A society’s commitment to justice is measured by how it responds to its gravest offenses. When the most abhorrent crimes occur—acts so vile they shatter the very fabric of humanity—justice must be swift, certain, and proportionate, the essence of capital punishment. Yet, in his recent column, MSNBC editor Jarvis DeBerry criticized last night’s execution of Jessie Hoffman, who was convicted of the 1996 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 28-year-old Mary “Molly” Elliott.
While opposition to the death penalty is understandable in abstract moral debates, it falters when confronted with the gruesome reality of crimes like Hoffman’s. When someone deliberately inflicts unspeakable suffering on another human being—stripping them of their dignity, their future, and their very existence—how can the state offer anything less than the most severe punishment available?
The Crime That Stole a Life
On November 26, 1996, Jessie Hoffman abducted Mary Elliott at gunpoint from a New Orleans parking garage. Forcing her to withdraw money from an ATM, he then drove her to a secluded area in St. Tammany Parish. There, he raped her before executing her in cold blood. Elliott was not just another statistic—she was a beloved daughter, a talented advertising professional, a woman with dreams and aspirations. Her potential for a future with family, career success, and a full life was obliterated in one night of brutality.
The anguish suffered by Elliott’s family cannot be overstated. Her parents, friends, and community lost someone irreplaceable. The weight of that grief is immeasurable, and in cases like these, justice demands an equally serious response. If the death penalty is not warranted for the man who so viciously extinguished Elliott’s life, then when would it ever be?
The Purpose of Capital Punishment
Opponents of the death penalty, including DeBerry, argue that executions do not serve justice but perpetuate violence. This argument can’t recognize the foundational principles behind capital punishment.
Retributive Justice: Justice is based on the idea that punishment must be proportional to the crime. For crimes of the highest severity—such as premeditated murder with acts of extreme cruelty—there is no lesser sentence than death. The moral balance must be restored.
Deterrence: While studies on deterrence produce mixed results, common sense dictates that capital punishment serves as a warning. A would-be rapist and murderer may hesitate if they know their crime could lead to their own execution. The absence of such a consequence could embolden those considering life imprisonment an acceptable risk.
Closure for Victims’ Families: The death penalty ensures that the perpetrator of a heinous act will never harm another person again. For victims’ families, it delivers finality—an assurance that justice has been fully carried out. Life imprisonment allows the convicted to continue existing, receiving meals, medical care, and even pursuing appeals for decades while their victim’s life was violently stolen in an instant.
Prevention of Recidivism: A living criminal can escape, kill again within prison, or even be released under future policy changes. A dead criminal poses no further threat to society.
Saint John Paul II’s Perspective on the Death Penalty
Some critics invoke Saint John Paul II’s views on capital punishment, citing his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, in which he stated that cases necessitating execution should be “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” His opposition was grounded in the belief that modern society has the means to incarcerate criminals indefinitely without resorting to execution.
However, John Paul II’s stance was not an absolute rejection of the death penalty but a call for its careful consideration in a world where secure incarceration is possible. The key distinction is whether the system can ensure the safety of society while delivering justice. But when a crime is so horrific that it shatters the moral conscience of a nation, can incarceration truly account for the evil committed?
Catholic doctrine has always held that the state possesses the authority to enact capital punishment when necessary for justice and protection. Even the Vatican acknowledges that justice systems are imperfect, and sometimes execution remains a just response. The case of Jessie Hoffman—who abducted, raped, and murdered an innocent woman—is a textbook example of such a circumstance.
Who Deserves the Focus: The Murderer or the Victim?
DeBerry’s argument, like many anti-death penalty pieces, is framed around the criminal. It paints the convicted as someone worthy of mercy, ignoring the depth of suffering they have inflicted. The problem with this perspective is that it shifts focus away from the victim—the person who can no longer speak for themselves.
Where is the sympathy for Mary Elliott? Where is the discussion about what she endured in her last moments? She did not get a chance to appeal her sentence. She did not get meals, medical care, or legal representation for years. She was robbed of her entire future, and the only person responsible was Jessie Hoffman.
Justice should never prioritize the comfort of the criminal over the suffering of the victim. In an era where we acknowledge the rights of victims, it is a disgrace to suggest that someone like Hoffman deserves to live while Elliott’s voice has been permanently silenced.
