New York Times
December 17, 2007
Corzine Signs Law Abolishes Death Penalty in New Jersey
By JEREMY W. PETERS
TRENTON — Gov. Jon S. Corzine
signed into law a measure repealing New Jersey’s death penalty on
Monday, making the state the first in a generation to abolish capital
punishment.
Mr. Corzine also issued an order commuting the sentences of the
eight men on New Jersey’ death row to life in prison with no
possibility of parole, ensuring that they will stay behind bars for the
rest of their lives.
In an extended and often passionate speech from his office at the
state capitol, Mr. Corzine declared an end to what he called
“state-endorsed killing,” and said that New Jersey could serve as a
model for other states.
“Today New Jersey is truly evolving,” he said. “I believe society
first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence,
and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To
these questions, I answer yes.”
[To read the rest, click here.]
[Does anyone know if any Republican governors have called for the abolition of the death penalty in the their states?]
In the current Commonweal, I review Don Browning's Equality and the Family: A Fundamental, Practical Theology of Children, Mothers, and Fathers in Modern Societies. It's only available online to subscribers, but here's an excerpt:
Browning’s theological method of cultural engagement does not signal religion’s capture of public policy, as feared by those who cry “theocracy” whenever Christian views are aired in debates about the family, marriage in particular. Instead, theology is one source by which to “create a public philosophy about marriage.” While marriage is not solely a religious institution, the covenantal and sacramental quality of its religious dimension can be one theme that helps capture marriage’s centrality to personal identity and the social order. Our public philosophy, according to Browning, must also recognize marriage as a natural institution that satisfies and directs a wide range of natural human inclinations, as a contractual institution between two consenting adults, as a social institution that contributes to the public welfare, and as a communicative relationship that requires a high degree of interpersonal skill and sensitivity. Browning helpfully broadens the public conversation by reminding us that the multifaceted role of marriage demands that we utilize a broad set of historical, religious and social scientific sources. Maintaining a rich public understanding of marriage is hard work, but abandoning the project creates a void that is quickly filled by the concept of marriage as a private contract, which itself exacts a significant personal and social cost.
