Vengeance is Whose?

Several states now have laws making sexual assault of children a death-penalty offense, even if the victim is not murdered as well. One man in Louisiana has actually been sent to death row on this basis. The Supreme Court just agreed to review his case to see if the penalty is constitutional. LaShawn Barber hopes they uphold the sentence.

Any sort of sexual assault on a child is, of course, a heinous offense and the impulse for vengeance is understandable. Yet like most impulsive decisions, it's also wrong and potentially counterproductive. I explained why here some time ago.

Among other reasons, consider this: in most cases of rape there are no witnesses except the victim. If we make the rape itself a capital crime, then what incentive do we create for the rapist? Answer: kill your victim. If he's lucky he will get away with the crime because now there are no witnesses. If he gets caught anyway, then he is no worse off because the additional crime of murder brings no added punishment. The only one who is worse off is the victim, who now gets to die after being raped.

The deterrent effect of such laws is also questionable. Anyone who would rape an eight-year-old girl, as the man in the Louisiana case did, isn't thinking clearly in the first place and probably has some kind of mental illness. Even if they are able to cognitively process the existence of such laws, the prospect of execution doesn't seem likely to stop them from acting on their perverse desires.

Rape is a crime that is also uniquely vulnerable to false prosecution. Just this week I read (via Mark Shea) about a man from Dallas who served 26 years in prison for a rape that DNA evidence now proves he did not commit. When we have prosecutors like Mike Nifong in this country, it's easy to believe some innocent people will be executed as a result of laws like these.

I had a personal brush with the death penalty many years ago and told the story here. I'm not totally against capital punishment - but I think the cases where it is truly justified are extremely rare.

Viva Cristo Rey!

An unfortunate fact of life in 2007 is that the word "martyr" conjures up for most of us images of Islamic suicide bombers. In fact, the first martyrs were Christians who died at the hands of Romans, hundreds of years before Mohammed came along. Unlike today's terrorists, the first Christian martyrs did not seek to die for their faith. Many stories show them accepting their fate, and as the moment grew closer they often embraced it. They did not try to take others with them.

Americans have a hard time understanding the reality of true martyrdom. Other than a few cases of early missionaries being killed by Indians, it's just not part of our heritage. Martyrdom is something that happened a long time ago in places far, far away - but not always. 1927 was not so long ago, and Mexico is not so far away.

In 1917 Mexico adopted a new constitution that, among other things, imposed a number of restrictions on the religious freedom. The specific target was the Catholic Church but others were affected as well. Churches were forbidden to operate schools and their ability to own property was severely restricted. Ministers were stripped of the right to vote and ordered not to wear clerical garb in public or speak about political issues. Worship services outside of church buildings were outlawed.

For the first few years these provisions were only sporadically enforced. In 1924 Plutarco Elias Calles took over as president and soon began oppressing the Church with gusto. A resistance movement called the Cristeros arose in parts of Mexico.

Keep in mind, this is not that long ago. In 1927 Ronald Reagan was a teenager, Billy Graham a child, and George H.W. Bush a toddler. Josef Ratzinger was an infant and Karol Wojtyla was a small child. People are alive today who saw these events in Mexico. It's not ancient history.

The Calles government was ruthless. Between 1926 and 1934, the number of Catholic priests in Mexico dropped from 4,500 to 334. Most were expelled or left the country voluntarily, but at least 40 priests were killed. One was a young Jesuit named Miguel Agustin Pro.

Padre Pro served his flock faithfully despite the very difficult conditions. He used a variety of disguises to reach people who needed him, sometimes dressing as a beggar and arriving in the middle of the night to perform baptisms. He reportedly donned a police uniform in order to visit condemned prisoners in jail.

With an assassination attempt on an ex-president as pretext, in 1927 Padre Pro was arrested along with his brothers Humberto and Roberto. Another man confessed to the crime and said the Pro brothers had nothing to do with it. Nonetheless, President Calles ordered Padre Pro executed while sparing his brothers. Calles wanted to use the execution to inspire fear and so invited reporters to document everything. We have photographs of the event.

