If an innocent man is wrongly convicted and executed, are the jurors culpable for his death in the eyes of The Lord?

[BornInMarch]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder). Even though he is innocent, the circumstances make him look guilty and the jury vote to convict. He is sentenced to death and executed.

Is the jury culpable for his execution? (Important note: the jury in this scenario does not know he is innocent. But would it make a difference they did?)

 

[BornInMarch]

I really do not appreciate inflammatory comments.

I can not stand when people ask “what God would allow a tragedy caused and carried out by humans?”.

The answer is that God gave humans free will, and unfortunately not everybody uses it for good. You can have free will and know that some people will use it for evil, or you can have a world where nothing bad happens because nobody has free will. You can’t have both, and it is irresponsible to blame God for tragedies that humans cause all their own.

Now, back to the main question. If a jury unwittingly convicts someone of a crime that warrants execution, are they to blame for his death?

 

[DarkLight]

I really do not appreciate inflammatory comments.

I can not stand when people ask “what God would allow a tragedy caused and carried out by humans?”.

The answer is that God gave humans free will, and unfortunately not everybody uses it for good. You can have free will and know that some people will use it for evil, or you can have a world where nothing bad happens because nobody has free will. You can’t have both, and it is irresponsible to blame God for tragedies that humans cause all their own.

Now, back to the main question. If a jury unwittingly convicts someone of a crime that warrants execution, are they to blame for his death?

No. Culpability requires either knowledge or some form of culpable ignorance. Assuming the jury had suitable evidence to convict, they are not guilty of his death. No more than a man who causes another’s death in a freak accident he could not have predicted is guilty of that person’s death.

 

[robwar]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder). Even though he is innocent, the circumstances make him look guilty and the jury vote to convict. He is sentenced to death and executed.

Is the jury culpable for his execution? (Important note: the jury in this scenario does not know he is innocent. But would it make a difference they did?)

If the jurors convicted in good faith based on the evidence presented to them and evidence that would have cleared the person was either not presented or not available to present in a trial then no. Jurors are acting on behalf of society, not on their own volition. It is society that is trying and convicting a person. The reverse is true as well, jurors free someone that should have been convicted.

 

[Pablopedro]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder). Even though he is innocent, the circumstances make him look guilty and the jury vote to convict. He is sentenced to death and executed.

Is the jury culpable for his execution? (Important note: the jury in this scenario does not know he is innocent. But would it make a difference they did?)

If they knew he was innocent and wrongfully convicted him they would be. If it was in error they would not be.

 

[SecretCatholic]

If the death penalty is considered just by the church, then no, they are not culpable- because there was no intent to do ill, just human error. I am not sure about the church’s exact teachings on he death penalty.

However, I consider it to be a great evil and I would never knowingly and willingly partake in a decision which could lead to a man’s execution. In fact, I was once in a jury panel and when asked about any objections, I made it known that I was against the death penalty, which apparently freed me from jury duty. I think killing a man for anything other than self-defense is a repugnant thing.

 

[Nacho45]

Members of a jury do not sentence and carry out a death order. They simply decide guilt or innocence, at least in the USA. I don’t know about other nations.

 

[Nacho45]

No.
Apparently nothing happens that the all-knowing, all-loving God doesn’t allow to happen–and that includes plagues that kill millions, genocides, children being raped and tortured, tsunamis that wipe out cities…and a person being wrongly convicted of a crime and executed.

God is responsible for the execution. Jesus was executed and was an innocent man, non?

.

This type of theology creates all sorts of problems.

 

[JRKH]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder). Even though he is innocent, the circumstances make him look guilty and the jury vote to convict. He is sentenced to death and executed.

Is the jury culpable for his execution? (Important note: the jury in this scenario does not know he is innocent. But would it make a difference they did?)

The answer to the first question, based on the above scenario, is No they are not culpable. They acted honestly and in good faith.

The answer in the second case is yes they would be culpable since they did not act in good faith but knowingly convicted the wrong man.

Peace
James

 

[SecretCatholic]

Members of a jury do not sentence and carry out a death order. They simply decide guilt or innocence, at least in the USA. I don’t know about other nations.

Right. They just make the decision that leads a man there. I am sorry, but that is too close to the responsibility of executing a man myself. Especially when you consider that just one undecided or unconvinced juror can save a man from hanging. I think its very morally convenient to say “I didn’t pull the trigger, I just proclaimed the guilt that pulled the trigger.”, but its certainly not very morally convincing!

