Was Pope John Paul II incorrect on the death penalty? The answer appears to be yes.
Pope John Paul II: a pro-death penalty essay
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 8/06
SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."
This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.
Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration.
First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.
When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them.
Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers.
Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.
History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions.
If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.
If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, saving more innocent lives.
No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 8 recent ones, find that executions do deter.
As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives.
If the Pope's defending society position h
Mr. Sharp, there's not room here to engage all this, but if you follow the link on my original post and read Cardinal Dulles on the Church's position, I think you will find "deterrence" is not a question that much interests the Church--for the simple reason that it's always wrong to use a person --even a very bad person-- as an object.
John Paul's objections seem to have been two-fold. From the standpoint of justice, he held that the death penalty is a tool of a state that claims to stand in some way for justice and natural law. But if modern liberal states repudiate any such grounding, believing solely in positive law, then by what right do they presume to take life?
Secondly, he of course was holding out for mercy --where there's life, there's hope for repentance and salvation.
Not saying there aren't arguments against those positions, but it's not fair to say JP II didn't care about protecting innocents. (And anyway, death row inmates can escape too.)
My refreshingly brief take on this subject:
He should have been shot dead in his spidey hole.
Dictators don't deserve a trial - they were the law in their countries, they were never subject to the law, or its protections. This used to be understood, vis a vis Monarchs.
Was it? They tried Mary, and Charles. But then that was all post-John... Louis?
Sorry, I meant Absolute Monarchs. Which Saddam was. Pre-Magna Carta. Even Louis governed subject to the Republic say-so (if we're talking about the same Louis), so it was right that he got a trial.
My point was that Saddam put himself above, and hence outside, the law and its protection. Law cuts both ways. He also put himself outside international law (well everyone does that).
So, the order should have been "shoot on sight".
Brett, in retrospect I think you're right.But I don't know how anyone could have resisted the chance to question him --and once you do that, you're more or less stuck with this well-intentioned but impossible process.
It's funny. The solution to both (shooting him on site, and questioning him) would have been to whisk him away to a secret prison (cue the wails from the EU), question him, shoot him, and dump his body back in the hole. Which is what everyone in the fever swamps thought we were going to do, right in time for an election, natch. It's fun the way they think we're being sensible all the time.
One would like to know how many American and Iraqi lives and how much treasure were expended by the absurd trial of Saddam? To "try" an international monster such as Saddam when there cannot possibly be any other outcome than his execution is itself an inhumane act. Keeping him alive meant that his supporters, who are not few, continued to live and fight for the hope that he could be returned to power, for example when certain defeatist forces win back the White House.
You are stuck with a problem when you capture such a person if you think he should be tried. The only MORAL course is to execute him at once, in order to make his supporters despair and surrender the fight.
As a Catholic, I do not rejoice that Saddam was executed but I take satisfaction in the restoration of justice just the same. I am even prepared to say that I have prayed for his last-minute conversion, as I would have no human being face eternal damnation. But Catholics above all must begin to make the elemental distinction between the justice of executing a moral monster versus that gruesome celebration of Saddam in hell which we see in right wing media and in rejoicing in some circles. Among Iraqis it is at least understandable, but not among civilized and Christian peoples in the West.
Commenting by HaloScan
