I learned today that next Friday the State of Indiana will execute David Woods. The Clemency Board just denied his plea. Barring the intevention of Governor Daniels or the U.S. Supreme Court, the state will kill him at midnight as next Thursday turns into Friday.
I plan to raise as much opposition to this as I can. I will lead an HCC caravan this Thursday night to the prayer vigil outside the prison, if this goes forward. People also can join by learning about his case and signing a petition at the Blog of "ND Against State Killing."
As a Catholic, I oppose all execution, but I also have visited for the last 8 years a man on Indiana's death row, have come to know him as a friend. And so I oppose with even more vigor state killing. No matter what someone has done, they are still someone's son, father, brother, friend. Violence never affects just one, as the victims' families can also attest.
Consider this letter yesterday to the Suth Bend Tribune:
May 4 execution first since bar association reported flaws
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
The pending execution of Indiana death row inmate David Woods on May 4 is a milestone in the history of Indiana's death penalty.
Our nagging doubts and fears about the death penalty system being Indiana's "other lottery" have now been confirmed and thoroughly documented in a recent report by the American Bar Association. Out of this report rises an opportunity to show that Indiana will not stand by while a man is executed as a result of so flawed and suspect a system. Instead, we must show that Indiana stands for fairness and true justice by demanding a hold on executions until the ABA report's recommendations can be further examined and the death penalty system as a whole can be judged.
A moratorium is not only advisable, but is also overwhelmingly supported by 61 percent of Hoosiers as demonstrated in an ABA-commissioned poll. Once the ticking clock of impending executions is silenced, objective examination of this system will expose the inhumanity, inefficiency and injustice of capital punishment. I urge all who are concerned about ensuring the legitimacy of our justice system to petition their legislators and Gov. Mitch Daniels for a stay of Woods' execution and a moratorium on capital punishment.
Will McAuliffe
Co-director
Notre Dame Against State Killing
South Bend
That letters raises significant points. It is true that the family of the victim, Juan Placencia, has asked that clemency be denied and Woods be killed. The victim was the ex-husband of Woods' mother. He was the father of 11 and grandpa to 76 children. His daughter said this: "I have to pray that you deny clemency to David Leon Woods," said his daughter Catherine Placencia, 63, Garrett. "He is the one who did this to my father and our family."
It is clear that David Woods is a man who has not been hardened as a prisoner but has turned to the good, after a brutal childhood (he was abused and neglected) and, yes, his commission of a brutal murder. He admits to the murder and is remorseful.
Some will say he chose death by inflicting death when he was 19. But again, be wary of fuzzy philosophy. Primary moral responsibility for killing David Woods will rest with those who kill David Woods and those who issue the order to kill David Woods. We will look at this case on Monday, but as you all can see, the issues we discuss are not abstract. The state is planning to kill this man. That's real.
36 comments:
If he is remorseful, then his judgment is left to a power far above man. I wish you luck in what you do to help this man.
Angela says: In the Bible it is stated,"Revenge is mine saith the Lord."
After seeing the movie dead man walking, i now a different understadning of the death penalty. I almost feel like the state trys to dehumanize people to justify and confince others that State killings are ok. But every person is still a person and should be treated as such.
I am somewhat indifferent when it comes to the death penalty, but you people seem to be overlooking is that this man committed a crime, a brutal crime. He can say that he has turned good all he wants but that dosent change the fact that he took the life of an innocent man. You are making martyr out of this murderer. If we let everyone out of jail who says that they have turned good then the prisons would be empty and the world would be a better place, right? Some people don't change, some people are just bad and the worst thing you can do is make saints out of them.
Angela says: We have not looked into how all of this came to be, the processes that determine all of this. My question is if a certain crime determines that an execution should occur, why then does it take so long to then do? It seems pretty indecisive, and then why is there then an execution? It all seems inane. Wouldn't it make more sense for certain crimes to be a life sentence with no chance of parole, then, possibly the criminal would repent over his lifetime for while there is still breath, there is still hope. But, please notice I stated with no chance of parole, for how many times has a criminal gotton out on a weekend pass for good behaivor, and then there is more crime and victim's. For violent crimes, the penalty should be to stay in prison for life.
