As a Catholic, I hold a respect for all human life; even that which has not demonstrated itself worthy of such. My case in point is one Stanley Williams (aka. “Tookieâ€). This man helped form one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty street gangs in modern history. Although, after roughly an hour worth of searching, I can’t find any solid statistics to back up the vast number of claims circling the internet, from what I gather, the group is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, not-to-mention the thousands of youths whose lives have been destroyed by association with this group. Leading others into a life of murderous crime is a just as bad as being accessory to the act itself.
Capital punishment has long been considered an “eye for an eye†approach to justice – which in this day and age has lost a considerable amount of necessity – in that it exacts an equal amount of compensatory punishment with relation to the crime committed. However, if that were the case today, the victim’s relatives or the local community would therefore be given the opportunity to impart equal severity upon those convicted of their crime. Today, for most practical purposes, this type of punishment would be considered purely barbaric. In ancient times people would be stoned to death for much lesser crimes. Other greater offenses were usually dealt with much harsher measures i.e. decapitation, impalement, disembowelment, crucifixion etc. Unfortunately, these practices still continue today in some regions of the world; mostly places under the tyranny of communism or Islamic Fascism, yet somehow, under the blind eye of the United Nations, they appear to remain immune from scrutiny for their countless human rights violations.
Fortunately, we live in a much more civilized society where the condemned is offered multiple opportunities to redeem themselves and make substantial and demonstrable improvements in their contribution to society at large in the hopes of making a successful appeal for mercy in order to have their execution sentence commuted. Stanley Williams did not sufficiently demonstrate this ability. A mere handful of children’s books and telling kids that gang life is bad for your health, does not quantify nor sufficiently compensate for the brutal, assassination style murder of four innocent people along with the criminal badge of honor he proudly carried for many years following.
Although I have my reservations about the use of capital punishment and believe that such measures should be reserved for special circumstances, this is one of those cases where I believe the punishment accurately fits the crime. If not for the simple fact that this man and others of his caliber pose a known threat to the society at large, continue to romanticize their evil ways and act as roll models for others who fall prey such mentality, then I would be much more comfortable with sparing his life. This, however, is not a situation which can be dealt with in half measures and therefore I am in full agreement with the State of California and their decision to terminate this man’s life.
Some might ask “If you were a true pro-life Catholic, you would not be in favor of the death penalty. How can you be opposed to abortion yet support capital punishment? You can’t have it both ways.†To which I would say “How little you know of the Catholic faith! Catholicism by its very nature is “pro-life†and therefore includes provisions for the preservation of life within society… even if it requires the termination of hostile life in order to serve and protect the greater society at large. Perhaps if you took the time to stop listening to all the asshats in the Liberal MSM and actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you would at least be thinking with half a brain more than you appear to be using up until now!†The fact of the matter is that the Liberal way of thinking puts everything on equal moral footing. They spend far too much time making excuses for what is wrong and far too little time acknowledging that which is right. They live in a world where the line between good and bad is blurred by their desire to eliminate personal accountability – foremost in matters dealing with morality and the lack thereof. As for the Catholic Church, there is a clear distinction between that which is good and that which is evil. For that very reason, the church is by nature Liberal’s worst enemy. By any and all means, they wish to discredit the faithful and render the church impotent. If it were not for the moral backbone of the Catholic Church, evil would have long conquered and destroyed the human race.
For your education benefit, here is the Catholic Church’s official stance on abortion:
Abortion
(footnotes and complete text can be found here)
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”76 “by the very commission of the offense,”77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”79
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”80
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”81
2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”82
“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”83
“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”84 which are unique and unrepeatable.
…and here is the official position on capital punishment:
Legitimate Defense
(footnotes and complete text can be found here)
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
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, nonlethal 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 nonexistent.NT
My prayers go out to the families of the victims, the souls of those who’s lives were cut short by savage means and I also pray that Almighty God have mercy on the soul of Stanley Williams… hopefully more mercy than Mr. Williams showed his victims.
