Reconciling Two Stances: The Death Penalty

[Hodos]

It’s not really possible to dismiss entire bodies of constitutional law regarding tainted evidence etc via a legislative “fix” or any other way as being irrelevant in a death penalty case, the highest stakes of all.

Right, and if you read both of my responses, you would see I did not suggest this at all. I upheld the appeals process being used for what it was intended by addressing the abuses within the system that have clogged up the judicial process.

There are also a lot of legal arguments that minorities are more likely to be sentenced to death.

Right, my point is that rather than make it the special case, you make it the expectation. That takes racism out of the equation.

Finally, the problem with discussing this issue with people who are not criminal defense lawyers is that they have the same reaction you did to someone saying basically that not all capital murders are created equal. The simple fact is that in the world of law and legal process in USA, they aren’t. But that doesn’t play well to the non-lawyer public.

Murder is murder. Someone isn’t more dead if you murder them in one manner than another. Setting an arbitrary scale of how bad the murder was is absurd, and results in the sentencing disparities you are saying are unjust.

The simple fact is that in the world of law and legal process in USA, they aren’t.

Right, and my point is that this is wrong, and actually isn’t justice. It allows for arbitrary sentencing which leads to the justice system resulting in racial and socioeconomic disparities you are actively arguing are bad. Which again, goes back to God’s command that there should be a standard sentence for murder.

 

[Ender]

There are a lot of people currently on death row for fairly garden-variety murders for one reason or another; not all of them committed Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer-type horrible crimes.

The Catechism of Trent contains this passage:

Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder…

One thing is clear: we have lost all appreciation for just how heinous murder really is. You are far from alone in considering most murders to be “garden variety.”

…The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. 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.1 And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide.

It seems to me this question gets to the heart of the issue:

Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution?

 

[MikeInVA]

Eliminating the death penalty might actually save society some costs by doing away with the endless appeals that people on death row file. If you just give them life without parole, their appeals run out a lot faster.

But I believe the Pope has also spoken out against life sentences.

 

[Mountie]

I’ll share a little anecdote.

When I was a teenager, I struggled with this issue. I prayed about it. And finally, as I was about to give up, the Gospel reading at Mass was the story of the adulteress who was about to be stoned. I know that story is not about the death penalty per say, but it was still a powerful moment.

I want to add that among criminologists and those who study in the criminal justice field, the near-unanimous consensus is that the death penalty does not significantly reduce crime, long-term or short-term. The only real argument for the death penalty is that it should be reserved for the most hardened and dangerous criminals. Even if you accept that position, the death penalty is used far more often than for just these individuals. So there is a real problem with its usage, whether if you support it or not.

As my bias, I’m 100% opposed to the death penalty, in all cases. I’m a believer that people can change, even when all the evidence may point to the contrary. I just have to place my trust in God that He still offers them grace and mercy and that He’ll provide a way for them to accept it, even if they ultimately choose to reject it. Additionally, prisons are so modernized that we have facilities where it is impossible to escape. Now, you could cite an obscure scenario where the country is invaded and enemy troops overtake the prison and tear down the walls and set the prisoners free. Okay, maybe there can be crazy examples that are ultimately outside of our control. But in all reality, there is just no foreseeable way for them to escape by nature of the design of the prison. Like some of these places make Alcatraz look like Chuck E. Cheese. Pope Francis, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and Pope St. John Paul II all agreed that there is no real need for the death penalty today. I also fail to see a strong argument for it when the alternatives appear so much better.

And as a side-note, conservatives don’t have to take the “right wing” position on every issue. Same with liberals. In fact, the “conservative” and “liberal” positions on various issues can and have changed. We shouldn’t ask ourselves what do people who are “x label” believe on the issues. Rather, we should ask, “which idea is correct?,” “are these ideas reconcilable?,” or “are either of these idea correct?”

 

[Ender]

the Gospel reading at Mass was the story of the adulteress who was about to be stoned. I know that story is not about the death penalty per say, but it was still a powerful moment.

I can understand the impact of that story given those circumstances, but you’re right: it isn’t about the death penalty, nor are there any significant church references to it when discussing this issue. After all, given that the woman received no punishment whatsoever one could as reasonably claim this story argues against all punishment.

The only real argument for the death penalty is that it should be reserved for the most hardened and dangerous criminals.

The church teaches that punishments must be just, and that to be just they must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is the crime that determines the punishment, not the nature of the criminal. The death penalty is undeniably a just punishment by that criterion, and while there can be practical objections to its use in particular circumstances, what moral objection can there be to imposing a just punishment?

Additionally, prisons are so modernized that we have facilities where it is impossible to escape.

