Intro: Mark Shea introduces the topic by linking to bronze age fanatics who stone the guilty and the horrible judicial decision to end Terri Schindler-Schiavo's life. In Mark's comment box, one commenter has declared the death penalty to be immoral and equivalent to murder (he has since backtracked to the position that the death penalty is immoral in the modern age, because of modern means). Mark rightly corrected him about the Church's teachings on the death penalty.
Because my comments were going to be long and slightly off topic, I decided to blog them here rather than pollute Mark's comment box. Thanks to those who stopped by to take a look.
With the murder of John Geoghan in prison, I would think that the statement (from the CCC 2267) -- possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -- would pretty much be seen as a utopian pronouncement.
I simply don't believe that it is possible to prevent crime in prison. I'm not saying that we cannot improve prisons, but unless we believe in "immanentizing the eschaton" or that the America is the New Israel bringing the Kingdom to Earth, then a perfect prison system is simply unreasonable.
It is reasonable to believe that hardcore or psychopathic murders will continue to murder. Druce killed before and he can kill again.
To say that prison guards should have forseen Geoghan's murder uses the same logic as those who say homosexuals (even those who refrain from sex) should be not be ordained because of the homosexual preference for adolescent boys. The demand we never ever again see a priest commit sexual crimes again is equivalent to the demand for perfect prison guards.
I don't demand perfect systems. I'm really untouched by the arguments that take the position that some innocents might be subject to capital punishment (yes, even if I were that innocent).
However, I am always amazed that almost all of those opposed to capital punishment -- even the most liberal/leftist of commentators -- can be found to say, "well, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but in this case I'd make an exception." That's simply a dishonest position to take. The honest position is stated: "I'm for the rare application of the death penalty."
That last pretty much sums up my opinion of capital punishment. I doubt that I will ever "oppose" the death penalty because 1) it's application is not always immoral and 2) no system is perfect: the flaws of fallen humanity ensure that some killers will have the opportunity to kill again. The balance that must be struck is one that ensures order, both in open society and in prisons.
Posted by Bob at September 26, 2003 06:05 AMBob,
I dropped by to see if there was anything new since the posting "By What Authority?"
My main comment about your death penalty post here is that it is incorrect to say that every liberal opposed to the death penalty would make exceptions.
I am against the death penalty completely without exception, and I think the ordinary magisterium was mistaken to support it - just as the ordinary magisterium was mistaken to support slavery at one time.
I even oppose military action, and believe the Christian response to evil should be active non-violent resistance.
It is morally unacceptable for one human being to take the life of another human being - from the womb to the tomb - no exceptions!
I am frequently asked what I would do if someone threatened my wife or family with mortal harm. Of course, I can't really answer that because it has not happened, and you are correct that we do not live a perfect world.
I may not act in perfect and consistent accordance with my beliefs. Yet, this would be sin - less than perfect, and the Gospel calls us to be perfected as our Father in heaven is perfect.
Morally, it would be wrong to kill the person threatening my family. Furthermore, if that person does kill my wife, I am not persoanlly responsible for the killers actions no matter how I responded. The killer, and the killer alone must stand before God at judgement.
The morally right thing to do in such a threat is to lay down my own life trying to prevent harm to my wife...take the bullet for her if necessary...just as Christ laid down his life for us. This is a hard teaching, but if we will not pick up the cross, we are not worthy to call ourselves disciples.
Of course, some will argue that thsi is simply stupid. They will say that the threat will simply kill me and then my wife, and I accomplished nothing.
My response is that I don't see anywhere in the Gospel where we are judged based on the results of following the Lord. Indeed, it seems pretty certainly promised that if we follow Christ, we're likely to appear to fail in the world's eyes sometimes.
Yet, I do believe that ultimately the Gospel does triumph and love wins out over hate and forgiveness over revenge and resurrection over death.
There are examples of how the foolishness of the Gospel call to non-violence actually melts the hearts of evil doers. Saint Francis of Assisi chose to speak with a Muslim Sultan, rather than fight in the crusades. He impressed the Sultan. Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated the power of active non-violent resistance. Ghandi did the same, and though he was a Hindu, he claimed his inspiration came partly form the Sermon on the Mount. The martyrs of the early Christian church converted an Empire.
