Katholics for Dean Pipe Dream

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and present some of the arguments I've heard against voting Republican from some Catholics unwilling to vote Democrat either:

The Republican party is not pro-life! They are only barely anti-abortion in theory, but in practice they drive poor, desperate women to abort their babies by refusing them the help they need! They cut social programs and cause the poor to be ever more desperate, thus driving them into the abortion clinics! They are just as guilty as the Democrats, if not more! Eliminate poverty and you reduce abortion!

I agree on the Aborton = Liberal = Democrat point. I also grant that probably millions are killed by abortion.

But, do not forget that our sitting President was Governor of Texas (1994-2000), 158 people were executed.

Apparently, for Republicans like G.W. Bush, the Right to Life only counts in utero.

And how many of those 158 were innocent, Jeff? Don't say "probably half" or something like that -- I want names. I'll save you the trouble: since the death penalty was reinstituted in the '70s, opponents can't point to one person who was indisputably innocent.

The right to life, like all other rights, is not absolute in Catholic teaching. Read the Catechism if you don't believe me. The state is permitted to execute those who pose a grave threat to the community, and is authorized to wage just wars, too. It can even pluck you out of your home and force you to fight on its behalf.

Coward, I sense you're being facetious, but since 1996, when the Feds limited welfare programs and encouraged people to get back to work, the abortion rate has dropped significantly. There's little connection between government giveaway programs and the incidence of abortion. Indeed, I'd argue that since welfare programs discourage taking responsibility for one's life, they create the kind of selfish mentality where abortion flourishes.

Eric,

I'm arguing against the frequent misuse of capital punishment by the Texas (including when G.W. Bush was governor).

In Evangelium vitae
#56 (JP II, 1995):

The nature and extent of the punishment ought not to 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 nonexistent. "

After Evangelium Vitae, the Catechism was updated in 1997 (2267).

"2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

[Emphasis mine]

I think you can argue that 35-40 executions per year in Texas alone does not meet the standard of 'when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society'. Are you suggesting that Texas prisons have such poor security that these death row inmates are a threat to the safety of Texans?

Note that 2267 states that ... authority will limit itself to such means ... . This is not an optional directive. Rather, execution is now the exception rather than the rule.

IMHO, the fact that Texas (and the other 38 states which have a legal death penalty) can keep its citizens safe convicted murderers suggests to me that they are, in fact, going against teachings of The Church.

Jeff

I don't agree that 35-40 executions in Texas is excessive, and I don't agree that incarceration is morally superior in every case to execution. According to the FBI, there were 1,165 people killed due to murder or "non-negigent manslaughter."

Did you know that there are 810 repeat murderers sittting in jail right now -- that is, people who were released after their first murder, and killed again? (.) No? Probably because it's an inconvenient statistic if you think prison is a "safe" place.

I'm glad criminals would rather be caught in Maryland, where the death penalty is rarely imposed, rather than my Virginia, where it is more frequent. Let the guity live in fear, not the innocent.

Sorry, the first paragraph of the last post was incomplete. I meant to add that the 1,165 number was for 2002, and so deliberately causing the death of another human being only gives you a 3-4% chance of getting the death penalty in Texas.

I would like to make some quick points in response to your earlier comments, Eric. You asked how many of the 158 people executed were innocent. No one knows the answer. Not because none were innocent, but because no one is researching their cases. They are busy researching the cases of inmates currently on death row because they care more about saving a life, than saving a reputation a reputation.
Also you said a decrease in welfare spending was the cause for the drop in abortion rates in 1996, but the reforms were passed in the beginning half of the year and so were in place for most of the year. Coincidentally, the only increase in abortion rates in the 90's was between 1995 and 1996. I'm not saying the reforms caused the abortion rates to rise; I'm just saying they didn't cause the drop.
My main problem with the death penalty is that it doesn't really do much besides provide closure for the victim's family. It does not act as a deterrent for criminals. It does not bring back dead loved ones, and it does not protect society from these people any more than life in prison without parole would.

I have a few questions. What about Ted Bundy? He kept breaking out of prison and killing again. What about people who kill others or do "other" stuff to people while they are in prison? Should they be executed? Or locked up with each other and no-one else? Also, and separately, I seriously doubt if closure actually comes about because of the death penalty, by the way. People need a spiritual way to deal with such shocking events, and this doesn't qualify.

That's incorrect about people not researching executed criminals' innocence. There are several law centers that do that. Check Google if you don't believe me. If death penalty opponents could find one innocent person executed, you'd have heard about him. There are no such cases yet.

I don't think "closure" is a legitimate reason for punishment. The crimimal justice system is not supposed to be therapeutic. I do think it is proper retribution for heinous crimes.

As for the death penalty not protecting society any better than incarceration, there are no known cases of any crime committed by an executed crimimal.

anonymous devil is theologically incorrect in his belief Democrats can eliminate poverty. "The poor you shall always have with you," Christ taught us. DUH!

By the way, where did Christ ever teach, "Love your neighbor as yourself by doing this: vote for people to tax you and redistribute your money to help the poor. Yeah, you should help the poor too, but obviously, you, my sheep, as my church, you can't do as good a job as the government can."?

Welllll?

Scripture teaches God invests power in the state to do justice on earth and that the ungodly, not the godly, have to fear the sword of the state.

Obviously, that refers to government which acts in proper accordance to its mission, and not dictatorial regimes. Our government, despite its faults, by and large executes justice in accordance with God's properly prescribed mission for it.

The death penalty is not non-biblical nor contrary to Christ's teachings. The Catholic Church is free to set moral arguments against the death penalty, but it would be incorrect to issue a blanket condemnation of all death penalty, particularly death penalties executed at the hands of constitutional republics which safeguard due process for even the most heinous of defendants.

