This week Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a bill abolishing the death penalty in Illinois. His primary concern with the state’s system for capital punishment was possible error. “If the system can’t be guaranteed, 100-percent error-free, then we shouldn’t have the system. It cannot stand.” The next day, Ohio executed a convicted murder using a new, single-drug system similar to that used to euthanize animals.
The death penalty invokes strong reactions from people on both sides of the issue. Some liken it to state-sanctioned murder. Others call it justice. The late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin headed the conference that drafted the church’s “Seamless Garment” document, which claimed that capital punishment was inconsistent with an atmosphere of respect for life.
But does being pro-capital punishment inherently make one not pro-life? I, for one, happen to believe not. I’ve wrestled with the issue for years—I did a college independent study on Cardinal Bernardin’s work in 1985—and have come to the conclusion that, in the end, being in favor of capital punishment is itself pro-life—in theory. Please bear with me as I lay out my reasoning:
Many opponents of capital punishment cite the Sixth Commandment as prohibiting the death penalty, quoting it as, “You shall not kill.” But if that’s what it really says, then God would contradict himself, since there are many places throughout Scripture where His people are ordered to kill. In fact, the better translation is, “You shall not murder.” And the difference between kill and murder is key to the discussion. Killing can be justified for a number of reasons, including self-defense or just war. Murder can never be justified because it is, by definition, the unjust taking of an innocent human life.
The distinction is important, because we are beings with the ability to reason morally. We never accuse animals of murder, even if they kill a human, because we recognize that animals do not have this ability. (We might still kill the animal after the fact, but that’s done for practical reasons, not moral. We’re protecting ourselves from an animal that has tasted human blood and might want more; we’re not “punishing” the animal.)
A better, more definitive passage in Scripture dealing with the death penalty is Genesis 9:6:
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.”
Note that this is the only command in Scripture that is predicated on the fact that man is created in God’s image. Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser explains:
It was because humans are made in the image of God that capital punishment for first degree murder became a perpetual obligation. To kill a person was tantamount to killing God in effigy. That murderer’s life was owed to God; not to society, not to the grieving loved ones, and not even as a preventative measure for more crimes of a similar nature.
In effect, the death penalty is pro-life because it affirms the value of the life of the victim, a being created in God’s image, and because it also affirms the value of the murderer as a human with free moral agency. (See also Genesis 9:5.) That’s why we make exceptions for people who might not have been able to exercise such agency, e.g., the mentally retarded or children. So heinous is the crime of murdering a being created in God’s image that only one punishment will do: death. A life for a life.
Objection: Doesn’t God say it is His place to avenge?
Yes, but when it comes to the above passage in Genesis, it’s clear that the punishment for murder is not to be some future act by God; it is to be carried out by man (“by man shall his blood be shed,” my emphasis). The command in Genesis 9:6 is part of the Noahic Covenant, which is still binding on all mankind. The principle is carried through to the New Testament, which makes it clear that the duty to punish evildoers lies with the state, not individuals. Romans 13:3-4 precludes any appeal to personal vengeance or vigilantism. But the sword of this passage is an instrument of death, not just of governmental power.
Objection: The death penalty doesn’t deter.
Well, yes and no. It doesn’t deter crime in the sense that some people will continue to murder, often in the heat of the moment. Indeed, in 18th century England the punishment for pickpockets was to be hanged. So who did we find working the crowds at the public hanging? Pickpockets. But in another sense, it does deter in that the executed murderer will not be around to murder someone else. (Check out how many times people in prison are murdered, or paroled murderers kill again.)
But the more pertinent response to that objection is, so what? Prison doesn’t deter drug dealing, car theft, or any number of other things, yet we see no one advocating that we do away with prison. More important, you punish people for one reason and one reason only: Because they deserve it. Of course, if deterrence should come about, it’s only a beneficial side effect; it should never be the primary purpose.
It’s the principle of retributive justice, which is part of God’s nature. It’s a natural response to wrongdoing. We see God’s anger burn against injustice, and we, too, have an instinctive reaction to injustice, particularly murder. We’re made in God’s image and share that attribute. Of course, as sinful humans our response might be expressed in a wrong way, but just as anger in and of itself is not sinful, the instinct for retributive justice is also not in and of itself sinful.
Objection: But there were a lot of things in the Old Testament that required the death penalty, including kidnapping, adultery and homosexual acts.
Yes, but with the exception of first-degree murder, every one of these punishments allowed for a form of substitutionary payment or commutation, and as Christians we say that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law and was our substitutionary payment. But the Noahic Covenant is still operative, and Romans 13 makes clear that the state still carries the sword—an instrument of death.
Objection: But shouldn’t we forgive those who do wrong against us?
Certainly. There are instances of people forgiving a killer, and that’s admirable. But just as the state forbids capital punishment to individuals, the power of forgiveness does not rest solely with the individual. The state has a duty to punish wrongdoers. I could personally forgive the man who, say, stole my car, but nobody would then advocate letting him out of jail for that reason.
Objection: But we know that innocent men have been freed from death row because later DNA evidence has exonerated them.
Yes, and this is the strongest objection of all, the one that Gov. Quinn cites most prominently. And it’s why I think capital punishment should be applied very carefully. I believe the principle behind the death penalty is strong, just, and ultimately pro-life, but I also believe that because we are fallible, we should be extremely careful in its application. We should always err on the side of life. But I also believe that when the guilt of the accused is without doubt, it is an abomination that he is allowed to live. There’s something wrong with the fact that Charles Manson remains alive, supported by the taxpayers of California, while his victims have been moldering in their graves for 40 years now. It would be an abomination if John Wayne Gacy, who seduced and murdered 33 young boys, were allowed to live when the deliberate and cold-blooded nature of his crimes was proven.
In short, it is out of my deep respect for human life, created in God’s image, that I think the only just punishment for a cold-blooded murder is that that life be avenged as God commands. But being human and fallible, I urge the greatest caution and certainty before doing so.
March 11th, 2011 | 10:35 am
I too, used to feel this way, but I have changed my mind on the issue, and here is why:
All of the things you mentioned about the Old Testament are true. Sin was to be met with justice, an eye for an eye. If you killed someone’s ox, you had to make reparation for that. If you murdered someone, you were stoned. If you defiled the holy of holies, you were stoned. The Old Covenant required strict justice. The way to kill sin was to kill the sinner.
But we do not live under strict justice anymore. Jesus has clearly emphasized that we are NOT to live eye for an eye any longer. Forgiveness isn’t optional. When we pray the Our Father, we acknowledge that God will forgive us as we have forgiven others. We now live in an age of superabundant grace. We live in an age where to kill sin, we kill sin, not the sinner.
While Scripture does grant authority to nations and governments, Jesus also states that we render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Life belongs to God, not to Caesar. No government has the right to take someone’s life, no matter the crime. Only under extreme circumstances is such an action permissible, and in a nation as advanced as the United States, I cannot think of a single instance where it would be permissible.
We have the superabundant power to deal with sin on a much higher level than the adherents of the Old Covenant did. If we start taking strict justice into our own hands again, then Jesus Christ become irrelevant.
March 11th, 2011 | 10:41 am
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml
“It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent. (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995)”
March 11th, 2011 | 10:54 am
Being pro-life, I have wrestled with this for years. I felt that the most restricted use of the death penalty should be allowed but I could never justify it to my own satisfaction. Mr Neven has shown me a way to do that. I will still have to think on this but he has given me something new to ponder. Thank you.
March 11th, 2011 | 10:54 am
Catholics who support Capital Punishment need not fear that they are not in accord with the traditional teaching of the Catholic Faith. To support capital punishment is to be nothing less than authentically Catholic.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church does not now, and never has, advocated abolition of the death penalty. It has always recognized the necessity of capital punishment. There is no official statement from any pope, whether in the past or in the present, that claims that capital punishment is a moral evil or denies that the State has the right to execute murderers. No passage in the Old or New Testament disapproves of the death penalty and many passages promote it’s use.
Capital punishment has a strong claim to being morally obligatory for those who wish to protect life. The Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church are virtually unanimous in their support.
March 11th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Jacob W Torbeck
So the church’s reasoning on this is utilitarian and not moral, right?
March 11th, 2011 | 11:37 am
Norm,
I’m kinda with you, but kinda not. As one who finds himself on the fence with this issue (and I hate fence sitting) Tom’s argument isn’t that the death penalty should be legal to “kill the sinner”, as you say, in order to kill the sin. He’s making an argument from what justice demands and for your point to be a good counter to his I think you’d have to claim that Jesus’ coming stripped justice of clear meaning. Also, at the end you appear to be arguing against “taking strict justice into our hands” which is again not what Tom’s arguing much less that we are indeed taking it into “our” hands at all when the state is the actor dishing out the penalty. Whether or not he’s ultimately right, it is of absolute importance that we retain the ability to make and recognize such distinctions.
March 11th, 2011 | 11:57 am
When my young daughter claimed I was a hypocrite because I opposed bullfighting, yet ate steak, I explained I was opposed to bullfighting not for what it did to the bull, but for what it did to us. I see the death penalty in a similar light. While the death penalty may morally permissible, it doesn’t seem like social policy which will elevate us morally.
Invoking Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy undermines your argument. It’s an emotional appeal to our base nature and our thirst for vengeance, and worse works against our higher nature and our God-given potential to love those who deserve it the least.
March 11th, 2011 | 12:00 pm
I have to admit that I am very uneasy on this position. While everybody has very strong and opinionated positions on the death penalty, I am kind of very uneasy on it. Having said that, I have concluded couple of years ago, that after all, I am reluctantly against it. Two things were too important for me:
a) One is obviously a possibility of mistake. I was listening once to then governor of Illinois George Ryan (sure himself not being the biggest moral authority) and when he explained how half of the people ready to be executed were found non-guilty and released from jail, I was overwhelmed. Later, when you read criminology literature on the quality of investigation of cases leading to the death sentence is notoriously lower than other investigation (which is not 100% error-free either). So although I may reluctantly agree with death sentence for John Wayne Gacy (reluctantly because of the following reason; and reluctantly also because he was very obviously sick and although he might not be insane in the criminal law sense of the word, I just don’t believe he was really mentally healthy), so although I may have agree with his execution, I would be against the death sentence as such for scores of people who were killed innocent.
b) The second reason is that as Christian I should always in my opinion leave an opportunity for penitence. Again, some (like apparently John Wayne Gacy again) didn’t use this opportunity, but there are scores of people who thought to be outside of realm of grace, who turn to the better side. And I don’t mean easy cases like Charles Colson (who was never sentenced to death in the first place), but there are cases of high-level Nazi criminals who were penitent and whose death sentence would prevent them.
It seems to me that God in Bible clearly shows his preference for penitence over punishment (just from the top of my head story of Sodoma & Gomora and heavens celebrating over one penitent more than over hundreds of righteous). Shouldn’t we join the celebration and working as hard as possible that there would be more not less of these?
Examples come to my mind from the Bible when God very clearly presented his preference of letting
March 11th, 2011 | 12:02 pm
Jim F. I see the death penalty in a similar light.
How does doing what God commands debase us as humans?
I always get a bit uncomfortable when we try to argue that ignoring what God says to do is the more “humane” action.
March 11th, 2011 | 1:45 pm
I believe that the death penalty is a just punishment for first degree murder. But I do not think that the state of the justice system in our country is fair enough to be trusted to do the right thing.
The OT system of judicial decisions required two eyewitnesses to concur on the guilt of the accused. If that were required for imposition of the death penalty, we might be assured that an innocent person were not being wrongly executed.
March 11th, 2011 | 1:49 pm
Dear Joe Carter: That’s because God used to be in favor of justice, but then Jesus came, and so now the Lord and His followers are no longer in favor of justice. Or something like that.
March 11th, 2011 | 1:49 pm
I have had mixed feelings on this for awhile as a prolife Catholic. However, have always felt we as a country have a right to equal justice under the law and that for the safety of humanity those who intentionally murder another must be executed. Also this from the Catholic Church explains when and why capital punishment is just:
Catholic Church doesn’t exclude recourse to death penalty,if only possible way of defending human lives against unjust aggressor. http://bit.ly/fUnl7N
March 11th, 2011 | 2:05 pm
Patty
Same question I had for Jacob W Torbeck.
So the church’s reasoning on this is utilitarian and not moral, right?
When I read Scripture on the subject, it’s always in absolute terms, never utilitarian. Deontology, not teleology.
March 11th, 2011 | 2:09 pm
This makes me sad, similar to Catholics who approve of torture in order to “find the bomb” and save lives.
If you’re pro-life then you’re pro-life… from conception to natural death. Seems like we’re trying to argue ourselves into believing something our hearts know is wrong. Isn’t this what all the intellectual secularists do?
Sometimes killing someone may be necessary in self defense etc, but state sponsored execution is not necessary, it’s just vengeance. We can house them in prisons and, yes it’s true, we can afford to pay for it.
“There’s something wrong with the fact that Charles Manson remains alive, supported by the taxpayers of California, while his victims have been moldering in their graves for 40 years now.”
Yes I agree there is something wrong with that. If we all “got what we deserve” He would shut it all down NOW since we don’t deserve or merit anything. We’re all sinners and he loves all of us, child rapists included. Love your enemies remember?
Sometimes people seem more American than Catholic to me, especially if you’re more concerned about taxes than a life? Sad.
Blessed lent to all. Immaculate heart of Mary, cause of our joy, Pray for Us!
March 11th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
Isn’t it the ignoring of 2,500 years of Bible and Church TEACHING and instead relying on contemporary OPINIONS of the last 40 years that has coarsened our culture?
—–
… those ideologically driven to ferret out and proclaim a mistaken modern execution have not a single verifiable case to point to, whereas it is easy as pie to identify plainly guilty murderers who have been set free. — Justice Antonin Scalia, First Things Magazine, May 2002.
March 11th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
b) The second reason is that as Christian I should always in my opinion leave an opportunity for penitence.
I’ve never really understood this argument. Is the theory that a man condemned to spend a lifetime in prison is more likely to feel penitence than a man condemned to spend a few years in prison awaiting his immanent and expected death? What is the basis for this presumption?
Perhaps it might be the case that the imposition of the death penalty itself is more likely to prompt a guilty man to penitence.
Or perhaps such penitence only comes about as a result of grace independent of any human action, so it is meaningless to talk of greater or lesser probabilities of it. A murderer will either repent or not, and there is nothing in his outside circumstances that can affect it one way or another.
But in either case, it would be quite presumptuous to assume that life imprisonment is more likely to facilitate penitence than execution is.
March 11th, 2011 | 2:51 pm
to norm,
why is it impossible to forgive and to punish at the same time? why is it impossible to love and to punish at the same time? to echo c. s. lewis, we may punish, but we must never enjoy it.
so i agree with the author. and here’s another reason: the repentant thief of the cross admits he deserves death; moreover, according to jesus, he is about to enter paradise. i suppose someone as holy as the thief could be wrong about justice, but i doubt it.
March 11th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
Aren’t we all forgetting about Christ in this? There’s been a lot of talk about what is, and is not, permissible for the state to do. That’s all well and good, a very interesting political debate. However, Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners. I think it is an un-Christian act to deny people, no matter how heinous their crime, the possibility of receiving the grace of God by cutting short their life. The rebuttal to this would be the victims were not given the same opportunity. This is most certainly true; however, as I said it is an un-Christian act to deny redemption by killing them. The murder itself shows an obvious lack of charity on the part of the murderer. Doesn’t it show the same lack of charity on the part of the people who are complacent or actively support the killing of people by their government?
March 11th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
Dear Buzz: I would say that the death penalty may be rightfully imposed for certain wrongful actions.
However, one may judge in absolutist terms the MORAL rightness or wrongness of the action, and still discuss prudentially what the best LEGAL punishment for that action might be.
I think this is what some in the Church are getting at; they are not judging in utilitarian fashion the rightness or wrongness of the initial action itself, nor even of the death penalty itself, but rather of the imposition of that penalty in our current legal / societal situation. I think they are a bit too cautious in their prudential judgments, but I do not think of their caution as utilitarian.
March 11th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
[...] here. Good stuff. No Comments » Filed under: We transcend your bourgeois categories | No Tag No [...]
March 11th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
I don’t really see why the confusion. Pro-life in terms of abortion is not “lets not kill anything” but “We are killing 100% innocents for reasons mostly about convenience.”
To make pro-life mean “no killing at all even when morally justified” would mean no pro-lifer could ever support war, or eat meat. It’s a problem with the labelling, and I’d prefer anti-abortion rather than pro-life, because abortion is the main issue.
March 11th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
Tom’s post makes some interesting and serious arguments that I’m sure I’ll be thinking about for a long time. One thing that weighs on my mind, though, is the fact that Jesus himself was a victim of an unjust execution. Perhaps our system of capital punishment today is much better than Caesar’s, but this fact will probably always give me a great deal of pause about ever endorsing capital punishment.
March 11th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
I personally just find it bizarre to kill someone who is already confined.
Maybe we could let them escape and then blow their brains out? ;) Justice served! (Sarcasm.)
I mean wouldn’t the justice thing to do is walk down death row with a shotgun and kill all the ones we see fit and be done with the waiting? It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Luckily the guy pulling the trigger will know he’s serving up justice.
Wouldn’t that be a rewarding job? I see how this is no different than one who pulls the switch or the one who injects the poison. No job I want anything part of.
March 11th, 2011 | 5:59 pm
[...] Franciscan Abroad"};Tom Neven argues at First Thoughts that capital punishment is ultimately pro-life. His argument rests on Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13. [...]
March 11th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
Dear Jarrett Cooper: You are correct in that the time spent waiting on death row is much, much too long (blame the lawyers). So you see–we do have an area of agreement.
March 11th, 2011 | 6:25 pm
The death penalty as pro life
First, the “pro life” term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.
Secondly, in the context of the facts, yes, of course you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradicition.
All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.
Whether is be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.
How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can’t.
In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit.
Deterrence
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
We have great care for innocents
In at least three ways, innocents are more protected with the death penalty, than with lesser sanctions. Another pro life consideration.
“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:
“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A
The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when it is wrongly taken away, the highest form of sanction is provided.
As in:
Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, “Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics” By John Murray, 1991 (first published 1957) by Wm. B. Eerdmans http://tiny.cc/4SFBY
“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
“Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
Other issues:
“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx
“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution–very-distinct-moral-differences–new-mexico.aspx
“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx
March 11th, 2011 | 6:42 pm
We might also remember God’s dealing with the first murderer. The death penalty comes after the violent earth is cleansed by the flood.
Genesis 9:6:
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.”
The commandment for the death penalty is further explained at the conclusion of Numbers: “…Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34 Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.”
Blood atonement can only be demanded when we forget that the final and Perfect Atonement has been made by the One who was the fulfillment of the Law.
We might also note how careful the OT law was to prevent mistakes:
“‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.”
March 11th, 2011 | 9:11 pm
The only capital punishment proponents I can find credible are those who openly embrace the consequent necessity (given the reality of original sin and fallen human nature – this is where Christians have to be very aware) of the risk that they or their loved ones may be executed unjustly. And not merely for the sake of argument. This credibility is not established on the impersonal medium of the Internet but in person, one-on-one discussions. In practice, I find most people back off when they grapple with that risk (especially when it comes to their loved ones – people are far braver about themselves than their loved ones when it comes to driving a principled argument to its logical conclusion).
March 11th, 2011 | 9:51 pm
The best way to understand the Catechism (2267) on this topic is that: “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.” (Cardinal Dulles)
The Church has always recognized the justness of capital punishment: “The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.” (Catechism of Trent)
Nor is the argument valid that it prevents a sinner from atoning for his sin: “Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications.” (Amerio Romano – peritas, Vatican II)
God’s command given in Genesis 9:6 is still in place: “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (CCC 2260)
March 11th, 2011 | 10:28 pm
“While Scripture does grant authority to nations and governments, Jesus also states that we render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Life belongs to God, not to Caesar. No government has the right to take someone’s life, no matter the crime. Only under extreme circumstances is such an action permissible, and in a nation as advanced as the United States, I cannot think of a single instance where it would be permissible.” “Advanced” is not the word to describe a nation which has sanctioned the murder of millions of unborn children. Perhaps this is the same reasoning that leads one to become a pacifist. I’ve never heard of a nation of pacifists that survived aggression.
March 12th, 2011 | 3:44 am
I find it difficult to argue that capital punishment is never justified. It may be the only means to forestall or repress a coup d’état or a widespread popular rebellion, to maintain discipline in an army in the field or to keep order in a beleaguered city.
For the rest, I believe that “Free countries are those in which the rights of man are respected, and where, consequently, the laws are just. Where they offend humanity by an excess of rigor, it is a proof that there the dignity of man is not known and that the dignity of the citizen does not exist. It is a proof that the legislator is but a master who commands slaves and punishes them mercilessly according to his whim. I conclude from this that the death penalty ought to be abrogated.” [From the address of Maximilllien Robespierre to the Constituent Assembly, 30 May 30, 1791]
March 12th, 2011 | 6:02 am
The New Testament support for the death penalty is overwhelming. Only quite recently have we seen Chritian leaders challenging the biblical and theological support for it.
“If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millenia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture.” -Avery Cardinal Dulles
“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity.” “The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.” “Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” “Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching.” R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., Canon Lawyer, from “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003 http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
March 12th, 2011 | 7:14 am
I find I must reluctantly concur with those who oppose the death penalty.
One of the key concerns that always comes to my mind is this: If you declare that someone must be executed because of a heinous nature of the crime(s) committed, you must, for legal purposes, define what “heinous crime” means. Will it be the number of people killed? The means of killing them? The reason for killing them?
Every time we define these questions for law, we raise the specter of a criminal discerning what’s legally “allowed” or “required”, then killing people, but not to the extent the law requires to allow for the criminal themself to be executed, should the criminal be caught and convicted.
For example, does Charles Starkweather’s murder of some 50(?) people in or near Nebraska count as bad enough? What if someone else only killed 32?
Or, if Manson’s actions weren’t bad enough, what else might he have done to warrant being executed?
Seems to me that while the case FOR capital punishment strikes a deep chord within ME, the consequences of following that view lead all too readily toward a slippery slope of tolerated evil, or perhaps as much, a lack of insistence upon virtue.
I’m no more fond of the fame that Manson and others have earned, but I think it worth noting that, some of our more famous inmates have become so in part because media have made their cases known over the years and/or these prisoners have been allowed to “tell their stories” in one way or another. ..And too many in this nation have been willing to listen….
Seems to me the best answer might be to abolish the death penalty in each State as a general rule, but allow for EXTREMELY rare executions ONLY at the allowance of the State’s governor after consultation with appropriate authorities.
This would be different from the present system because, where a State allows death, but a governor may commute that part, in this case, the penal system itself would need to make a particular case to the governor to be allowed to execute someone.
Perhaps not a huge improvement, but one I think would be worthwhile.
March 12th, 2011 | 7:16 am
Mr. Bergeron:
Your comments are in direct contradicition to the teachings:
St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4. (Aquinas ST II/II 158 1 ad 3)
This is what the Church teaches: “the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment” as well as “Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments.” (Aquinas ST I/II 87,6; 87, 3 ad 1)
Pope Innocent I: “It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Romans 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495
Saint Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: “if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die.” Acts 25:11.
St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states,” The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146
Avery Cardinal Dulles (2006) “Recent popes, Dulles conceded, beginning with John XXIIII, seem to have taken quasi-abolitionist positions on both matters (just war and the death penalty). Yet used sparingly and with safeguards to protect the interests of justice, Dulles argued, both the death penalty and war have, over the centuries, been recognized by the church as legitimate, sometimes even obligatory, exercises of state power. The momentum of “internal solidification,” he said, may lead to some reconsideration of these social teachings.” “An unpublished interview with Avery Dulles”, All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr., NCRcafe.org, Posted on Dec 19, 2008, http://ncrcafe.org/node/2340
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. 1998: “There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.”"Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” “Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” “Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998 http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm
many more
March 12th, 2011 | 7:59 am
God’s first response to the sin of Adam?
The promise of the Christ.
God’s first response to Cain’s murder of Abel?
Divine protection of Cain.
Pattern here?
March 12th, 2011 | 8:14 am
Our Holy Father stated that a Catholic may support the death penalty (even though he clearly doesnt like it) and he said that it is different from abortion, which a Catholic may NOT support Read this:
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
March 12th, 2011 | 8:55 am
While many of the Bibles quote the words “Thou shalt not kill”, the original Hebrew words are “Not shall you murder”. That is, the shedding of innocent blood.
There is a difference between the killing of an innocent, unborn child, and a convicted criminal.
Jesus refereed to the punishment of those who curse their parents, as well as commenting about those who give scandal to the little ones. He also refers to those who remove one letter of the law, not the handed down opinions & traditions, in no uncertain terms.
While the late Pope may have has his opinion, they were only his opinion.
March 12th, 2011 | 9:23 am
I agree with the article. The thief on the right (New Testament) affirms the validity of capital punishment as he hangs from the cross, and that was just for theft. Also, in his Constitution Horrendum Illud Scelus, Pope Pius V calls for homosexually active priests to be deprived of their clerical privileges, and to be handed over to the secular authority “To be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.” Pope Pius V is a cannonized saint in heaven. That goes a long way in saying capital punishment is a valid and moral action in dealing with grave offences.
March 12th, 2011 | 9:59 am
[...] Is Capital Punishment Pro-Life? [...]
March 12th, 2011 | 10:44 am
“Advanced” in this sense refers not to morals but to the material ability to incarcerate for life on the scale necessary.
March 12th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
A wonderful article by Tom Neven.
I now oppose the death penalty because of the egregious and often criminal incompetence of prosecutors in states like Illinois and Oklahoma. Let them start killing people and they’ll kill everyone but the real perps. Yet that doesn’t mean some people don’t deserve (“need”) killing.
But I also wonder if abolition of the death penalty isn’t in a way ominous. Most scholastics would say the State is a “natural” institution with a legitimate role. That may be generally so in a real civilization. Yet there’s another side to the State: it is an apparatus of pure power. It needs the death penalty as a way to consolidate its hold. When the State start conceding it doesn’t need the death penalty any more, isn’t it because it already had total control over us?
March 12th, 2011 | 5:27 pm
I am still not completely sure of my own views, although in my heart I am completely and strongly against capital punishment, though I’m still trying to solidify my reasoning. John’s argument is the one that gives me most pause, so far:
“One of the key concerns that always comes to my mind is this: If you declare that someone must be executed because of a heinous nature of the crime(s) committed, you must, for legal purposes, define what “heinous crime” means. Will it be the number of people killed? The means of killing them? The reason for killing them?
Every time we define these questions for law, we raise the specter of a criminal discerning what’s legally “allowed” or “required”, then killing people, but not to the extent the law requires to allow for the criminal themself to be executed, should the criminal be caught and convicted.”
So if you follow the logic of this argument to its natural end, couldn’t you say that abortionists commit some of the most heinous crimes possible? After all, a single abortion provider may murder up to thousands of innocent babies. So doesn’t he deserve to die? If not for the purpose of retribution, at least as a protective measure against the future children he will be killing.
And yet, I would never suggest that it is our position, as individuals or as a society, to sanction the death of abortion providers. It goes against everything I know and believe of Christ’s mercy and forgiveness.
Yet is is okay to sanction the death of certain other murders, for killing already-born people? Maybe because these murders know what they are doing, whereas abortionists really don’t? hmm. Just kind of thinking out loud, here.
March 12th, 2011 | 6:00 pm
Michael PS
Surely you did not cite Robespierre as a credible source against capital punishment.
Do you not know anything about The Reign of Terror, or did you just pull this out of some quote mill?
March 13th, 2011 | 12:25 am
Norm says, “No government has the right to take someone’s life, no matter the crime. Only under extreme circumstances is such an action permissible…”
I may be missing something here, but doesn’t the second sentence directly contradict the first? If a government may permissibly take someone’s life in “extreme circumstances” then it can’t possibly be the case that “no government [ever] has the right to take someone’s life.”
Or perhaps Norm is saying that while it is always evil, wrong, wicked etc. when the “government takes someone’s life” sometimes (in extreme circumstances) the government has to do evil so that good may come.
March 13th, 2011 | 7:08 am
Tom Neven
I quoted Robespierre, as an early supporter of both limbs of my argument, that capital punishment is sometimes necessary, but should form no part of the Penal Code.
“Outside of civil society, let an inveterate enemy attempt to take my life, or, twenty times repulsed, let him again return to devastate the field my hands have cultivated. Inasmuch as I can only oppose my individual strength to his, I must perish or I must kill him, and the law of natural defence justifies and approves me. But in society, when the strength of all is armed against one single individual, what principle of justice can authorize it to put him to death? What necessity can there be to absolve it? A conqueror who causes the death of his captive enemies is called a barbarian! A man who causes a child that he can disarm and punish, to be strangled, appears to us a monster! A prisoner that society convicts is at the utmost to that society but a vanquished, powerless, and harmless enemy. He is before it weaker than a child before a full-grown man.”
Now, this presupposes a stable government and an orderly administration of justice, he also recognized that threatening draft-dodgers, profiteers, currency speculators, spies and counter-revolutionaries with imprisonment was no deterrent, when they expected the Allies to invade the country and restore the ancien régime. They were far from being “vanquished, powerless, and harmless.” As he had said in the same speech, “Punishments are not made to torture the guilty, but to prevent crime, from fear of incurring them.” The Law of 22 Prairial An II was an emergency measure, not a permanent amendment to the Penal Code, essential to protect that Revolution that went on to give a code of laws to a continent and to restore the concept of citizenship to civilization.