To Andy: No one is saying he should be let out of prison. He should not be executed. Life without parole might be a fine sentence (I don't know all the particulars). The only thing I'm against is the killing of a person, esp. by the state. No matter how much the state doesn't want to say it is revenge, that is precisely what it is.
We need to focus on something, David woods brutally murdered a human being.If a person brutally kills another person they should be killed. I am not saying an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. What i am saying is that he is a viscious murderer thathas no place in our society. ITs like the quote that griff always says "If you live by the sword you will die by the sword" When these men kill david woods he is getting exactly what he deserves.
To Andy: I really wonder what the underlying issue is here. Yes this man committed a violent, brutal crime and nothing will change that. While it may be true that not everyone who says they have turned good has truly done so, it is also true that people can change. How can we be so narrow minded as to reduce a man to a single act, no matter how violent and brutal that act may have been?
I am against the death penalty 100% although I do recognize that as I have never been put in the situation of losing a loved one to a brutal crime it may be easier to make that statement. The one thing I find interesting about the death penalty is that if it is just and right why does the state insist on two or three different people pushing a button that releases the lethal injection? If it is honorable and right why is there an insistance on not knowing who exactly was responsible for the death? In any case whether there was a crime or not or it is just or not the final result is an unnatural death which is never good.
I think that our society's obsession with the death penalty comes from a deap-rooted fasination with Old Testimate judgment: an eye for an eye. Now that was a vengeful. It is also condecending that we feel that humans are able to make final judgment on another.
To Alex: You said "How can we be so narrow minded as to reduce a man to a single act, no matter how violent and brutal that act may have been?" So if Hitler where to say 'Hey guys i know i did a bad thing but I feel really bad about it and I am really sorry. I feel like I am a changed man I AM BORN AGAIN!, so can I go home now?' Some people dont deserve to be a part of our society. If we just let this man go because he claimed that he has changed then what about the family of the victim? What does that say to them? "Yeah we know you lost your family member and are really sad about it, but this guy said he was sorry and that should be enough. So we are going to let him go. Have a nice day"
Stuckey is correct. According to Virtue Ethics, you cannot designate someone to a single act. A person's "Be" is defined by many actions of "being". In fact, this man has been remorseful and shown signs of improved thinking since being imprisoned. It is very logical to say he is becoming a good man. Plain and simple, no ethical person defines another person based on one action.
Utilitarianism is based on the ultimate good, and killing an imprisoned man is not an ultimate good. It brings more controversy to society and inflicts more pain. The goal is to reduce pain. Nobody is setting him free, so don’t come yelling that it helps society by getting rid of this monster. You are the monster when you make absurd accusations like that.
Immanuel Kant bases his ethics on a basic principle. If you claim our basic principle is not to kill, how can we kill this man? Yes, our basic principle is not to kill because this man is jail for killing.
Plain and simple, you are contradicting yourself by self proclaiming to be an ethical person if you support the death penalty. It is an obvious sign of narrow mindedness and lack of virtue.
Andy, in your argument you claim in short that we can reduce a man to a single act, because if we didn't, we would have to forgive Hitler for his brutal crimes... the problem is that we are not just holding Hitler accountable for a single act of injustice, he is held responsible for the entire Holocaust. Men are not defined by their actions, but by the networks that they live every day of their life as a part of. For Hitler, killing Jews was not just a single act of his, it was seemingly one of the basic principles of his network. When we find murderers who may seem heartless, we can either agree that they are in a different network than us and send them down death row, or we can show them the benefits of the one we live in, a network of peace and mercy.
The Death Penalty is a heated and emotionally charged issue. Sometimes a cold dispationate argument can help find common ground.
It costs more to kill a person than to keep them in prison for life.
Further, let's work incrimentally. Can common ground be found concerning a temporary moratorium on killing prisoners, until we find a way to have 100% certitude of the person's guilt? Surely almost everyone can agree it is important to kill the 'right person.'