Eric,

You seem to imply that only guilty people are convicted and put on death row.

The Illinois governor commuted the sentences of all death row inmates (167) because of a flawed criminal justice system that led to the wrongful conviction (i.e., innocent men) of 13 people.

So, given this example where innocent were to be executed (and the post on 2267), I guess I don't understand why that you seem go against the The Church -- that execution as a last resort, which is very rare, if not practically non-existent.

Please explain?

JaneM,

The first time Ted Bundy escaped, he was not in prison at the time -- he was in a courthouse library. The second time, he escaped from a county jail -- clearly not a maximum security facility.

It's rare that someone can break out of a prison, much less one that holds the maximum security classification. There are more than 6 Million people in U.S. prisons. What is the likelyhood that someone escapes and then kills again?

jeff,

What about murderers killing, and raping, inside the maximum security prison? How're you gonna guarantee that won't happen?

Jeff, I think you're being disingenuous. The "very rare, if not practically non-existent" passage is not dogma. It is a prudential judgement, an observation about how the world is presently constituted. It is not revealed truth on the same level as the Incarnation, or -- to get back to the original post -- the teaching against abortion.

There have been innocent men condemned to death in the last three decades, but they've been exonerated, as far as we know. Governor Ryan -- an accused felon himself, by the way -- commuted all the sentences wrongly. He even commuted sentences of admitted murderers and for those whose guilt was not in doubt.

Besides, the execution of a few people who were not guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced does not invalidate that method of punishment. In any retributive punishment, some good is taken away from a person that cannot always be restored. That's an argument against never punishing anyone at all.

I'd like to make a quick note about admitted murderers. Just because they have confessed does not necessarily mean they have committed the crime. There have been a lot of cases over the years where innocent people confessed for reasons other than they did it. Police often coerce confessions out of suspects; sometimes they are told that they will get a lighter punishment; other times they just believe that there is not other way out. Take a look at the Salem Witch Trials.

Also I would like to apologize to any people who are family members of murder victims for implying that closure could be brought on by execution. I realize that it is a long and difficult process.

Gov. Ryan was probably just trying to curry favor with the folks who would be his new constitutuency for the next several years.

I don't think a 5-to-20-year judicial process, with multiple appeals involving every level of government from local to federal, could be likened to the Salem witch trials. Also, murderers are rarely convicted solely on their own testimony.

If there are innocent men on death row, let them go free. If the police have coerced suspects into confessing, then that's something that should be addressed separately from the death penalty. Again, a procedural defect doesn't negate the justice of any punishment.

A procedural defect does however negate the justice of using an irrevocable and final punishment. Often the system and its procedures have errors and those errors fail people. Take for instance Roger Coleman who was executed in 1992 in VA. He was given an incompetent attorney by the state who missed the filing date his appeal by one day. His attorney failed to point out glaring inconsistencies in the prosecutions version of how the crime took place. Procedural defects failed Roger Coleman and because of the death penalty there is no way to save him now.

Eric: Marine, I like your style. Semper Fi...

Thanks, John. Semper Fi back at you.

Chris, you're going to have to try again. Here's a link to a site that references a court case indicating that DNA evidence confirmed Coleman's guilt.

For those of you who don't want to click the link:

"Two well-known, but commonly misunderstood, cases from Virginia also involve DNA confirmation of guilt. Roger Coleman, convicted of rape and murder of his sister-in-law in 1982, sought and obtained a court order for DNA testing by an expert of his own choice. The expert found the sample matched, and that the probability of the match being random was only a small fraction of a percent. Two years later, Time Magazine ran a cover story on Coleman, claiming he 'might be innocent' and describing other evidence in detail, but omitting any mention of the DNA test. The evidence is described in the federal district court's opinion issued shortly before Coleman's execution: Coleman v. Thompson, 798 F. Supp. 1209, 1213-1214 (W.D.Va. 1992)."

AC: Gov. Ryan left office after he commuted those sentences in Illinois. I'm not sure which constituency he's trying to curry favors.

Eric: Procedural defects allow people [who sometimes are guilty] to go unpunished because our criminal justice system is based on two things: 1) Innocence until proven guilty and 2) It's better to let many guilty go free than to keep a single innocent in jail.

My point: It is easy to say that procedure shouldn't negate punishment, but in our imperfect and system which is biased towards one's innocence, it is a necessity.

Also, a minor point of clarification on appeals. Depending on the charges, the accused do not get to appeals to both Federal and State courts. For example, if I commit a Federal offense, I am tried in Federal court. I can appeal to the Federal district court and then perhaps to the Supreme court. In this case, I would not be allowed any time in a State court system because I was not charged by the State.

Jeff,

I meant he was trying to curry favor with the prison constituency, i.e., his new neighbors.

The DNA test used as evidence to convict Roger Coleman matched 1 in 20 US males. If you do the math that comes out to be around 5 million men. This is hardly rock solid evidence. There is a movement to have VA release the DNA evidence so it could be retested with current methods to gain a better picture. This fact was not brought up by Coleman's incompetent lawyers. Edward Blake, The expert who performed the initial testing, is now one of the leaders of this movement to have the DNA retested. I personally believe that the DNA will exhonorate Coleman, but if you have no doubt that it was him then the test will show it.

Read the link and the citation I posted above, Chris. The probability of DNA testing error was "a fraction of less than one percent."

I am aware of how federalism works in our courts, Jeff, but often state cases end up on federal appeals dockets because the murderers' lawyers claim that their clients' civil rights were violated. Even if it stays at the state level, the convicted murderers are allowed to appeal to the state supreme court and to the governor for clemency as a last resort.