The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, writing of "Human Life and Dignity," tells us, "As a gift from God, every human life is sacred from conception to natural death. The life and dignity of every person must be respected and protected at every stage and in every condition. The right to life is the first and most fundamental principle of human rights."
I do not quarrel with the proposition that the right to life is the most fundamental principle of human rights. But when I am told that life is sacred or precious, the lawyer within me asks, what does that mean?
During his recent speech to Congress, Pope Francis called for global abolition of the death penalty:
"Every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes."
But if that is so, what justification did the police at Oregon's Umpqua Community College have in engaging in a shootout with the gunman who had just murdered 10 people there, and who would have murdered far more had the police not intervened?
Wasn't the gunman's life sacred before, after and during his murder spree? Wasn't he "endowed with an inalienable dignity" during commission of each murder? By what right did police interfere? Would it not have sufficed to remind the gunman he was in a Gun-Free Zone? Shouldn't the officers have used non-lethal force to take him into custody?
A 26-year-old man has a life expectancy of 51.4 years. Unless paroled, at $50K per year, his "rehabilitation" will cost society $1.3 million.
Consider the following scenarios:
-- Gunman X walks across the campus at Augustana College, shooting and killing everybody in sight. When Rock Island Police officers arrive, the gunman shoots at them. Can the officers use deadly force to stop the killing spree? Can an officer use deadly force to prevent himself from being shot? Or does the gunman's "inalienable dignity" and the fact that his life is "sacred" mean that his person is inviolate from the officer's use of deadly force?
-- The Iranians finally develop a nuclear weapon. They are intent on wiping Israel off the map. Each Iranian's life is "sacred," and each Iranian is "endowed with an inalienable dignity." Can Israel launch a pre-emptive strike and kill Iranians to prevent its own extermination, or must Israel accept nuclear destruction, and await the eventual "rehabilitation" of the Iranian state and its people?
-- Would the Jewish people have been justified in using deadly force to assassinate Hitler and other Nazi leaders prosecuting the Holocaust? Were Hitler, Himmler and others all endowed with an "inalienable dignity?" Were England, the USSR and the USA wrong to make war on Hitler and his allies?
I can accept the proposition that every person is born with an "inalienable dignity." I also can accept the proposition that no man or government can take away an innocent man's "inalienable dignity." And I accept the proposition that "the right to life is the first and most fundamental principle of human rights." But if human life is truly sacred, and worthy of protection, then there must be some mechanism or mechanisms to protect it.
As the Jews were being exterminated during the Holocaust learned, prayers and papal teachings did not do the job.
I would, therefore, posit a fourth proposition: "A man himself can forfeit his own dignity and his right to life by taking or making war on innocent life."
A man who employs deadly force against the innocent, invites use of deadly force against him. That can be either force used in self defense or in defense of others. Without the right of self-defense and the right to defend others, the right to life of the innocent is illusory, and is alienable at the whim of every prospective murderer, school shooter, or would-be Hitler or Stalin.
I have never been in favor of applying the death penalty in all cases of murder; but in some cases, like St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe it is justified and indeed necessary and proportionate.
Assume that the Umpqua murderer, had been taken alive, convicted and imprisoned for "rehabilitative" purposes. If he thereafter murdered two prison guards in an effort to escape and attack the next community college, the death penalty to me would seem reasonable, necessary and proportionate.
The death penalty should remain disfavored, but available.
If a home owner or a police officer can use deadly force to defend his own life, based on an instantaneous judgment, without a trial and appeals of any sort, it seems bizarre that a state cannot impose the death penalty after a fair jury trial and the innumerable appeals that follow -- if the sentence is reasonable, necessary and proportionate.
If a nation can enter a "just war' and kill millions without anything in the nature of a trial, why can it not execute a murder after an fair trial and appeals which demonstrate the fairness, necessity and proportionality of the sentence?
And for those who don't know, death sentences are reviewed with the strictest scrutiny known to the law.
Posted: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:00 pm QCOnline.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment