Carla Hughes Facing the Death Penalty

CNN reports on the conviction of Carla Hughes.

After about eight hours of deliberations, a jury has found Carla Hughes guilty of two counts of capital murder. Hughes was charged with killing her lover's fiance, Avis Banks, who was five months pregnant.

Prosecutors say Hughes killed Banks and her unborn child. They accused Hughes of fatally shooting, stabbing, and slashing Banks with a knife.

Jurors asked only one question during deliberations: could the prosecution have called Hughes to the stand. The judge sent a note back to the jurors directing them to their jury instructions. Hughes decided not to testify in her own defense during the trial.

This is a very fascinating case, for one reason that a woman could end up on death row in Mississippi. But also for the question of soundness of mind. Could a person do what she did while enjoying soundness of mind? In the midst of such an awful rage, is it possible for someone to understand the difference between right and wrong? Isn't it possible that crimes of passion like this have a built-in temporary insanity?

What's your opinion? What do you think about that decision to not let her testify? Did they think the verdict might be not guilty and she could mess it up by speaking? It makes me wonder what kind of advice she was getting. They must have known which way the jury was leaning and might have benefited from her testimony.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

All the Answers are in The Bible

Newser.com ran a fascinating story about a Texas jury that consulted the Bible before rendering a verdict of death.

Death-row foes are complaining that a Texas jury ordered to consider only evidence presented in court consulted the Old Testament before condemning a man to death. Jurors examined highlighted passages in Bibles passed around the jury room to help them decide the fate of Khristian Oliver. The con killed a man by shooting him in the face and beating him with a rifle. One of the passages stated that a person who smites somebody with iron "shall surely be put to death."

The use of the Bible made the trial a "travesty," charged an Amnesty International official. "Religious texts provide consolation and spiritual guidance for billions of people the world over, but this use of the Bible to decide life or death in a capital trial is deeply, deeply troubling," she told the Telegraph. The Supreme Court has refused to hear Oliver's appeal and he is due to be executed early next month.This is even worse that the usual Texas Justice we hear about. Usually it's simply that letter-of-the-law, excessively harsh, vigilante justice, you know that one that says, "Let's give 'em a fair trial and then take 'em out and hang 'em." But this is something else again.

Here's a Guardian article with more details about the case.

What's your opinion? Even for Christian jurors, is this kind of thing acceptable? Isn't this the very thing jurors are screened for before being admitted to participate in the trial?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

New Perspective on Capital Punishment

Iranian.com ran a story on capital punishment that really caught my attention. First, I liked it because the site itself is fascinating. I suppose it's aimed at Iranian Americans due to the bi-lingual presentation, but I couldn't tell for sure. Secondly, I found it fascinating because the sub title is "nothing is sacred." I'll bet they love that one in Tehran.

Today, October 10th, is the World Day Against the Death Penalty. Morbidly ironic, Behnoud Shojaee’s execution on this day is a stark reminder of the brutality of Islamic Republic of Iran’s policies in executing its citizens on a whole host of criminal and belief-based charges.

The judicial system in Iran has proven time and again to be unfair, discriminatory, and perversely criminal itself in dealing with social maladies inflicted upon its own society through implementation of barbaric laws.

It almost sounds like Texas. The judicial system is "unfair, discriminatory, and perversely criminal itself in dealing with social maladies," could easily apply to any jurisdiction in the U.S., but down Dallas way, this description fits to a tee.

Perhaps I'm being too flip, though. The graphic provided on the Iranian.com site is most illuminating for putting things into perspective. When turning the death penalty stats into per capita numbers, we see a very different story than what we're used to.

Recently we discussed a report from Amnesty International which put China on top and the U.S. fifth. That was total numbers of executions. The Iranian stats show that Iran is tops with Saudia Arabia a close second. China is much lower than both of those in a per capita comparison, and the U.S. much lower still.

I don't feel this information changes much, since of the countries ahead of the United States, there is not a single one that I'd want to live in. The U.S. is still associated with a group of countries that it should be ashamed to be aligned with.

What's your opinion? How do you feel about that company we're keeping in the capital punishment lists?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Catholics Against the Death Penalty

The CatholicSpirit.com, which is the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, published an interesting article on the movement to abolish Capital Punishment in Oregon and the role Catholics are playing.

"We need to share our Catholic teaching with courage and clarity," said a memorandum sent to parishes recently by Mary Jo Tully, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Portland. "We need to reach out to our teachers and to our parishioners. We need to form and to persuade. We need to be advocates for change."

Tully has joined other lay Catholics on the board of Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

With statements from the catechism, Pope John Paul II, the U.S. bishops and most recently Portland Archbishop John G. Vlazny, Oregon Catholics are being urged to oppose execution as an affront to the sanctity of life as well as an ineffective and expensive public policy.

According to the article, Catholic leaders believe capital punishment encourages the idea that violence is an appropriate solution to social problems. I agree with this. My view has always been that you can't tell the people don't kill each other and then kill the ones who disobey. It's moral hypocrisy.

The Oregon Catholics are also concerned with the fact that innocent people have probably been executed. Archbishop Vlazny of Portland recently commented on the arbitrary and disproportionate application of the death penalty against the poor and minorities.

One part of the Catholic catechism says state acts of justice are meant in part to improve the offender and allow for possible redemption, even if it occurs within prison walls. The idea is linked to the Christian value of forgiveness, which comes straight from Jesus.

"If punishment is supposed to correct someone, you can't correct them by killing them," says Mary Ryan-Hotchkiss, a member of the peace and justice group at St. Pius X Parish in Portland.

At least these people have a consistent message. We can probably assume they're against abortion for the same reason they're against capital punishment. That's consistent. I'm the first one to point out the inconsistency in the right-wing Christian who is fanatically opposed to abortion yet when it comes to murdering murderers on death row has all kinds of biblical justifications. The Catholics in Oregon are better than that.

The problem is that concerning the death penalty and abortion, I have an inconsistent but opposite belief. I'm opposed to capital punishment in all cases for the same reasons mentioned above. But, when it comes to abortion, I'm pro-choice. I don't even think men should be talking about abortion too much, it's a women's issue, and we certainly shouldn't be trying to legislate it or control it.

Am I guilty of the same hypocrisy I accuse others of? Can a pro-choice stand on abortion be consistent with opposition to capital punishment.

What's our opinion?