"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Friday, December 22, 2006

More Death Penalty Thoughts

I promise: I am not morbid; but it seems that the swell of activism against the death penalty is reaching a fever-pitch, even among otherwise level-headed Catholics. Few seem interested in defending the system, and consequently, here is Part III of my exploration of whether the death penalty in this country meets the "updated" or "revised" Catholic teaching expressed in Evangelium Vitae (EV) and the Catholic Catechism (CC). This post will further define what the current relevant texts state and what it means in concrete terms for our justice system. In a later post, I will look at some concrete cases to see if our system measures up with what the Church authoritatively proposes (as opposed to what some activists and even bishops or group of bishops wish the Church would propose).

To review briefly, the kernel of this purported "development" about use of the death penalty is found in these two key texts:

Pope John Paul II in EV:
It is clear that, for these purposes [defending public order and ensuring safety] to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
And the Catechism:
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Recall, if you will, that from these texts I distilled the following principles:
1) Recourse to the death penalty is moral generally speaking;
2) The death penaly should be avoided when "non-lethal" means can protect society; and,
3) Recourse to the death penalty even where "non-lethal" means suffice to protect society is moral, but less in conformity with human dignity and would be justified only where exceptional circumstances render it necessary and never for reasons less than those included in the traditional ends of punishment (the "common good").
For purposes of this argument, I will assume that EV and the CC are binding moral principles and not merely hortatory exhortations built upon flawed social science.

Note, however, that I take the texts at face value, and do not expand their meaning. This is vital to understand, because much political agitation by bishops and even by recent popes has proceeded from a failure to construe these passages strictly with a view to reconciling them with the strong tradition of a much broader moral justification for resort to the the death penalty.

An example of an abusive interpretation is this Live Blog session, where Jeff Caruso, Executive Director of an organization called the Virginia Catholic Conference (the two Virginia Catholic Bishops' lobbying arm) explained the Virginia bishops' call for the abolition of the death penalty in Virginia thusly:
The late Pope John Paul II, the U.S. bishops, and the Virginia bishops have all specifically called for an end to the use of the death penalty in countries like ours. That's because the teaching of the Church is that the death penalty cannot be justified whenever nonlethal means are sufficient to protect society from an unjust aggressor. In other words, things like deterrence and the heinousness of the crime are not valid considerations in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. The only appropriate consideration is whether we could protect society without using it. The US and Virginia bishops are convinced that, with our prison system and the life without parole alternative, the death penalty is not needed in our country and therefore should not be used.
(Emphasis added).

The claims made by Caruso are flat out false. Neither EV nor the CC state that use of the death penalty for deterrence is immoral or impermissible. The strongest textual claim that can be made is that the CC asserts that refraining from use of the death penalty in all but public safety cases is "more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." EV expressly allows that in cases of necessity in order to defend society, the death penalty is appropriate. EV then refers to improvements that purportedly make such necessity rare, but EV does not state that life without parole (LWOP) as an alternative punishment means that there are no cases of necessity. Nor does it state that the specific deterrence of a particular offender is an illegitimate aim of the death penalty.

While LWOP might in certain cases remove the "necessity" of execution, neither EV nor the CC state that a LWOP alternative to execution is always a fact that renders "necessity" to defend society by execution irrelevant. In fact, LWOP does not guarantee that society will be defended, and thus cannot possibly be the "improvements" referred to by EV which supposedly make the proper use of the death penalty rare.

Here are some cases where LWOP did not adequately defend society.

Indeed, as I've mentioned before, it's not unusual for convicted murderers to re-offend either while in prison or after they escape or are released.

That's right: released. The fact of the matter is that most states have mechanisms for parole even of so-called LWOP convicts. In Virginia, for example, a very tough-on-crime state, the law provides for furloughs and even for "geriatric" parole in some murder cases where juries thought they were imposing no-parole sentences. Executive clemency, moreover, allows governors to veto a LWOP sentence and that veto is non-reviewable.