Then again, that’s not the only concern.

16 inmates charged with murder in Delaware prison riot

Sixteen inmates have been charged with first degree murder in connection to the riot at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware earlier this year. Two others have been charged with kidnapping.

6abc.com

A corrections officer was murdered, and of the 16 charged: "Eleven are already doing time for murder or manslaughter. Four already are serving life sentences."

 

[Mountie]

The death penalty is undeniably a just punishment by that criterion, and while there can be practical objections to its use in particular circumstances, what moral objection can there be to imposing a just punishment?

None at all. In fact, the Law emphasized absolute justice, as in an eye for an eye. However, it is worth mentioning that in today’s Gospel reading, Jesus adds on to the notion of justice an extension of mercy.

A corrections officer was murdered, and of the 16 charged: "Eleven are already doing time for murder or manslaughter. Four already are serving life sentences ."

You raise a fantastic point here. We are responsible for those that we incarcerate. We also have a moral responsibility to protect the staff and other inmates that we house. I do wonder, if the United States had not been guilty of mass incarceration, how much safer would are prisons and jails be? I think that there are clear systemic issues (some of which are finally being addressed in the mainstream sphere) that need to be fixed, perhaps even prior to addressing the death penalty. Issues involving criminal justice are perhaps some of the most overlooked issues in the political sphere.

 

[otjm]

A corrections officer was murdered, and of the 16 charged: "Eleven are already doing time for murder or manslaughter. Four already are serving life sentences ."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

On the other hand, I suspect a complete and thorough investigation as to what led up to the riot might reveal that procedures were either violated or ignored.

 

[otjm]

I do wonder, if the United States had not been guilty of mass incarceration, how much safer would are prisons and jails be?

This is a charge which is bandied about with alacrity, but alas, explains nothing as it does not account for the “why” that so many are incarcerated, or what would happen if those who are incarcerated were not, for whatever crimes they committed.

And I will grant that a goodly number are in for drug charges, and others for a “three times and out” rule, neither objection addressing how many more crimes each “mass incarcerated” individual will commit if not taken off the streets.

In the recent shutdowns, some of the jurisdictions opened up prison gates, and would you believe those criminals had the audacity to go out and immediately start committing more crimes? Why, they showed no appreciation at all for the benevolence of the powers that be!

 

[Ender]

it is worth mentioning that in today’s Gospel reading, Jesus adds on to the notion of justice an extension of mercy.

Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

Mercy does not trump justice; they are not in competition with one another.

I think that there are clear systemic issues (some of which are finally being addressed in the mainstream sphere) that need to be fixed, perhaps even prior to addressing the death penalty.

It is always legitimate to argue about practical considerations, and disagreements about those considerations are reasonable as they do not involve moral choices. Nor does the church have a position on those concerns. Hers are moral doctrines, and those are the doctrines I have been arguing.

 

[Mountie]

Mercy does not trump justice; they are not in competition with one another.

Precisely. But we should not separate them into completely different corners. If we do that, they become in opposition to one another.

It is always legitimate to argue about practical considerations, and disagreements about those considerations are reasonable as they do not involve moral choices. Nor does the church have a position on those concerns.

That is true. However, many of the issues that we now face have become moral issues. It’s the reason that the Church has begun to put out documents related to the treatment of inmates.

 

[Mountie]

And I will grant that a goodly number are in for drug charges

That is accurate. The majority of inmates are in for drug charges. But let’s look at this further.

how many more crimes each “mass incarcerated” individual will commit if not taken off the streets.

Mass incarceration is loosely correlated with the crime rate. While the crime rate has dropped in recent decades, the number of persons incarcerated has drastically increased. Mass incarceration does not reduce crime. There is no legitimate argument to be made that by incarcerating more people, crime will go down. It is just not true in the slightest.

Additionally, what mass incarceration has primarily done is target communities of color. The vast majority of the prison population is African American, mostly male. As a result, we saw a rise of female-only households in black communities. We’re taking fathers away from their children and leaving single mothers to raise families. It’s horrendous for the family.

Of course, you could respond, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” However, as stated prior, these crimes are largely related to drug usage. And as we know, the War on Drugs began as a way to target and criminalize African Americans. It’s the reason why crack cocaine, primarily used in black communities, was harshly targeted while powder cocaine, primarily used in white communities, was met with hardly any enforcement. Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are the same in almost every way. One was met with decades of imprisonment. The other was largely ignored.

In the recent shutdowns, some of the jurisdictions opened up prison gates, and would you believe those criminals had the audacity to go out and immediately start committing more crimes?

The crime rate has not gone up by any significant margin. We can look at specific cases of a few inmates doing that, as shown on TV, but when we look at the actual numbers, they’re barren.

If you, or anyone else is actually interested in looking at the phenomenon of mass incarceration, I recommend looking at Bruce Western’s “Punishment and Inequality in America” and Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow.” The prior is more quantitative and examines the statistics and history of mass incarceration. The later examines how mass incarceration today can be traced by to Jim Crow Laws. Eye-opening reads.

 

[Ender]

That is true. However, many of the issues that we now face have become moral issues. It’s the reason that the Church has begun to put out documents related to the treatment of inmates.

I am very skeptical of claims that something is a moral issue. I can agree that if something is a problem we have a moral obligation to address it, but that’s it. There is rarely any moral component in determining what ought to be done. Specific solutions are normally neither moral nor immoral. They can be workable or unworkable, helpful or harmful, wise or foolish, just not good or evil.

You can (conceivably) make the argument that capital punishment is unwise, but there is no argument that its use is immoral.

 

[Mountie]

You can (conceivably) make the argument that capital punishment is unwise, but there is no argument that its use is immoral.

I think there are certainly arguments that can be made that capital punishment is immoral. Just because you are skeptical of those arguments does not make those arguments inherently illegitimate. You can raise challenges and cite whatever sources that you choose in your defense, but these are arguments that have been made and are made, including inside the Catholic Church.

 

[Ender]

I think there are certainly arguments that can be made that capital punishment is immoral.

I should very much like you to present one, because I don’t think one can be found.

 

[Mountie]

I should very much like you to present one, because I don’t think one can be found.

P1. Killing someone is always morally wrong if there is a better alternative.
P2. The death penalty kills someone.
P3. There are better alternatives to the death penalty.
C. The death penalty is morally wrong.

That’s a basic argument. We can discuss all day if this argument, or others, are valid or strong. However, people do make arguments for the immorality of the death penalty all the time. It isn’t new.

I’ve shared that I’m against the death penalty. I earnestly believe that the death penalty is ineffective as a tool for deterrent. I also believe that the purposes of prisons is to rehabilitate and keep society safe. The death penalty does neither IMHO. I do acknowledge that the Church has utilized the death penalty in the past and I am in no way making an argument for or against the inherently morality of the death penalty. My personal stance focuses on the utility (or lack) of the death penalty. However, I do acknowledge that some people, including Catholics, do argue that the death penalty is inherently immoral.

 

[Ender]

However, people do make arguments for the immorality of the death penalty all the time. It isn’t new.

I don’t disagree that people make such arguments; what I dispute is whether they are valid. Take your proposition 3: “There are better alternatives to the death penalty.” This is an opinion. It is not a moral doctrine, and your opinion of an act does not alter its inherent moral nature. If you think it is immoral it would be wrong for you to support it, but that you think it is immoral does not make it wrong for me to support it.

I earnestly believe that the death penalty is ineffective as a tool for deterrent.

We could argue this point, but deterrence is only a secondary objective of punishment and does not determine the validity of a punishment.

I also believe that the purposes of prisons is to rehabilitate and keep society safe.

Rehabilitation and security are also valid objectives of punishment, but , like deterrence, they are also secondary goals and, again, do not determine the validity of a punishment.

I am in no way making an argument for or against the inherent morality of the death penalty.

And this is the point:

…if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. (Christopher Ferrara)

 

[Mountie]

Rehabilitation and security are also valid objectives of punishment, but , like deterrence, they are also secondary goals and, again, do not determine the validity of a punishment.

While true, I think that these aspects should be the focus on determining what makes a prudent punishment. These punishments are funded by taxpayer money. At the end of the day, the question that we should ask ourselves is, do you want to pay for it now or pay for it later? We can implement real rehabilitative forms of punishment that will help gear inmates for re-integration in society, or we can keep doing what we’re doing, focusing solely on punishment and perpetuating our prison system as a revolving door.

The death penalty is one part of the criminal justice system. And I think it is apparent that you and I differ on this issue. Fair enough. But I would hope and I’m going to assume that we both have in mind a prison system that is oriented toward affirming human dignity while serving its proper end, something that it is currently not doing.

 

[Ender]

While true, I think that these aspects should be the focus on determining what makes a prudent punishment.

You may well be right about that, but determining what is a prudent punishment is not a moral question. It is, clearly, a prudential one.

But I would hope and I’m going to assume that we both have in mind a prison system that is oriented toward affirming human dignity while serving its proper end, something that it is currently not doing.

I can surely agree that our prison system leaves room for a lot of improvement, and as I said, I am open to practical arguments against the use of capital punishment. What I am not prepared to concede, and what I strongly oppose, are claims that there are moral arguments against it.