Moral Culpability of Executioners

[Bezant]

The coverage of Troy Davis’ imminent execution brings this to my mind.

What’s the moral culpability of the people who’ve ordered/carried out an execution of an innocent person, or a person whose conviction is dubious? Namely,

a) Judges/Courts,

b) Executioners, particularly the one who administers a fatal injection,

c) Officials who refuse to pardon the convicted person

 

[Catholicguy100]

The coverage of Troy Davis’ imminent execution brings this to my mind.

What’s the moral culpability of the people who’ve ordered/carried out an execution of an innocent person, or a person whose conviction is dubious? Namely,

a) Judges/Courts,

b) Executioners, particularly the one who administers a fatal injection,

c) Officials who refuse to pardon the convicted person

1. Judges and courts don’t decide the penalty, juries do.
2. The situation is avoided by using two or more executioners who both push the button simultaneously. The signal is scrambled and nobody knows who actually made the connection that killed the guy. It seems like splitting hairs and it is. Regardless, I’d hate to be that guy.
3. Pardoning lets the guy loose. That’s a pretty serious consequence of not wanting to have any part of an execution for someone who is probably very bad. I don’t know on that one.

I think that these people are the wrong ones to look at as being “guilty” of executing someone. The prosecutor and the jury are probably the folks with the most discretion on the matter.

 

[sedonaman]

…What’s the moral culpability of the people who’ve ordered/carried out an execution of an innocent person, or a person whose conviction is dubious?

How is the executioner to know if the person is innocent or the conviction is “dubious”? By learning about it through the media? Lawful authority says he is guilty; therefore, he is innocent?

 

[puzzleannie]

What’s the moral culpability of the people who’ve ordered/carried out an execution of an innocent person, or a person whose conviction is dubious? Namely,

if repeated appeals have failed what do we have besides personal opionion to conclude the conviction was dubious? we have a legal system to determine this, it is not the purview of the news media to do so

if due process was followed, and they did their duty under law to the best of their ability, judges, executioners and everyone connected with the case have no moral culpability whatever in carrying out the sentence.

Better ask about the moral culpability of voters who fail to deman a repeal of capital punishment, if they personally believe it is immoral. Since Catholic teaching allows for the possibility, however remote, that the capital sentence may be necessary in certain narrow situations, it is not morally wrong for a Catholic to believe that, either.

and btw juries do not decide the sentence in all states, or in all capital cases, in some states and cases the penalty is set down by law and depends on the class of crime for which the accused is convicted. a juror who has moral qualms about the death sentence should ask to be excused in capital cases on those grounds.

 

[sedonaman]

if repeated appeals have failed what do we have besides personal opionion to conclude the conviction was dubious? …

What I detect in bezant’s question is a hint that our default position is, or should be, that authority is always wrong and should be challenged beyond all reason.

 

[Bezant]

What I detect in bezant’s question is a hint that our default position is, or should be, that authority is always wrong and should be challenged beyond all reason.

Sedoman,

How about you ASK for clarification instead of reading your overblown impression into my words? It’s the civilised thing to do.

 

[Bezant]

1. Judges and courts don’t decide the penalty, juries do.

OK. Thanks.

1. The situation is avoided by using two or more executioners who both push the button simultaneously. The signal is scrambled and nobody knows who actually made the connection that killed the guy. It seems like splitting hairs and it is. Regardless, I’d hate to be that guy.

Likewise.

1. Pardoning lets the guy loose. That’s a pretty serious consequence of not wanting to have any part of an execution for someone who is probably very bad. I don’t know on that one.

Fair enough, although I thought an authority in your country could pardon one from the death sentence, though not from a conviction.

I think that these people are the wrong ones to look at as being “guilty” of executing someone. The prosecutor and the jury are probably the folks with the most discretion on the matter.

So what’s their moral culpability, IYO?

 

[Jim_Baur]

Please forgive my prayer: I pray that the 15,000 murders in the U. S. A. stop.

I pray that the 150-200 murders per year in St. Louis, MO stop today.

I pray that the 15,000 - 17,000 murders a year in the U. S. A. stop today.