 

[Nacho45]

Right. They just make the decision that leads a man there. I am sorry, but that is too close to the responsibility of executing a man myself. Especially when you consider that just one undecided or unconvinced juror can save a man from hanging. I think its very morally convenient to say “I didn’t pull the trigger, I just proclaimed the guilt that pulled the trigger.”, but its certainly not very morally convincing!

You seem somewhat unfamiliar with exactly how the justice system works in America. If all parties involved are guilty, this would include the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the defense council, the police officers who arrested the person, the investigators, the crime scene photographer, the forensic specialists in the lab, all witnesses interviewed, friends and family for the way they influenced the person prior to the crime which resulted in the death sentence, and so on.

No, a jury has one specific duty. That duty is to decide if the preponderance of the evidence is enough to convince, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational and prudent person of the guilt of the defendant. Sentencing is not part of the jury duty in any way. That falls squarely on someone else’s lap be it death or a lesser punishment. And we should not forget the appellate process. There is nothing convenient about the process.

Regarding “the decision the leads a man there,” he made that decision himself.

 

[JimG]

No. The jury makes the best decision it can based on the evidence presented to it. It is noteworthy that due to the arcane rules of evidence, jurors may know a good deal less about the full circumstances of a case than the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorneys, or the general public.

I recall being on a jury once wherein a defendant was convicted after several hours of argumentation within the jury. After the verdict, the prosecutor came into the jury room to talk, and he made note of numerous details of the case which he had not been allowed to mention during the course of the trial. That was a simple criminal trial, not a death penalty case.

I read the book “No Crueler Tyrannies,” about some people who ran a child care center and were charged and convicted of child abuse by a very zealous prosecutor. The most remarkable thing about the case is that not only were the defendants innocent, the alleged incidents never even happened. These people spent years in prison for crimes which never occurred.

 

[jc4751]

You seem somewhat unfamiliar with exactly how the justice system works in America. If all parties involved are guilty, this would include the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the defense council, the police officers who arrested the person, the investigators, the crime scene photographer, the forensic specialists in the lab, all witnesses interviewed, friends and family for the way they influenced the person prior to the crime which resulted in the death sentence, and so on.

No, a jury has one specific duty. That duty is to decide if the preponderance of the evidence is enough to convince, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational and prudent person of the guilt of the defendant. Sentencing is not part of the jury duty in any way. That falls squarely on someone else’s lap be it death or a lesser punishment. And we should not forget the appellate process. There is nothing convenient about the process.

Regarding “the decision the leads a man there,” he made that decision himself.

It’s my understanding that, during voir dire, jurors are asked about opposition to the death penalty in potential death penalty cases. The death penalty itself, as practiced in the United States, contradicts what is stated as just practice of capital punishment in the Catechism, so any Catholic juror who answers that they do not oppose the death penalty (as understood on practical grounds) is going against the teachings of the Church on the subject. Regardless of how much a person might or might not deserve it, as Catholics, we cannot advocate being part of the system as it currently exists.

 

[JimG]

It’s my understanding that, during voir dire, jurors are asked about opposition to the death penalty in potential death penalty cases. The death penalty itself, as practiced in the United States, contradicts what is stated as just practice of capital punishment in the Catechism, so any Catholic juror who answers that they do not oppose the death penalty (as understood on practical grounds) is going against the teachings of the Church on the subject. Regardless of how much a person might or might not deserve it, as Catholics, we cannot advocate being part of the system as it currently exists.

I think it’s a little more nuanced than that. The Catechism makes an assumption about when and whether it is possible to protect the public without recourse to the death penalty. Those conditions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, including the status of parole laws, which the jury may not even be aware of.

 

[Ender]

*On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas ST, II-II, 64, 8)

Ender
*

 

[RyanBlack]

Members of a jury do not sentence and carry out a death order. They simply decide guilt or innocence, at least in the USA. I don’t know about other nations.

Death sentences in the United States are in fact imposed by the trial jury in several states.

