This cartoon reminds me of the late, great North Carolinian cartoonist Doug Marlette, who used to run an anti-death-penalty cartoon every Good Friday, with such images as Jesus carrying an electric chair up Calvary, or two Roman soldiers standing in the shadow of the cross commenting on how society needs the death penalty to protect itself.
This never failed to enrage the right-wing fundamentalist Baptists in Charlotte, who would demand his firing. Of course, Marlette was raised in that tradition himself (though obviously moving away from it!), so he knew all the correct Biblical passages to use against them.
Good for Pope Francis!
(Oh, and Andy Marlette, Doug’s nephew, has picked up the fight, even using a similar art style! https://www.creators.com/author/andy-marlette)
Stop the baby raping pedo priests, monsignors, bishops and arch-bishops. The one per year outing of a catholic clergyman is not enough. And the idea of sanctuary in the Vatican is nothing more than incriminating. Let Cardinal Law stand trial. And serve time in the general population.
When one person kills another person, the State, after a trial, wants to kill the “killer” – how does that work, in a “logical” universe?
Oh, I understand the theological basis for the State killing the killer, but, at its root, is isn’t a logical conclusion, at all!
What possible logical argument, other than cost, can anyone advance for not simply keeping “killers” sequestered from the general population, if they can’t be totally rehabilitated, for the rest of their natural lives?
Just think of the cost to keep a killer in prison for LIFE 40,50.60 years. I say get rid of them and use the money to help the family that actually lost!!
The debate about the DP was hijacked decades ago by the left. They created a straw-man called “deterrence”.
The intent and purpose of the DP was and has always been PUNISHMENT. Through all of human history. Opponents in this nation and elsewhere discovered that they would never win the argument as long as the public understood that the reasonable PUNISHMENT for some crimes is death.
So the left created the fiction called deterrence. They worked for decades to infuse into the public awareness the idea that the DP was actually intended as a deterrent. They then moved forward to claim, correctly, that the DP does not deter criminals, Therefore, they claim, the DP has failed and must be abolished.
Over several generations, with the willing collusion of the liberal media and education community, many, perhaps even most people in the US believe the deterrence lie. It is time to wake up.
The sentences handed down by our courts, be they fines, confinement or the DP, were never intended to deter others. These are specific penalties for specific crimes committed by specific people. Punishment. Personal and specific, intended to punish a specific crime.
@Andylit, I see no reason why a barbaric application of state-sanctioned murder should be considered a legitimate punishment. But even leaving that aside, previous arguments before the Supreme Court have not circled around “deterrence” or “punishment” but (1) fair and just application — e.g., racist application of the punishment; (2) the 8th Amendment clause on “cruel and unusual punishment,” which our approaches to capital punishment fulfills in spades; and, perhaps most compelling, (3) the fact that we have so often been wrong in administering this punishment to someone who does not deserve it. I’m with my man John Adams and a lot of others on that one — better a 100 guilty people go free than one innocent be punished.
And at the end of the day, do we believe in “an eye for an eye” or redemption? For those claiming to be Christian (and I know you are not, which is fine by me), it has always been particularly ironic for them to favor the Old Testament over the New.
The death penalty as applied in this country today is wasteful, expensive, and often unfair. There’s no need for it.
@Motivemagus Obviously the debate about the morality of imposing the DP is one we will not agree upon. Society has killed criminals for all of recorded history and most certainly before. There are very valid reasons to do so.
In the US, there has been considerable progress made in causing the DP to be applied evenly across the spectrum of race. In the US we do not impose execution by torture or other inhumane methods
As I stated in my answer to @Mokurai my original post was poorly worded. The founders used Common Law as the basis for our starting point. Punishment was intended as both a penalty to the individual and as a deterrent for others contemplating the same crime. The primary purpose was to punish and prevent the individual from repeating.
There has been a recent push (50-60 years) from the left to shift public opinion towards your side of the argument. One of the results has been SCOTUS rulings from the left that have essentially nothing to do with the ideas of the founders and everything to do with liberal opinion.
In my digging around I discover a fascinating analysis of the topic from the mid 1950’s that addresses the sharp difference of opinion between jurists and criminologists. We won’t agree but you will likely find the paper informative. Just 9 pages.
@Motivemagus And here is a Norwegian study showing that there is a direct deterrence correlation to spending time in jail. http://www.nber.org/papers/w24878
Motivemagus over 5 years ago
This cartoon reminds me of the late, great North Carolinian cartoonist Doug Marlette, who used to run an anti-death-penalty cartoon every Good Friday, with such images as Jesus carrying an electric chair up Calvary, or two Roman soldiers standing in the shadow of the cross commenting on how society needs the death penalty to protect itself.
This never failed to enrage the right-wing fundamentalist Baptists in Charlotte, who would demand his firing. Of course, Marlette was raised in that tradition himself (though obviously moving away from it!), so he knew all the correct Biblical passages to use against them.
