Interesting to see the Vatican attempt to intervene in the case of former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz.
Tariq is a Chaldean Catholic and yesterday the Iraqi high court sentenced him to death by hanging for his part in the persecution of Shiite Muslim dissidents.
Here’s what the Vatican said:
“The position of the Catholic church on the death penalty is well known. It’s hoped, therefore, that the sentence against Tariq Aziz will not be executed, precisely in order to favor reconciliation and the reconstruction of peace and justice in Iraq after the great sufferings it has experienced.”
“Regarding a possible humanitarian intervention, the Holy See is not accustomed to operate in a public fashion, but through the diplomatic means at its disposal.”
So the Vatican will attempt to use diplomatic channels to intervene in this case.
Archbishop Cranmer has picked up on this and leans toward pro-execution in this particular case and concludes with:
If Mr Aziz be a Christian, shall we let God be the judge?
David over at Anglican Samizdat also tackles the issue of the death penalty albeit in a different case, namely, that of the murderer Russell Williams. David notes the general arguments against the death penalty as follows:
To kill someone is always wrong. It is difficult to maintain this pacifist position without hypocrisy while living in a society whose order and well-being are maintained by force or the threat of force.
To kill someone to punish them for murder makes the state as bad as the murderer. If that were true, the state could not imprison kidnappers or use force at all to maintain order since it would always be as bad as the criminal.
From a Christian perspective, to kill someone gives them less time to repent and turn to Christ. Alternatively, as Dr. Johnson noted, the threat of one’s imminent demise serves to concentrate the mind, so it could lead to accelerated repentance.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent. The original article addresses this to some extent. Common sense would tell us that insofar that any punishment is a deterrent against crime, the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime should be more of a deterrent than imprisonment.
Capital punishment is wrong since human life is sacred. True, but if capital punishment is a deterrent, it would save lives and protect the innocent.
Capital punishment is irreversible. True; and the impossibility of correcting a mistake is one of the few convincing arguments against capital punishment.
David concludes:
Temporal justice has always seemed to me to be tinged with fraudulence; as Pascal noted, “if magistrates had true justice, and if physicians had the true art of healing, they would have no occasion for square caps; the majesty of these sciences would of itself be venerable enough”. Nevertheless, if temporal justice has any meaning, I find it hard to see how someone like Russell Williams should not be put to death.
It was a year ago that a surprising Premier survey revealed that over half of British people think the death penalty should be re-introduced.
Today the death penalty is headline news in the UK following the execution of Jeffrey Landrigan in the US state of Arizona. It transpires that the sodium thiopental used for the execution came from the UK.
So, what do you think, are you for or against the death penalty?