I see the Holy Father's recent criticism of the death penalty as more than a simple call to limit its application. I believe the Pope is calling us to abolish it.
No exceptions!
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Welcome back, jcecil3. As you can see, I write at a turtle's pace.
You wrote:
My main comment about your death penalty post here is that it is incorrect to say that every liberal opposed to the death penalty would make exceptions.
But I wrote "almost all." Admittedly this is not backed up by a poll, but I doubt any poll would reflect this because I doubt that people are that honest with themselves. I did have one person in mind that typifies this sort of behavior: Stephanie Salter. In her piece titled "Can anyone really help Andrea Yates?", she writes:
EVERYTIME I see a photograph or a video of Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children in the family bathtub, I must fight a totally foreign desire -- to see the state of Texas execute her as soon as possible.
Is this because I believe she deserves "the ultimate punishment"? No. Without reservation, I am opposed to the death penalty. It is because I believe in mercy killing.
True enough, Ms. Salter didn't actually advocate the death penalty for Mrs. Yates, but I've encountered enough "But this time, I'll make an exception" quotes to believe that there are not many opposed to the death penalty who will hold to that pure position against a horrifying circumstance.
The requirement for the death penalty is not one of individual conscience, but of maintaining order. Caesar is responsible for more than the lifes of himself or his family, as a servant of the people he is obligated to defend members of society. Unlike slavery, which has an individual relationship of master and slave, the death penalty is one of society and criminal.
War and the death penalty are tools that defend society, and I don't see the Church being effective in anything other than reducing the resort to war and the death penalty.
Ghandi is a good example of what a peaceful man can accomplish against a generally benevolent empire like the British Empire. There's no need to tell me that the British Empire wasn't perfect. But something tells me he would have faired poorly under a regime like that of Nazi Germany.
As far as your Quaker philosophy concerning self-defense, I would like to point out that self-defense may require the application of deadly force but it certainly does not require death. The catechism clearly requires that death not be the desired end. If it is possible to stop a deadly attack, I would feel morally obligated to use any means including deadly means to stop that attack. The best result would be one where no one died.
A wide-spread application of your philosophy would leave the police toothless against criminals and countries vulnerable to tyrants within and without.
However, if you wish to take up the call of St. Francis, I won't stand in your way.
Pax Vobiscum,
Bob
P.S. Your characterization of the Church's early position on slavery misses the mark.
I am a death penalty opponent, and I have never heard another death penalty opponent (considering who I am, I've certainly met plenty) who subscribes to the "rare exception" philosophy.
Geoghan's death could have been prevented without executing Druce, simply by putting Druce in true solitary confinement, meaning he would be so heavily supervised when out of cell that he would not have been able to "fix" the cell door for later illicit entrance. Nor would he have been able to get to Geoghan's cell afterward.
In most prisons, solitary confinement means you're in your cell 23 hours a day. That hour you're out, you're effectively on one-to-one supervision. The correctional officer never, ever leaves you alone. Prisoners in solitary can have rotating hours out of cell to prevent the need to hire more correctional officers.
Druce had killed before. Druce bragged about killing again. It's a shame the prison officials didn't take his comments seriously. Most people know to take suicidal comments seriously. What's so different about homicidal comments?
Remember, convicted criminals in prison do not have the right of freedom of speech. Druce could easily have been disciplined for homicidal statements.
Posted by: Wall of Fire at October 5, 2003 09:16 PMWelcome Wall of Fire,
You wrote:
I am a death penalty opponent, and I have never heard another death penalty opponent (considering who I am, I've certainly met plenty) who subscribes to the "rare exception" philosophy.
Well, I don't know who you are, so I can't consider the authority of your statement. Anecdotal evidence from a close circle of friends isn't useful (sorta like the homogeneous ideology found in newsrooms like the NYTimes where reporters are unable to detect a liberal bias, e.g. no one I know voted for Nixon/Reagan/Bush).
I finally broke down and found a poll cited by PBS:
Overall, more that 81 percent of Americans say McVeigh should be executed for killing 168 innocent people. A recent poll shows that of the 38 percent of Americans who say they oppose the death penalty, more than half now believe McVeigh should be executed anyway.
Add Stephanie Salter's plea for a "mercy" death penalty, which I doubt overlaps with those who advocate the punishment aspect of the death penalty, and I find the general rule that it's easy to speak of one's opposition to the death penalty in the general, but more difficult to oppose it when confronted with specific examples.
