Answer 1: “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999)
Answer 2: No.
Thank you for answering. This is essentially what I talked about before. “Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform…”
Because of this, and this alone, I do not, myself, support the death penalty. But neither do I condemn those who do. That is because I am not, myself, persuaded that the above foundational statement is factually accurate, at least in the U.S. (and doubtless at least some other places) Since that is the foundational statement, the conclusion depends on its factual accuracy. If it is factually accurate in the U.S., then I would tend to agree that the death penalty should not be used, despite the fact that prevention is only one of the criteria under Church doctrine.
I always knew there were killings in prison, often of innocent prison guards. It was not long ago that I learned the Aryan Brotherhood not only kills people, often for hire, in prison. It also orders hits from prison that are carried out on the outside. I was intrigued by that, and did a little research, and found that the Aryan Brotherhood is hardly the only prison gang that does it. MS 13, for one, does it a great deal, but there are others as well.
As another thing, that man who killed the “abuser priest” in prison frankly admitted that he had no fear of doing it because he was already sentenced to life without parole in a state without a death penalty. So, without it, there is no deterrent at all to in-prison murders, and the only deterrent to “outside murders” is the possible fear that the outside gang member has of being put inside.
There is a missing term in the Pope’s proposition somewhere. It’s THAT that baffles me. He surely didn’t mean to say that a few gangland murders are acceptable. He had to believe that, e.g., life imprisonment really does prevent further acts, a manifestly untrue proposition, or he had to believe it wasn’t true yet but could be if the society in question devoted the resources to it. Alternatively, he perhaps believed potential recidivists (serial killers, for example, or gangland killers) could be so profoundly sedated that they could not get their thoughts together well enough to kill again or have the will to carry them out.
I am not arguing that JPII was a fool. Of course he wasn’t. But he did not point out the critical bit of information that pulls the foundational statement and the conclusion together. Maybe there is nothing like criminal gangs in European prisons. Maybe they sedate them. Maybe they lock them in absolutely foolproof cells, give them access to nothing that could possibly be made into a weapon, totally prevent all communication with the outside, and shift them around mechanically (like with automatic corrals for cattle) instead of by prison guards.
I recall seeing some of the ways prisoners make lethal weapons. To totally avoid that, they could not be allowed to have anything at all. Not paper, not pencils, not razor blades, not toothbrushes, no fabric out of which one could make a garrotte…just nothing. Maybe that’s what the deal is in, e.g., German prisons. Maybe that’s even what the deal is with the place where they keep Charles Manson.
But, as I said, something is missing; something crucial. Nobody can accurately say that no murderers pose a threat to others in the U.S. prison system. Manifestly many do.
The Pope is the Pope, and it’s not his function to design prison systems. But it is ours, in a sense. I think before those who absolutely oppose the death penalty can demand its termination, they need to consider how further acts of violence by convicted killers can really be prevented and the innocent thus protected.
I would not, under any circumstance, want to be a judge, for many reasons. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that I, or any poster, could end up on a jury in a murder trial. I know enough about such crimes and the absolute heinousness of some, to know that a moral objection, and only that, would be enough to prevent every person on earth from decreeing the death penalty for some crimes. Some of those people did not kill in the heat of passion or in a panic state during a robbery. They’re not all clean shots between the eyes either. Some tortured and tortured and tortured their victims beyond all humanity, beyond all pity, doing things we cannot even hold in our minds, and without the slightest remorse; no with glee, and under circumstances that we know for sure they would do it again if they could.
We need to know more than I think we know before we can preclude prudential judgments in this matter. I have made my decision, but not based on prudential judgment, but only upon reverence for the Pope. Unfortunately, as far as I know, JPII did not tell us that “something more”. Perhaps Pope Benedict will do so.