On November 23, 1927 - eighty years ago today - Miguel Agustin Pro, S.J., was led from his cell to a courtyard where the firing squad waited. After blessing each of the soldiers, he asked for a moment to pray. This last request was granted and he knelt on the ground. Then, refusing a blindfold, he faced his executioners with arms outstretched in imitation of Christ on the Cross. He clutched a crucifix in one hand and a rosary in the other.

As the soldiers prepared their weapons, Padre Pro shouted "May God have mercy on you! May God bless you! Lord, thou knowest I am innocent! With all my heart I forgive my enemies!" Just before they fired, he cried out "Viva Cristo Rey!" "Long live Christ the King!"

Padre Pro lived through the first rifle volley, and a soldier killed him with a bullet at point blank range. He was 36 years old.

Fifty-two years later, another priest came to Mexico and was greeted with open arms by a different president. This was no ordinary priest; it was the Bishop of Rome. You see, the gates of hell did not prevail against God's church; they could not prevail. In 1988 Padre Pro was beatified by Pope John Paul II - the first step toward sainthood.

Will there be more such martyrs? Times change. Constitutions can be amended, or just ignored. There are more than a few people in the United States right now who would like to do what President Calles did in Mexico. Will today's Christians have the courage of Padre Pro?

I'm afraid some of us may find out.



Padre Pro web site
Video dramatization (in Spanish)

Forgiving The Worst

Father forgives son who had mom, brother killed.

Wow. It's painful just to imagine what this man has gone through. The easy thing would be to give in to hate, to let it take over and consume you. Kent Whitaker chose another course. I hope I could do the same, and pray I never have to.

Hat tip: J-Walking

Blood Money

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- An Iranian child offender, who was forgiven for killing a man by the victim's family, is to be hanged tonight because his parents couldn't gather the blood money they were required to pay, his lawyer said.

The victim's family decided to spare Sina Paymard's life last September after he was allowed to play the flute as his last wish, Sina's lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, said.

His playing moved people gathered for the public execution to tears. Under pressure from the crowd, the family asked Sina's father to pay the equivalent of $162,000 in compensation, a practice that is allowed in Iran, the lawyer said.

``The father has only managed to gather a third of the sum, and he was told this morning that his child will be executed tonight,'' Sotoudeh said by telephone. ``Sina was 16 at the time of the crime. His life shouldn't depend on the amount of money his family can gather.'' He is now 18.

Iran this month drew international condemnation after a man convicted of adultery was stoned to death west of the capital Tehran. The Islamic Republic has one of the highest rates of executions in the world, with 124 people executed so far this year, according to Amnesty International. Two child offenders were executed in April and May, the rights group said.

Sina Paymard's hanging ``would be in complete violation of international law,'' Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Program, said in a statement. ``The Iranian government must take immediate steps to halt this execution.'' [source]

My first instinct upon reading this story was "those barbarians." Then it occurred to me that the story does not really explain the circumstances of the murder, so it's possible the sentence is appropriate. Some will argue that crimes committed at 16 should not draw a death sentence, and I would generally agree, but this case might be the exception. We don't have enough information to say.

What enrages people about this story is probably the money angle. Here we have someone who is going to die for no reason other than lack of money. It really is that simple. His family can't come up with the required amount, so Sina has to die. The victim's family appears to feel they have granted enough mercy.

On the other hand, is this really so different from the way we administer justice here in the United States? The people who end up on Death Row are almost always lower-class, sometimes impoverished, and often members of minority groups. Most were represented at trial and on appeal by overworked, underpaid, court-appointed attorneys.

In contrast, on those rare occasions when a wealthy person is accused of a capital crime, a legal "dream team" is assembled and the full menu of legal and scientific arguments are brought forth to show reasonable doubt. I'm convinced that in such cases many prosecutors choose not to seek the death penalty in order to avoid an expensive, embarrassing spectacle.

