Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[Sunflower15]

Just punishment is not a political issue. The reason I support the death penalty is because I believe, based on what the Church has taught throughout history, the obligation of justice requires it. The restrictions placed on executions by 2267 are prudential, based on the belief that in current society they cause more harm than good; they are not moral judgments on the justness of such sentences.

Ender

I find it interesting that I understand the exact opposite.

The Church has taught throughout centuries that we have a right to restrain a criminal from doing more harm to selves and to others, but not to punish per se. [Read that post on the Catechism again]

In other words, not that executions are just but that they may be necessary [prudentially] to deter further harm done.

Mercy has always been a Christian value…more so than justice, especially of the human kind…according to the written law rather than to the spirit of the law. Jesus spend 3 years of ministry trying to get that point across to the Pharisees who followed the law to the letter…even if they were really good at it!

I thought I would find some to debate about capital punishment for guilty criminals, but I never thought that I would actually find someone who in good conscience would feel that it is fine to execute someone who is believed to even possibly be innocent of that crime for which he is being punished.

What type of justice is that? What government or what religion can possibly justify that sort of justice?

 

[Sunflower15]

There seem to be a few nonsensical posts here.

Again—have Scalia et al gleefully tossed off the quip, “We have no problem executing the innocent” or is ‘someone’ misinterpreting and/or misquoting?

Just as Aquinas and Augustine have no doubt been both.

Catholics are permitted to support the death penalty. The truth cannot be bent to suit an agenda.

That is not the question…

the question concerns the execution of those that may be innocent of the crimes for which they are being executed…

 

[Sunflower15]

I guess I find the question somewhat ludicrous.

Well…read some of the posts here…you will be surprised!

Of course knowingly executing innocent inmates is unacceptable. Unknowingly executing innocent inmates is nonsensical as it assumes an innocence that is unknown.

Not necessarily. Sometimes, they realize that there might be new evidence to consider, such as DNA tests that were not available 2-3 decades ago, but choose to not allow a hearing to determine whether it confirms or rejects the conviction…

Go figure!

If you were guilty of a crime, would you volunteer for DNA testing to prove your innocence? Probably not! Right?

 

[Sunflower15]

Sidenote:
Are you aware that we are one of the few ‘developed’ countries still having capital punishment?

Most of the countries that still have it are not quite known for being ‘civilized’ or ‘just’…or plain ‘decent’…did you know we are among those in ‘that’ un-distinguished list?

Executions in 2008: [from wikipedia]
Country Number
China At least 5000
Iran At least 346
Saudi Arabia At least 102
North Korea At least 63
United States 37
Pakistan At least 36
Iraq At least 34
Vietnam At least 19
Afghanistan At least 17
Japan 15
Yemen At least 13
Indonesia 10
Libya At least 8
Sudan At least 5
Bangladesh 5
Belarus 4
Somalia At least 3
Egypt At least 2
United Arab Emirates At least 1
Malaysia At least 1
Mongolia At least 1
Singapore At least 1
Syria 1
Bahrain 1
Botswana 1
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1

Of course, each country above will claim that ‘it’ did it right, though the ‘others’ might be barbarians…
Notice the absence of European and ‘Christian-majority’ countries, Australia, and other ‘developed’ countries. Only Singapore, Japan and the US would be considered truly developed AND still practicing death penalty. However, we lack the cultural ‘honorable’ death tradition of the Asians [such as harakiri, etc] and we are supposedly ‘Christian’…among mostly Muslim nations which believe in death to punish.

Now, I’m not sure how those of other religions feel about executing innocent people, but I think most Christians would oppose it. Am I wrong?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.”

What is the difference - if any - between:​

• “actually” innocent
• actually innocent
• 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]

It looks to me as though Scalia is distinguishing between:​

• innocence in fact
• innocence in the eyes of the law

There is a moral difference between

• executing a person who is innocent of the offence with which he is charged
• executing a person who is innocent of the offence with which he is charged, who has nevertheless been convicted of that offence.