The reason I pray is because, rather ironically, both of my grandfathers were murdered;

one was murdered in 1916 and the other in 1949. I wasn’t even born.

There are many kinds of executions of human life. I pray that they all stop.

Ironically, if there were no murders, we wouldn’t even be praying for the stopping of all executions.

Let us stop the murders–not that any of us have done it.

I am truthfully sorry for butting in to the discussion.

 

[Bezant]

if repeated appeals have failed what do we have besides personal opionion to conclude the conviction was dubious? we have a legal system to determine this, it is not the purview of the news media to do so

Keep in mind, the Davis case is only the inspiration. For the sake of argument, I assume the conviction is on dubious, debatable [legal] grounds. In any case the legal system does make mistakes, sometimes because of the drawbacks inherently part of it (double jeopardy is one example in the U.S., IMO, but that’s another discussion…)

if due process was followed, and they did their duty under law to the best of their ability, judges, executioners and everyone connected with the case have no moral culpability whatever in carrying out the sentence.

Is it so simple? I don’t necessarily accept, if the rules were followed scrupulously from beginning to end, that because it was legally sound, it was also morally sound. It’s not even that acceptable to be a semi-assistant to an abortion.

For example – is it really okay to be a Catholic in good standing and an executioner, because capital punishment is legal? Because it’s not okay, according to the Church, to be a Catholic in good standing and a licensed abortionist, even though abortion is legally sound.

Does the Church have any opinions or principles on the matter (to the effect of you can be a good Catholic and an executioner)?

Better ask about the moral culpability of voters who fail to deman a repeal of capital punishment, if they personally believe it is immoral.

Then what is their moral culpability, if they’re several times removed from the man who gives Mr. Davis an injection tomorrow? What is their moral culpability if their real fault is, as you suggest, political apathy/sloth?

Since Catholic teaching allows for the possibility, however remote, that the capital sentence may be necessary in certain narrow situations, it is not morally wrong for a Catholic to believe that, either.

That’s John Paul II’s opinion if I’m not mistaken, and I think he was right on that.

But I’m not asking about having a role in execution, not opinion. Is it okay for a Catholic to believe that, but another thing for him to do it?

 

[Bezant]

Please forgive my prayer: I pray that the 15,000 murders in the U. S. A. stop.

I pray that the 150-200 murders per year in St. Louis, MO stop today.

I pray that the 15,000 - 17,000 murders a year in the U. S. A. stop today.

The reason I pray is because, rather ironically, both of my grandfathers were murdered;

one was murdered in 1916 and the other in 1949. I wasn’t even born.

There are many kinds of executions of human life. I pray that they all stop.

Ironically, if there were no murders, we wouldn’t even be praying for the stopping of all executions.

Let us stop the murders–not that any of us have done it.

I am truthfully sorry for butting in to the discussion.

Hello Jim,

There is no intrusion here whatsoever. We are, after all, believers.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Bezant

Thanks!!!

 

[sedonaman]

Sedoman,

How about you ASK for clarification instead of reading your overblown impression into my words? It’s the civilised thing to do.

Overblown? Consider your question:

…
What’s the moral culpability of the people who’ve ordered/carried out an execution of an innocent person, or a person whose conviction is dubious? …

This hypothetical case assumes several things: 1) a person was found guilty; 2) he is innocent nonetheless; and 3) he was given the death penalty. Here is the process you described:Found guilty by lawful authority through due process [incl. appeals] → sentenced to death → ??? → innocent. The ??? represents some process in your mind that concluded his innocence. The fact that you reached this conclusion means that the process up to the ??? reached the wrong verdict. By what other process can you personally go from guilty to innocent than the default position that authority is always wrong?

This default position is very common as Feser observes tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B. Whether you intended it or not, the process you used reflects a desire to deconstruct society, and that’s not very civilized.

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

The coverage of Troy Davis’ imminent execution brings this to my mind.

