was proportional.
David Nichol, you HAVE heard of the “development of doctrine,” right?
It, along with the doctrines of the “Real Presence” and the insistence that “salvation” is by faith AND “works,” is the most distinctive thing about Catholicism, as opposed to Protestantism.
But most of you “conservative” American Catholics can’t stomach it, because, from the standpoint of religious culture, you are–almost all of you–Protestants.
The position that I just enunciated is very well explained by this article, and most of the commentators at Vox Nova prove it every single day:
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=3123
David,
In a rare moment, I agree.
I am embarassed that our country still executes people, and this is no exception.
Still, I can not fault Gov. Kaine for implementing the law as it stands. Just as if the Constitution explicitly said there was a right to abortion, I could not fault a judge (Catholic or not) for ruling that the Constitution says what it says.
If Gov. Kaine is at fault, it is probably for running for governor knowing that this would be part of his job.
Our activism has to be at the ground level — working to overturn capital punishment (as was done in NJ), and voting out prosecutors who aggressively pursue the death penalty.
Yes, Gov. Kaine did wrong. But a whole lot of other things went wrong before that.
The Catechism refers to cases where “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor”: would that be the case here? John Allen Muhammad was a manipulator and cold-blooded killer, and probably was a celebrity within the prison population. A guy like that could do a lot of harm behind bars. The alternative is to lock him up forever with no human contact, and how long can a person survive that without going nuts? That may be crueler than execution.
Colin, the tone around here seems to be anti-anti-abortion, but not pro-abortion.
Pinky and Mike L.
Pope Paul VI in Evangelium Vitae said
And yet you find it easy to justify the execution of John Allen Muhammad. I would say “very rare, if not practically non-existent” sets the bar extraordinarily high, but you make it over with very ordinary and conventional arguments. If we were talking about Hannibal Lecter, you might have a case.
Also, whether or not someone is sentenced to be executed is based on what they have done, not on whether they will present problems in prison. If you are going to base execution on who might be the worst troublemakers in prison, you might very well have to execute people for non-capital crimes.
It’s so easy for conservatives to explain away Catholic teachings that have a leftish bent!
Also, whether or not someone is sentenced to be executed is based on what they have done, not on whether they will present problems in prison. If you are going to base execution on who might be the worst troublemakers in prison, you might very well have to execute people for non-capital crimes.
I think the passage from EV that you site indeed opens the door for factoring in whether imprisonment would be sufficient to protect society, which includes the population of inmates and prison workers.
I am extremely skeptical that Muhammad posed such a danger to the prison population that execution was the only option, but according to EV, it is certainly a consideration.
Dave, this isn’t necessarily a right/left argument. There’s no need to start slapping labels on people.
You’re right that the legal system doesn’t apply the principle of societal defense to capital punishment. Often the results are the same as if it did, but not always. You’re more likely to be executed for killing a stranger than for killing your wife. That mirrors societal-defense thinking. If we focused solely on societal defense, though, we’d execute killers who are mentally ill.
As with so many things in our legal system, we mash together competing or even contradictory goals and we act surprised that they don’t articulate a clear strategy.