Archbishop Charles Chaput
Even when a defendant is well defended, properly tried and justly found guilty, experience shows that capital punishment simply doesn’t work as a deterrent. Nor does it heal or redress any wounds, because only forgiveness can do that. It does succeed though in answering violence with violence — a violence wrapped in the piety of state approval, which implicates all of us as citizens in the taking of more lives.
Turning away from capital punishment does not diminish our support for the families of murder victims. They bear a terrible burden of grief, and they rightly demand justice. Real murderers deserve punishment; but even properly tried and justly convicted murderers — men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes — retain their God-given dignity as human beings. When we take a murderer’s life we only add to the violence in an already violent culture, and we demean our own dignity in the process.
Both Scripture and Catholic tradition support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited conditions. But the Church has repeatedly called us to a higher road over the past five decades. We don’t need to kill people to protect society or punish the guilty. And we should never be eager to take anyone’s life. As a result, except in the most extreme circumstances, capital punishment cannot be justified. In developed countries like our own, it should have no place in our public life.
[hotblock]
Last month here in Pennsylvania, execution warrants were signed for four men. A judge stayed one of the execution warrants, but the three remaining warrants could potentially result in the first execution in our state in 13 years. One of the cases in which appeals seem to be exhausted involves Terrance Williams.
In October, Williams is scheduled to die by lethal injection for the murder of Amos Norwood in 1984, a crime committed when he was 18 and a college freshman. Williams is indisputably guilty of the crime. He’s also mentally competent. His defense attorneys argue that he was repeatedly sexually abused as a youth, including five years of abuse at the hands of the man he murdered, and that this helped motivate his violence. The state counters that all of Williams’ claims — including claims of sexual abuse — have had proper judicial review and been rejected.
Terrance Williams deserves punishment. No one disputes that. But he doesn’t need to die to satisfy justice. We should think very carefully in the coming days about the kind of justice we want to witness to our young people.
Most American Catholics, like many of their fellow citizens, support the death penalty. That doesn’t make it right. But it does ensure that the wrong-headed lesson of violence “fixing” the violent among us will be taught to another generation.
As children of God, we’re better than this, and we need to start acting like it. We need to end the death penalty now.
***
The Archbishop strongly encourages readers to contact the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, urging them to recommend commutation of Williams’ sentence to life in prison. Please also contact the Office of the Governor and urge the Governor to accept a clemency recommendation from the board, or, in its absence, to order a temporary reprieve. Use the Catholic Advocacy Network at www.pacatholic.org to send an email to the Board of Pardons and the Governor. Or call or write them at:
Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, 333 Market Street, 15th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17126; phone: 717.787.2596.
The Honorable Tom Corbett, Governor of Pennsylvania, The Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120; phone: 717.787.2500.
PREVIOUS: Taking the difficult steps on the road to renewing the Church
NEXT: Some thoughts on Catholic faith and public life
You people can say all you want as to the Death Penalty not being a deterrent to Murder but I know from personal experience that it is. In 1963 I was a police officer in Pennsylvania. I and some of my fellow officer chased a felon in to a neighborhood with some deserted homes. While searching these homes it turned out that the felon caught one of my friends from behind with a gun. the rest of us were nearby and he knew it. Instead of using the gun he elected to give up. When asked why he gave up, he said i knew if I killed him they would “fry” me.
One problem I see with capital punishment as currently practiced is:
1) That the appeals process takes so long few in society even can follow a crime from it’s committment to it’s punishment.
2) It’s done under cover of darkness. We’ve become so squeemish apparently that executions are no longer performed in public.
3) The crimes for which they are used are not the type that they would serve as a deterrent.
As stated elsewhere, it really should be used as a punishment of last resort: If crimes are already committed as part of a life sentence, say. There it may actually serve as a deterrent.
What of the dignity of those in prison (both the guilty and the innocent) who are victimized by violent killers who were not executed?