The law, though based on moral considerations, is not an instrument of moral theology. It works in a certain fashion, and this means in practice that although someone may be wholly guiltless of an offence with which he has been charged, he may nonetheless be found guilty. Not because he is, but because the method pursued in determining whether he be guilty or no has led to that result; which is one form of a miscarriage of justice. (Another is, to acquit the guilty - this is no less regrettable and unjust.).

So which takes priority - his innocence; or his innocence as mis-perceived by the legal
process ? Because the process is one of law, it has to operate within the constraints of the law; otherwise, it becomes unprincipled and capricious. OTOH, the result is in this particular instance not just: someone has been convicted of a crime of which he was not guilty as charged - so the offender has escaped; there have been two miscarriages of justice. Since the innocent man has been sentenced, he is for the law’s purposes subject to whatever penalty is laid down in law for the punishment of the offence committed; therefore, he is subject to the penalty of death, and may without injustice within the meaning of the law be punished with death.

Scalia’s position is interesting - but it is not altogether clear; a final uncertainty is whether he used the phrase "“actually innocent”; this uncertainty affects the interpretation of his words.

ISTM therefore that there different kinds of innocence:

• doctrinally, all men are sinners anyway; no-one is entirely innocent; so it could be argued that a Christian should submit to the executioner, and take the punishment of the law as a punishment for his sins, even though most of these are not crimes. Some people can “receive” such an idea.
• innocence at law in the absence of proof of guilt as charged - a verdict of “not guilty”
• lack of culpability - for a specific offence - of any kind

And there is also, in Scots Law, a verdict of “not proven”.

 

[Sunflower15]

Originally Posted by Sunflower15 View Post
‘The Church DOES say it is intrinsically evil to kill an innocent…’

Not exactly. What the Church has said is that it is evil to intentionally kill an innocent person, …

Ender

Am I missing something here?

 

[Sunflower15]

…

There is a moral difference between

• executing a person who is innocent of the offence with which he is charged
• executing a person who is innocent of the offence with which he is charged, who has nevertheless been convicted of that offence.

For the most part, I did follow your train of reasoning…in this instance, though, you lost me the conviction seems to be the difference between making it right or wrong to execute someone, regardless of whether or not he is guilty of committing the crime for which he is being punished…Hm,m,…
I do not think we have that moral prerogative…even if we have the legal means.

…

The law, though based on moral considerations, is not an instrument of moral theology. It works in a certain fashion, and this means in practice that although someone may be wholly guiltless of an offence with which he has been charged, he may nonetheless be found guilty. Not because he is, but because the method pursued in determining whether he be guilty or no has led to that result; which is one form of a miscarriage of justice. (Another is, to acquit the guilty - this is no less regrettable and unjust.).

Scalia’s position is interesting - but it is not altogether clear; a final uncertainty is whether he used the phrase "“actually innocent”; this uncertainty affects the interpretation of his words.

It appears, he did. He has been quoted as such on the instance of Justice Clarence and himself [both Catholics by the way] being the only ones among all the Supreme Court Justices who decided to not give Troy Davis a chance to present new evidence before being executed. This case is particularly ‘interesting’ [if one has the stomach to call it that - I struggle with the notion] because the conviction was solely on witness testimony, and 7 out of 9 of them have recanted their testimonies, one admits he does not know, and the remaining one has 3 sworn statements pointing at him as the true killer.

In this particular case, would YOU, knowing what I just explained, give the convict the hearing to present new evidence or proceed with the execution?

I’m curious…because on this one, we are not only killing the innocent guy but ALSO probably allowing the guilty to go unpunished!

ISTM therefore that there different kinds of innocence:

.

You must be a lawyer! [Just kidding!]

 

[Ender]

** How can you feel it is fair to kill someone for a crime he did not commit? Even aside from religion, it makes no sense in the light of natural law.**

I don’t. You are not very careful either in what you write or in how you interpret what I write. Your comment, which I quoted, was *The Church DOES say it is intrinsically evil to kill an innocent…’ *What you left out of that sentence was the word “intentionally”; no small matter since it is the intent that makes it immoral.

