Tuesday, July 09, 2013

EU Ruling on Life Imprisonment Makes Death Penalty Moral.

The Catechism says:
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 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."68 Link.
This is no longer the case in the European Union:
Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court of human rights has ruled. The landmark judgment will set the ECHR on a fresh collision course with the UK government but does not mean that any of the applicants – the convicted murderers Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter – are likely to be released soon. In its decision, the Strasbourg court said there had been a violation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. The judgment said: "For a life sentence to remain compatible with article 3 there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review." The court emphasised, however, that "the finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue." Link
It makes no sense to declare a system which forbids the release of murderers is a violation of the rights of prisoners, but uphold a system that chooses not to release murderers as lawful. The EU expects the release of murderers back into society. That is not "rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm".

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

So....

So... I began this blog in 2004 in the attempt to teach myself some html code while unemployed. I've let it fall by the wayside, obviously. Now, unemployed again (downsized) I return for a bit. It's interesting to think what has changed for me over 8 years. I started a new career as paralegal (ABA certificate through UCR extension) and will continue it as soon as possible. The last 4.25 years I spent commuting 110 miles per day to work, which I am not inclined to repeat and few employers seem willing to consider anyhow. Oh, and about 3 years ago I was invited to join the Knights of Columbus. For the past year and a month I've been Grand Knight of our Council (I sadly inherited the role in the middle of the late Grand Knight's term). I'm 4th Degree, which means we do work with vets through local bases and the Loma Linda VA Hospital.