So in our case, the money goes to the lawyers instead of the victim's family, but the fact remains: those who commit capital crimes but also have sufficient cash can usually escape death. Those who lack these resources usually end up dead. Such is the state of justice in America.

I'm not saying we are no better than Iran in this department. Were I falsely accused of a crime, I would much rather be tried here than there. Nonetheless, we can't always say that our way is better. May God have mercy on Sina Paymard's soul, and that of his victim.

UPDATE 7/18/07: News reports say that Iranian authorities have delayed Sina's execution for 10 days to give the family time to raise more money. Click here for latest Google News updates.

Off With My Head

Those old enough to remember the 1970s may recall a rock musician named Ted Nugent. Mr. Nugent is still around and now lives in Crawford, Texas, near President Bush's ranch. He has become something of a right-wing hero and is heavily involved with the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun and pro-hunting groups.

Mr. Nugent also writes a column that appears in the Waco Tribune-Herald newspaper. His topic last weekend was a demand for the execution of all convicted child molesters. Whatever you may think of that idea, it is probably not an argument Mr. Nugent should be making, given allegations like these:

When Nugent turned 30, in 1978, he began a relationship with a 17-year old Hawaiian girl, Pele Massa, and became her legal guardian to comply with laws pertaining to relationships with minors.[5] This was covered in VH1's 1998 Behind the Music featuring Nugent, and included an interview with Massa. SOURCE

I searched around the web and found several other mentions of this story, along with a couple of others. I could not find any record of Mr. Nugent denying the allegations. If he does in fact deny them, I will be glad to publish a correction.

It is of course true that consorting with a 17-year-old girl is not the same as molesting a young child. In many places 17 is above the age of consent and such relationships are not illegal. It sounds like it was illegal in Hawaii at that time, since he went through legal maneuvers to avoid prosecution.

And that is the point. If, as Mr. Nugent says in his column, all "child molesters" should face mandatory execution, exactly how will we define the crime? What if, say, an 18-year-old-boy has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl? He is an adult, legally speaking. She is not. She will literally hold his life in her hands. One call to the police and before you know it he's on death row. Is that what we want? We could discuss hundreds more such scenarios. Mr. Nugent himself could have been caught in the net.

The reason the law allows broad penalty ranges is so that judges and juries can consider each case on its own merits and take all the relevant factors into account when they issue a sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws are emotionally satisfying, but in fact they make it impossible to deliver anything resembling "justice" to the accused and the victims.

Incidentally, if the Waco Tribune-Herald was a real newspaper that paid attention to little things like journalistic standards, they would have disclosed these allegations about Mr. Nugent when they printed his column. They did not, though several people posted comments after the article pointing it out. I wrote a letter to the editor, which they have not published as of today.

Hang 'Em High

Our Texas political heroes are once again trying to look like they are actually accomplishing something helpful to society. From today's Austin-American Statesperson:

Dozens of sex offender bills have already been filed for the 140-day legislative session that began Jan. 9.

Proponents want Texas to join states cracking down with tough "Jessica's Laws", named after a girl who was abducted and killed in Florida, and become one of a handful that could put some repeat offenders to death.

Sen. John Whitmire, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said Texas is already tough on sex offenders.

Most already serve their entire sentence without parole and are subject to civil commitment if experts deem them dangerous upon release.

"We are tough (on sex offenders.) Tougher than hell. We lead the nation in tough." Whitmire said. "But you've got to be careful."

Hmmm, "tougher than hell," eh? That must be some kind of prison. I had no idea there was a lake of fire down there in Huntsville.

And is this really an area where you want to "lead the nation?" How does that go when the legislators get together. "Guys, Alabama says they are tougher than us. We gotta show 'em!"