Nor have I said it is fair to deliberately execute a person who is known to be innocent, nor has anyone else, including Scalia, made such a comment. His statement was that the Constitution did not provide an appeal process that covered the prisoner’s situation. That statement is either correct or incorrect and I have yet to see anyone claim that his analysis was wrong.

You can logically take either of these two positions:

• Scalia’s interpretation of the law was correct and that’s the end of it, or
• Scalia’s interpretation of the law was correct but he should have ignored both the law and his oath to uphold the Constitution and ruled in the prisoner’s favor.

Which is your position?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church has taught throughout centuries that we have a right to restrain a criminal from doing more harm to selves and to others, but not to punish per se. [Read that post on the Catechism again]

This is completely wrong.

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas, ST, I/II 87,6)

*A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. *(Pius XII)

In other words, not that executions are just but that they may be necessary [prudentially] to deter further harm done.

If an execution was not just there could never be any circumstance in which it was allowed but we know that even today it is permitted in certain circumstances, but it is not the circumstances that make the punishment just. A punishment is just only if it is commensurate with the severity of the crime; whether it protects society is not a measure of justness.

Mercy has always been a Christian value…more so than justice

*- Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII, 1980)
*- and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues-should be practiced *(Leo XIII, 1888)
- If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas, ST II/II 58,12)

Ender

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

It strikes me as odd that there are so many different interpretations of the moral acceptability of capital punishment, be it of a ‘guilty’ person or not.

By the way, it behooves us to recall that for quite some time turning into a hare at midnight to render the crops to fail was considered enough grounds for a guilty verdict.

Sunflower made the observation that mercy has always been a Christian virtue.

No doubt this is true. Unfortunately, the Sisters of Mercy on that beautiful Emerald Isle, never received the memo explaining this doctrine as they were busy tormenting the children in their charge.

In fact, there seem to be a whole slew of Catholics that haven’t gotten that missive.
One wonders how people can even use the words ‘mercy’ and ‘Catholicism’ in the same sentence ( other then for the purpose of being sarcastic ) after the utterly disgraceful and criminal behavior of the Church towards the children in its care and its subsequent attempts to shield the rapists from the law.

But I digress and I am sure you are all well-versed in the depravities of the Church.

What I find curious is that when the killing of a fetus is discussed, the Catholic ranks close reflexively and the chorus of pompous and sanctimonious chest-thumping inevitably swells to a unified cacophony of moral indignation.
No one then seems to care that much whether a fetus actually has the capability to experience anything, let alone its own destruction.
But when the state-sanctioned murder of an adult is under discussion, all of a sudden the proliferation of shades of moral greyness know no bounds.

I wonder if any of you were the people actually throwing the switch on these inmates whether the all-mighty would be all that understanding of your wibbling on Judgement Day.

 

[Sunflower15]

It strikes me as odd that there are so many different interpretations of the moral acceptability of capital punishment, be it of a ‘guilty’ person or not.

By the way, it behooves us to recall that for quite some time turning into a hare at midnight to render the crops to fail was considered enough grounds for a guilty verdict.

Sunflower made the observation that mercy has always been a Christian virtue.

Please, don’t allow a few hundred sick ones [to not make it sound like it’s just a couple of them] undo what thousands throughout the centuries have done in the name of Christian charity…because there has been a LOT good done by them!

No doubt this is true. Unfortunately, the Sisters of Mercy on that beautiful Emerald Isle, never received the memo explaining this doctrine as they were busy tormenting the children in their charge.

In fact, there seem to be a whole slew of Catholics that haven’t gotten that missive.
One wonders how people can even use the words ‘mercy’ and ‘Catholicism’ in the same sentence ( other then for the purpose of being sarcastic ) after the utterly disgraceful and criminal behavior of the Church towards the children in its care and its subsequent attempts to shield the rapists from the law.

But I digress and I am sure you are all well-versed in the depravities of the Church.

No, not of the Church…but of some very sick individuals [many of them, sadly!] who believe -mistakenly- that they are Christians. It is obvious that they aren’t. And, if they are, but are sick, there are just too many of them and we need to find a cure!

