I Am a Pro Death Penalty Catholic

When I was a member of St. Iranaeus parish in Cypress, CA, I remember one sermon by then Fr. John McAndrew (I say then because he has since left the priesthood) in which he vehemently stated, "Thou shall not kill . . . anything!"  This sticks in my mind because my first reaction was, to think, that's a false statement.

The recent news about the execution of Troy Davis compels me to ask myself, can a Catholic be in favor of the death penalty?  My own answer is yes.  It is not per se forbidden by the teachings of the Church.  And not to enforce it may well be a greater evil.

I look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5.  Let's go.

Thou shalt not kill.

"Kill" is a large and general word.  A police officer may have to use his weapon in self-defense.   That is a killing.  My steak came to me via a killing.  What was never explained to me during my years i Catholic school, however, was that the Hebrew verb used in Exodus is ratsah, which is more properly translated as to murder in a criminal sense; the verb harag, meaning to kill in a general sense, is not used.  This makes sense, since if it were a far-reaching prohibition of killing, a sort of omnipacificism, we would not see God lending His assistance, say, to Joshua to defeat Israel's armies.  There is a time and place when blood will be shed.

But did not Christ come to undo the law of the Old Testament?  Did he not say there is a new law, to love one another? 

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.

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."

So, there is no outright prohibition in Church teachings, just the contingency that if there are other means  available to protect "people's safety from the aggressor," it must be used before taking the aggressor's life.

While I admire Blessed Pope John Paul II, who stated that cases where the death penalty is needed "are very rare, if practically nonexistent," I cannot agree with him on the infrequency of such occasions. 

First, let us agree - the death penalty is to be applied to the most heinous of crimes, the taking of a life.  Does that mean I advocate the death penalty for all homicides?  Not at all.  There are degrees of homicide in the law and so too are there degrees of punishment.  Keep in mind the words of the Catechism, defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. 

Using this as a guide, I would not advocate the death penalty for a man who stalked and killed his daughter's rapist.  Certainly, his acts are premeditated and vengeful, but his murder is personal and such a person is not a threat to the people's safety.  But let's take the gang leader who has eliminated his competition on the streets with an execution.  I note that the language of the Catechism says defending human lives.  It does not qualify which human lives.  I contend that such a man poses a very serious threat to the lives of those who would share his prison; certainly, there is real probability for crimes against their human dignity, if not their very lives.  Would the Church exclude the protection of convicts from rape, beatings, forced membership in a gang, or murder?  Of course not. 

Let us be clear under what circumstances the death penalty applies.  I would say that it is justified when the likelihood is significant of the person continuing to pose of a threat grave injury or death to any human, where such likelihood is determined by the nature of their crime and previous conduct.  Thus, when we see someone who engages in a heinous killing, lacks remorse, and has chosen to behave prior to the crime in such a way as to demonstrate their disregard for civilized society - and no, I'm not talking about petty theft or spitting on sidewalks, but gang membership, assault, drug trafficking, and the like - then the death penalty should apply.

On the streets of Orange County and in the prisons and jails of California, Peter Ojeda is called "The Señor" or "The Big Homie."

Law-enforcement authorities call him something else.

They say the 63-year-old former Santa Ana street-gang member is the Orange County "shot caller" of the Mexican Mafia prison gang.

Ojeda, according to Santa Ana police detectives, is the man who demands taxes from gang drug dealers, who gives the green light for assaults on gang members who refuse to pay up and who controls drug trafficking inside Orange County jails.

Ojeda was law-enforcement's star catch in June, when hundreds of local police and FBI and federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents conducted simultaneous raids on more than 40 homes.

Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters said officers arrested 29 street-gang members and dealt a crippling blow to what he called "the Ojeda Organization."

The gang members are in custody without bail under a federal grand-jury indictment accusing them of violating racketeering laws.

Ojeda, who has served at least four terms in state and federal prisons, could get 20 years if convicted.

He was arrested numerous times for possession of narcotics and served the first of his four known prison sentences in 1965 when he was convicted of smuggling heroin.

When Ojeda was discharged from his third prison term, served for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, in l987, he had risen through the ranks to become one of the top bosses of the Mexican Mafia, according to police.

