While I agree that some of those on the Left are hypocritical in their argument having two opinions, so are some of those on the Right. It is not Man's right to carry out executions even though the feeling of revenge may be overwhelming (specially for families of victims of brutal crimes). Nevertheless, capital punishment is a crime itself. And let's not forget that the judicial system (unfortunately) is not perfect, and there have been situations of innocent people being executed. How do you compensate someone after the life is taken due to a judicial error? At least if the person is imprisoned you can always set them free... About the governments costs regarding imprisonment, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's like saying let's kill these people because it's cheaper. This type of argument makes capital punishment seem an even more barbaric act.
And more. This is where the hypocrisy resides: I've seen and heard people from the Right appalled by some of the sentences carried out in some muslim countries such as decapitation as a capital punishment and body mutilation in case of robbery (such as cutting off the hand). Yet they are all for death sentences here in our country. Their argument: they claim it's different because we kill people in a more humane and civilized way... imagine that... killing regarded as humane and civilized... hah!
SMP | 08.04.05 - 5:04 am | #

Dawn,

You may be interested in reading this:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftiss...les/ dulles.html

The left determines their morality based only on their "feelings". We conservatives must think a little deeper.
BillyHW | 08.04.05 - 5:32 am | #

I have come to the conclusion that the death penalty must rarely, if at all, be used. I agree with Dawn Eden that there must be at least two witnesses, as the Law orders. But we also have Yeshua (Jesus) telling us that, even in that case, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Vengeance really _is_ the Lord's. However, the Bible also says that we are to bring healing to the sick. People who commit sick crimes are sick. I think it is perfectly just to inoculate them with the medications they need to render them more peaceful and, yes, even remorseful. And, if these criminals are deemed by professionals to have a biochemical imbalance which would, if they were set free, cause them to be aggressive and dangerous, they should be locked up for life and should continue to be given psychotropic medications and/or female hormones to keep them docile and, hopefully, remorseful. Shock (insight) therapy might also be helpful in impacting on their awareness of what they have done wrong. Of course, Prison Ministry would also be very advantageous for their souls.
Lamb | 08.04.05 - 7:04 am | #

I think the "vengeance is mine " passage condemns private, vigilante revenge. But take a look at Romans 13, 3-4:

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Looks to me like a pretty clear delegation of the authority for capital punishment to rulers.

Also, the two witnesses rule predates DNA and fingerprint evidence. Most killers are smart enough to avoid murder in front of two eyewitnesses, but this physical evidence is probably more trustworthy even than eyewitmess testimony.
seedubya | 08.04.05 - 7:12 am | #

I have struggled with this for years. One of New York State's most notorious serial killers hails from my home town and a number of his relatives are friends of mine, as well as the daughter of his first victim. And his was the classic "worst case" scenario: serving life sentence for murder and killing a prison guard.

While interesting, I don't buy most of the left's arguments: discriminatory (though it tends to be, and I can cite a classic example from here as well), not a detterent (I think it is, but that is not the whole answer), etc.

Ultimately, I think the death penalty diminishes us. Stirring up the blood lust (and it is, make no misstake about it) does not bring us closer to the Lord.

Is the death penalty a suitable and appropriate punishment? Under many circumstances, yes.

Should we use it? No.

A very thoughtful analysis, Dawn. It's an issue most of us only deal with at a superficial level. I was a county-level judge when the death penalty was reinstated in New York and I had to face it head on when asked to participate in capital case training. I dodged it until my tenure terminated. I sometimes think I might have saved my soul.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 7:39 am | #

The only time I agree with killing is in self defense. Or defense of another. Though I do wish the court systems were more efficient in punishment and babying the hard criminals less. On man who raped me had also raped a more important girl. He was out in 4 years. This is a man who will kill, its just a matter of time. Pedophiles should be in for life. Right next to the murderers.
Josephine | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 8:26 am | #

John Paul II seems to have gotten it just right as far as I am concerned: the death penalty is justified only when necessary to protect society. In the U.S.A. in 2005, that means I would not impose the death penalty except in cases where someone who had already committed murder escaped from jail and killed again, or killed again in prison. Such a person has proven that incarceration is not enough to protect society from him.

Although I would, as a matter of policy, impose the death penalty only in the extremely rare cases described above, this is an issue of policy, not one of basic principle. I recognize that murderers have forfeited their right not to be killed; if society, in the form of a judge and jury, has sentenced a murderer to death, and I were the relevant public executive, I would not block such executions on principle, though I would show clemency in individual cases where appropriate.
Joseph | 08.04.05 - 8:51 am | #

For me the most compelling argument is the one that ties the issue to abortion. We regularly say that we are opposed to the killing of the innocent baby. We sometimes also argue that if some aren't sure it's a baby, we need to always err on the side of caution and life.

Likewise, because the potential for executing innocent persons is present, and acceptable alternatives exists (lock ‘em up and throw away the key), we really need to err on the side of caution and life in this case as well. We are being logically inconsistent on this point as well if we accept killing of the innocent as part of the greater good.

Finally, while biblical arguments for the death penalty can be made, they are primarily, if not exclusively from the OT. The NT, and Jesus’ teachings are overwhelmingly against retributive justice, and seem to always fall on the side of being more, not less merciful.
Steve G. | 08.04.05 - 9:08 am | #

While I will not say that there are NO cases in which the death penalty could be considered just, I can't think of any concrete examples in which it is. The DP may be, in principle, just, but it is overused--to a horrifying degree.

IMO, it should be harder than it is to earn a death sentence. And if such is earned, no one should be allowed to watch. The victims' families showing up to watch the killer's death and gain "closure" is, IMO, utter and dangerous bull.
Kate B. | 08.04.05 - 9:18 am | #

Steve G., arming police officers in the first place allows a chance that innocents will be mistakenly shot. Government is in the violence business--good government has the legitimate monopoly on violence. And as with all human institutions, governments can make mistakes.
seedubya | 08.04.05 - 9:23 am | #

Regarding the cost issue of incarcerating individuals for life compared to putting them to death, check out this site: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/...d=7#From% 20DPIC.
Fluffy Bunny | 08.04.05 - 9:44 am | #

SMP:

It is not Man's right to carry out execution.

Upon what do you base this assertion? Which major religion's holy scriptures lead you to this conclusion? Or if not scriptures, what authority is there which could establish this?

If you appeal to basic human decency, you are standing on shifting sand. Basic human decency in this country gives woman the right to carry out execution of a baby in the womb.

I've seen and heard people from the Right appalled by some of the sentences carried out in some muslim countries such as decapitation as a capital punishment and body mutilation in case of robbery (such as cutting off the hand).

I think what's more appalling about the punishments in muslim countries is the skewing of their justice system: the unjust burden of proof which a rape victim must bear, or the snowballs chance in hell given to a person under dhimmitude.

Lamb, I appreciate the compassionate sentiments in your comment, but the measures you describe are a little shop of horrors: mind and body altering substances given to criminals denies their basic human right to be what they are. All humans are created with a desire for freedom. Contemplate the horror of being drugged and physiologically altered and denied freedom for an indeterminate time. You must remember that a man in prison is still a man, and even as he pays his debt, he is still a man created in the image of God.

In the case of the death penalty, it should never be about revenge. But there is a real need for justice to entail retribution. It is only through the concept of retribution that the criminal can be restored to what he ought to be. When he takes a life, he lives under the shadow of what he owes. A government does a criminal honor when it deems him able to make retribution for his crime.

Steve G:

Finally, while biblical arguments for the death penalty can be made, they are primarily, if not exclusively from the OT. The NT, and Jesus’ teachings are overwhelmingly against retributive justice, and seem to always fall on the side of being more, not less merciful.

Steve, the OT contains books which were written specifically for the purpose of establishing government and a legal system. The NT is a different kind of book altogether. It really doesn't speak to governance, except to say that government is a delegate of God's authority.