What I find curious is that when the killing of a fetus is discussed, the Catholic ranks close reflexively and the chorus of pompous and sanctimonious chest-thumping inevitably swells to a unified cacophony of moral indignation.
No one then seems to care that much whether a fetus actually has the capability to experience anything, let alone its own destruction.
But when the state-sanctioned murder of an adult is under discussion, all of a sudden the proliferation of shades of moral greyness know no bounds.

Could not agree with you more! Their single-minded point is culpability vs. absolute innocence…which is a valid one! However, in the Christian sense, devoid of the power that people attribute to it…since even the innocent unborn have original sin and that makes them not totally sinless and as sinful as a convict who just had absolution, for example.

I wonder if any of you were the people actually throwing the switch on these inmates whether the all-mighty would be all that unders

tanding of your wibbling on Judgement Day.

 

[Sunflower15]

This is completely wrong.

*the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, *to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas, ST, I/II 87,6)

*A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and *fault are action and reaction. (Pius XII)
If an execution was not just there could never be any circumstance in which it was allowed but we know that even today it is permitted in certain circumstances, but it is not the circumstances that make the punishment just. A punishment is just only if it is commensurate with the severity of the crime; whether it protects society is not a measure of justness.
*- Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII, 1980)
*- and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues-should be practiced *(Leo XIII, 1888)
- If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas, ST II/II 58,12)

Ender

Ender,

Let me start by saying that I am VERY fond of Aquinas, really. My undergrad degree is in philosophy in Thomistic Studies from a Catholic Univ. I say this just to make clear my love for this saint and Angelic Doctor of the Church.

However…

He was NOT infallible by any means. He, for example, believed in and defended slavery. You may as well, if you follow every one of his opinions to the letter. However, nowadays, it is not considered ‘cool’ to be pro-slavery in ‘civilized’ countries. It is not considered ‘cool’ to be pro-death penalty either!

For similar reasons, actually, because it denigrates the human dignity, even if that person happens to be a criminal, he still is endowed with human dignity and his life is sacred…sanctity of life is absolute and without exceptions.

Whatever Aquinas taught, it simple isn’t enough to contradict the commandments, the Catechism, nor the statements by Popes…as logical as the guy was…God bless his soul in Heaven! One of my main reasons for wanting to go to Heaven is to be able to converse for all eternity with the likes of Aquinas & Augustine!

What do you have to say to the excepts from the Catechism posted previously about the allowance for the death penalty [when is it allowed and when not]?

 

[Sunflower15]

Is it not clear that the Catechism [not to mention the last few Popes, the commandments, Jesus entire ministry of forgiveness, statements by the US Bishops, etc] explicitly explains that in most circumstances nowadays [due to the possibility of restraint] there is virtually no need for the death penalty?

And to add to that the fact that we are executing someone innocent of the crime for which they were convicted!

To quote the Catechism on this part:

2261…'Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the 5th commandment: ‘Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.’ The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.’
"’

To insist that the Church does not teach against killing of innocent persons is plain intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Sunflower15]

Just punishment is not a political issue. The reason I support the death penalty is because I believe, based on what the Church has taught throughout history, the obligation of justice requires it.

Where did the Church teach that? [that the obligation of justice requires it…] I have never heard of that!

The restrictions placed on executions by 2267 are prudential, based on the belief that in current society they cause more harm than good; they are not moral judgments on the justness of such sentences.

Ender

 

[Ender]

{Aquinas} was NOT infallible by any means. He, for example, believed in and defended slavery. You may as well, if you follow every one of his opinions to the letter.

Your comment is of course true but your implication is not. You infer that because he was wrong on some things we cannot trust his opinion in this area. You make no attempt to rebut his argument, you simply dismiss it but his was only one of the three citations I gave and it certainly does not conflict with what later popes have said.

For similar reasons, actually, because it denigrates the human dignity, even if that person happens to be a criminal, he still is endowed with human dignity and his life is sacred…sanctity of life is absolute and without exceptions.

The Church has never taught that.

