Catholic Catechism, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Respect for Human Life, Legitimate Defense:

"The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

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 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 nonexistent."68

I do not see this situation as either (a) necessary to keep Williams from killing again or (b) in any way helping him (contributing to the correction of the guilty party). It therefore is against Catholic teaching in this instance.

But the bigger issue -- whether a practicing Catholic like myself or not -- is what is the purpose of "capital punishment"? I saw Schwartzenegger (also a Catholic, although I am not sure how practicing) saying how can we be sure he repented. Others saying how he should be spared because he has reformed and is now doing good works. In my mind that is asking the wrong question -- the question needs to be for what purpose do we have capital punishment?

If the answer is to exact state-sanctioned revenge for the past action -- in other words, to punish for the crime -- then so what if he reformed? We should kill him regardless because he killed others. Reform is irrelevant.

If the purpose is to deter others, then again, what purpose does reform have? In fact, it goes against what you want to do because it gives people an "out". "Oh, I reformed. Don't kill me." If we really want to use capital punishment as deterrent, then we should whack the guy as painfully and gruesomely as possible -- hanging, burning alive, whatever. Maximum deterrent value.

Personally, I am against the death penalty because I feel that it does not deter anyone (most murders are done in the heat of the moment or when on drugs or drunk) and because it certainly does not help the victim much. And I do not buy this punishment idea much -- you cannot kill, unless you do it collectively through the state, in which case it is OK. Killing is still killing and I cannot morally justify it.

Just my thoughts.