When Anti-Catholic Discrimination Is A Good Thing

Boston bombing jury excludes some Catholics

“Potential jurors in bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s trial must be able to impose the death penalty or a life sentence with no possibility of release. That standard eliminates Catholics who heed the catechism of the Catholic Church, which says a death sentence is not to be used when “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.” Cases warranting the death penalty “are very rare, if not practically non-existent,” according to the catechism, because government has other means to keep the public safe from convicts.”

  • winniec

    Many Roman Catholics would simply disagree with their bishops on this issue. Most Christian clergy have concluded the death penalty is not a deterrent. Almost no murderers repeat due to severe remorse, except for the truly insane who have none.
    Islamopathic murderers who show no remorse are in this category of delusional homicidal ideation.

    • MannieP

      Actually, simple murderers may be among the safest people to release back into society, because the crime is usually a one-off. (I am not advocating this.) But bandits, robbers, drug dealers, and terrorists who commit murder are likely to be recidivists, because they murdered for an external reason, usually profit, but in the case or terrorists, for ideology. These are among the most dangerous of people and should be kept under the jail, if they are kept at all. I have no qualms about executing them, and would pull the lever myself.

      • Stronger Than Dirt

        Hmmm I would not fully trust the US or Canadian legal system to execute the right person either… check out the causes of wrongful convictions …

        There have been 325 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

        • The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 37 states; since 2000, there have been 258 exonerations.

        • 20 of the 325 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

        • The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.5 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,337.

        • The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.


      • Stronger Than Dirt

        I remember the scene with this poor bastard …


      • Bataviawillem

        Homicide and rape, especially of children, are committed mostly by repeat offenders (up to 80%)

    • Bert_1

      Actually, statistics have shown for decades that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. That argument has been used to eliminate capital punishment in many jurisdictions. This is not a Catholic issue.

      • DVult

        I bet it would cut down on the number of repeat offenders.

  • Stronger Than Dirt

    Alternate headline: ‘Lawyers demand right to to skew legal system to protect violent jihadists at the expense of innocent victims’

    • tom_billesley

      Representing the innocent victims won’t allow you to levy the big fat fees.

      • Stronger Than Dirt

        I not aware of any jurisdiction that tests pre-law candidates for sociopathy … not sure though

    • That’s it.

  • Tom Forsythe

    Are there 12 non-Catholics living in Boston, who don’t have criminal records?

  • DVult

    Namby pampy kumbayaed VatII catechism. Back to Trent and burn this ahole at the stake.

    • Read what the Catechism actually says.

      • DVult

        I tried but started napping off. There is a certain problem with getting to the point. Maybe I’ll do the assigned reading tomorrow.

        • DVult

          Catechism of the Council of Trent
          The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

          • The modern Catechism defends the right to exercise capital punishment if need be.

            However, this is all a digression. I think certain parties are throwing wrenches into the works to stall this trial.

            Mark my words.

          • Is a Catholic obliged to take every position put forward in the Catechism? Should the thing on the death penalty be considered merely a suggestion? I really don’t know.

            One thing I’ve always liked about Catholicism is how few things you actually have to believe.

          • It can be argued that ANY killing is wrong. However, the Catechism lays out morality based on reason and Biblical principles.

            I don’t have a problem with capital punishment. In many cases, it’s warranted. With Tsarnaev, it may give him a following.

            However, this incident is a stall, a distraction.

          • DVult

            Your right. Many Catholics would have no problem frying this guy. Maybe they should try to keep whiney ass, sissy lefties off the jury.

          • They wouldn’t.

            But as I said, this is a distraction. Next week, there will be another excuse and then another.

  • What the Church actually says:


    “2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

    If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

    Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

    Meaning: you don’t have to use the death penalty but you could.

    This restriction is nonsense and inflammatory. Quakers and Buddhists also oppose the death penalty.

    Stuff the jury with Vatican 1 Catholics and end this douchebag.

  • Mark K

    I don’t know about any one else but I see a tremendous Irony in bringing up the topic of religion in jury selection in this case. I’m catholic and would have no difficulty helping that SOB star in the Muslim version of the Bachelor, when he meets his 72 Virgins in the afterlife. HOWEVER if we are bringing religion into it????? What religion would be unfit for a jury if the case involved, Wife beating, honor killings, sexual abuse of minors, violence against Jews, or terrorism???

  • Alain

    This seems nonsense to me, since the role of jurors is to decide if the accused is guilty or not of the crime of which the person is accused. They do not decide the sentence if found guilty. That being the case being Catholic has nothing to do with it.

  • DMB

    I doubt most Catholics refer to the church on issues such as the death penalty since most use their own personal opinion on the death penalty. Same goes with birth control since most Catholics would probably admit to using some form of birth control (excluding abortion) at one time.