Finally, in the politically volatile atmosphere in which we live, it's not hard to imagine current death penalty abolitionists arguing, should they succeed in stopping the death penalty, that LWOP is a cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. I've mentioned this tactic before and indeed, other countries have already abolished LWOP as being cruel. This is all the more craven because LWOP has all along been a ploy by the abolitionists to pry juries away from choosing the death penalty, even though it results in much lenghtier sentences for non-capital defendants. Human Rights Watch goofed and got off-message too soon, and spilled the beans about this next phase for the abolitionists: abolishing life without parole.

So whatever we may think, surmise, or conjecture about, it seems that when EV refers to "steady improvements in the organization of the penal system" which render the public safety need for executions "rare if not non-existent," it surely cannot be referring to LWOP. Perhaps a future authoritative clarification will illuminate just what it is Pope John Paul II was imagining rendered murderers definitively harmless.

In the meantime, of 38 states which allow a death penalty option, 37 states have a LWOP alternative (New Mexico will likely soon have it as well). What this means is that the fact-finder (judge or jury) and always, ultimately, the judge, has the ability to sift through the evidence and determine whether the defendant before him will be a future threat to society.

Sometimes no doubt this consideration involves looking at the depravity of the conduct involved in the case as a "predictor" of future violent conduct. Viewed in this light, we will be able to see that most death sentences in fact are addressed to incapacitating a dangerous offender.


Steve Golay said...

Just posted comment below under "We're All a Little Safer Today. Noted comments from "Evangelical Catholicism" about the pending support from the Vatican for denouncing the ececution of Saddam. Quote:

"I, for one and not for any others, cannot reconcile support for Saddam's execution with Catholic moral and social teachings on the death penalty. If and when Pope Benedict XVI asks for a pardon on behalf of Saddam, perhaps more Catholic bloggers will embrace the Church's sentiment on the death penalty."

My stomach is churning. Maybe, unlike the so-called torture debate, the upcoming execution of Saddam will create a true and lasting schism in Catholic blogland.

What statement are they (EC) anticipating from the Pope?

As said below, I can trust you to keep us sane and on track in the coming hostilities in Blog Parish - right?

Anonymous said...


If Pope Benedict is stupid enough to ask for clemency for Saddam, that will solidify the Church's rejection of biblical ethics for a foolish consistency based on nothing but "pro-life" rhetorical propaganda.

Steve Golay said...

Truly, what is the reasoning behind equating Saddam's survival from the noose with the survial of the unborn in the womb?

To preserve a misapplication of 'personalist' philosophy? Doesn't Saddam's survival insult the personhood the the infant?

Awkwardly, I posted a few thoughts over on Evangelical Catholicism. Their insistence on going down the absolutist path befuddles me. Think, though, that their unstinting upholding of Cardinal Martino is telling. All once needs to do, regarding tghe cardinal, is to to perform a search under chiesa.com for the low-down on that man.

Anonymous said...


Steve, the Church as a whole is embarking down the absolutist path. Just look at JPII's petition to Pres. Bush to grant McVeigh clemency five years ago. The trouble is that no serious Catholic wants to confront the hierarchy's foolishness on the issue.

Steve Golay said...

POSTED THIS ON EVANGELICAL CATHOLICISM (here, with some corrections). I am beside myself with thier proud and pious call (at this hour) for Saddam's conversion. All the while running around tallying up the cardinals in thier midst. What's with it with them?

On Saddam's Conversion:

How pious us! If we had cared for Saddam's soul, years ago (no, decades ago) we, good Catholics all, would have worked hard to open up Arab and Muslim cultures to the Gospel. If we, years ago, had slain Islam's hold on those societies Saddam would have had opportunity (and cause) to hear the Word of Christ. Then, ruler that he was prone to be, he may have ruled Iraq with more grace and less shed blood, let alone sanity.

I find it pathetic that we are now praying for conversion when that should have been our plan, our work, our objective decades ago.

But what was the Church doing: coddling, cuddling, acting fearfully, going dhimmi.

We have fallen for the Devil's trick - thinking that our only duty towards the Muslim world is to locate and puff-up what Christianity and Islam have in common. Such common ground is sinking sand. It is the salvation of no one.

There's no rejoicing here, this evening, in the execution of Saddam. For me it is a moment of reflection on the untold thousands of lives he assigned to the grave. I pause for them.