 

[SecretCatholic]

You seem somewhat unfamiliar with exactly how the justice system works in America. If all parties involved are guilty, this would include the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the defense council, the police officers who arrested the person, the investigators, the crime scene photographer, the forensic specialists in the lab, all witnesses interviewed, friends and family for the way they influenced the person prior to the crime which resulted in the death sentence, and so on.

No, a jury has one specific duty. That duty is to decide if the preponderance of the evidence is enough to convince, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational and prudent person of the guilt of the defendant. Sentencing is not part of the jury duty in any way. That falls squarely on someone else’s lap be it death or a lesser punishment. And we should not forget the appellate process. There is nothing convenient about the process.

Regarding “the decision the leads a man there,” he made that decision himself.

I am very familiar with the general jury system and have been involved with it. You seem not to have understood, or perhaps agreed with, my moral stance. Even if the jury does not impose the death penalty, the jury’s decision directly influences whether a man can be put to death or not. If you consider the death penalty an evil contrary to the pro-life position, it is better not to be voluntarily involved with a process that may well lead to it.

If for example, a possible sentence was rape, would that be acceptable? If I was part of a jury which determined the guilt of man, which, according to the law, could result in legal rape of that man (or woman), would it make it acceptable to say “well, I didn’t rape the man, I just determined his culpability. It was the system/legal rapist who administered the punishment (which is against my moral sense).” I would think not. I think of the death penalty in the same terms.

I think it’s a little more nuanced than that. The Catechism makes an assumption about when and whether it is possible to protect the public without recourse to the death penalty. Those conditions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, including the status of parole laws, which the jury may not even be aware of.

Some of the worse chapters in Church history was when she was condemning heretics to death. I think we have recovered from such faulty and unGodly thinking. There is no reason to kill a man safely put away behind prison walls “for the good of society.” It is barbarous no matter how many forms are filled, air of legitimacy and appeals processes there are.

 

[Nacho45]

I am very familiar with the general jury system and have been involved with it. You seem not to have understood, or perhaps agreed with, my moral stance. Even if the jury does not impose the death penalty, the jury’s decision directly influences whether a man can be put to death or not. If you consider the death penalty an evil contrary to the pro-life position, it is better not to be voluntarily involved with a process that may well lead to it.

If for example, a possible sentence was rape, would that be acceptable? If I was part of a jury which determined the guilt of man, which, according to the law, could result in legal rape of that man (or woman), would it make it acceptable to say “well, I didn’t rape the man, I just determined his culpability. It was the system/legal rapist who administered the punishment (which is against my moral sense).” I would think not. I think of the death penalty in the same terms.

Some of the worse chapters in Church history was when she was condemning heretics to death. I think we have recovered from such faulty and unGodly thinking. There is no reason to kill a man safely put away behind prison walls “for the good of society.” It is barbarous no matter how many forms are filled, air of legitimacy and appeals processes there are.

We are entitled to our opinions no matter what they may be.

 

[Ender]

There is no reason to kill a man safely put away behind prison walls “for the good of society.”

The reason is that security is not the primary objective of punishment, retribution (retributive justice) is. The question that must be affirmatively answered in each and every case is “Is this punishment just?”, not “Is it necessary to protect us?”

It is barbarous no matter how many forms are filled, air of legitimacy and appeals processes there are.

If capital punishment is barbarous then the church has supported barbarity for her entire existence. There may be practical reasons to oppose capital punishment but, at least according to the church, there are no moral ones. A Catholic can in good conscience serve on a jury that hands out the death penalty, or he can reject its use and be excused, but these are personal objections, not doctrinal ones.

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

The reason is that security is not the primary objective of punishment, retribution (retributive justice) is. The question that must be affirmatively answered in each and every case is “Is this punishment just?”, not “Is it necessary to protect us?”

This sounds like an eye for an eye, not Christ’s message.

If capital punishment is barbarous then the church has supported barbarity for her entire existence. There may be practical reasons to oppose capital punishment but, at least according to the church, there are no moral ones. A Catholic can in good conscience serve on a jury that hands out the death penalty, or he can reject its use and be excused, but these are personal objections, not doctrinal ones.

We can certainly have a lively discussion about the theological stance and the Church’s history. But I think you would be hard-pressed to find support for most actual cases of the death penalty within the Vatican today.

I did state that this was MY VIEW, not necessarily the Church’s. I think capital “punishment” is contrary to being pro-life. That said, I think I have a lot of support from Church leaders on my view.