A Necessary Discussion, but with the Right Priorities
Opponents of capital punishment are not wrong to question the justice system’s flaws. Wrongful convictions must be avoided at all costs, and every death sentence must be scrutinized to ensure that only the truly guilty face execution. However, in cases like Hoffman’s, where there is no doubt of guilt and the crime is exceptionally brutal, capital punishment remains a just and necessary measure.
Sometimes, society must draw a firm line in the sand. To allow a man like Hoffman to live—after committing such an unthinkable act—sends the wrong message. It diminishes the value of Elliott’s life by treating her killer with more dignity than he showed his victim.
Justice Must Be Absolute
Mary Elliott will never have the chance to grow old, raise a family, celebrate birthdays, or fulfill her dreams. A man stole that chance without regard for her humanity.
The death penalty exists for criminals like Jessie Hoffman. It is not an act of vengeance—it is an act of justice. Society cannot allow itself to be swayed by sentimentality for those who have committed the most egregious crimes while ignoring the permanent suffering they have inflicted on others.
If we refuse to carry out the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, we betray the victims, their families, and the very concept of justice itself.
For the sake of Mary Elliott and every victim like her, we must uphold the death penalty where it is warranted.
Because when justice is weakened, evil is emboldened. And society cannot afford to let its moral fabric be unraveled.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Mr Manney wrote:
By your own statement, you have upended your argument. Jesse Hoffman was convicted and sentenced to death on September 11, 1998; he was executed on March 18, 2025. 26 years, 6 months, and 7 days following sentencing can in no way meet any standard of ‘swift justice.’
Does common sense always tell us the truth? How many people do you know who would be terrified of execution would also consider life imprisonment an acceptable risk?
People commit crimes because they don’t believe that they’ll be caught at all, or because they are simply not thinking at all. It’s not that I believe that I would only get a life sentence that I don’t murder someone; I wouldn’t if I thought I’d only get thirty days! Virtually all of our violent crimes carry sentences — at least in places which don’t have a liberal, ‘social justice’ prosecutor — which are far worse than any ‘good result’ that the criminals might feel; criminals who are not deterred are not deterred because they believe that they’ll get away with it, if they are thinking at all.
If we took the condemned man straight from the courtroom to be hanged from an oak tree, and did so in plain public view, it’s at least arguable that it would have a deterrent effect, but we don’t do that. There are dozens of guaranteed appeals, the thing which dragged out Mr Hoffman’s execution for over 26 years.
The death penalty is hideously expensive, far more than life without parole, due to the enormous costs of the appeals which the condemned get. Locking them up and throwing away the key is far less expensive.
And a simpler point: if you contend that Mary Elliot received justice only because her murderer was executed, does this mean that you believe that every murderer who is sentenced to life in prison without parole has somehow escaped justice?
First, thank you for commenting.
One quick answer to your comments… the fact it takes decades to dispense justice is more about our judicial system. If the bad guys think they’ll get free three hots and a cot for life at our expense, which is as you say, is definitely NOT free, other than their own sense of right and wrong, what’s stopping them?
In some states, it makes a great retirement plan, eh? There’s no justice there.
You tell me, what is justice?
Perhaps it’s just me, but somehow I can’t imagine that anyone thinks “they’ll get free three hots and a cot for life at our expense” is a good trade for being locked up in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.
Actually, it really is “their own sense of right and wrong,” and what’s good for them for their lives, which keeps most people from committing crimes. I’m certain that we agree that there are some people with a very warped sense of what is right and wrong, but they also don’t want to get caught. I’m sure we both agree that there are some people who are just plain stupid. But once you have someone incarcerated, and completely helpless to prevent his own execution, there is no longer any need to execute them.
The punishment will never truly fit the crime. If a thug deliberately sets a person on fire, and that person suffers for two weeks before he finally dies from his wounds, does putting his killer to sleep like an unwanted puppy actually equal the torture he inflicted? We both know it does not, but we also both know that we won’t execute that criminal by burning him at the stake.
I didn’t mean to infer that a piece of junk would think, ‘hey, I want to retire, so I’ll kill someone.” My point was to say that knowing that life in prison is the worst that could happen, that nanosecond before making that fatal move, their conscience isn’t going to stop them. Instead, with such a lackadaisical sentence that life gives them, they don’t hesitate.
IMO, on this earth, the closest we can come to allowing the victim to dispense the justice due is to give their family 30 minutes alone in the room with the convicted. That’s on this level of existence. The real justice occurs the moment the scum dies.