Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[Sunflower15]

When discussing Church’s teachings with Pro-Lifer’s, sometimes someone intuitively mentions that the Death Penalty is different from Abortion because of the innocence/guilt aspect…

However, Justices Thomas and Scalia [both Catholics], apparently recently argued that it is NOT in opposition to the US Constitution to execute an inmate who was convicted of a crime and later able to prove innocence.

Though I know about separation of Church and state, my question is how can a Catholic in good conscience be ProLife in terms of Abortion, but not ProLife in terms of the Death Penalty execution of someone known to be innocent of the crime for which he is being executed?

Justice Scalia was quoted as stating:
“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

This quote is from his dissent, together with Thomas’, for the new hearing on Troy Davis’ case, believed by many to be innocent and ordered to be executed.

My point is not so much about Scalia or Thomas, though I find this disturbing to say the least, but rather about whether or not Catholics should advocate aggressively against the execution of ‘innocent’ Death Row inmates…

How innocent is ‘innocent’? Is is a matter of degree for Catholics? [or for other Christians for that matter]

 

[Christy_Beth]

For me, life is life. No matter what a person has done, it isn’t up to us to decide if that person dies or not. By “innocent” I think they mean that there is no way possible that that particular person had anything to do with the crime.

 

[Georgia]

People often confuse the terms of not guilty with innocent. The state has to prove a person guilty; he does not have to prove himself innocent. If the state cannot reach the amount of proof needed for a guilty verdict, no matter how likely it is the person committed the crime, he should be released. Many people who are the opposite of innocent walk because the burden of proof was not met.

If the writings are accurate, perhaps the justices were stating the law and not their personal beliefs. I would state that abortion is legal, but I most certainly do not believe it is moral.

There would be no greater miscarriage of justice than that of putting an innocent person to death. The system must be exacting in ensuring that a scenario such as that never happens.

 

[Secret_Square]

The Justices are NOT expounding Catholic teaching on capital punishment, or even necessarily stating their own personal views of what is right and wrong in this matter, but simply stating their opinion of what the U.S. Constitution (a secular document) does and does not require when it comes to appeals of death sentences.

Apparently, they believe that if a defendant has been given a fair trial, found guilty, and sentenced to death in accordance with the law, the Constitution does not require the execution to be indefinitely delayed (often for many years or even decades) while all possible further evidence of innocence is examined.

Nowhere do they say that it is “okay” to execute innocent people, or even that they personally would endorse executing a person if evidence of their actual innocence was found. All they are saying is that in THEIR opinion, the U.S. Constitution allows legally imposed death sentences to be carried out, regardless of what happens after that sentence is given.

 

[bpbasilphx]

This is one reason why I’m against the death penalty.

A person wrongly imprisoned can be released, and even restitution made.

A person wrongly executed can only be buried.

 

[Sunflower15]

People often confuse the terms of not guilty with innocent. The state has to prove a person guilty; he does not have to prove himself innocent. If the state cannot reach the amount of proof needed for a guilty verdict, no matter how likely it is the person committed the crime, he should be released. Many people who are the opposite of innocent walk because the burden of proof was not met.

I understand what you mean…I was not explicit enough…they are referring to ‘proving innocence’ by DNA testing, which can say someone could not be the perpetrator of a specific crime…

If the writings are accurate, perhaps the justices were stating the law and not their personal beliefs. I would state that abortion is legal, but I most certainly do not believe it is moral.

I suppose so as well…though on this specific instance, they were against offering a new hearing to Troy Davis to provide additional evidence that could prove his innocence…or at least ‘not guilty’…and being that he currently has a stay on his order of execution, it disturbs me that the Justices are not a little more ‘concerned’ about the possibility of his innocence.

There would be no greater miscarriage of justice than that of putting an innocent person to death. The system must be exacting in ensuring that a scenario such as that never happens.

I tried to appeal to a ‘general’ [rather than specific to this case] concept of executing an ‘innocent’ person [of a specific crime at least].

My hypothetical case is whether or not executing an adult who is innocent of a crime is any different than abortion? Apparently it is constitutional to execute such an inmate, just as it is to have an abortion…

It may be that noticing another instance of lack of ProLife protection in our legal system actually help to strengthen our anti-abortion point…if we are true believers of the Sanctity of Life principle.

Your thoughts?

 

[Sunflower15]

The Justices are NOT expounding Catholic teaching on capital punishment, or even necessarily stating their own personal views of what is right and wrong in this matter, but simply stating their opinion of what the U.S. Constitution (a secular document) does and does not require when it comes to appeals of death sentences.

Apparently, they believe that if a defendant has been given a fair trial, found guilty, and sentenced to death in accordance with the law, the Constitution does not require the execution to be indefinitely delayed (often for many years or even decades) while all possible further evidence of innocence is examined.

Nowhere do they say that it is “okay” to execute innocent people, or even that they personally would endorse executing a person if evidence of their actual innocence was found. All they are saying is that in THEIR opinion, the U.S. Constitution allows legally imposed death sentences to be carried out, regardless of what happens after that sentence is given.

Agreed in essence…however, they both voted against a new hearing for a specific inmate that many believe to be innocent, knowing there is an order of execution for him waiting…
I don’t know if you are familiar with the case of Troy Davis, if you want to read about it go to:

examiner.com/x-9052-Orlando-Roman-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m8d17-Troy-Davis-gets-a-chance-to-present-new-evidence

examiner.com/x-9052-Orlando-Roman-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m6d22-Latest-news-on-Troy-Davis-execution

On the other hand, my main reason for this post is to consider abortion and wrongful executions in light of Catholic moral teaching…I used a current event - the opinion of 2 Catholic Supreme Court Justices as an illustration.

 

[Georgia]

The issue confronting the justices, as I see it, is a question of how long after the finder of fact, the jury, rules before we carry out the sentence. They seem to be saying that there is no constitutional requirement that we delay indefinitely until every possible and maybe impossible explanation of the crime has been examined.

Appeals courts traditionally have been very reluctant to second-guess the jury. Appeals are won on trial errors and not on whether the jury got it right.

 

[Sunflower15]

Does anyone believe that executing someone convicted of a crime that he did not commit is similar, morally speaking, to executing an abortion?

Should the same Sanctity of Life principle hold for both equally or not? And, why?

 

[Ender]

My hypothetical case is whether or not executing an adult who is innocent of a crime is any different than abortion?

It is as different as killing someone in self defense differs from murder. There are three aspects to every action that are involved in determining morality and culpability: the nature of the act itself, the intention behind it, and the circumstances. Circumstances generally affect only the culpability and do not change the morality of the action. Unless an act is intrinsically evil, such as abortion, it is primarily the intent that determines morality. To equate the deliberate killing of an unborn child with the unintended killing of an innocent person is to focus solely on the outcome, but the outcome **never **changes the moral nature of an action.

There is no situation in which an abortion is not evil regardless of the reason why one is performed (this does not apply to situations where the fetus dies as a result of another operation). The execution of an innocent person occurs without the intent to harm the innocent and is therefore not immoral; it is “merely” a tragic mistake.

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 I/II 64,8)

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I guess I find the question somewhat ludicrous. Of course knowingly executing innocent inmates is unacceptable. Unknowingly executing innocent inmates is nonsensical as it assumes an innocence that is unknown.

 

[Debra_C]

I can’t speak to the consciences of others, Supreme Court Justices or otherwise. But it is asolutely not acceptable to execute anyone we know to be innocent of the crime for which we are executing him, whether or not he has been convicted previously in a court of law. The writers of the constitution didn’t think so either. That is why they instituted the adversarial jury system ensuring a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, etc. It was said by one of our founding fathers that it is better that many guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished unjustly.

Our beloved John Paull the Great stated multiple times that he felt the death penalty was no longer needed or justifiable in the modern age. Not only is there potential for executing the innocent accidentally due to mistakes, even in our jury system, but if we can protect society from the hardened criminals without taking human life, which we clearly have the resources to do, then we should do so simply out of respect for the intrinsic value of every human person.

 

[Newbie2]

I guess I find the question somewhat ludicrous. Of course knowingly executing innocent inmates is unacceptable. Unknowingly executing innocent inmates is nonsensical as it assumes an innocence that is unknown.

I agree. The conclusion seems to be “if we had known, we would not have done it, but we did not know, so doing it was OK”. Seems pretty cut and dried to moi.

 

[ern42]

I guess the Catholic church thought it was acceptable during the dark ages, when it executed or had executed thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children because of their religious convictions. Or are the “experts” going to deny the fact of the Inquision in world history. Go ahead, and type in you “excuse”.

 

[Newbie2]

First, show us some doctrinal statement(s) that such was an acceptable practice.

Then we can give you an “excuse”.

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

First, show us some doctrinal statement(s) that such was an acceptable practice.

Then we can give you an “excuse”.

Do I hear the shuffling sound of a ‘no true Scotsman’ in the distance?

Five straight centuries of burning people alive for imaginary crimes, and for explicitly religious reasons, but no worries; these fine believers just read the Book wrong.

Here’s a doctrinal statement for you…straight from the mouth of our Lord: Thou shall not suffer a witch to live…

And the convoluted exegesis begins and all shall be well in the kingdom.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess I find the question somewhat ludicrous. Of course knowingly executing innocent inmates is unacceptable. Unknowingly executing innocent inmates is nonsensical as it assumes an innocence that is unknown.

I totally agree. It’s a non-issue.

 

[Sunflower15]

There is no situation in which an abortion is not evil regardless of the reason why one is performed (this does not apply to situations where the fetus dies as a result of another operation). The execution of an innocent person occurs without the intent to harm the innocent and is therefore not immoral; it is “merely” a tragic mistake.

Ender

How exactly do we ‘execute an innocent person without the intent to harm the innocent’?

Are you assuming that we had NO IDEA that we executed the wrong person when we REFUSED to consider NEW evidence that was suggested as a possibility that this person is innocent of the crime?

Because in reality, many groups, such as the Innocence Project and Amnesty International, as well as many other individual and groups, including prior death row wardens and international dignitaries, request for evidence to be considered and sometimes, it just isn’t…

Maybe you just haven’t read about all the exonerations of inmates after serving decades on Death Row [the lucky ones who are still alive at least] for crimes they did not commit and who were about to be executed…

How is their innocence considered as ‘murder is to self-defense’ when comparing to abortion? I just don’t understand:shrug:

 

[Sunflower15]

I totally agree. It’s a non-issue.

Is that your ‘line’ during your ‘one-on-one’ with your Maker when asked what did you do to stop injustice for the innocent executed in your democratic nation? Good Luck!:

 

[Sunflower15]

I agree. The conclusion seems to be “if we had known, we would not have done it, but we did not know, so doing it was OK”. Seems pretty cut and dried to moi.

Well…except that it’s more like ’ maybe they are innocent, but we really don’t care that much, so let them be executed…I’m too busy now for this ’ sort of attitude…

It really is not about ‘not knowing’ because groups hold rallies to try to show support, after requesting hearings with reams and reams of paper explaining the discrepancies, and people from all over the world requesting out attention…claiming ignorance is almost impossible…similar as those who claim that a fetus is just ‘tissue’ and they really don’t know whether it is a person or not, or whether they feel pain or not, [and so on… you know the deal]