In his new encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti, @Pontifex writes that the death penalty is a "false answer" that "does not resolve the problems [it is] meant to solve" and introduces "new elements of destruction in the fabric of national and global society."
Pope Francis writes that "there can be no stepping back" from the Catholic Church's now-unequivocal stand against the death penalty. "Today we state clearly that 'the death penalty is inadmissible' and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide."
Pope Francis also makes the keen observation that "fear and resentment can easily lead to viewing punishment in a vindictive and even cruel way, rather than as part of a process of healing and reintegration into society."
Pope Francis continues: "The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe."
Writing in a personal tone, Pope Francis says: "If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences."
Appealing directly to Christians who remain hesitant about the Church's position against the death penalty, Pope Francis reminds all "to keep in mind the words of the book of Isaiah: 'They shall beat their swords into plowshares.'"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sister Helen Prejean

Sister Helen Prejean Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @helenprejean

5 Oct
The U.S. Supreme Court began a new term this morning. The Court declined to hear a case involving serious questions about prosecutorial conduct. Justice Sotomayor issued a statement reaffirming that prosecutors should be more interested in achieving justice than winning cases.
The case in question was Kaur v. Maryland. Raminder Kaur raised a question of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. The trial court ordered her attorneys to turn over everything in their files, including privileged conversations between Ms. Kaur and the attorneys.
As a result, prosecutors were able to read almost everything that Ms. Kaur had said to her attorneys in confidence as well as defense investigation reports and the defense attorneys' trial strategy plans.
Read 11 tweets
1 Oct
Gov. @GavinNewsom signed several important racial justice bills into law today. These new laws are important steps toward improving the fairness of California’s justice system and beginning to right some wrongs done under racially biased laws of the past. @CAgovernor
Last year, Gov. Newsom restored the right of formerly incarcerated people to participate in the legal process as jurors. Today, Gov. Newsom expanded the source lists used to form pools of potential jurors - now those with California IDs, registered voters, and state taxpayers.
Jury service is the community’s means of exercising a check on prosecutorial discretion and overreach. A jury’s verdict is only fair when the pool of potential jurors accurately reflects the broader community. This new law will help make that true in California.
Read 5 tweets
17 Sep
COVID-19 is creating major difficulties for lawyers working on appeals in death penalty cases. Some judges are understanding while other judges refuse to grant any extensions. One federal judge in Arizona took it to a new level in a harsh order issued earlier this month.
Senior District Judge Neil Wake admonished lawyers representing an Arizona death row prisoner for requesting more time to investigate the case due to COVID-19 restrictions. The lawyers argue that they need more time to do their jobs properly under the circumstances.
Judge Wake claims that it is acceptable to go forward with a hearing even when lawyers have not been able to communicate with their client due to prison access restrictions. Judge Wake also claims that American Bar Association guidelines for legal representation are optional.
Read 8 tweets
8 Sep
I raise my voice in fervent opposition to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast's scandalous offer of an award to Attorney General Barr for his "exemplary Christlike" behavior. I urge the group to immediately rescind their inivtation, and I urge anyone reading this to join me.
What is Christlike about a Catholic believer using his discretionary power as Attorney General to undertake a series of speedy federal executions? In contrast, those in power before him for 17 years chose not to seek death.
It has been solely at the direct command of A.G. Barr that five human lives have already been snuffed out, and two other persons—William LeCroy and Christopher Vialva—await almost certain death in a couple of weeks.
Read 7 tweets
30 Aug
Farewell Julia Reed.

In Julia Reed’s passing on August 28, 2020, we lost a force of nature, and I lost a friend, though to look at us and our different life styles, you couldn’t have two more different human beings. Image
She, hosting lavish drinking and dining parties for wealthy friends and as an accomplished journalist, on a regular basis producing laser-insightful, wickedly funny articles about Southern culture, including corrupt yet charming Southern politicians…and me, a Catholic nun.
Nor was she exactly keen to meet me or read the pre-publication manuscript of Dead Man Walking proffered her by my editor at Random House, Jason Epstein.
Read 11 tweets
26 Aug
2,000 people were called as potential jurors when Lezmond Mitchell was tried in an Arizona federal court. More than 400 of the potential jurors were Native American and 99% of them were dismissed from the jury pool. That is not a jury of Mitchell’s peers.
Potential jurors were dismissed if they only spoke Navajo even though the case involved a Navajo defendant, Navajo victims, and a crime committed on the Navajo reservation.
The judge repeatedly asked potential jurors questions like, “You’re Navajo and he’s Navajo, so can you be fair?” This is highly inappropriate. Can you imagine a judge asking if white potential jurors could be fair to a white defendant?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!