*“as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable...God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.”  *(Pius XII, 1944)

Whatever Aquinas taught, it simple isn’t enough to contradict the commandments, the Catechism, nor the statements by Popes.

I can quote from over a half dozen popes and three catechisms that say the same thing Aquinas said. If this becomes a battle of Says who? you have very little ammunition. You do not have statements (plural) by popes (plural); you have one statement from one pope.

What do you have to say to the excepts from the Catechism posted previously about the allowance for the death penalty [when is it allowed and when not]?

Section 2267 represents the prudential opinion of JPII, is not binding on Catholics, and is not in accordance with what the Church has traditionally taught.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Is it not clear that the Catechism [not to mention the last few Popes, the commandments, Jesus entire ministry of forgiveness, statements by the US Bishops, etc] explicitly explains that in most circumstances nowadays [due to the possibility of restraint] there is virtually no need for the death penalty?

No. What is quite clear is the position of the USCCB and of JPII (the source of 2267), as for the rest, the Church would seem to teach otherwise.

And to add to that the fact that we are executing someone innocent of the crime for which they were convicted!

This has never been about the justness of deliberately executing someone known to be innocent. There are two valid topics here (and that is neither one): is the death penalty justified and is the comment by Scalia defensible?

To insist that the Church does not teach against killing of innocent persons is plain intellectual dishonesty.

It would be if anyone had actually made such a statement.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sunflower15:

Where did the Church teach that? [that the obligation of justice requires it…] I have never heard of that!

It comes from Genesis 9:5-6 where God commanded that:

5Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
6Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man

This interpretation is given by the Council of Trent:

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. … The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself !

And this is a comment from our current Catechism (2260):

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

Ender

 

[Sunflower15]

Ender:
Section 2267 represents the prudential opinion of JPII, is not binding on Catholics, and is not in accordance with what the Church has traditionally taught.

Ender

Excuse me…say what?

That the published Catechism of the Catholic Church is not in accordance with what the Church has traditionally taught? And not ‘binding on Catholics’?

 

[Sunflower15]

It comes from Genesis 9:5-6 where God commanded that:

5Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
6Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man

This interpretation is given by the Council of Trent:

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. … The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself !

And this is a comment from our current Catechism (2260):

** For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.**

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

Ender

Excellent quotes!!! Thanks for providing them!!!

I rest my case…it is forbidden by God to take the life of an innocent man - to be considered a direct affront to the Lord Himself! WOW!

And, I should add from Genesis 4:15 [though Cain WAS guilty as charged]

‘Not so! the Lord said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold. So the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.’

We may infer that if someone kills a murderer, such as Cain, that the murderer will be avenged ‘sevenfold’…into those who killed him…according to the Lord Himself in Genesis…

Is this not ‘binding’ to Catholics? or not ‘traditional’ enough teaching?

Now…this thread is NOT about those guilty of crimes, but about those mistakenly convicted of crimes and innocent!

 

[Sunflower15]

No. What is quite clear is the position of the USCCB and of JPII (the source of 2267), as for the rest, the Church would seem to teach otherwise.
I am trying to understand WHO exactly is this ‘other’ Church that you are talking about…I just don’t understand…I must be missing something.

This has never been about the justness of deliberately executing someone known to be innocent. There are two valid topics here (and that is neither one): is the death penalty justified and is the comment by Scalia defensible?
Ender

No, actually this is NOT about the death penalty per se…I have another thread on that one.

This is only about ‘executing INNOCENT death row inmates’ and whether it should be acceptable to Catholics - and Scalia & Thomas happen to be Catholics, so I used their recent dissent from all the other Justices to illustrate the point.

Out of 9 Justices, only 2 [Catholics btw] did not feel the need to be certain of whether this man about to be executed was the real culprit…the quote actually comes from his dissent that he offered as explanation for not going further with the investigation.

The reason, it is not a constitutional mandate that the person executed be ‘actually innocent.’ All other 7 Justices disagree.

“this Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” [Scalia and Thomas]

**The ‘sick’ part? ** That they are speaking in the past tense ’but that is later able to convince’] about a man that has not YET been executed WITHOUT the intent to at least investigate to save his life!