Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty?

[Annie]

What I am asking is, rather, whether anybody can provide an explanation for why the United States, almost uniquely among comparably developed countries, persists in its use of the death penalty

Perhaps because the US is more religious than many of these other nations and less likely to follow the lead of other nations?

From the article I linked to above:

Justice is giving each what is due to him… So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is any better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death.

Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, …

To the question, “Is it ever permissible to show mercy?” the utilitarian answers “yes,” but it is a misleading “yes” because he does not understand what is being asked. A utilitarian says that the only reason to have laws at all is to stop things that make people feel pain and start things that make them feel pleasure. Requiting wrong just because it is wrong will make no sense to him because he does not believe in intrinsic wrong; if someone chides him, “Never do evil that good may result,” he is confused, because what results is the only measure of evil that he has. He cannot distinguish retribution from revenge, viewing all punishment merely as an emotional venting which makes people feel better. Not that he objects to it on that account, for in his view, feeling good is all that matters. Over time, though, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence can make people feel better, too, so the only question is what combination of punishment and remission of punishment makes people feel the best. Therefore, the utilitarian might very well do less to the criminal than he deserves”but, for the same reason, the utilitarian might do more to the criminal than he deserves, for the utilitarian does not grasp the concept of desert.

Given that the Church has taught that capital punishment is moral for all these centuries, and that the Church has not reconciled the previous teaching with what some wish to teach now, I could suggest that there are some good reasons for Americans to be against abolition of the death penalty, and that it is a different view of justice which animates them.

 

[Crocus]

Current: August 1 2018

CCC 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 

[Annie]

No Catechism is infallible except insofar as the teaching itself is infallible.

 

[Crocus]

Perhaps because the US is more religious than many of these other nations and less likely to follow the lead of other nations?

Among the peer countries that retain the death penalty: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.

 

[Annie]

There are other reasons for a nation to retain the DP; however, the fact that another nation does so does not ipso facto make a nation which does so out of considerations of justice wrong, any more than the fact that drug addicts abuse certain substances make someone’s doctor-prescibed use wrong.

 

[Canvas]

Blacks make up (according to a 2016 estimate) 12.7% of the US population, but account for 34.1% of the executions since 1976? That would be a racial disparity.

 

[Annie]

It is also a racial disparity that blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US.

 

[Aquinas11]

CCC 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Yes, the bolded language above is explicitly directed to the secondary basis of death penalty in Roman Catechism of Trent (protecting public), and thus neither references nor abrogates the primary basis of death penalty (retribution).

 

[Crocus]

Except you said it was because “more religious.”

The religious imperative according to Church teaching, is recognition of the

“inviolability and dignity of the person”

@Aquinas11 see above.

 

[Annie]

I understand that.

First, not all religious people in the US are Catholic; for most of them Catholic teaching is irrelevant (except, for some, insofar as they can use it against Catholics).

Secondly, I do not think that the Catholics who want to teach that the DP is bad (what does inadmissible even mean, theologically?) have explained this change sufficiently.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I think part of the “individualistic” fabric of the United States probably leads us to hold people more accountable for their own actions as compared to other countries which adopt a more communal feel and way of life; some of this thinking is positive, some not.

Many other Western countries have tended toward a Socialist way of thinking, which often blames someone’s problems on external factors and almost completely removes responsibility from the individual. With this way of thinking, even a murderer who committed the most heinous of crimes did so because of some force outside of his control, caused by the society around him; therefore, the very society which created the conditions which led him to commit the crimes in the first place does not have the right to put him to death. This very way of thinking applies to many here in the US who oppose the death penalty.

However, I think I am correct in assuming that even those who generally oppose the death penalty would have less sympathy for a wealthy, educated, white man on death row than they would for a minority. They would argue, if required to pick one or the other, that the first criminal probably “knew better” and therefore was more at fault. This thought process, however, insinuates that the minority criminal was less in control of his behavior, which betrays an unspoken and unstated bias against him as well; almost an insult. I know this is my own hypothetical example, but I have high confidence that my guess would be correct.

I do acknowledge that the death penalty has been applied disproportionately to certain segments of the population, which is indeed unfair. And it is horrible that we have most likely executed innocent people.

I would retain the death penalty, but any cases seeking it should be decided unanimously by a 15 (rather than 12) person jury, and there should have to be irrefutable evidence like video, DNA, multiple witnesses, etc. to go forward with seeking it.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I understand that.

First, not all religious people in the US are Catholic; for most of them Catholic teaching is irrelevant (except, for some, insofar as they can use it against Catholics).

Secondly, I do not think that the Catholics who want to teach that the DP is bad (what does inadmissible even mean, theologically?) have explained this change sufficiently

The most perplexing thing about the Catechism change is the unexplained “new understanding of human dignity” that apparently led to the revision. Where is this new understanding documented? What led to it? In other words, “says who?” It just shows up out of the blue, a catechetical deus ex machina for those who always wanted to change it.

 

[TMC]

I explained my position on current CCC , see (1) and (2) above. Not going to repeat myself

You have made your position clear. The Church’s teaching is also clear. The Church’s authoritative teaching is available here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

 

[Aquinas11]

inviolability and dignity of the person

That language is used in CCC to say use of DP violates inviolability and dignity of person if used as justification to protect public
(secondary justification in Catechism of Trent)

Does not address primary basis of DP from Catechism of Trent (retributive). That basis remains since not specifically abrogated

 

[tafan2]

I guess you think the first two are justified because prison is not protecting society? Why the third?

 

[Crocus]

The most perplexing thing about the Catechism change is the unexplained “new understanding of human dignity” that apparently led to the revision. Where is this new understanding documented? What led to it? In other words, “says who?” It just shows up out of the blue, a catechetical deus ex machina for those who always wanted to change it.

Genesis: God created the earth and all the plants and animals. God created man in His image. It was all good, i.e. dignity of the human person.

 

[Aquinas11]

The Church’s teaching is also clear.

Yes and here it is, which was never abrogated by CCC

“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8)”

( Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent , 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

 

[Annie]

Budzezewski, the author of the article I linked above, says

Someone may object that the murderer, too, is made in God’s image, and so he is. But this does not lighten the horror of his deed. On the contrary, it heightens it, because it makes him a morally accountable being.

To me, the contrary of the idea that the DP diminishes human dignity is true. To say, “Well, you took a life but living your life in confinement is sufficient reparation,” reduces the dignity of the life that was taken.

Which is not to say that I think every act of murder should require the DP. But to allow that level of mercy for even the most heinous of crimes seems to weaken the value of human life.

It may be no surprise that so many of the nations and persons (other than Catholics) most opposed to the DP tend to also be most supportive of abortion.

 

[Crocus]

Secondly, I do not think that the Catholics who want to teach that the DP is bad (what does inadmissible even mean, theologically?) have explained this change sufficiently.

By Catholics, you mean the Pope?

The document says the death penalty is against human dignity.

It is the right of the Church to proclaim the gospel in the context of society.

 

[Anicette]

Because it is one of the remaining few developped countries where death penalty is legal in many states.

When it is legal, it is perceived by the majority as acceptable, and thus moral.

If the majority of public opinion become against it, chances it would be abolished in a near future.