Over 300 prisoners in Italy think so, the BBC reports today.
Convicted mobster, Carmelo Musumeci, 52, who has served 17 years of his life sentence so far, wrote a letter to Italy’s President Napolitano signed by over 300 other lifers asking that their life sentences be changed to death sentences.
Musumeci said he was tired of dying a little bit every day. […]
He has passed his high school exams and now has a degree in law. But his sentence, he says, has transformed the light into shadows.
He told the president his future was the same as his past, killing the present and removing every hope.
Of course, one communist senator wants to go the other direction and abolish life sentences, replacing them with 30-year maximum sentences. I wonder how the inmates’ victims feel about that. And how long will it be before a 30-year sentence is considered too cruel? Talk about your slippery slope! Pretty soon, the whole system of law enforcement will be dismantled.
If he wants the death penalty so badly, why doesn’t he just commit suicide?
I’ve always felt in my heart that a life sentence would be a worse fate than death.
I think it’s just a ploy to get released. I don’t think this guy really want to be executed.
Italians are rather dramatic by nature (and I am one and have been there) so this sounds to me like an Italian kinda thing to do. Although, if he’s Catholic, what are the ramifications? Suicide is technically a sin. But if he’s in jail, you figure he’s already a sinner. Not this up on my theology. Eyebrows, any comments?
Also, in the US anyway, isn’t it pretty much common knowledge that death penalty cases cost far more in tax payer dollars than life sentences, what with the mandatory appeals and all? This may be different in Italy, but maybe we could save some money by giving criminals a choice? You can go through the mandatory appeals or you can just choose execution?
One reason for life sentences is that they ARE harder on the criminal than a death sentence in most cases. (Another as cgiselle pointed out is that the death penalty costs a ridiculous amount of money. One state just did a study that showed that for the cost of what they were paying to administer their death penalty system every year, which was a pretty small one, they could hire an additional FIFTY cops statewide.)
But the best reason for life sentences is that victim’s families statistically do much, MUCH better with life sentences than with death sentences. Once the immediate desire for vengeance passes, the family is left with unanswered questions that are now unanswerable because the perp is dead. The death penalty seems to IMPEDE closure, because it takes away the only avenue families have to find closure (which is the criminal). Most also find it more psychologically satisfying to know the criminal continues to suffer every day instead of getting an “easy way out” through death. (Victim family suicides also tend to be higher after the death penalty is carried out than when a life-in-prison sentence is given.)
CJ: “And how long will it be before a 30-year sentence is considered too cruel? … Pretty soon, the whole system of law enforcement will be dismantled.”
This may not be what you’re suggesting, but it troubles me. Since Christianity fundamentally believes in the idea that a person can be redeemed — can CHANGE — are you suggesting that once someone is a criminal they’re irredeemable and we ought not be concerned about cruelty towards them? I mean, prison IS cruel — it’s why we send criminals there — and visiting the imprisoned and ministering them is a corporeal act of mercy. (Matthew 25:35-36)
Would not redemption, rehabilitation, mercy, be better than cruelty and punishment? Shouldn’t we as Christians be seeking THAT answer rather than worrying about whether we’re being adequately cruel?
Eyebrows, I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Thus, I believe that murderers should be executed. I believe society has a right to be protected from those people who would seek to harm innocent people, and that’s why we have prisons — not to be cruel to criminals, as you said.
From a Christian perspective, I believe that “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” (Gen. 9:6) I don’t believe we should be cruel to prisoners, nor was I “worrying about whether we’re being adequately cruel” in my post. I was mocking the lunacy of considering any form of punishment for heinous crimes “too cruel” — to the point that we simply don’t punish anyone for anything in any way, which would be total anarchy.
I understand your Kantian point of view, but “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell youoffer no resistance to one who is evil. Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Mat. 5:38-39. I don’t mean to offend you with this, but I simply (and quite deeply) don’t believe a Kantian eye-for-an-eye ethic is compatible with a Gospel-based Christianity.
However, society obviously cannot just let criminals run around free.
Which is perhaps why Stanley Hauerwas thinks all we Christians out to get out of the business of secular law & justice entirely: “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? … But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.” (1 Cor 6:1-7)
So, Eyebrows, are you saying that 1 Cor 6:1-7 tells us that anyone who enters into a lawsuit CANNOT be a good Christian? What does that say about all lawyers?
😉
As for the death penalty, I have no problem with anyone who is absolutely 100 percent guilty of certain crimes being put to death. I just don’t trust any politician (and judges and state’s attorneys ARE politicians) or anyone too dumb to get out of jury duty with deciding whether someone ought to die or not.
No doubt most of those sent to the gallows deserve it, but then there’s that other 1 percent. Mabey even higher.
Eyebrows: No offense taken. I hope you won’t be offended when I say that your argument is a straw man. I never said I adhered to a “Kantian eye-for-an-eye ethic” — you just inferred that. My view is based on a grammatico-historical method of biblical hermeneutics. What Christ was referring to in the passage you quoted was the Mosaic Law (cf. Ex. 21:24). The verse I quoted from Genesis was spoken at the time of the Noahic Covenant, which was an unconditional covenant and is still very much in force.
You say, “However, society obviously cannot just let criminals run around free.” But why not? If one were consistent with your interpretation of Jesus’s words, one would have to conclude that we must indeed “let criminals run around free.” To do anything less would be to resist the one who is evil, right?
I don’t think Hauerwas’s argument (as you’ve presented it) adequately resolves the matter. It amounts to nothing more than a change of venue. The text of the 1 Corinthians passage makes it clear that there is still a judgment taking place — the only difference is that it takes place within the household of faith rather than in front of unbelievers. Furthermore, the passage is clearly speaking of civil lawsuits, not criminal cases.