Don't get me wrong - those who molest children must be punished. They must also be prevented from causing additional harm. We already have ways to achieve these goals. What does imposing the death penalty on sex offenders accomplish? For one thing, it encourages them to make sure there are no witnesses to the crime. If you are going to get punished like a murderer anyway, you might as well finish the job.

Keep in mind, also, that many if not most cases of child molestation involve a relative or family member. How ethical is it to have a child testify against a grandparent, for example, when the result may be that relative's execution? Do we want to add this burden to a child who already has plenty to bear?

Justice should be based on solid ethical principles, not a misguided sense of revenge. Hopefully the legislature will drop this idea and get on with more important business.

Saddam's Last Video

After I wrote here and here about the Saddam Hussein execution, I figured the story would be over. Not so, not since that grainy cell phone video revealed the taunting chants of his executioners.

As I've said, when we must execute someone it is not reason for celebration. It is a sad duty that must be performed in the name of justice. Whatever you think about the ethics of capital punishment, I hope we can all agree this is not how it should be done. Nor will it be helpful to the political process in Iraq. Columnist Richard Woodward said it well at OpinionJournal:

The intention of the U.S. in putting Saddam in the dock for crimes against humanity was to demonstrate the rule of law, a process he never followed while in power. The trials of Nazi and Japanese war criminals after World War II were a model, along with the more recent (and much slower) prosecutions for genocide of Serbs, Croats and Rwandans at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Damning testimony about Saddam's treatment of the Kurds went unheard, but witnesses before the Iraqi judges--his trial began in October 2005--offered enough evidence to prove his direct role in ordering hundreds of deaths, a fraction of the hundreds of thousands he reportedly ordered over his 23-year reign.

In less than three minutes, the video undid that deliberate process. Saddam will now be frozen in time looking like a tested leader--angry but resigned to his fate--while the Iraqi government is seen hurrying to complete its nasty business before the new year. Even though that government granted him the kind of dignity he seldom granted the people he killed, his uncovered and unbowed head contrasts favorably with the masked executioners shouting "Muktada" and acting up for the camera as if this were a soccer match. Ironically, it is Saddam's stoic behavior on the scaffold that makes his hanging bearable to watch. MORE


Great - so the main thing history will record about this tyrant's death is the relative dignity he displayed. This was not an image of justice. It was an image of victor's justice, carried out by the winning faction (Shiites) against the losers (Sunnis).

"This was for the Iraqis to do themselves," you may say. True enough. Yet the United States had Saddam in its physical custody right up to the moments before his death. He died only because the Bush Administration handed him over to a gang of hooligans.

That the U.S. allowed this historic event to turn into a debacle is another sign of the incompetence with which our Dear Leaders have carried out this whole Iraqi adventure. It should have been a cleansing experience for all. Instead, it probably aggravated an already desperate situation.

More thoughts from Slate via Mark Shea.

Sympathy For The Devil?

When I was in high school I had an internship in the Dallas County District Attorney’s office. As part of that I had the unique experience of watching a capital murder trial in person. The defendant was named Danny Lee Barber, and he had brutally killed a woman named Janie Ingram. There was no question of his guilt – he left a bloody palm print at the scene, and later confessed to this killing as well as several others that had previously been unsolved.

After he was found guilty of murder, the trial moved on to the punishment phase. The DA asked for death, of course. I can remember like it was yesterday the very eloquent prosecutor making his closing statement to the jury:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Danny Lee Barber is a man who deserves to die. When his appointed day comes, you’ll be able to put your ear to mother Earth and hear the gates of hell slam shut on his murderous soul!

At the time I thought this was pretty cool. Having seen poster-size photos of the victim’s body, I agreed he should die. I got a weird sort of thrill in the courtroom, sitting only a few feet away from this savage murderer. I didn’t really think very much about what would happen to his soul.

I bring this up because the Saddam Hussein execution has sparked a furious debate among bloggers about the death penalty. If Danny Lee Barber deserved to die, the Saddam Hussein certainly did, too. My purpose today is not to answer that question. Rather, it is to think about the words many of us say about people like Saddam and Barber. It is especially common among conservatives and even many Christians: “I hope he rots in hell.” “He should burn for what he did.” This sort of thing. I’ve said them, too. What do these wishes say about us?

The fact is we can’t know where any particular person goes when they die. What should we wish for them? Of course, as Christians we want all people to be saved. Every human is created in the image and likeness of God. All are precious to Him. That’s why Christ and Satan are locked in a battle for every human soul.

Question: which side are we on? Let’s conduct a little linguistic experiment. Exactly what is the difference between these two statements?

1. I hope Saddam Hussein burns in hell.
2. I hope Satan wins the battle for Saddam Hussein’s soul.

Logically, there is no difference in the sentiment behind these two wishes. So when we wish someone would go to hell, or we express satisfaction at the belief that they are going there, we are quite literally taking the side of the devil. Is this really what we want? I hope not.

Did Saddam Hussein deserve to go to hell? Did Danny Lee Barber? Yes, they did. So do I. So do you. So does every human being who is stained with even the slightest sin. God doesn’t owe us anything at all, much less a place in heaven. He offers us a gift of salvation, and the free will to accept it or not.

If people like Saddam make bad choices, they have to face human justice. The eternal justice they face is not ours to decide. Our job in this life is to wish for, and work toward, the salvation of everyone.

Danny Lee Barber was finally executed in 1999 after almost 20 years on death row. It seems like this would be adequate time to think about where you want to spend eternity and then do something about it. Maybe he did. His last words don’t sound especially hopeful, though.

I wonder if he got letters in prison. I wonder if some people told him where he deserved to go. And I wonder if he came to believe that would be his fate, and there was nothing he could do about it. I hope not.

It is not my place to forgive Danny Lee Barber for his crimes, because he did nothing to me. It is my place, however, to hope that one day I will see him again when we are both in heaven. This isn't an easy thing to do. Yet, it is what God asks of us. Wishing damnation on our brothers is a bad habit we all need to break.

Adios, Saddam Redux

My post about the Saddam Hussein execution from last night elicited a thoughtful reader comment, to which I responded, so check it out again. Meanwhile there is some other interesting reaction in the blogosphere.

Via Serge, we learn that powerful people may have wanted Saddam gone for their own personal reasons. Dead men tell no tales. Indeed, it would have been interesting had he exposed the various Westerners who supported his murderous regime for their own profit.

Steve Hayes finds it ironic that even as we are all hailing Gerald Ford for the courageous act of pardoning Richard Nixon for his crimes, we gave no thought to pardoning Saddam.

The London Telegraph has a long story, almost obituary-like, about Saddam.

Here is video of the event. It cuts off before he drops, but I bet that footage will leak out soon.

A roundup of liberal comments from PoliticalDishonesty.com

Adios, Saddam

Reports this evening say that Saddam Hussein has been executed. I have really mixed feelings about this. Certainly he is guilty of terrible crimes and must be punished. Even if imprisoned for life, he might still serve as a kind of spiritual leader for terrorists. The world is better off with him gone.

On the other hand, a nice quick hanging is not remotely comparable to the horrific deaths he inflicted on many others. Part of me says he should suffer more. Then I remember Jesus said to love our enemies. It's a weird thought - justice demands that people like Saddam be put to death, but we are still supposed to do it with love.

I recently heard a priest say that we should never presume to know whether someone is in heaven or hell. Even the most evil person may have repented in the last seconds before death, and God in His mercy may accept them for reasons that are beyond our understanding. This seems unlikely for Saddam, but we can't rule it out. There is no webcam at the Pearly Gates for us to watch.

So adios, Saddam, wherever you are. Vaya con Dios. Of one thing we can be certain: God's justice will be served, in His own way and on His own time. We should pray for Saddam's victims who remain on Earth, that this action will help heal their wounds and bring them peace.