What a crock! 3,500 children are murdered daily in the U.S. and uncounted old people are being starved and dehydrated to death (or committing suicide) in Chaput’s own “Catholic” nursing homes, but “capital punishment” has to end now! I guess it’s sort of like calling the anal rape of a child a “boundary violation”.
I’m kind of surprised that Abp. Chaput, who I have the highest respect for, would champion this view, but not entirely surprised; it’s his calling, if you will, to attempt to be above reproach when it comes to human life. But are the following the exceptions to that rule? (of absolute respect for ALL human life, no matter what the circumstances are)
1) the chap who in the late ‘seventies, early ‘eighties, who had a hisory of being a violent pedophile, kidnapped, savagely sexually abused, then BEAT TO DEATH A LESS THAN TWO-YEAR OLD GIRL, here in Ventura county.
2)the man in New York City, single, who just HAD to have his own child, so he was approved to adopt one by the authorities,some time within the last decade. He proceeded to physically ABUSE this INFANT, FINALLY IN A FIT OF rage, murdered THIS HELPLESS IINFANT, CUT UP THE BODY, AND FED IT TO HIS DOGS! I’m sorry, in my view and I believe the view of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, these two MISERABLE EXCUSES for human beings, FORFEIT THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE, and MUST be executed as humanely as possible. Anything else is a TRAVESTY of justice. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
Katherine,
I agree 100% but in the self defense case, you are not executing but rather are protecting yourself and the death of the other alone will stop his trigger finger or knife. Shotguns with self defense rounds are best because they are less likely than high powered pistols to go through two walls and kill your neighbor inadvertently.
If a life sentence really meant a life sentence, if too many convicted violent criminals were not paroled to commit more crimes, capital punishment would not be needed.
For about 99% of the time, I am anti-capital punishment. However there are some heinous crimes such as the Connecticut home invasion that make me want to bring back hanging in the public square. I suspect I will struggle with this issue for a long time.
Thank you, Archbishop Chaput for a very thoughtful column.
A few years back several top members of the aryan brotherhood were convicted of several counts of conspiracy to committ murder. Despite being in prison on life sentences they still managed to pass down orders which resulted in several people who were not even in prison to lose their lives. Before you throw around phrases like “the death penalty is not needed to protect society” perhaps you should considet cases such as this. Not to mention that many people already in prison on life sentences have killed and maimed and raped their fellow inmates. Are these victims not deservinv of protection also? Or the prison guards?
There are two cases in which the death penalty is necessary to protect society.
The first is where a person commits a capital crime while incarcerated or under arrest or detention.
The second is where he is personally so wicked that there would be an unacceptable risk to the rehabilitation of other prisoners were he to be incarcerated with them.
Normally, you can count on Archbishop Chaput to offer commentary or opinion (and this article is nothing more)based on a properly balanced and ordered exposition of how Church doctrine intersects the real world (and human nature). Sadly, this is not up to his usual standard of excellence, nor does it seem to offer much more than a sense of misguided charity as justification. The logical fallacies are bad enough, but the failure to utilize basic Catholic tools such as a consideration of double effect only compound the error. And it seems clear that AB Chaput has made the mistake of personalizing this issue in regards to Mr. Williams case, which always has a corrosive effect on objectivity. Suffice it to say that rebutting the article could involve an entire article itself, but I will be brief.
1. Every year there are nearly 100 homicides committed by inmates against other inmates in the U.S. Generally, the assailants are violent offenders convicted of murder, manslaughter or who have have pleaded to a lesser offence despite their crime having involved the death of another.
2. Additionally, although statistics are not readily available, we know that some number of the approximately 15,000 homicides each year are ordered or arranged by inmates in prison, many of those on death row.
3. We also know that the criminal justice system is equal parts corrupt and inept at times, allowing clearly guilty murderers to go free (e.g., OJ & Casey Anthony), where in some cases they manage to kill again in retribution or to silence a witness.
4. And we have also seen case after case of the inmate released on early parole, or based on “good behavior” or simply escapes, who kills not long after being released.
So in brief summary, each of these examples on their own, and certainly in combination, give lie to the idea that the criminal justice system in this country can safely insulate society from homicide, rape, violent assault, etc., by merely incarcerating a violent offender. The empirical evidence against is there in painfully plain sight if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Is even one innocent death “acceptable” because of the naive notion that we can completely isolate or quarantine evil with modern technology? This was and is the logical fallacy of Blessed JPII’s attempt to “develop” Church doctrine on capital punishment beyond the bounds of reason and reality. It is disappointing to see the same argument from Sentimentalism from AB Chaput, as it is contrary to Catholic Tradition in its essence. And contrary to the canard repeated above, capital punishment is always a deterrent in the immediate case.
As someone with long-standing respect for Archbishop Chaput, I submit these questions in a spirit of inquiry, not of disrespect. These are not charged questions, and I don’t know the answers, but I genuinely want to hear Archbishop Chaput’s responses:
1. Despite the best of intentions regarding lifetime imprisonment, in our society, are not legal challenges inevitable until the convicted person dies thus leaving us with no moral certitude of lifetime imprisonment?
2. Is there really no practical possibility a convicted criminal can kill a guard, another employee of the prison or another criminal?
3. Are U.S. prisons so secure that a criminal has no real possibility of escaping?
God Bless, and thanks!
The Archbishop’s sentiment in this matter is noteworthy, and I respect his opinion very much, however he does not support his sentiment with theological argument or persuasion to underpin it. Such being the case, there is not much for the layman to weigh here either intellectually, spiritually, or scripturally.
I am a Pennsylvanian. I am not opposed to the death penalty. My opinion remains unchanged.
This was posted by Bender on October 10, 2011 at 12:05 am, and I agree:
Capital Punishment, though not intrinsically evil, and permissible under certain very specific situations, is not required, and should almost never be used.
________________
I would suggest that this is not the best way to put it and, in fact, it puts the cart before the horse.
A better way to put it is that, in some rare instances, it IS required, and it is ONLY when it is required that it is permissible. When is it required? When there are no less drastic measures by which to protect the lives and safety of others. If a prisoner still presents an on-going continuing threat to others by his actions or merely by remaining alive, even if held in the HELL that is a super-max prison, it may very well be required.
We have a duty to protect life. Not only the life of the prisoner, but the lives of other prisoners, and the lives of guards, and the lives of people outside the prison. If taken alive, would Osama bin Laden have presented a continuing threat to the safety of others and a threat to our national security? How many innocent people should we sacrifice to keep him alive in that case? Or consider the case of the prisoner who murders other prisoners or kills guards or attempts to do these things. What do we say to the widow of the next murdered guard whose death could have been prevented? Or what about the mob boss who can still control his gang and order hits on people even from inside prison? Do the people of Iraq sleep easier at night knowing that Saddam Hussein is lying cold in the grave?
I think that the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae are overly optimistic in overstating the “possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm.” (And one also overstates the case to say that the popes and bishops have rejected modern capital punishment per se.) In some cases, there is NO effective way to render the offender incapable of doing harm. In other cases, the only way to render him harmless, other than to totally incapacitate him by taking his life, is to subject him to a tortuous existence in 24-hour lockdown in an isolation cell in a super-max prison. This latter approach I would suggest is as morally abhorent as is execution, if not more so.
Now, do the above cases represent most people convicted of a horrible crime? No. Absolutely not. Probably well over 95 percent of executions are not justified — they are not required in order to protect the lives and safety of others. But some are. Unfortunately. It would be far preferable not to have to take someone’s life at all, but when they present a threat to others, the use of deadly force might be necessary.
The question of the value and dignity and sanctity of human life is a question of moral truth. It is a question that deals with absolutes. That absolute is — human life is so precious that it is wrong to kill, except that, in order to protect life, it might be necessary to take the life of an aggressor.
The question of capital punishment, however, is not susceptible of absolutes. It is an inherently relative matter. Today in the United States, at enormous financial expense, we have super-max prisons of concrete and steel. Other nations today do not have those resources or manpower to construct, maintain, and guard such prisons. Even 100 years ago, the United States did not either. Towns in the old West might have had a one-cell jail in a brick building, from which escape was quite possible. And out on the frontier, there were no jails at all. What to do with a killer or a rapist who might escape or will be released at some point and might go looking for revenge? The only effective way of rendering them incapable of doing harm was by use of a rope. It was because there were no prisons as we have today, or resources to operate them and house prisoners for life, and because offenders could not be trusted not to re-offend after being released, or could not be trusted to not return if banished, that people up until the 19th century were hanged for not only murder, but rape and robbery and mayhem and burglary.
The question of the dignity and sanctity of human life is a question of moral truth. But the question of “capital punishment” is entirely relative, depending upon specific facts and situations. And we should not blur or confuse the two. The Church is on firmest ground proclaiming truth, which is absolute, rather than going further and trying to absolutize the inherently relative.
As a “punishment” or as a “penalty,” given the absolute moral truth of the sanctity of human life, it should absolutely be opposed. And, properly understood, THAT is where I believe the popes and bishops stand. And that is where we should stand. But as a remedial matter, as a protective matter, as the only way to defend and save human life, the use of deadly force by execution might in rare cases be required, and therefore permissible. “Rare” means rare, and we should not be in the business of twisting the words of moral truth and arguing that “rare” really means “never.” It doesn’t.
Providing for a murderer’s room, board and health care for the rest of his or her life doesn’t serve justice in many cases.
Having the death penalty available provides a deterrent against prisoners killing each other and prison guards.
It also encourages cooperation by accused criminals who may decide to confess their crimes and reveal where they hid the body/bodies and who helped them in exchange for the prosecution not asking for the death penalty.
I think taking the death penalty off the table will do more harm than good, cheapening the lives of victims and potential future victims. Maybe public executions would be a better idea and increase the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
If someone breaks into my house when I’m home or threatens my life when I’m out and about, I intend to exercise my right to self defense and carry out the death penalty right there on the spot.
Katherine,
Years ago, before I really became committed to a pro-life philosophy, I used to have a similarly pragmatic view as yours in at least part of your comment. To my mind, the murderer had forfeited his right to life, and since the taxpayers could choose the most economical way of protecting themselves from futher danger, that would justify the death penalty. Well, the fact is that a capital case incurs enormous costs to prepare for and try, as it consumes hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of lawyers’ time, for both sides, for which taxpayers generally pay. Our deacon, with nearly 40 years at the bar, just told me that some rural counties can hardly afford one of these cases in a year. For this reason alone one can demonstrate that the death penalty is not applied equally even within states, much less regionally or nationally. DNA & other discoveries have freed too many for us to be terribly confident that justice will always prevail. Also, we now know that the death penalty has no real deterrent effect, as the people that do this do not weigh risks rationally.
However, the complete answer to the question of capital punishment was given by Catholic author J R R Tolkein in the “Fellowship of the Ring”, chapter 2, “The Shadow of the Past” (while this occurs in the Shire, the conversation was moved very effectively to the Mines of Moria in the movie). After learning of the terrible peril of the Ring, and the creature Gollum’s disclosure of the names “Shire” & “Baggins” to the Dark Lord, Sauron, Frodo exclaims, “What a pity that Bilbo did not kill him when he had the chance!” Gandalf replies, “It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand…”. Frodo, who has every reason to fear, says “… he deserves to die”. By this time we have learned that Gollum is truly awful, so Gandalf says: “Deserves death? I daresay that he does. [here is the crucial point] Many that live deserve to die – but many that die deserve to live. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Then do not be eager to deal out death in judgement, for even the very wise cannot see all ends”.
While not a capital offender, I would offer Chuck Colson as an example of enormous contributions to our society made as the result of a jailhouse conversion. When it comes to evaluating the future worth of a person’s life, we simply don’t know, & should dread to play God.
It should be obvious, but is necessary to restate, that this principle applies even more forcefully for the perfectly innocent unborn, since it even does for a convicted criminal.
Note that I am not equating the death penalty, which can be morally permissible with the provisos stated above, with direct abortion, which is intriniscally evil; that is, it is always & everywhere morally wrong. Consequently it is the unborn that deserve our most relentless efforts, and we do both causes a disservice by blurring the very real distinctions between them.
Deacon,
Advancement is a red herring. All a life sentence takes is a locked room, food, and excretion facilities. The Inquisition had them and the Roman empire had them where it was called ” damned to the mines”.
The papal lands executed 500 criminals in the first half of the 19th century. Are you going to tell us that putting them in a room for life was impossible then? We cover up our reversals by denying our past and its implications. Google ” Bugatti papal executioner “.
Not surprisingly, Archbishop Chaput’s position on the death penalty is completely in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. In theory, the death penalty is not precluded. But, given our advancements today in the vast majority of developed countries, there are means to protect society from the aggressor. Thus, the morally acceptable use of the death penalty today is “practically nonexistent.” There is no morally acceptable justification for it in the Williams case.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
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 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 nonexistent.”
Well said Archbishop Chaput! We’re either pro life or not. No middle ground there, a life is a life, from conception to natural death.
Like Joseph, I also would like to understand what might constitute an extreme circumstance. The catechism isn’t clear on that at all…thank you.
“A life is a life.” So you make no distinction between innocent life and mass murderers, attacking soldiers and their leaders, or anything else, eh?
Also, you too easily ignore the damage to the lives of the men you expect to guard and imprison convicted murderers.
Try again.
Nope, I make no distinctions, at all, ever. And make no apologies for that either. I sit in judgment of no one.
With regards to Kozaburo’s comment, His Excellency has said nothing that the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church has not said many times prior to this as well, so I’m surprised if this far from new idea is what would keep you away from a church.
In reply to Joseph, while I am not The Most Reverend Archbishop, I can say (and believe this is what he meant) that there may be some cases, such as in developing, or even some second world countries, where the prison system is not sufficiently able to make sure a prisoner will be secured for life, or where the political system is so volatile that one judicial result could result in an imprisonment of a person who is later simply freed if another party gains control of the government. In these cases, one could make the argument that capital punishment may be the only alternatative punishment for a particular prisoner. However, in the Criminal Justice system currently in place in the U.S. we have the technology, security, and stability to make sure that someone who is to be kept in jail for life stays there. Thus while we have both Old AND New Testament statements that the government CAN have the moral authority to punish capitally, it does not follow that it is always moral to use exercise that authority.
Bravo, Kozaburo!
All Chaput is doing is parroting JPII’s arbitrary revisionism concerning capital punishment, a stance that contradicts both Scripture and Tradition.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
I wouldn’t use the word “bravo”. The fact is this… the latter part of the catechism statement is a fantasy (“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 nonexistent.”). The state cannot prevent any crime, only punish it. So tradition stands, as it must.
What hurts me the most about +Chaput’s statement is that it reflects an attitude shared by so many clergy in the Roman Catholic Church. A thousand priests and bishops will champion a remorseless murderer, but the victim’s family is lucky if they get a decent homily at the funeral let alone a phone call offering support. Your loved one is butchered so bad she can’t even have an open casket, and they make you sit through some awful hymn like “On Eagle’s Wings”. Later, after a year or more of a trial where you live through every detail of the violence in gory detailas the murderer and his lawyer lie and lie, and years of appeals involving the same, the priest or his bishop will protest her murderer’s execution. It’s sickening.
This does not happen in the Ukrainian Church.