The NT laid out a different kind of revolution. Its story is set in a period when the Jews had lost the right to autonomously govern themselves.

The disciples seemed to expect at every turn that Christ would lead them to glorious victory over the Romans. But he was about something different.

Israel was (and is) a nation. The Church is not a nation.
Joel | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 10:04 am | #

Dawn,
I agree with the gist of your post (and am against the death penalty in the current situation). What bothers me most about Bottum's take is this sentence:

"Capital punishment may occasionally be necessary in a modern democracy, but it is never right"

Not only do I wonder what democracy has to do with it (IMHO it is far too often used as an argument for this and that), but how can he advocate something that is "never right". Read this in the light of Romans 3,8.

In this case turnaround makes fairplay:

The death penalty is right in principle (there biblical principles come into place), but not always necessary. Since it is always harsh and diminishing to those applying it, it should be used only when necessary.

GB
francis | 08.04.05 - 10:05 am | #

Genesis Ch 9 Vr6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The only punishment mentioned in all five books of the Pentateuch/Torah is death.

And Christianity would not exist were it not for the death penalty.

There is no problem with taking care, but in the absence of the death penalty there is no way to prevent killers from killing again. Killing guards, killing other prisoners, escaping and killing, getting released (by future left-wing governments) and killing, or by ordering others to kill for them.

Mistaken executions are tragic but their tradgedy is reduced for Christians. It's the reverse of the Ambrose Bierce joke about the woman who killed her lover because he was leaving her to go to Chicago: "My sister," said an adjacent Man of God, solemnly, "you cannot stop the wicked from going to Chicago by killing them." Mistaken executions of the good merely send them to heaven sooner.

As King Charles the Martyr put it at his execution: "I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown."
Duncan Frissell | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 11:46 am | #

Who was it who once said, "Nothing focuses the mind like the certain knowledge that one is to be hanged in the morning."

What Joel said about accountability is spot-on. Criminality is not sickness or ignorance. The criminal himself may be sick or ignorant, but the criminal act is evil, springing from moral fault, and the remedy is not medicine or knowledge. To punish crime is nothing more than to hold the criminal to his bargain - to take his decision seriously enough to merit a serious reply. And in the case of final earthly justice, it provides the man with a certainty that few of us have, a literal deadline by which he must choose, one last time, to repent or to embrace evil.

That is not to say that, in our country today, that the death penalty is necessary: only that it is just. Of course nobody ever said that it would be easy to be just and to protect the innocent...
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 11:58 am | #

seedubya said: arming police officers in the first place allows a chance that innocents will be mistakenly shot. Government is in the violence business--good government has the legitimate monopoly on violence. And as with all human institutions, governments can make mistakes.

There’s a huge difference between a mistake made in the heat of a police officer doing his duty, and a deliberate several year process walking a prisoner through the justice system to his death.

I am not saying that all innocent deaths can be prevented, but in this case there is an acceptable alternative, plenty of time to ponder the implications, and a mistake is totally preventable, whereas it may not be in almost any other scenario you present.
Steve G. | 08.04.05 - 12:03 pm | #

Joel said: Steve, the OT contains books which were written specifically for the purpose of establishing government and a legal system. The NT is a different kind of book altogether. It really doesn't speak to governance, except to say that government is a delegate of God's authority.

Unless you are suggesting that we should be using the OT to formulate our government and legal system, I am not sure of the relevance here. The discussion is regarding the moral stance that pro-life, and I presume mostly Christian folks take on the death penalty.

The issue is whether there is a scriptural foundation for supporting if for the individual Christian in modern times, and in that regard I’d argue that both OT and NT text certainly apply. And in the context of that discussion, the NT mores certainly apply all the more.

The disciples seemed to expect at every turn that Christ would lead them to glorious victory over the Romans. But he was about something different.

Again, I am not sure of the relevance here to the comments that I made that the NT is overwhelming opposed to retributive justice and is on whole on the side of greater, not lesser mercy. If anything this is more supportive of what I said as it applies to the individual pro-lifer and their stance on the death penalty.
Steve G. | 08.04.05 - 1:08 pm | #

It is not Man's right to carry out execution.

Well, let me give you my take on it.

It depends on what you mean by "Man". In order to talk reasonably about the death penalty (and war, which is related) you have to recognize two very different forms of justice, or two different perspectives on justice.

Sometimes a person acts on his own behalf. At other times a person acts as a legitimate agent of a community, on behalf of the community. This distinction is often lost on modern people who are brought up in a culture that doesn't really recognize such a thing as the common good: in modern times we think of communities as just a summation of individuals. But thinking that way inevitably leads to errors in moral judgement.

It is wrong for an individual to intentionally kill another individual, even in self-defense. If an attacker happens to be killed while you are defending yourself that can be OK; but you cannot intend the attacker's death. There is a difference between intending something and knowing it will happen, which I can illustrate if necessary but this is a long comment already.

If your arm is cancerous you can amputate it, if that is necessary. But it is immoral to cut off your arm just for kicks, or because you are angry at it, or whatever.

It is immoral for a community to intentionally exterminate another community, even in self-defense. If another community is utterly desrtroyed in war that might be licit, but it can't be intended. What is intended has to be self-defense, not the destruction of the attacker.

But a community can, if it is necessary, execute individual members of the community. Whether or not it is necessary depends on an evaluation of the facts (that is, a prudential judgement), and is the subject of much controversy.

FWIW, I am against the DP as presently practiced in part for prudential reasons and in part because I do not think it is presently practiced according to a proper understanding of individual justice, community justice, and their proper relation.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 1:48 pm | #

While I agree with many of the reasons that "the left" cites in opposing the death penalty -- that it's not a deterrent, that the imperfections in our justice system entail that it is administered disproportionately and with bias, that accrued costs (appeals, etc.) actually make it more expensive to execute a prisoner than it would be to keep him/her alive -- I think that the strongest argument against it is the one cited by Robert N.G. By killing, we become killers. Someone's got to stand over that person -- who, while he/she may not be innocent, he/she is certainly defenseless when strapped to what will soon be his/her deathbed -- and stick a syringe into the convict's veins that will cause that person to go to sleep and never wake up again. And like Joseph notes, unless this person is of supervillain caliber, breaking out of Arkham every week to terrorize the good citizens of Gotham, there's no need to kill the person to protect society from his/her influence. People call it justice -- but I tend to believe that justice should be good and necessary, not something that's wholly unnecessary. And while there's no necessary contradiction in opposing abortion while supporting the DP, I do think that to speak of a "culture of life" while supporting the DP entails such an inconsistency -- as this is to say that not all human lives are valuable -- and, moreover, that in certain circumstances pointless and unnecessary human death is perfectly acceptable.

Also, the pro-abortion/anti-death penalty position of "the left" isn't necessarily inconsistent, either. Remember, many of those in favor don't believe that an unborn child constitutes a human life -- so it's entirely possible to claim a belief in the value of human life while supporting abortion. However, those who support abortion rarely claim to be as invested in death (or life) as you make them out to be -- they support, instead, a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body (which I don't believe the government has any right to dictate unless it's prepared to compensate her for missed work, foot the bill for all of her prenatal care, even pay for her meals -- in short, unless the government is willing to assume full responsibility for the nurturing of this life inside her, since it values it so much that it would insist that she bear the burden of carrying it to term).

"The right," on the other hand, often speaks about the value of life and a "culture of life" -- which is what makes its position regarding the death penalty appear all the more hypocritical.
Wes | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 2:47 pm | #

Sorry Wes, but while the right pro-DP/anti-abortion might be hypocritical, the left pro-abortion/anti-DP has much more potential of hypocrisy.

"The right," you say "often speaks about the value of life" - the left, I say, often speaks about human rights but when the weakest of the weak are killed, pro-aborts not only turn a blind eye, but even applaud this as a matter of "choice".

I don't think ignorance (of pro-aborts about the humanity of the embryo) can be given as an excuse. And if it can, why not extend that to pro-DP's as well?

And sorry if I have to be so blunt but "what to do with her own body" as a description for abortion is a phrase is right up there in the category of most despicable euphemisms. Others have used the same principle to not their physical body but the body politic and today every sane human being is appalled about that. Do you give them the benefit of ignorance too?

The government has not only the right but the duty to interfere when someone kills someone else. And that right is not somehow bound to payments for maintenance. I don't say that those in need should not get help and support, including from the government (being a Euro-welfarestatist), but a lack of this doesn't justify murder.

Who exempted the poor from law and ethics?

(Apart from the fact that those "having" abortions are not necessarily poor.)
francis | 08.04.05 - 3:24 pm | #

Steve G. sayeth:

Unless you are suggesting that we should be using the OT to formulate our government and legal system, I am not sure of the relevance here.

Oh, but I am suggesting that our system of government is heavily based upon the Judaic Law of the Pentateuch; very much so indeed, yes.

The issue is whether there is a scriptural foundation for supporting if for the individual Christian in modern times...

I humbly suggest caution when throwing around phrases such as "relevant for modern times/man/society." Human nature has not changed. Human society is fundementally built of the same kind of bricks today as it always has been. When we assume special conditions for ourselves and our culture based on modernity, we are apt to deny ourselves the crucial lessons we need from history. If there were valid reasons for the Children of Israel to punish certain crimes by death, we ought to understand those reasons and see whether they are not still applicable today.

But you hit on the crux of this question when you said "individual Christian." Christ's, Paul's, the other apostles' teachings were overwhelming directed at individual behavior. James speaks at length about controlling the tongue. Do you suppose he is actually encrypting a formula for government's relationship to the media? No, he is counseling individuals in their behavior.

Christ taught countless parables devised to instruct individuals on how to behave and understand the kingdom of God. (And he also made a point of saying that he did not come to destroy (or do away with) the law.)

So your argument that societies ought to "turn the other cheek" when a murderer has killed one of its members doesn't hold up. It may be appropriate for me to turn the other cheek when another individual has done me wrong, but actual honest-to-gosh crimes fall under the purvey of the government, and the government must not act as if it may "turn the other cheek" for it has a different responsibility in punishing crime than has the individual.

I am not sure of the relevance here to the comments that I made that the NT is overwhelming opposed to retributive justice and is on whole on the side of greater, not lesser mercy.

Your view reflects acclimation to the justice system of a Christian nation. Generally the way to the moral high ground (or at least the appearance of moral high ground) is pretty clearly marked in western culture. Case in point: the abortionist always couches his arguments in terms of a woman's right to choose, or in terms of her rights over her own body. Nobody overtly argues that certain individuals ought to have a right to wantonly kill other individuals.

But you must remember that Judeo-Christian based governments and their attendant benifits (such as democracy and constitutional law) are the rare exception history, and, indeed, are exceptions among all the governments of the modern age. In China the government was (and for all we know still is) wont to send a bill to the families of political prisoners for the bullet used to execute their loved one. This outrages us, but their government considers it just. The world has not reached a consensus as to what is moral, and probably never will.
Joel | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 3:30 pm | #

Oops, forgot to round out my final point vis a vis a Christian nation.

Living in a "Christian nation" where the location of the high moral ground is assumed leads us to a false impression. In essence there isn't any such thing as a Christian nation. There are nations whose laws are based upon Christian values and principles. But the perception of living in a "Christian nation" assumes that all people in the nation see morality from a Christian perspective, and this is certainly not true.

As a Christian, I know that I cannot kill another person and justify myself because he was racially inferior or some such nonsense. But there are criminals in this country who do use such rationalizations, and as such their thinking is not informed by Christian values and principles.

It reminds me of the final scene from the movie Fargo, when the female pregnant sheriff has captured the ruthless, psychopathic kidnapper and murderer. "Just look at your self, you ought to be ashamed," she says. But the killer just looks at her with a blank expression, and then turns to look out the window. Her words make no impression on him, because they do not share the same moral compass.
Joel | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 3:39 pm | #

Joel respondeth:

Oh, but I am suggesting that our system of government is heavily based upon the Judaic Law of the Pentateuch; very much so indeed, yes.

No argument there, but to suggest that there is some kind of 1 to 1 correlation wherein we can apply a specific regulation (i.e. capital punishment) to our own system doesn’t hold. Heavily based is not the same as saying, as you seemed to be, that I can’t appeal to the NT mores in the discussion with regards to the topic. Our Republic is also heavily based on the Roman form of government. Do we grant sanction to infanticide because they did? But maybe I misunderstood what you intended to say.

I humbly suggest caution when throwing around phrases such as "relevant for modern times/man/society."

I humbly suggest that you not misrepresent what I said. ;-) I didn’t say anything about it not being relevant for modern times. I said…

The issue is whether there is a scriptural foundation for supporting it for the individual Christian in modern times, and in that regard I’d argue that both OT and NT text certainly apply.

…I apply both OT and NT in the discussion. I want to further clarify that all I meant by indicating ‘modern’ times was with regard to our ability to use an alternative to the DP that may not have existed prior to affluent western society arising. There is no doubt in my mind that from a religious, moral, scriptural, and justice perspective, that the DP can be justified. It certainly can be. My point is that in THIS society we do not HAVE to resort to it in order protect society, or apply justice.

Human nature has not changed. Human society is fundementally built of the same kind of bricks today as it always has been. When we assume special conditions for ourselves and our culture based on modernity, we are apt to deny ourselves the crucial lessons we need from history. If there were valid reasons for the Children of Israel to punish certain crimes by death, we ought to understand those reasons and see whether they are not still applicable today.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

But you hit on the crux of this question when you said "individual Christian." Christ's, Paul's, the other apostles' teachings were overwhelming directed at individual behavior. James speaks at length about controlling the tongue. Do you suppose he is actually encrypting a formula for government's relationship to the media? No, he is counseling individuals in their behavior.

But I take it for granted that this discussion, while focused on the individual believer, has implications far beyond themselves. In THIS society the individual believer will likely vote for someone who agrees with them on these moral issues. For example, if I have a choice between a 100% pro-life, but pro-DP candidate, and a 100% pro-life, and anti-DP candidate, guess who I am voting for. If the wider Christian community (made up of all those individual believers) were to be in agreement with me (which I know they are not), that ‘may’ have an impact on the society and how those beliefs are codified in the legal system. In a democratic society, the two are inextricably bound together.

Christ taught countless parables devised to instruct individuals on how to behave and understand the kingdom of God. (And he also made a point of saying that he did not come to destroy (or do away with) the law.)

And he also gave the example that a new, more profound understanding of mercy was to guide the application of the law as with the woman caught in adultery.

So your argument that societies ought to "turn the other cheek" when a murderer has killed one of its members doesn't hold up.

Not using the DP certainly doesn’t equate to turning the other cheek. I am fully supportive of extremely harsh punishment for such individual. As a matter of fact, make it as harsh as you like, and you have my support. But in the interest of protecting the innocent prisoner, and because an alternative for protecting society exists, I just don’t see the NECESSITY of it.

Your view reflects acclimation to the justice system of a Christian nation.

I took it for granted that that’s what we were talking about. The view of the individual Christian as it relates to our society. I realize your point, but it’s really a different discussion than the one at hand isn’t it?
Steve G. | 08.04.05 - 4:10 pm | #

I concede that there is a difference between private behavior and societal (government) behavior. In Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, originally there was no real distinction between civil laws and criminal law. The concept was an interruption of "peace". As things evolved, violation of individual peace was treated civilly while violations of "The King's Peace" became felonies, crimes. (The reasons were actually related to economics. If someone breaks the king's peace, his worldly goods are forfeited to the king.)

Maybe it's because we live in a democratic age, but I sense that we as individuals are far more responsible for what is being done in the name of "The People" than our ancestors were. (QE II excluded, naturally). Therefore, when executions are carried out in our name, a little bit of that retribution belongs to each of us, and it is well that we consider if this is something that we ought to do.

I am more and more convinced that we ought not, an no amount of scripture verse will convince me that we are required to carry out the death penalty. And if we are not required, then the mere fact that it is permitted does not determine what we should do.

Abortion is permitted. Yet I know I ought not. Neither do I wish to condemn another to death under other circumstances.

Whether it is just is not relevant. It's us I'm worried about.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 5:25 pm | #

Steve G, I love a row in the comments, thanks for your excellent ripostes. And now, en garde...

Steve G. rejoineth:

My point is that in THIS society we do not HAVE to resort to it in order protect society, or apply justice.

It could be argued that you are right regarding the question of protecting society. Prison guards and police officers lose their lives too often, but if there are other more compelling arguments in either direction, then the question of the difficulty in keeping the worst criminals locked up shouldn't decide this question. We can't shirk doing something we must do.

But can we adequately apply justice without the death penalty? This I think is the essential question of this discussion. What, essentially is justice? Is it merely the task of separating the criminals from the regular citizens? Is it meting out punishment? Is it exacting retribution? Or is it holding up a standard of right vs wrong?

When a person is wronged by a criminal, the criminal is saying in essence: you are chattel; a non-person. My merest whim is more important than even your life. I'm everything, you're nothing.

When the government fails to execute punishment for this crime, the government is failing to send a counter message which must be sent: "No, actually the victim's rights are important, and you, O Criminal, have done wrongly."

It is intrinsic to the nature of Judeo-Christian law that the punishment must fit the crime; that is to say, it must answer the crime. If a criminal willfully takes another's life, and the government says, "umm, ok, time out for you for twenty years, or make that seven if you mop the floors" then the government is failing to answer the crime with the punishment.

This counter message sent by the state is important for the victim; not for the sake of revenge, but for the sake of our communal sense of what is right and what is wrong, and for the victim's emotional and psychological welfare. It is restorative and healing to the victim to have those in authority send this message which says, "What was done to you was wrong. You did not deserve to be treated in this way, and the evildoer's deed must be answered."

And we mustn't ignore the fact that this is, morally speaking, as much for the criminal's benifit as for the victim. The criminal carries a moral debt to the victim, and it is the task of government to honor the criminal as one who will pay his debts. Admittedly this is perhaps the harshest kind of respect, but it is respect nonetheless. To merely lock up a criminal so that he is removed from society is to wash our hands of him and declare him, in some sense, a non-person; an entity for which the question of personal accountability is moot.

...if I have a choice between a 100% pro-life, but pro-DP candidate, and a 100% pro-life, and anti-DP candidate, guess who I am voting for.

We should all be so lucky :)

Not using the DP certainly doesn’t equate to turning the other cheek.

I say it does in the sense that your argument is that we ought to take Christian behavior as taught for individuals, and expand it to other entities such as a government.

I am fully supportive of extremely harsh punishment for such individual. As a matter of fact, make it as harsh as you like, and you have my support. But in the interest of protecting the innocent prisoner, and because an alternative for protecting society exists, I just don’t see the NECESSITY of it.

The case of the innocent prisoner really is terrible. But I would suggest that by removing the death penalty you haven't really beautified the process of delivering justice. You said make the punishment as harsh as you like; some have proposed castration for convicted rapists. Not much you can do for the wrongly punished once that sentence has been carried out. Whatever the punishment, if it was wrongly delivered, it is a tragedy. Suppose a mother is wrongly convicted of a crime, and imprisoned for twenty years. Now suppose we find she is innocent after 10 years. We can release her, but the government has nonetheless taken from her those years she might have spent rearing her children and living with her husband.

I'm not saying any of this is better with the death penalty, I'm saying that death penalty or no, the exercise of justice always carries the risk of wrongful punishment. Those who work in the justice system must do all they can to ensure justice is carried out without error, and must be held accountable if they allow other interests to cloud their judgement or worse.
Joel | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 5:35 pm | #

Maybe it's because we live in a democratic age, but I sense that we as individuals are far more responsible for what is being done in the name of "The People" than our ancestors were.

That may well be the case. But if so, our responsibility in evaluating the application of the DP is as legitimate agents of the community acting on its behalf for the common good, not as individual actors pursuing our own ends. So what I have called community justice is the kind of justice, or the perspective on justice, that applies. There is nothing in the least bit morally illicit about carrying out the DP when it is necessary to do so. It may indeed be our duty to do so - to change circumstances such that in the rare necessary cases it becomes a duty to actually carry out executions. The fact that we all share in that duty to a somewhat unprecedented extent may lead to the moral cowardice of the mob, but it doesn't change our duty. One king or ten kings or a thousand kings have the same duty, irrespective of numbers.

(Thomists use the words commutative and distributive rather that community and individual as I have. I tend to mix the scholastic terms up so I use regular English ones that make sense to me. And I think the distinction between violations between individuals and violateions of the public good as a part of natural law has existed throughout all of human history, to at least some extent.)

And again, FWIW, I am opposed to the DP under present circumstances. But it is not that the DP has to be categorically ruled out forever, it is that circumstances must be changed.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 6:41 pm | #

I agree with Archbishop Chaput:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/ pro...Chaput05web.pdf
is a concise view of Catholic teaching on capital punishment.
wodamark | 08.04.05 - 7:55 pm | #

There's a difference between abortion and the death penalty, in that abortion is intrinsically evil but the death penalty is not. In "The Gospel of Life," John Paul said the death penalty should be used only rarely, if at all. He couldn't have said that if it was intrinsically evil--he would have had to rule it out categorically. But he didn't.
In some cases the death penalty may be the only way to protect other innocent lives from a brutal killer. I've read of several cases where innocent people were murdered by a killer who had either escaped or gotten out of jail.
Sr Lorraine | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 8:08 pm | #

JP II may have been the greatest thinker of his age, and I find that even when not required to I agree with him. If at all is a key phrase. He stopped short of stating it was intrinsically evil, but note he did not rule it out.

I'm perfectly ok with shootouts. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where necessity requires the death penalty in controlled situations, however.

Even in the case of my town-mate who killed the prison guard while serving a life sentence, less wacky administration would have relieved that risk. Anither twenty years or so have gone by and he hasn't killed anyone else (his was the case that the Court of Appeals first used to outlaw the death penalty) simply because they have him under better control and surveillance.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 8:35 pm | #

BTW Sr. Lorraine, we are big fans of your order and regularly purchase your publications when your troupe graces the Martyr's Shrine at Auriesville.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 8:37 pm | #

for the death penalty is not in a line with other punishments. A five-year sentence and a twenty-year sentence, even a life sentence, are related as more or less severe forms of imprisonment. Execution belongs to another order of punishment.

By the same token, assault, rape, and robbery are all more or less severe forms of crime. Murder belongs to another order of crime.
Mary | 08.04.05 - 9:38 pm | #

Joel,
I’ll try to keep up both the high level of civility and intelligence you bring to the table, though I think in both cases I may be the one who is ‘outgunned’.

It could be argued that you are right regarding the question of protecting society. Prison guards and police officers lose their lives too often, but if there are other more compelling arguments in either direction, then the question of the difficulty in keeping the worst criminals locked up shouldn't decide this question. We can't shirk doing something we must do.

I want to begin by stating that I am not at all certain that a legitimate alternative IS in place at this point. In my mind the disallowance of the DP would have to go hand and hand with a serious and thoughtful attempt to put in place a REAL alternative. One that respects the prisoner as a human being, but more importantly truly protects society including prison guards, police, makes escape virtually impossible, and has no possibility of parole. And that’s where being the affluent society we are comes into play. We certainly do have the means to accomplish these objectives, whereas earlier societies had no such capability.

But can we adequately apply justice without the death penalty? This I think is the essential question of this discussion. What, essentially is justice? Is it merely the task of separating the criminals from the regular citizens? Is it meting out punishment? Is it exacting retribution? Or is it holding up a standard of right vs wrong?

When the government fails to execute punishment for this crime, the government is failing to send a counter message which must be sent: "No, actually the victim's rights are important, and you, O Criminal, have done wrongly."

But no one here is suggesting that the government not mete out punishment. Justice also includes fairness. A society has the right to decide what fair punishment is and is not. Life imprisonment, without parole may not satisfy some as being fair, but as individual Christian we can apply the aspect of justice which includes mercy and come to the conclusion that this does indeed fit the punishment. After all, the criminal is not escaping death. That will come him in time to.

I would agree that anything short of life without parole (and minus most of the amenities of ‘regular’ life) would be inappropriate to the crime, but I am certainly not suggesting anything less.

And we mustn't ignore the fact that this is, morally speaking, as much for the criminal's benifit as for the victim. The criminal carries a moral debt to the victim, and it is the task of government to honor the criminal as one who will pay his debts. Admittedly this is perhaps the harshest kind of respect, but it is respect nonetheless. To merely lock up a criminal so that he is removed from society is to wash our hands of him and declare him, in some sense, a non-person; an entity for which the question of personal accountability is moot.

I think this vastly overstates the case. How is the DP showing the respect to the criminal that you are speaking of. It’s the ultimate disrespect the state can pay to the person by making them literally a non-person. But I don’t want to go to far here, because again, I agree with you that the DP can indeed be just. On that we have no quarrel. I’d only argue that there are alternatives that could be just punishment as well. And my main concern is with the potential wrongly convicted person rather than with rightly convicted criminal.

I say it [turning the other cheek] does in the sense that your argument is that we ought to take Christian behavior as taught for individuals, and expand it to other entities such as a government.

I am not saying we ‘ought’, rather that it’s inevitable in a democratic society if that’s what the consensus becomes. And I don’t think that would be a bad thing. As long as the alternative IS just and DOES protect the society, I would think that a society that as a whole turns the other cheek in this particular sense would be a healthier one, just as the individual who does so is healthier (spiritually speaking).

Whatever the punishment, if it was wrongly delivered, it is a tragedy. Suppose a mother is wrongly convicted of a crime, and imprisoned for twenty years. Now suppose we find she is innocent after 10 years. We can release her, but the government has nonetheless taken from her those years she might have spent rearing her children and living with her husband.

I'm not saying any of this is better with the death penalty, I'm saying that death penalty or no, the exercise of justice always carries the risk of wrongful punishment.

While wrongful punishment is a tragedy, imprisonment is reversible whereas the DP is not. You can say that the 10 years lost is irreversible, but the remaining 10 years (or more on a life sentence) that she can now live free is priceless to her and should be to us. If she’d have been executed, and then found innocent, guess what? There’s not a thing we can do about at that point.
Steve G. | 08.04.05 - 10:18 pm | #

I think Robert Heinlein had the best solution to the problem as described through the narrator in "Starship Troopers." Rico observes the hanging of a deserter who kidnapped and murdered a little girl. He reflects that there are two possibilities for the criminal: either he is morally diseased beyond repair, below the level of a normal human, and should be put down, or, should he someday be cured, he would be so overcome with horror at what he did that his only option would be suicide anyway.

Clearly at odds with the Christian ethos, since it doesn't allow for redemption (i.e., 'with God all things are possible'). But, just as I don't think Christians should be forced to support abortions through their tax dollars (assuming they're legal in the first place, which I oppose anyway), I don't think the victim's loved ones should share in the financial burden of supporting a killer for the rest of his life. Indeed, when a capital offense occurs, all of society is the the victim. Some people are just plain better dead.
Oz | 08.04.05 - 10:47 pm | #

We certainly do have the means to accomplish these objectives, whereas earlier societies had no such capability.

I always find it curious that people think we are better at keeping dangerous criminals locked up than prior societies. Objectively, quite the opposite appears to be the case. I have the sense that a lot of modern resistance to the death penalty arises less from properly reasoned morality and more from a sentimental reluctance to face the fact of irrevocable punishment in general (both the punishment bit and the irrevocable bit). If that is true than the reluctance to impose the death penalty may well go hand-in-hand with weakening the genuine alternatives that might make it possible to reduce the actual number of executions.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.04.05 - 10:50 pm | #

Good discussion here. For what it's worth, here are the thoughts of this prosecu . . . er, um, former prosecutor.

As I have read these comments, various people have argued variations on the following themes:
1) capital punishment is about vengeance, which God claims for himself
2) in case of actual innocence, capital punishment is irrevocable
3) capital punishment doesn't accomplish anything except the death of another human
4) capital punishment demeans the value of human life

There are other arguments, of course, but those are the four that jumped out at me. I'm not going to get between Joel and Steve G. on the issue of how Jesus' teachings on personal morality affect society's exercise of capital punishment. They seem to be doing just fine on their own there. As for the others . . .

1. The first is nonsense. Regardless of whether the Biblical cliche (as it is used, not as it was written) is talking about societal vengeance or purely individual bloodlust, one cannot rationally raise it vis a vis capital punishment while still accepting other forms of criminal punishment. Vengeance is not an act; it is a motivation to act. It is no less inherent in a prison sentence as it is a death sentence. Unless one is really advocating for removing the all forms of criminal sanction from the Government's quiver, one cannot raise it against capital punishment and remain intellectually honest.

2. The second is truly tragic, but no more so than any other unjust death. That such a death resulted from the sovereign's erroneous belief in the justness of it doesn't make it more tragic than the murder that got the justice ball rolling. All unwarranted deaths are tragic.

3/4. I lump these together because in answering one, the other one finds an answer as well. I think it was Joel who came closest to stealing my thunder when he talked about society sending messages through its choice of consequences.

Face it: all punishment, on all levels, is about sending a message to both its recipient and any potential future recipients. That message, whether given by parents to children, teachers to students, or judges to criminals, is the same: what you did was wrong and unacceptable, and this (the punishment) is just how wrong and unacceptable it was.

I don't buy into the "deterrence" model of criminal punishment. It is awfully codependent and paternalistic to start with, and is empirically not getting the job done, as people still sign up for a life of crime fully aware of what may await them. Such a model strains at doing too much. Let the message be sent that such behavior has a price, and let men choose whether to be pay that price or avoid it.

People who claim that the penalty of death cheapens human life are, in my view, looking at the moon through the wrong end of the telescope. There is no more life-affirming consequence for the snuffing out of an innocent human life than the forfeiture of the guilty human life that did the snuffing. Human life is only cheapened by the consequence of death when it is applied to crimes other than murder.

This message-sending function of punishment is not just an esoteric exercise. One need look no further than the Sudan to see what life is like when the body politic stops sending such messages about the value of life, of right and wrong, and of acceptable and unacceptable.

Think of it this way: when I purchase a good or service, it is the value of that good or service that determines what the cost is. In the exchange of my $20 for $20-worth of gas (for instance), the value of each is affirmed by the other: my $20 bill is, indeed, worth $20 as evidenced by how much gas it got me, and the value of that amount of gas is affirmed by the $20 it cost me to obtain it. Neither is cheapened is the exchange.

Now, were I to steal $20 worth of gas and, after getting caught, only ordered to pay restitution of $10, a new message is sent and the valuation scales radically altered. Such a farce of "justice" doesn't affirm the value of anything. Instead, all that is accomplished is that the value of gasoline is tangibly cheapened.

The same is true here. Though Life is only among the most important things (I think there are things worth dying for, meaning there are things more important than mere Life itself), it is certainly the most irreplaceable. Wrongfully taking the life of another must carry a price commensurate with what is taken, not with what will be "accomplished." The consequence of death says to all (the perpetrator, the surviving family and friends, society at large) in the clearest of terms: that Victim's life was so valuable that no payment short of death will suffice. Likewise, the life of the perpetrator is so valuable that it, alone, can satisfy this enormouse debt. In the exercise of capital punishment, the values of both the lost life of the Victim and the forfeited life of the Perpetrator are affirmed to their highest.

If this sounds familiar to those of the Christian persuasion, perhaps you'll recognize the source material: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotton Son . . ." Our value was affirmed by the price it took to redeem us -- the death of our sinless Savior -- while Christ's value was affirmed in that only his death could make the payment.

It is in this function that capital punishment is quite consistent with an ethic of valuing life; it is only inconsistent with the worship of life. Sadly, it is the latter that seems to pervaded our social consciousness, but that is a long off-topic post for another day.
Lance | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 1:05 am | #

I have always had a problem with the death penalty. It can be argued strongly that in the worst cases it is just but what of those who are found later to be innocent?
I have read, as many of you always would have, of people who have been imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. This is terrible but a perfect judical system is not unfortunately not of this world. Oh for the wisdom of Solomon. But in taking a life through the death penalty there is no way to repair what is done.
This also comes to mind when people excuse those who kill in the name of Right to Life. How can anyone claim to hold life in such high regard and then destroy it?
After much debate within my own mind I an anti abortionist and anti death penalty. But then again I am for the Iraq war and many would say that this doesn't fit my belief. Wouldn't it be easy if everything could be just black and white?
Peter - Australia | 08.05.05 - 2:18 am | #

Zippy,
I always find it curious that people think we are better at keeping dangerous criminals locked up than prior societies.

I didn’t say that. In fact I stated that it’s more likely that we don’t currently have a good alternative in place. What I said was that we have the ‘means’ to do so that few if any previous societies had. By means, I mean technology, money, etc. that comes with being the wealthiest nation in the world and in history. If we had the will to do a better job, there’s no question that we could. Do we have the will? I honestly don’t know.

I have the sense that a lot of modern resistance to the death penalty arises less from properly reasoned morality and more from a sentimental reluctance to face the fact of irrevocable punishment in general (both the punishment bit and the irrevocable bit).

Not on my part at least. M main problem with the DP have nothing to do with this. My original point was that as pro-lifers, the possibility (and I am confident the actual occurrence of) an innocent person being executed demands by our own logic that we not support the DP. We regularly argue that we must do all we can to ‘protect the innocent’, and that even for those who aren’t sure if the fetus is a person or not, we should err on the side of life. I am applying that same logic here. We know the criminal justice system makes mistakes and that innocent people likely have been, or will be, put to death. As long as that is the case, then if we are to be consistent, my own opinion is that we must do all we can ‘to protect the innocent’ and err on the side of life. If we don’t apply that precept consistently, then we harm our own case on abortion. We are saying in this case that we are willing to accept the death of some innocents for the greater good of society. That argument is way to close to the pro-abortion justification for abortion for my own taste.

If that is true than the reluctance to impose the death penalty may well go hand-in-hand with weakening the genuine alternatives that might make it possible to reduce the actual number of executions.

Not in my own case. And this type of analysis cuts both ways and illustrates my other chief problem with the death penalty. The willingness to impose the death penalty may well go hand-in-hand with the willingness to apply it as punishment in other than the most severe cases. This is what I think JPII partly means by the culture of death. Once you settle on the idea that death is a solution to a problem, the idea that it may solve other problems may set in.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 9:23 am | #

Lance,
Excellent Post! I agree with much of your analysis.

That said, since number 2 is my chief beef with the DP, I’d like to continue to take this up where I see it to try to illustrate why I came to the view I did and why I think anything else creates an inconsistency for us on the pro-life side when we support the DP.

You said: The second is truly tragic, but no more so than any other unjust death. That such a death resulted from the sovereign's erroneous belief in the justness of it doesn't make it more tragic than the murder that got the justice ball rolling. All unwarranted deaths are tragic.

Is that all we can say? Yeah, you are right. It is tragic, but what ya gonna do? Does anybody else notice how similar the responses on this objection to the DP sound like the objections of the pro-abortion side?

Yes, they say, every abortion is tragic. We all want less abortions, but…(insert rationalization here). In fact I could apply Lance’s EXACT comment to abortion and no pro-lifer would accept it. Why do we accept it on the DP? Is it a numbers thing? Is it because there are so many abortions, but likely only a few innocent people who’ve been executed? If that’s true, then we are betraying our principals that it’s the value of the individual lives that we are fighting for.

Finally, while all unwarranted deaths are tragic, I’d ask someone to show me (other than abortion or the DP) a case where there is a premeditated, drawn out, deliberate killing of innocent that the government endorses. The police officer who shoots the innocent person in the line of duty is an entirely different animal.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 9:41 am | #

Steve, you make a powerful point:

My original point was that as pro-lifers, the possibility (and I am confident the actual occurrence of) an innocent person being executed demands by our own logic that we not support the DP. We regularly argue that we must do all we can to ?protect the innocent?, and that even for those who aren?t sure if the fetus is a person or not, we should err on the side of life. I am applying that same logic here. We know the criminal justice system makes mistakes and that innocent people likely have been, or will be, put to death. As long as that is the case, then if we are to be consistent, my own opinion is that we must do all we can ?to protect the innocent? and err on the side of life. If we don?t apply that precept consistently, then we harm our own case on abortion. We are saying in this case that we are willing to accept the death of some innocents for the greater good of society. That argument is way to close to the pro-abortion justification for abortion for my own taste.

When I read that, I thought of why some pro-lifers (and my own) object to oral contraceptives--because the pills are abortifacients. The logic is that even if they kill an embryo only once in 10,000 uses, that's too big a risk. By that same logic, it seems difficult to accept the killing of even one innocent among those sentenced to the death penalty, when there is another way (life without parole) to keep killers off the streets.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 10:55 am | #

Would God ever punish us for being merciful?

The very quality of mercy is its implication that harsher treatment would be just. Scripture scholars, is not mercy one of the core elements of the NT?
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 11:03 am | #

Dawn said: "(...) it seems difficult to accept the killing of even one innocent among those sentenced to the death penalty, when there is another way (life without parole) to keep killers off the streets."

At last... We finally agree on something!
SMP | 08.05.05 - 11:59 am | #

What I said was that we have the ‘means’ to do so that few if any previous societies had. By means, I mean technology, money, etc. that comes with being the wealthiest nation in the world and in history.

Fair enough, but it doesn't seem clear to me that wealthy = better equipped to keep prisoners. Keeping prisoners is something that even very poor nations have been able to do quite effectively.

I am applying that same logic here. We know the criminal justice system makes mistakes and that innocent people likely have been, or will be, put to death. As long as that is the case, then if we are to be consistent, my own opinion is that we must do all we can ‘to protect the innocent’ and err on the side of life.

Well, I don't think the "err on the side of life" formula works at all(though I recognize that a lot of pro-lifers use it). If we apply it universally and consistently it would also result in the precept "don't ever drive a car". It isn't as though unjustly keeping someone in prison for life, even by mistake, is just a minor thing.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 12:40 pm | #

Fair enough, but it doesn't seem clear to me that wealthy = better equipped to keep prisoners. Keeping prisoners is something that even very poor nations have been able to do quite effectively.

Your point only reinforces my argument. Either way, we?d agree that if the will to do so is there, effectively keeping prisoners locked up is possible. This supports the notion that an acceptable alternative for protecting society exists. Thus one pillar in the pro capital punishment argument falls.

Well, I don't think the "err on the side of life" formula works at all(though I recognize that a lot of pro-lifers use it). If we apply it universally and consistently it would also result in the precept "don't ever drive a car". It isn't as though unjustly keeping someone in prison for life, even by mistake, is just a minor thing.

The fact that folks die in car accidents is not relevant. The purpose of driving a car is transportation. A death in a car accident is a possible, unintended outcome of engaging in that activity. In the case of both abortion and the Death Penalty, the INTENDED objective is the death of the individual. The question is whether we as Christians (and consequently as a society) endorse a practice which has as its key objective the death of an individual, and which almost assuredly will result in the sanctioned killing of an innocent person, when there is a just and reasonable alternative. This logic applies uniquely to the abortion and capital punishment issues.

Dawn: Thanks for the comment. This is the issue which made me abandon my support for capital punishment. If I am very honest, I want to be pro capital punishment, but the logic of my pro-life stance compels me to be against it.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 1:05 pm | #

Dawn,

I agree but add that even if every person was guilty it would still be wrong. And I have a problem with comparing our saviors death as being equal to a killers death. If you kill a person and then the GOV kills you the deaths are not equal. Since we killed jesus it stands to reason that we all deserve the death penalty. However our lives are not equal to that of our Jesus. We could die a thousand times and that debt would not be repayed. We could die horribly those thousand times and still not have it equal our Saviors death. In one instance we are killing an unwilling person. In the case of Christ He laid down his life for us. He made us valuble. Killing us and sending us strait to hell neither brings greater value to His life much less equals it. And him letting us live, in spite of our fingerprints on the hammers, does nothing to devalue His life or His death.
josephine | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 1:36 pm | #

Either way, we’d agree that if the will to do so is there, effectively keeping prisoners locked up is possible.

Sure. It just doesn't distinguish us from other times and places, the way it is usually formulated to do. In fact not much at all has changed in terms of physical ability to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, which is a very low-tech enterprise.

The fact that folks die in car accidents is not relevant.

You misunderstood the purpose of my comment. I wasn't saying that there is no distinction between driving a car and executing a prisoner. I was saying that "err on the side of life" is a sentiment, not a principle.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 1:40 pm | #

The question is whether we as Christians (and consequently as a society) endorse a practice which has as its key objective the death of an individual, and which almost assuredly will result in the sanctioned killing of an innocent person, when there is a just and reasonable alternative. This logic applies uniquely to the abortion and capital punishment issues.

And war, and self-defense as well: in any situation where intentional action directly causes the death of another. That is why many Christians become pacifists. But pacifism is not a necessary corrollary to Christianity.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 1:43 pm | #

Zippy,
I just want to take an opportunity to say that you are the author of one of the single best posts I’ve ever seen in the blogosphere (I think Dawn even reposted here a while back). Anybody who hasn’t read it should do so.
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...on-by- what.html

Anyway…
Sure. It just doesn't distinguish us from other times and places, the way it is usually formulated to do. In fact not much at all has changed in terms of physical ability to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, which is a very low-tech enterprise.

There is some truth in this, but I think the ability to do so more humanely have changed. I also would argue that technology has made the possibility of rectifying an escape far more workable. I am thinking here of things like tracking devices (worn on the ankle), widespread media which can alert the populace, to name a few. I do think a case can be made that the overall protection of society is more plausible today than it ever has been.

Whether it’s a modern phenomenon or not, the point is that the alternative is doable. I’ll drop the ‘modern’ part of this since we seem to agree on that.

You misunderstood the purpose of my comment. I wasn't saying that there is no distinction between driving a car and executing a prisoner. I was saying that "err on the side of life" is a sentiment, not a principle.

I probably would have done better to leave that phrase off. The real principal I am dealing with is that of protecting the innocent from government sanctioned killing.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 2:09 pm | #

Whether it’s a modern phenomenon or not, the point is that the alternative is doable. I’ll drop the ‘modern’ part of this since we seem to agree on that.

Yes, we do. It is an odd thing, because I am against the death penalty here and now, and even under virtually ideal circumstances I think it should almost never take place though I can't categorically rule it out. But I often find myself arguing underlying principles with others who are also against it.

And thanks, I'm glad you appreciated that post.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 2:16 pm | #

And war, and self-defense as well: in any situation where intentional action directly causes the death of another. That is why many Christians become pacifists. But pacifism is not a necessary corrollary to Christianity.

I considered those two and left them off for what I think good reason. In both war and self-defense, there can, and do, arise instances where there simply is no alternative. Each instance becomes then a matter of prudential judgment. This is true of capital punishment as well (I’ve admitted it is not intrinsically evil as is abortion), but the instance surrounds a societal/national policy, not each execution. That’s what is under discussion here.

My prudential judgment leads me to the conclusion that there IS an alternative, and in the interest of protecting the innocent we should use the alternative.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 2:24 pm | #

I can't categorically rule it out. But I often find myself arguing underlying principles with others who are also against it.

I think we are largely in agreement. I hope I’ve demonstrated I understand the underlying principals, and that this is simply my prudential judgment based on the argument I’ve laid out regarding the protection of innocent life (which I find compelling.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 2:31 pm | #

This is true of capital punishment as well (I’ve admitted it is not intrinsically evil as is abortion), but the instance surrounds a societal/national policy, not each execution. That’s what is under discussion here.

Well, I agree with most everything else but not this, and my disagreement with this is probably academic. In the case of intrinsic evils we are dealing with categories of acts that are always and everywhere evil. In cases like capital punishment it devolves to evaluation of actual individual acts, and it is possible at least in principle that it would be evil in some conceivable circumstance to not carry out an execution. But that is mostly an academic distinction until we are faced with just such an actual case.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 2:54 pm | #

Steve G -

In both war and self-defense, there can, and do, arise instances where there is simply no alternative.

I disagree. There is always an alternative choice, though not necessarily a palatable one. For Christians, this is even more so. Christ, and the multitudes of martys who followed, have all shown that man is capable of choosing to forgo the right to self-defense when reason tells us "there is no choice." War and Self-Defense shouldn't get such free passes if the principles used to attack capital punishment are to be honest ones.

The purpose of war is, at its most brutal, to bring death to one's adversary to such a degree that the adversary yields. Even with all the efforts and billions of dollars the U.S. Military has invested into minimizing the death of innocents from the equation, those deaths still occur and are even expected, to a degree. Given that, how can one hold up the banner of "protect innocent life at all costs" without becoming a complete pacifist, as Zippy as already pointed out?

I believe the comparisons between abortion and capital punishment are not quite parallel. In the latter, the tragic death of an innocent is rare and the product of an error on the way to seeking what is good (justice, reaffirming the value of life -- see above -- etc.). In the former, death of the innocent is 100% and certain, and is the very goal of the exercise.

To compare the two is like saying "These two trees are the same, since they are both 'trees'" without taking note that one is a giant oak living in the front yard, while the other is a plastic and metal representation of a fir/evergreen (whichever) posing as a Christmas ornament in the living room.

And Zippy's car analogy is quite relevant after Dawn's contraceptive reference, for the logic in both is the same: I shall not undertake this perfectly acceptable activity because doing so may end the life of an innocent.
Lance | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 2:59 pm | #

In cases like capital punishment it devolves to evaluation of actual individual acts, and it is possible at least in principle that it would be evil in some conceivable circumstance to not carry out an execution. But that is mostly an academic distinction until we are faced with just such an actual case.

Remember though that we are both in agreement that individual instances of capital punishment can be justified. We are here discussing whether the policy of capital punishment is something that we as Christians wish to support, and how that jives with our pro-life stance (all my comments try to assume the topic of Dawn’s post). The problem is that as an individual, it’s not possible for me to have the information necessary to make a judgment on each act of execution. But with regards to the policy the facts that…

1. The justice system makes errors in conviction.
2. The justice system likely has and will wrongly execute innocent persons.
3. An alternative exists which satisfies justice and sufficiently protects society.

…then in the interest of protecting the innocent, it seems we should not support capital punishment.

I am not sure I can see how NOT executing someone would ever be evil. Could you elaborate?
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 3:11 pm | #

There is always an alternative choice, though not necessarily a palatable one.

Let me rephrase it to say that there are cases where no alternative exists which will achieve the same objective. If someone is pummeling me to death, and my only way out is to use a heavy caliber firearm on them which I know will likely kill them, my only alternative to killing them is to allow them to kill me (I assume no possibility of escape or help arriving). That’s more than unpalatable. That’s the opposite result to reasonable desire I have to remain alive. If a country is invaded, the alternative of surrender does not produce the same objective as fighting back.