To a pro-death-penalty person (as I used to be), I propose the following argument: Why restrict the death penalty to 1st degree murder? Surely there are other crimes worthy of the punishment of death. Violent rape and child molestation, for instance. And child molestation is very similar to child pornography, so perhaps we should execute all those who possess child pornography. And statutory rape is quite similar to actual rape, so perhaps those persons ought to be executed as well.
It seems that, with but a little work, we can end up supporting the death penalty in a wide variety of cases beyond 1st degree murder. So we execute a few thousand people a year for a variety of crimes? I mean, they deserved it, right?
I found myself unable to support the death penalty in cases of statutory rape, and as such I could not support in cases of rape. Since I could not support it in cases of rape, I found myself unable to support it in cases of murder.
Further, we still define our prisons as institutions of reform (literaly, penitentiaries, places to do penance). Until we change the definition of prison, we are faced with the challenge of determining how executing a person enables them to reform.
It seems that the death penalty is severely logically inconsistant with our entire system of justice.
Chris Lushis Says:
Why continue the cycle of killing with more killing? Our criminal justice system is meant to be a method of reformation, which is why criminals are sent to prison. By killing David Woods, we would be saying that he is beyond reform. This is contradictory to scripture which offers forgiveness for any act if a true change of heart is shown. God is patient with us even when we sin against Him. He hopes that we will also be patient with others even when they do wrong. Only God has the power to take lives, as it is He who provided it, what gives any of us the power to take it away from a fellow human being.
Neumann JOnes,
When you place someone on death row to be killed, you are essentially taking away their humanity. The more you get to know someone for who they really are, as a child of God created in His image, you gradually begin to stop identifying them with terms such rapist, murderer, thief, etc.--if in fact they happen to have committed such crimes. You start to call them humans, people, neighbor, just like you have faults and have done wrong in their lives. Yes, people do commit terrible acts of violence but this is what 'reformation' is all about. God's grace falls on the just and the unjust alike; His blessings go to each and all. If we are indeed created in His image, then we should emobdy one of His greatest attributes: Mercy.
Pat K.
I think Chris puts it very well. He basically lays out what the Catholic stance should be on this subject. The theme of forgiveness and the chance for reform are two points which we should focus on, especially in this case where it is apparent that David Woods has repented and has been reformed. It's almost as if we are dismissing the success of our own system. We should be more confident in our transformation and development techniques. For those who have no hope for reform, which as Chris pointed out is impossible, we have the resources and ability to securely detain someone for life.
We always teach that revenge is not the answer. Killing a man solves no problems regardless of the circumstance. Instead of killing this man why not sentence him to life in prison with no opportunity for paroll. This is better than promoting violence and revenge.
My heart brakes everytime I hear of someone getting put to death by death penalty. It was interesting to hear that putting someone to death costs more than keeping them in prison for life and that it is a part of our taxes helping it. I almost wonder whether these people in line waiting to die would like to do: die this way or live in jail? If I ever got the chance to talk to one, it would be interesting to hear their thoughts.
To C Albany: In reference to your question, it completely depends on the person. I have personally talked to two death row inmates and both have totally different views. One is completely against the death penalty because of the humanity he sees on the row while the other thought that he deserved to be killed for everything he had done.
Today's prison system is messed up. When you commit a murder, you usually get a life sentence or two. However, if you behave properly and are "rehabilitated", then you can walk free. I think this is awful. If you murder someone, you need to rot in jail for the rest of your life. It will give you plenty of time to think about what you have done. Until our prison system is reformed, the death penalty should be used only in extreme cases where the person can be proved to be 100% guilty. Currently, this is the only way to keep murderers off of the streets.
its obvious part of the problem lies in a general lack of respect for life. often when i hear the families of people killed, they show a total hatered for the killer. they sound no better then the killer.
despite whether someone thinks the death penalty is right or wrong, i don't think it can be argued that it is in fact unnecessary. Our prison system provides enough security to ensure that a man convicted of any crime will remain in prison- a life sentence without parole. People get defensive when we say a "right to life", etc, but if you can argue the unnecessary nature of the penalty, then people might be mmore adaptive to that approach.
i think some crimes deem men or women unworthy of having a place in our society, and so the place for them would be prison. we are called to be merciful. what bothers me the most is that in indiana, for example, whenever someone is executed, the death certificate reads something to the effect of "executed by the people of indiana." we share responsibility equally, just as much as the judge who made the sentence, just as much as the two or three people who throw the switches. we can't say we didn't kill him. most of us are young enough to have not influenced the election of the current legislators who approve of the death penalty, and many of us are only students in indiana who can't vote anyway, so in this case some of us are not as culpable, but this issue of shared responsibility is something to consider for the future.
