Death Penalty and Bad Alternatives

[DL82]

I would generally say that I am opposed to the Death Penalty, in line with (or maybe slightly more vehemently than) the teaching of the Church. Mainly, my concern is about the state paying someone to commit the mortal sin of murder, rather than about the rights of the condemned murderer, though of course human judgment is always fallible, and so miscarriages of justice are also an issue.

The question is, where do we draw the line between what is or is not the Death Penalty.

e.g.
Zaccharias Moussawi was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement in a Super-Max prison, without possibility of parole. In essence, he was sentenced to death by natural causes.

If this is acceptable, then how about sentencing someone to be walled up in a room without food and water? It’s not a ‘death penalty’ because nobody murders them, they die of natural causes. Nonetheless, I would have my reservations, not least because this would be one of the most agonising ways to die.

What about sentencing someone to be given a lobotomy - turning them into a human zombie. This would be “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm” to use the language of the Church’s teaching. Maybe sever his spinal cord for good measure so he can’t use his arms and legs. Would that be acceptable? It falls short of the death penalty, but at what cost?

What degree of power is it right for the secular authorities to have over a human being? I know according to the more traditional teachings, the state bears the sword and this is a situation sanctioned by God, and therefore we owe the state our obedience unless asked to act against conscience. All the same, in a democracy, we owe more than just obedience, we play a part in government, and in ensuring that the government governs ethically.

The problem with the Church’s view about the death penalty, as I see it, is it is all about the way the modern state can exercise other ways of rendering criminals inoffensive. In my opinion, the powers that the modern state can exercise are too extensive already. Surveillance, using medical procedures to control individuals, and repressive legislation are all more serious concerns for me than the death penalty as such. What about an argument against the death penalty based on Christian ideals of mercy and a recognition that we are all transgressors against the Law of God?

Where is the limit of what the state can justly impose on an individual? How do we temper justice with mercy while also being merciful on the victims of crime by ensuring security?

OK, that’s just turned a minor issue into the entire crux of Christian political thought. Should make for an interesting discussion.

 

[puzzleannie]

perhaps an alternative would be to sentence a convicted felon to a hospice run by Terri Shiavo’s doctors so he can be starved to death, the media considered that treatment humane, so they can’t possibly object to treating convicts that way.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I would generally say that I am opposed to the Death Penalty, in line with (or maybe slightly more vehemently than) the teaching of the Church. Mainly, my concern is about the state paying someone to commit the mortal sin of murder, rather than about the rights of the condemned murderer, though of course human judgment is always fallible, and so miscarriages of justice are also an issue.

I would agree with you here. The possibilty of executing an innocent person should be enough reason to abolish the death penalty, IMHO. Furthermore, I personally cannot accept that a state can decide whether a person should die. Period.

The question is, where do we draw the line between what is or is not the Death Penalty.

e.g.
Zaccharias Moussawi was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement in a Super-Max prison, without possibility of parole. In essence, he was sentenced to death by natural causes.

If this is acceptable, then how about sentencing someone to be walled up in a room without food and water? It’s not a ‘death penalty’ because nobody murders them, they die of natural causes. Nonetheless, I would have my reservations, not least because this would be one of the most agonising ways to die.

Here, I don’t agree with you. RE Moussaoui, his sentence did nothing to guarantee his death. We’re all going to die eventually, whether in prison or not; Moussaoui’s sentence merely revokes all vestiges of personal liberty.

The second example is, in fact, murder. The deliberate denial of the basic essentials of life has but one purpose: to bring about death.

If I put you in a plastic box and sucked the air out of it, or filled it with water, am I not a murderer?

What about sentencing someone to be given a lobotomy - turning them into a human zombie. This would be “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm” to use the language of the Church’s teaching. Maybe sever his spinal cord for good measure so he can’t use his arms and legs. Would that be acceptable? It falls short of the death penalty, but at what cost?

At the cost of that person’s ability to make further moral choices – i.e., his ability to repent for the sins he commited.

What degree of power is it right for the secular authorities to have over a human being? I know according to the more traditional teachings, the state bears the sword and this is a situation sanctioned by God, and therefore we owe the state our obedience unless asked to act against conscience. All the same, in a democracy, we owe more than just obedience, we play a part in government, and in ensuring that the government governs ethically.

The problem with the Church’s view about the death penalty, as I see it, is it is all about the way the modern state can exercise other ways of rendering criminals inoffensive. In my opinion, the powers that the modern state can exercise are too extensive already. Surveillance, using medical procedures to control individuals, and repressive legislation are all more serious concerns for me than the death penalty as such. What about an argument against the death penalty based on Christian ideals of mercy and a recognition that we are all transgressors against the Law of God?

Where is the limit of what the state can justly impose on an individual? How do we temper justice with mercy while also being merciful on the victims of crime by ensuring security?

If you want my opinion, the limit is exactly the intersection of a) punishment fitting the crime and b) treating the offender with the dignity he/she deserves as a human being, regardless of his/her offenses. That is to say, incarceration with basic sustenance and the opportunity for education and spiritual enlightenment, but no liberty, for a duration determined by the heinousness of the offense.

Furthermore, I did not miss the note of irony in the above statements. Clearly you mean to point out the reasons you disagree with portions of the Church’s stance on the DP. I merely mean to point out the logic behind tbe idea with which you take issue. I hope I have done so adequately.

Peace,
Dante

 

[pnewton]

How do we temper justice with mercy while also being merciful on the victims of crime by ensuring security?
.

We can not always be merciful to both. In which case, it is right that the innocent receive more protection than the guilty. We must remember that Christian mercy is focused primarily on the forgiveness of sin and life everlasting. Particularly in Catholic theology, suffering can be redemptive for those desiring mercy. The proper attitude of the pentitent heart can add meaning even to incarceration. From Victor Franlk.

. . Everything can be taken from a man but one thing; the last of the human freedoms-to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.