During his last prison sentence, Ojeda stabbed a rival gang member in his prison cell, police said.

I am not saying Ojeda should have been killed a long time ago.  But if he were to murder someone - or order the murder of someone - I have no qualms about seeing him executed.  I think it is likely that his conduct would not change with life imprisonment.  And the death penalty would be necessary for defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Well, keep them in solitary confinement for life, some would say.  There is no such thing.  Although the prisoner is confined to his cell for some 23 hours at a time, they do have contact with prison staff, they are given an hour of exercise in a yard also used by other prisoners (although not at the same time), and they are allowed to receive mail and telephone calls, and can communicate with other prisoners through doors and across corridors. 

A number of people call solitary confinement to be a form of torture.  There are issues with mental illness and psychosis can develop.  Where is the mercy in that? 

And the problem still exists - for those who are intent upon furthering evil and jeopardizing people's safety, ways exist to do so, even in solitary confinement.  There are corrupt prison guards who can be bribed and communication with accomplices can be had.  Illnesses can be faked, thus allowing access to medical staff.  Yes, it would be hard for such a person to further evil in such circumstances, and yet it is done.  Or at least planned for when he is released.  Because he will be.  I cannot imagine how a life sentence would be found to be constitutional under the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  How long is too long?  I don't know.  But if a person is of such danger after committing a capital crime, then I would argue he has fit my criteria above to receive the death penalty.

I know people say, well, it doesn't get closure for the family, it doesn't bring their loved one back.  That is obvious, but an illogical argument as no punishment will bring back the loved one from death, so why bother?  The purpose of the death penalty is to prevent another loved one from dying.  I do not think enforcing the death penalty is a failure to forgive.  We should not rejoice when a criminal is put to death, and any vengeance harbored in one's heart is worthy of a trip to the Confessional.  Again, as the Catechism states, it is for defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.  Pray for the convicted that their soul might enter Heaven.  A Jewish woman once said to me, "No thinking Jew would imagine Hitler in Heaven."  I replied to her, "No, but a religious one might."

But what if an innocent man is put to death?  That is difficult.  I am not saying that it can't happen, but I think from this point forward, it is rare, given the technology present to determine guilt.  As a lawyer, let me explain - the State has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is a high standard.  And let me also explain what is circumstantial evidence, which many people in the public seem to define as evidence with minimal probative value.  Direct evidence is the testimony of an eye witness to a crime - all else is circumstantial evidence.  Thus DNA, fingerprints, blood splatter, tire marks, gun powder residue, all of those things that we see on episodes of CSI are circumstantial evidence.  Since there is very few times when there is an eye witness to a murder, most convictions are obtained through circumstantial evidence. 

There are cases - most recently in Missouri - where newly obtained DNA evidence found that there were innocent men on death row.  That is wonderful!  At the time of their trials, however, such evidence did not exist as it does now.  Yes, it may happen that an innocent man "slips through" the cracks, even after the State exhausts all means to determine whether the death penalty is warranted (please remember my criteria - we are talking about extraordinary cases, not every homicide).  But we cannot jeopardize society for the sake of one man; as un-Christian as that may sound, to think otherwise is impractical.  Rather than spend the resources for umpteen appeals in death row cases, let's focus on ensuring justice is served. 

And if you think the technology is not there to prevent an innocent man from the death penalty, then why would you also think the technology is there to keep him confined for life safely?

How can a Catholic be pro-life and pro-death penalty?  Please, you are creating a moral equivalence between a unborn child and someone who has volitionally done evil to an innocent.  These are two different issues.  If you would show like mercy to both, then so too would you spare the life of the armed stranger that you encounter in your home at 3:00 am, intent upon hurting you and your family.

I think sometimes the Catholic faith works too hard at promoting self-debasement than self-preservation.  To turn the other cheek is to forgive, not to acquiesce to evil.  I welcome an inmate who sees the errors of his ways and truly repents while awaiting his execution.  But as Catholics know, repenting of your sins is not the whole picture - there is a penance to be done.  Why do we accept that for our own selves but not for anyone else?