In the case of capital punishment, the objectives of protecting society and exacting justice can be got at through different means.

or Christians, this is even more so. Christ, and the multitudes of martys who followed, have all showed that man is capable of choosing to forgo the right to self-defense when reason tells us "there is no choice."

Capable, but not required, and certainly not required when an issue unrelated to martyrdom is in question. As Christians, I would assume that what we would expect of a Christian in the arena being told to give up his faith, would be different than what we would expect of that same Christian in an alley being told to give up his wife.

Given that, how can one hold up the banner of "protect innocent life at all costs" without becoming a complete pacifist, as Zippy as already pointed out?

For my part, I never said ‘at all costs’. I said when an alternative which achieves the same objectives is available. I’d expect that to apply to self defense and war as well. If I can possibly incapacitate my assailant without killing them, I should do so.

I believe the comparisons between abortion and capital punishment are not quite parallel. In the latter, the tragic death of an innocent is rare and the product of an error on the way to seeking what is good (justice, reaffirming the value of life -- see above -- etc.). In the former, death of the innocent is 100% and certain, and is the very goal of the exercise.

You are right, they are not totally parallel, but I am applying the principal to the policy in a way that I think is valid. Your objection here again boils down to relative numbers. What if abortion was somehow made to have only a 10% success rate? Would you be OK with it then?

And Zippy's car analogy is quite relevant after Dawn's contraceptive reference, for the logic in both is the same: I shall not undertake this perfectly acceptable activity because doing so may end the life of an innocent.

Without opening up a new debate regarding contraception, I think Dawn, Zippy, and I, as Catholics (or soon to be Catholics), would argue with the ‘perfectly acceptable activity’ part of that. But for purposes of this discussion, that’s not relevant.

The example Dawn cited is wholly different than the car example. Part of the Oral contraceptive method of working has the objective of destroying an embryo. Hormonal contraceptive generally have three components…

1) Preventing ovulation
2) Drying up cervical mucus to make things inhospitable to sperm
3) And thinning the lining of the uterus to make implantation of a fertilized embryo unlikely.

…the ‘backup’ feature of the pill has as its intent the death of the embryo. If used properly, the likely outcome will by intent be the death of innocent human beings.

If used properly, no function of the car has as any part of its intended use, the death of a person. I would be willing to bet that if cars were designed so that every 10,000th one were meant to explode and kill its inhabitants, you would have a problem with that.
Steve G. | 08.05.05 - 3:39 pm | #

Quoth Steve G.:

Finally, while all unwarranted deaths are tragic, I’d ask someone to show me (other than abortion or the DP) a case where there is a premeditated, drawn out, deliberate killing of innocent that the government endorses. The police officer who shoots the innocent person in the line of duty is an entirely different animal.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying: surely you are not saying that the death penalty is an example of government engaging in the premeditated, drawn out, deliberate killing of innocents?

In any case, there are real differences between an innocent person being executed for a crime he or she did not commit and abortion. The former is a mistake, a miscarriage of justice. Even the justice system, at the end of the day, must acknowledge its mistake. The state does not need to redefine the law in order to acknowledge the error. A mistake is a mistake. Nobody incorporates into their philosophy the syllogism: "I sometimes make mistakes, therefore it is proper to make some mistakes." As a practical matter we say something more like, "I sometimes make mistakes, therefore I must make changes to prevent that." But where abortion is concerned, the law has been redefined in order to sanction abortion, so that the deaths of the unborn are not considered mistakes.

The government is faced with this sort of proposition: "the risk of having the death penalty may result in an innocent person being put to death, but if it is necessary, then this risk must be accepted." It may seem cruel for the government to make value judgements which balance its proper objectives against risk to its citizens, but such is the nature of government's job. For example, some state governments have set their highway speed limit at 70 or 75 mph. Everyone knows this results, statistically speaking, in a certain number of deaths. But if they lower the limit to 65 mph, what about all the lives that would have been saved had they set the limit at 55? For that matter, what of the lives lost due to speeds above 25? Suppose driving faster than 10 miles an hour results in one single unnecessary death. Can we, as Christians, conscionably accept laws which allow us to blithely drive 12 miles per hour, knowing full well an innocent person may lose his or her life as a result? Should we have cars at all?

Harsh as it may seem, the government must sometimes do things which may put some of its individual citizens at risk. The risk of losing one's life due to being wrongly convicted of a capital crime is far, far less than the risk of being killed in an auto accident. But there is a perceivable benifit to being permitted to drive at highway speeds. Sadly, in this country, the risk of being murdered is far greater than the risk of being executed for a crime you did not commit.
Joel | Homepage | 08.05.05 - 10:59 pm | #

I am not sure I can see how NOT executing someone would ever be evil. Could you elaborate?

Oh it is certainly possible in principle, and a hypothetical is fairly easy to imagine. If the king has a duty to protect the common good and carry out justice, and if order has broken down to the point that there are no functioning prisons at all, and we have stipulated that in the case of a particular heinous criminal the death penalty is in fact just, the king has two options: (1) he may carry out his duty by executing the criminal, or (2) he may stand in derelection of his duty by not doing so. Of the two available options, failing to execute the criminal is the evil one since it is the only one that involves choosing evil (derelection of duty).
Zippy | Homepage | 08.06.05 - 1:02 am | #

Steve G -

You are right, they are not totally parallel, but I am applying the principal to the policy in a way that I think is valid. Your objection here again boils down to relative numbers. What if abortion was somehow made to have only a 10% success rate? Would you be OK with it then?

No, my objection certainly does not boil down to relative numbers. It is not the numbers that are definitive, but the divergent purposes; the numbers merely illustrate how different those purposes are.

The difference lies in the very words of your offered hypo: "What if abortion was somehow made to have only a 10% success rate?" That, sir, is the difference. For abortion, the death of the innocent is a SUCCESS. With capital punishment, such an outcome is a MISTAKE. To compare the two as being on the same side of the ledger is simply wrong, IMHO.
Lance | Homepage | 08.06.05 - 1:29 am | #

I won't deny your excellent points in the last point. I'l simply reiterate the central point I've been making throughout. The mistake is totally preventable because an acceptable alernative exists.

I'll further say that I draw no equivalence between the two other than the point I've been making regarding the protection of innocent life. Other than that, there is no similarity.
Steve G. | 08.06.05 - 8:05 pm | #

Steve G -

It is the assertion that "an acceptable alternative exists" that is at the core of the disagreement. For many, life in prison is not an "acceptable alternative" to death when the crime is a vicious murder. I think Mary said it best:

By the same token, assault, rape, and robbery are all more or less severe forms of crime. Murder belongs to another order of crime.
Lance | Homepage | 08.08.05 - 1:48 am | #

For many, life in prison is not an "acceptable alternative" to death when the crime is a vicious murder.

The question though isn't what do people think; the question is what is true. Whether many people think something or not is really beside the point. Morality is objective.

At some point the inability to carry out justice reliably does impact the liciety of carrying it out in a certain way, even if alternative ways are not as suitable from the standpoint of justice. If I know that half the time I get into the car I am going to run over an innocent person it is almost certainly illicit for me to drive, at least until I fix that problem.

The point is that a process of punishing criminals doesn't have the categorical character that some people seem to think it has. Whether or not a particular criminal deserves death is an objective categorical fact; whether we can carry out a just punishment or not, and how just that punishment can be, is influenced by that fact but it is not solely determined by that fact.

Above I attempted to tell Steve G that with the DP you can't escape from the particulars: there are at least hypothetical cases where failing to carry out the death penalty would be immoral. I'll say the same to the other side: there are at least hypothetical circumstances in which having a policy allowing the death penalty at all would be immoral.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.08.05 - 9:31 am | #