Good for Pope Francis!
(Oh, and Andy Marlette, Doug’s nephew, has picked up the fight, even using a similar art style! https://www.creators.com/author/andy-marlette)
https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=doug+marlette+cartoons&tag=mh0b-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=77790501916555&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8revf859rz_e
Banjo Gordy Premium Member over 5 years ago
Well if it was spelled End Capitol Punishment, it would make more sense given the current situation of death to Democracy.
juneybug over 5 years ago
At least this toon has it right. It’s not the Church changing doctrine but one man giving an executive order based on his personal theology.
Teto85 Premium Member over 5 years ago
Stop the baby raping pedo priests, monsignors, bishops and arch-bishops. The one per year outing of a catholic clergyman is not enough. And the idea of sanctuary in the Vatican is nothing more than incriminating. Let Cardinal Law stand trial. And serve time in the general population.
wellis1947 Premium Member over 5 years ago
When one person kills another person, the State, after a trial, wants to kill the “killer” – how does that work, in a “logical” universe?
Oh, I understand the theological basis for the State killing the killer, but, at its root, is isn’t a logical conclusion, at all!
What possible logical argument, other than cost, can anyone advance for not simply keeping “killers” sequestered from the general population, if they can’t be totally rehabilitated, for the rest of their natural lives?
Sneaker over 5 years ago
Andylit Premium Member over 5 years ago
The debate about the DP was hijacked decades ago by the left. They created a straw-man called “deterrence”.
The intent and purpose of the DP was and has always been PUNISHMENT. Through all of human history. Opponents in this nation and elsewhere discovered that they would never win the argument as long as the public understood that the reasonable PUNISHMENT for some crimes is death.
So the left created the fiction called deterrence. They worked for decades to infuse into the public awareness the idea that the DP was actually intended as a deterrent. They then moved forward to claim, correctly, that the DP does not deter criminals, Therefore, they claim, the DP has failed and must be abolished.
Over several generations, with the willing collusion of the liberal media and education community, many, perhaps even most people in the US believe the deterrence lie. It is time to wake up.
The sentences handed down by our courts, be they fines, confinement or the DP, were never intended to deter others. These are specific penalties for specific crimes committed by specific people. Punishment. Personal and specific, intended to punish a specific crime.
buckyteeth over 5 years ago
No death penalty for the pedophiles.
tauyen over 5 years ago
If Jesus hadn’t been given a death sentence there would be no Christianity as the basis for the faith is life after death.
NeoconMan over 5 years ago
^ Yes, killing Jesus was the right thing to do. Glad we did it.
Motivemagus over 5 years ago
@Andylit, I see no reason why a barbaric application of state-sanctioned murder should be considered a legitimate punishment. But even leaving that aside, previous arguments before the Supreme Court have not circled around “deterrence” or “punishment” but (1) fair and just application — e.g., racist application of the punishment; (2) the 8th Amendment clause on “cruel and unusual punishment,” which our approaches to capital punishment fulfills in spades; and, perhaps most compelling, (3) the fact that we have so often been wrong in administering this punishment to someone who does not deserve it. I’m with my man John Adams and a lot of others on that one — better a 100 guilty people go free than one innocent be punished.
And at the end of the day, do we believe in “an eye for an eye” or redemption? For those claiming to be Christian (and I know you are not, which is fine by me), it has always been particularly ironic for them to favor the Old Testament over the New.
The death penalty as applied in this country today is wasteful, expensive, and often unfair. There’s no need for it.
Andylit Premium Member over 5 years ago
@Motivemagus Obviously the debate about the morality of imposing the DP is one we will not agree upon. Society has killed criminals for all of recorded history and most certainly before. There are very valid reasons to do so.
In the US, there has been considerable progress made in causing the DP to be applied evenly across the spectrum of race. In the US we do not impose execution by torture or other inhumane methods
As I stated in my answer to @Mokurai my original post was poorly worded. The founders used Common Law as the basis for our starting point. Punishment was intended as both a penalty to the individual and as a deterrent for others contemplating the same crime. The primary purpose was to punish and prevent the individual from repeating.
There has been a recent push (50-60 years) from the left to shift public opinion towards your side of the argument. One of the results has been SCOTUS rulings from the left that have essentially nothing to do with the ideas of the founders and everything to do with liberal opinion.
In my digging around I discover a fascinating analysis of the topic from the mid 1950’s that addresses the sharp difference of opinion between jurists and criminologists. We won’t agree but you will likely find the paper informative. Just 9 pages.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4387&context=jclc
Andylit Premium Member over 5 years ago
@Motivemagus And here is a Norwegian study showing that there is a direct deterrence correlation to spending time in jail. http://www.nber.org/papers/w24878