I feel that some people have a strong belief that the death penatly is wrong but in this day and age that seems to be the answer to all of our problems. well maybe not all of them, but most of them. many people feel that he should have done to him what he did to his step dad. if that is how they feel, they are going to live with that not me. the ruleing has been made, at this point there is nothing that we can do.
Well Mr. Policinski, do you not think that the families have a right to be somewhat upset about the whole situation? You think that the families should just shrug it off and move on? How can you say that the families are no better than the killer? You have no idea what it is like to have a family member taken from you. That really bugs me.
I dont think using the death penalty will solve anything. Killing someone for their immoral actions should be done rather than giving them old sparky or lethal injection. I just don't think that killing someone is not the answer.
Myself being Catholic as well, I believe the death penalty is wrong at all costs. We all make decisions that we regret in life. I think it's wrong for those who have the opportunity to stop his execution just let it go. It would be better for life in prison, because we do not have the right to play God and decide who dies and who does not.
Angela says: Hey, may I please speak for myself, I felt that grif was really getting down and that also very emotional. Well, I wanted to stop it and I guess I did and so now the hostilities are turned onto me. Well, my point is unless someone is exposed to something, there is a difference between sympathy andf empathy. Empathy I am assuming that a younger population does not have. As my people say,"...unless you walk a mile in my mocassins...you do not know what it is really like." For instance how does anyone REALLY know what a drug addict goes through unless they have been one, let's get real here!
To Angela: I think you make a good point but I think people got offended because you said, like you just did again in your post, that the entire generation does not have empathy which is not the case. If you said most young kids I don't think anyone would object but you generalized everyone in our generation. If you just said most, I would totally agree with you. Most younger people are not experienced enough to understand certain things.
I do think in come extreme instances that the death peneatly should be used, this is def. not one of them. Mr. Woods was 19 when he committed this crime, and was sentenced in 1985! what was he done sence then to show that he is a imminant threat to people, nothing.
Angela says: Hi to Robert, well I do choose to say that in my post I stated the word,"assuming" which means guessing. I pray that not anyone in our class has gone through any of these horrors. I guess it is the Mom in me I was trying to be protective. Also, I discussed this situation with adults my age and they agreed that younger adults have not seen as much as we have, or even,"stop right there, you don't need to say anymore." Today, as in other it was very emotional for a lot of us. Of course the younger generations have opinions on things/situations they have not experienced, but, I guess it is a generational thing to say learn from me, which gets passed on and on...Anyways, this turned into emotionalism and how does one know EXACTLY the emotions of others going through extreme trauma!!!
Angela says: Well, I had another class to go to so I wasn't able to finish up with my thoughts. Grif, it is a good thing that you are this involved with the situation for you obviously care a lot for people who are downtrodden in various ways. Also, it is a sad fact that we even have to discuss this issue in reality, instead of theory. It is hard for all people on all sides of the equasion, whether personally or in principle.
You can't fix murder with murder. David Wood's is a child of God and no matter what should be treated as so. The state has not right to judge someone so harshly that killing them is the best answer.
Chris Lushis says:
To Andy: in response to your post, i know im stealing a much used quote in this situation, but 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' (Gandhi). We heard one of the sons of Mr. Placencia talking to the press after the execution. He said he felt that he could finally move on with his life now. His view was that by killing another would his father's life be avenged. This isnt Hamlet, this is modern day America. It bugs me that people will go to such lengths to acheive a result equal to the one that they are protesting against. They did not want their father to die, but instead of having forgiveness and ending the reign of terror there, they continued the killing - this doesnt bother you??
Amiable post and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you for your information.
Post a Comment