What’s the moral culpability of the people who’ve ordered/carried out an execution of an innocent person, or a person whose conviction is dubious? Namely,

a) Judges/Courts,

b) Executioners, particularly the one who administers a fatal injection,

c) Officials who refuse to pardon the convicted person

When capital punishment was in use in Northern Ireland. The hangman was immediately taken to the Judge after the execution were he was charged with murder and then received an immediate aquittal ! In Northern Irish law it was considered murder to kill an innocent man even if it had been done as a miscarriage of justice. By charging the hangman with murder and acquitting him meant he could not be tried a second time under the “double jeopardy” rule!

 

[BillP]

How is the executioner to know if the person is innocent or the conviction is “dubious”? By learning about it through the media? Lawful authority says he is guilty; therefore, he is innocent?

But what are the limits of “lawful authority”

I don’t think anyone would argue that the operators of the gas chambers at Auschwitz weren’t culpable simply because the NAZI’s (Germany’s lawful authority at the time) mandated the execution of Jews, Gypsys, Homosexuals etc.

I also don’t think anyone would argue that Stalin’s executioners weren’t culpable

What about the Chinese executioners of the protestors in Tienanmen Square?

Or the members of the “Death Squads” in El Salvador who honestly believed they were protecting their country from Communism, but wound up killing Maryknoll missionaries…

I don’t think its a “cut and dried” as many here seem to think…

 

[sedonaman]

But what are the limits of “lawful authority”

I don’t think anyone would argue that the operators of the gas chambers at Auschwitz weren’t culpable simply because the NAZI’s (Germany’s lawful authority at the time) mandated the execution of Jews, Gypsys, Homosexuals etc.

I also don’t think anyone would argue that Stalin’s executioners weren’t culpable

What about the Chinese executioners of the protestors in Tienanmen Square?

Or the members of the “Death Squads” in El Salvador who honestly believed they were protecting their country from Communism, but wound up killing Maryknoll missionaries…

I don’t think its a “cut and dried” as many here seem to think…

These were not part of the original givens by the OP in post #1. You have introduced different situations that are completely irrelevant, at least the way I read #1 that starts off with the execution of a convicted murderer found guilty through due process as opposed to a political show trial.

I would also challenge your assertion that the despotic regimes you mention were “lawful” authority since the leadership in each case murdered its way to the top. How could they be “lawful”?

 

[Corki]

Fair enough, although I thought an authority in your country could pardon one from the death sentence, though not from a conviction.

What country? I live in the US, Texas specifically. In Texas, there is no individual that can overturn a death sentance, though it could be overturned by the state Supreme Court. A pardon means that the crime is excused. No punishment is required. There are some states where a sentance can be commuted, that is converted to another penalty without pardoning.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

When capital punishment was in use in Northern Ireland. The hangman was immediately taken to the Judge after the execution were he was charged with murder and then received an immediate aquittal ! In Northern Irish law it was considered murder to kill an innocent man even if it had been done as a miscarriage of justice. By charging the hangman with murder and acquitting him meant he could not be tried a second time under the “double jeopardy” rule!

Huh! Interesting, I didn’t know that.

 

[AHapka]

b) Executioners, particularly the one who administers a fatal injection,

From what I understand, and correct me if I’m wrong, no state orders a worker to do an execution. Any person may refuse.

So it’s only someone who is willing to do it.

 

[tominrichmond]

Judges/Courts: IT DEPENDS. If a jury comes back for death and the judge can, like in Virginia, impose life imprisonment instead AND it appears that there is serious doubt about the case, then perhaps the judge bears some moral culpability.

Executioners: NEVER. It is their duty to carry out orders, and in our system at any rate, there is a presumption of regularity that allows prison officials to do their duty without moral repercussion. Different system (e.g. Communist Russia) possibly different answer.

Officials who could pardon: IT DEPENDS, again, on whether substantial evidence has been uncovered to render the original verdict unreliable.

In the case of Troy Davis, his guilt was decisively proven to the satisfaction of the majority-black jury, the presiding court, and the many layers of appellate review. Don’t believe what the news media peddles, even if it dupes some Catholics who ought to know better.

 

[DaveBj]

Read the 13th chapter of Romans. Judges, juries, and executioners are actually ministers of God to carry out His wrath on evil-doers. There is no moral culpability, provided they make dang sure that the person whom they are condemning is actually guilty.