In the social compact, the citizens pool their rights of self-defence and entrust them to the magistrate. So, the state should consult the public safety, not deal in vague concepts of retribution, for which no rational metric can be devised.
All this seems in perfect accord with Evangelium Vitae.
March 13th, 2011 | 3:17 pm
Was Pope Pius XII a valid expositor of the Church’s magisterium? Consider the quote from Sept. 1952: “Even when it is a question of someone condemned to death, the state does not dispose of an individual’s right to life. It is then the task of public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life, in expiation of his fault, after he has already deprived himself of the right to life by his crime.”
Note that, Like Aquinas, Pius regards the malefactor as having forfeited his right to life.
March 14th, 2011 | 6:24 am
Dan Buckley
Of course the state has no right to put someone to death, unless he has done something to deserve it – That goes without saying.
Before Evangelium Vitae, magisterial teaching focused on the abstract principle of the state’s right to inflict the death penalty; it did not address the morality of doing so in any given case.
Similarly, no magisterial teaching has ever questioned the power of pardon claimed and exercised by all states; this is intelligible only on the assumption that crime is punished as an offence against the state itself and that it is not bound in justice to the injured party (where one is identifiable) to inflict a penalty. Equally, no forgivness by the injured party can deprive the state of its right to prosecute in the public interest.
March 14th, 2011 | 11:54 pm
This article confuses the idea of “pro-life” with that of Christian. Even if you accept that the death penalty is approved of by Christian teaching, that does not necessarily make it “pro-life.” Let me explain.
Mr. Neven’s non-scriptural argument in favor of the death penalty seems to be: “In effect, the death penalty is pro-life because it affirms the value of the life of the victim, a being created in God’s image, and because it also affirms the value of the murderer as a human with free moral agency.”
However, this argument falls apart. We can “affirm the value of the life of the victim” without taking away another life, by punishing murder most severely among crimes, but still short of death. And any punishment for a crime “affirms the value of the murderer as a human with free moral agency,” because if there were no moral agency, punishment as such could not exist.
I won’t quibble about scripture, but if someone thinks that capital punishment is approved of, or mandated, by Christian theology, then one must accept that to be Christian is not to be pro-life.
March 15th, 2011 | 10:32 am
Andrew MacKie-Mason
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 and injured 450.Ted Bundy killed 26 plus in a very cruel manner.John Wayne Gacy killed 33 and engaged in cannibalism.Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 with a little cannibalism thrown in.Mr.MacKie-Mason can you suggest a severe punishment; that would please you, that would fall short of the death penalty.
March 15th, 2011 | 8:39 pm
“If someone thinks that capital punishment is approved of, or mandated, by Christian theology, then one must accept that to be Christian is not to be pro-life.”
One can almost see the nostrils flare.
Nice rhetorical flourishes. Lousy thinking. (Un-Christian, in fact.)
March 16th, 2011 | 7:48 pm
I’m fine with it.
March 17th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
I have no skills in philosophical or theological argument. I can only observe that many of these comments reveal a desire to find justification for something already supported: executing people. One even thanked the author for provided such a needed justification. Are we so eager to end the lives of people? If there is apparently such controversy about the death penalty in religious circles, so much so that even Pope John Paul II is considered wrong, I would rather err on the side of not killing people. I may be wrong, but I’d rather be wrong on this side of the issue. I would be proud to be observed in this way.
March 17th, 2011 | 8:25 pm
P.Keeth
Mr.Keeth, what many of us are concerned about is keeping the faith that has been handed down to us over a period of almost two thousand years.The activity of the Bishops in the US has been to completely end the use of capital punishment.If it is known that innocent people have been executed then we should seek to correct,create and enforce the Rules of Evidence used in homicide trials.I think that we would all be happier knowing that we’ve kept the Faith and saved Innocent lives.
March 19th, 2011 | 1:46 am
Mr. Sharp:
You have mistaken my comments with Norm’s (see March 11, 2011 at 10:35 AM), whom I quoted and rebutted. These are my original comments: “’Advanced’ is not the word to describe a nation which has sanctioned the murder of millions of unborn children. Perhaps this is the same reasoning that leads one to become a pacifist. I’ve never heard of a nation of pacifists that survived aggression.”
Liam:
The United States is not an advanced country; the technical ability to incarcerate for life murderers is ineffective if the murderers can escape their punishment by parole or order the death of others while incarcerated and murder again.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact