| Line 105: |
Line 105: |
| | In the 1990s, however, some within the Church have advocated limiting the use of capital punishment to situations where there is no other practical way of restraining the particular criminal. This new position found expression without prior discussion or reconciliation with traditional Church doctrine as follows: | | In the 1990s, however, some within the Church have advocated limiting the use of capital punishment to situations where there is no other practical way of restraining the particular criminal. This new position found expression without prior discussion or reconciliation with traditional Church doctrine as follows: |
| | | | |
| − | :"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. | + | :If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. |
| | | | |
| − | :"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref> | + | :Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender "today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref> |
| | | | |
| | This surprising new position is at odds with the historic use by the Church of capital punishment to deal with heretics, and the cremation of the exhumed bodies of heretics. It may have simply reflected the late 20th century repudiation in Europe of all uses of capital punishment. | | This surprising new position is at odds with the historic use by the Church of capital punishment to deal with heretics, and the cremation of the exhumed bodies of heretics. It may have simply reflected the late 20th century repudiation in Europe of all uses of capital punishment. |
| | + | |
| | + | == Injustices Caused by Limits on Death Penalty == |
| | + | |
| | + | Increasingly arbitrary limits have been placed on use of the death penalty. One arbitrary prohibition established by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] on use of the death penalty is when the murder is committed by someone under the age of 18.<ref>''See [[Roper v. Simmons]]''.</ref> Prior to this Supreme Court ruling, states had statutory minimum ages (at the time of crime) for when the death penalty could be imposed. |
| | + | |
| | + | The award-winning documentary ''The Thin Blue Line'' portrays the true story of the framing of an innocent drifter because the age of the real murderer was slightly below the legal minimum for imposing the death penalty. The crime was the heinous murder of a police officer during a routine traffic stop, and the outrage at the crime cried out for retribution with the death penalty. But the authorities were legally barred from executing the real murderer, and an adult drifter who was in the wrong place at the wrong time was convicted for it. He served years on death row before being released after the movie was widely seen. |
| | | | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |