Capital Punishment

REBUTTAL: “A Catholic Call to Abolish the Death Penalty”by Tobias Winright at Catholic Moral Theology blogFrom: Dudley SharpMr. Winright has admitted that his source for some his information was the Death Penalty Information Center, a well known anti death penalty group. The best that can be hoped for is that Prof. Winright, simply and blindly, repeated the nonsense from DPIC, without fact checking. 1) Troy Davis’ many claims were “smoke and mirrors”, as detailed by the federal judge, in the 2010 decision, concluding Davis was not innocent. The evidence for his guilt was overwhelming, as are the many deceptions of the Save Troy Davis Campaign (1).2) The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act does not and cannot create “the legal conditions for executing a man whose guilt was not established­ beyond reasonable doubt.”. 3) Many studies find that there is no disparity by race of either the victim or defendant in death penalty cases. In addition, white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers, with whites being executed more quickly (2).4) It is untrue that “Since 1973, 138 persons have been exonerated from death row. . ..”. Several reviews, inclusive of one by the NY Times, find that from 25-40 actual innocents have been “identified­d and released” from death row during that time, or 0.4% of those sent to death row. The evidence supports that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty (3)5) For 2000 years the Catholic Church taught that the death penalty respects human life and dignity and is a just, appropriate­e and, sometimes, mandatory sanction for murder. The Church’s recent change is based upon an inaccurate­, secular prudential judgement, finding prison security a sufficient “defense of society” that use of the death penalty is all but unnecessary­ay. Forgiveness­ and love incorporate­e justice, inclusive of the death penalty, as detailed by Church teaching and reason (4).
FOOTNOTES upon request sharpjfa@aol.com or1) Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby
Dudley Sharp, sharpjfa@aol.comThe Troy Davis campaign, like many before it (1), is a simple, blatant fraud, easily uncovered by the most basic of fact checking (1).The 2010 federal court innocence hearing found:” . . . Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis’s claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury’s judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989.” (2)”Ultimately, while Mr. Davis’s new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors.” (2)”As a body, this evidence does not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr. Davis’s trial.”(2)”The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value.” (2)None of this came as a surprise to anyone who actually followed the case, in contrast to the Save Troy Davis folks who were, willingly, duped.1) a) “Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions, rightly, failed”,http://homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/troy-davis-worldwide-anti-death-penalty-deceptions-rightly-failed.aspxb) “Troy Davis fairly convicted, not ‘railroaded’ ” http://savannahnow.com/column/2011-10-06/column-spencer-lawton-troy-davis-fairly-convicted-not-railroaded2) “Innocence Hearing”, ordered by the US Supreme Court, US DISTRICT COURT, in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIV.,RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS, CASE NO. CV409-130http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410
2) Rebuttal to the death penalty racism claimsDudley Sharpa) “Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias”http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.htmlb) “The Death Penalty and Racism The Times Have Changed”, Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, The American Interest, Nov/Dec 2010,http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=901c) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
BY KENT SCHEIDEGGERhttp://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPenaltyRace.pdfd) Race, Sentencing and the death penalty.http://prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#C.Racemuch more . . . 3) The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents” scamhttp://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx4) a) “Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars”http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

b) Christianity and the death penaltyhttp://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity

c) Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty,
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

much more upon request

As one of the signatories to the statement of Catholic theologians opposing the death penalty in the United States, I simply wish to reassert that there are good theological reasons for its demise in the 21st century.  One finds mixed views in the tradition on the justification of the death penalty, but it needs to be pointed out–as much here as on so many other issues–that theological points of view change.  At this stage, the preponderant weight of theological opinion, including the counsel provided by Pope John Paul’s Evangelium Vitae, leans toward the banning of the death penalty.  The statement that I signed urged fellow Catholics–especially bishops–to make this reality known and to work with policy makers to legislate accordingly.  Patrick Hayes, Ph.D.

The comments concerning capital punishment reflect some of the anxiety and division which is found among Catholics and all Christians. Thanks to each of you for expressing your views.
This is no small matter. Each of us must examine our own position and not simply go along with the majority or accept things as they are. Afterall, if people did not raise questions and work to make changes in society, we would still have slavery and people arguing it was biblically based.

Dan

The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as represented in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of Pope Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon its members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of the common good:  (1) primarily, to vindicate the moral order and expiate the crime, (2) secondarily, to defend itself, (3) to deter other would-be offenders, and (4) to reform the criminal or deter future crime.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas equated a dangerous criminal to an infected limb thereby making it “praiseworthy and healthful” to kill the criminal in order to spare the spread of infection and safeguard the common good.  Catholics cannot go wrong in following the Church’s Universal Doctor and Chief Theologian.
 
Pope Pius XII, in an address (“Ce Premier Congress”) on the moral limits of medical research and treatment to the First international Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, held in Rome on September 13, 1952, contrasted the right to life with the benefit of life in the case of a justly condemned criminal:  “Even when there is question of a person condemned to
death, the state does not take away the “right” of the individual to life.  It is then reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person of the “benefit” of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, by his crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life.  (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XLIV (1952), p. 787)
 
The dogmatic Council of Trent decreed:  “[well founded is] the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
 
It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the balance of justice.  Of such “vindictive” punishment, Pope Pius XII stated:  “It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle the function of vindictive punishment.  While man is on earth, such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation, provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy” (Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67).
 
Given these purposes, an execution may take place if the following conditions are met:  (a) the guilt of the prisoner is certain; (b) the crime is of major gravity; (c) the penalty is to be inflicted, after due process, by state authority, not by private individuals or by lynching, and (d) the prisoner is given the opportunity to make his peace with God.
 
Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital punishment for its own protection.  To say that it is wrong per se or never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.  A Catholic may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory.  However, the state may always choose to commute the deserved penalty.
 
It should be noted that heinous criminals are not innocent persons (like unborn children), but are objectively guilty in natural law of grave crimes against the common weal.  As Pope Pius XII explained it: “Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to life.  It then falls to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life.”
 
Our Lord Himself confirms this power of capital punishment in the interview with Pilate before His crucifixion:
 
“Pilate therefore saith to him:  Speakest thou not to me?  Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?  Jesus answered:  Thou shouldst not have any power against me, UNLESS IT WERE GIVEN THEE FROM ABOVE…. (John 19:10-11)
 
He also seems to speak of the appropriateness of capital punishment in another passage:  “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).
 
The principle is also represented in the words of St. Dismas, the Good Thief on the cross beside Christ, who was being crucified for his crimes He says to his fellow criminal on the other side of Christ:
 
“Dost not even thou fear God, seeing that thou art under the same
sentence?  AND WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT OUR DEEDS DESERVED, but this man has done nothing wrong.”(Luke 23:40-41).

The perennial teaching of the Church found in the sources above would seem to eliminate any possibility of mere opinion, even that of a modern pope.