Pax Vobiscum,
Bob
I saw that poll too, but there was no information about how the sample was picked or how the questions were asked. Considering that the media was definitely not neutral on the matter, I think it's worth the question.
I worked for my state's Division of Prisons for three years. I came into daily contact with persons convicted for capital murder, but who for various reasons had their death sentences revoked (the majority were the result of the SCOTUS case in the 1960's). There is no doubt in my mind that these men were guilty. There is no doubt in my mind that these men had to be kept away from society. But within the heavily structured environment of a prison, they not only were productive but some even thrived. There is no doubt in my mind that they contributed, even if in some small way. And I would not presume to decide how God intends each person to contribute to His creation...so I would not presume to judge whether their lives were "worthy."
(P.S. I have also been the victim of a violent crime. The person was paroled some time ago.)
Posted by: Wall of Fire at October 6, 2003 10:19 AMHi Bob,
Regarding Ghandi and the "benevolent British Empire", I think you're looking at the Empire through rose colored glasses. The British are hated so much by the Irish because of forced infanticide and starvation...literal genocide in the nineteenth century.
There is film evidence from the period of Ghandi of extreme acts of violence by British police against the native Indian population. The Arabs hate Tony Blair to this day for what the Brits did during the colonial period, and the Brits made a mess of Africa that lingers to this day.
I say this not to knock the Brits so much as to emphasize how amazing Ghandi's accomplishment really was....and we saw the same thing with Martin Luther King in the deep south.
It's very easy to sit back after the fact and say these folks succeeded because the Americans and the British were different than the Nazis or Fascists or Communists or whomever.
Let's not forget that a lone man in Tiananem Square stopped the Chinese tanks...and I just read an article recently in Newsweek where Russians said it was the Beatles that lead to the demise of communism.
Active non-violence resistance does not work because oppressors are already kind hearted people. It works because because it changes hard hearts into kind hearts.
Regarding the story about a Quaker seeming to momentarily support the deat penalty for Andrea Yates, you admitted she was not really making that point.
Even death penalty opponents get mad as hell sometimes, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times I wished someone dead.
That's precisely the issue though isn't it?
Law puts restraints on our baser impulses. We must decide which impulses we want to shape and define our character. As a follower of Jesus, I chose love over hatred, forgiveness over revenge, and life over death.
A final point to ponder....Jesus was executed by the state.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
jcecil3:
Oh please. You are running a serious risk that I'll no longer take you seriously. I had already acknowledged that the British Empire was not perfect, but it seems perfection is required in order to be bumped out of the same class of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
Since, I'm terribly ignorant of history, perhaps you can tell me more about the system of concentration camps and gulags found in the British Empire.
A clue: The Arabs hate the Brits for their plan to allow the creation of the state of Israel.
Correction: Salter is a Catholic, one among many Catholics who seem to have developed a Quaker philosophy of non-violence. Interestingly, many who have gone this path also seem to be dissenting Catholics.
Note: I find it interesting that the Beatles get credit for the fall of Communism. And what about Pope John Paul II? Oh, it must be because the Beatles are more popular than God.
Two millenia have passed, and a new theological discovery has been made. Finally, I am informed that I should ponder that our Savior was crucified by Pontius Pilate. I never thought of that!
Wall of Fire:
You worked in the prisons? Were you a guard?
As far as the poll is concerned, I'll let you investigate whether the poll is valid. Until then, I'll accept the poll report by the left-leaning PBS as a begrudging admission of facts.
The highly set bar that Caesar must know God's intent and purposes before taking action is a prescription for inaction. Sadly, unfortunate decisions must made, whether it be to carry out the death sentence or go to war. If Catholic philosophy is to be used by Caesar, it must be a useful aid to his decision-making or it will be discarded. In the case of the death penalty, this tool is not as necessary to maintain order as it formerly was.
Meanwhile, please consider that the primary purpose of prison is not only to rehabilitate, but to punish. Criminals should be deterred from committing crimes. An interesting point of discussion might be: if Druce, who is currently serving a life sentence for murder, is found guilty of murdering John Geoghan, what punishment might be handed out that amounts to more than mere symbolism?
Pax Vobiscum,
Bob