Go ahead, Absolutist Party, take your sly glee from his hanging. Because you do: hoping mightily that the event (the video of it!!) will advance your cause.


By the way,tallying up cardinals is silly business. One could do the same for the opposite position.

What would happen next would be the Absolutist Party making up rules about which cardinal can be counted - usually by drawing timelines: cardinal so and so doesn't count because he was pre-Vatican 2, or something like that.

By then the Absolutist Party becomes mired in a ill-conceived notion of Development of Doctrine. At day's end, they end up siding with a dissident Catholic's view of the Church - the old pick and choose game.

Dear Saddam,

May you not roast, but may you, in Purgatory, see the light Christ unfogged by your hate and your crimes. May you see that the cure of your bitter hate is humble joy: that when God became man he took on Jewish flesh, and it is a Jew's Body and Blood that can save you.

Good-by sir. May God speed to the purging grace of Purgatory.



That's another item that never comes up in this conversation - Purgatory, the grace and liberty of it. The Death Penalty takes on a different coloring when we see it through that prism. Hummm.

Anonymous said...

Some food for thought:
If a desision is made to send a violent, merderous, rapest to jail for life. Does anyone consider the fact that this particular person will be locked up with other people? (Inmates as they are refered to) What of these people, do they not have the right to be protected from such violent people?

A rapest or murderer does not stop their violent behavior as soon as they are incarserated. They will always be a threat to other people, and should therefore be removed from society.

A murderer should be treated as humanely as he treated his victom.

Christopher Fotos said...

Tom, I think this post by Christopher Blosser will interest you.

dudleysharp said...

Consider the possibility that Pope John Paul II was in error in his death penalty position and that the Church neglected 2000 years of rational, biblical, theological and traditonal foundations when it adopted its new position (since 1997).


Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07

The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.
Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.

In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."
This is, simply, not true.  Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.
Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration.
First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.  
When looking at the history of  criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them. 
Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers. 
Therefore,  the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.
History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation. 
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions. 
If  we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again. 
If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, saving more innocent lives.
No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one.  Quite a few studies, including 10 recent ones,  find that executions do deter. 
As all prospects for negative consequence deter some,  it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives. 
If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.
Thirdly, we know that some criminals don't murder because of their fear of execution.  This is known as the individual deterrent effect.  Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. 

Executions save more innocent lives. 
Therefore, the Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered --  a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope's, and other's, conclusions.
Contrary to the Church's belief, that the Pope's opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.
Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended  --  unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims. 
When the choice is between

1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or
2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered,

the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)
Pope John Paul II's death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.
Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all.
A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important fact.
Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.
Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society."  Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death."  Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.
These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope's position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Pope John Paul II's prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.
Most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered  with criminal sanction.
1.  Defense of society against the criminal.
2.  Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3.  Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression.
4.   Deterrence
It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was incomplete and improper. 
At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.
The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians,  Ananias and his wife, Saphira,  for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.
For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them."  Matthew 5:17-22.  While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution.

(read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
"In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)
Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment."  ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder").  And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further.  The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.
Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.
The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from 'paramount obedience' to God's eternal law to a civil standard reflecting 'steady improvements' . . . in the penal system?".  Such teachings hadn't changed.  The Pope's position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings.
If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent "paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?
The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD.  The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.
Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . .  Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty.  You can find example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society -- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty."  (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)
The Pope's position is now based upon the state of the corrections system -- a position neither biblical nor theological in nature.  Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons.  Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s.  Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before --  meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers  could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then --  were and are well aware of. 
Since it's inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms.  Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it would have been revealed long before 1995. 
There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard.  The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant.  The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder. 
If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.
The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed.  Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction.  Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment.  Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.

Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant.  Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope.
"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.  They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)
Again, with regard to the Pope's prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent.
Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.
In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well.  The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes. 
Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position.  There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?
Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment.  The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty. 
So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?
It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.
The Pope's position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.


These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstruct the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops.
(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio, 
in a blog     (replace dot)    domid.blogspot(DOT)com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007 
NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.

(2)  "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at

(3)  "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective" at

(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003



(7) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty", by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007

(8) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002

(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at

(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
copyright 1997-2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharp(at)aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites 
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm  (Sweden)

Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.