Death Penalty Question

[rkwright]

I have been asked to help prosecute a capital murder case and am weighing the decision with lots of prayer. Would like to hear your input...

I cant/dont want to get into the details but long story short, the defendant is a basically a serial killer tied to 6 murders spanning about a year. These murders were purposeful - not just a drug fueled rage. The defendant is extremely manipulative and was able to convince people to aide him in the murders. From what I know we will be seeking the death penalty.

First question, is the death penalty an option in this case? It appears to me that the defendant will continue to manipulate and commit crimes in prison. But you can never really predict the future...

Second, can I work on such a case? Ultimately the jury will make the call, and I will not be the lead attorney on the case.

Thoughts?

[CatherineM]

I worked on a dozen death penalty appeals. I never met a man who was both sane and sober at the time of their offence. I also never met a rich man or smart man on death row.

My biggest problem with how death penalty cases are dealt with is the arbitrary way it can be decided who will face a capital prosecution.

I know I couldn't serve on a death penalty jury. My opinion is probably greatly influenced by John Paul II, the father of a friend of mine who died in the Okc bombing, and the experience of being the witness to an execution.

You also have to think about your career and caring for your family. This experience could greatly help your career. You won't be making the decision. You aren't making the decision to seek the death penalty, the guilt of the person.

I couldn't do it, but I'm not in your shoes. It isn't on par with working for an abortion clinic.

[Basilisa Marie]

While I personally don't support the death penalty and believe that the right application of the Church's position on the death penalty is for it to be abolished in the US, my opinion isn't the only sound one.  The Church does allow for the death penalty in some circumstances.

CCC 2267 states:

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."

 

 

So basically the text leaves you room to decide that there is enough doubt that we would be able to keep this person from harming society, so the death penalty could be just.  You can decide either way and still be acting within Church teaching.  

 

And like Catherine said, you can also incorporate your family and career demands into your decision, and you're also not the one making the decision about whether to pursue or give the man the death penalty, especially because you're not the lead.  You have to follow your conscience, and do the best job you can whatever you decide. 

[rkwright]

Thanks for the comments. Have been praying about it for a while.

[Papist]

Death penalty is not to be used as punishment. Death penalty should be used only when there is no other option for keeping the population/community safe from the criminal. In our times, particularly here in US, the death penalty ought not be inflicted. Even if this guy will continue to manipulate and commit crimes in prison. There is the capability to put him in solitary confinement. Can't manipulate people when there are no people.

 

Don't know the Church's teaching on you taking the case. But, I would think you are ok as long as you are not taking the case b/c the state is pursuing the death penalty. 

 

[KnightofChrist]

Death penalty is not to be used as punishment. Death penalty should be used only when there is no other option for keeping the population/community safe from the criminal. In our times, particularly here in US, the death penalty ought not be inflicted. Even if this guy will continue to manipulate and commit crimes in prison. There is the capability to put him in solitary confinement. Can't manipulate people when there are no people.

 

Don't know the Church's teaching on you taking the case. But, I would think you are ok as long as you are not taking the case b/c the state is pursuing the death penalty. 

 

The primary purpose of all forms of punishment, Capital punishment included is punishment.

 

CCC 2266 "Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

 

Protection of society is a secondary purpose. One should not be put to death because of crimes he may or may not commit. Putting a man to death primarily because he may be a danger to society would be punishing him for crimes he has not yet but may commit. 

[Papist]

The primary purpose of all forms of punishment, Capital punishment included is punishment.

 

CCC 2266 "Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

 

Protection of society is a secondary purpose. One should not be put to death because of crimes he may or may not commit. Putting a man to death primarily because he may be a danger to society would be punishing him for crimes he has not yet but may commit. 

 

Purpose needs to be to keep society safe from the guilty person. Yes. Killing the person is his punishment, but the mere killing the person is not the primary purpose.

[KnightofChrist]

Purpose needs to be to keep society safe from the guilty person. Yes. Killing the person is his punishment, but the mere killing the person is not the primary purpose.

No, putting a man to death primarily because he may commit future crimes against society is a grave injustice. The primary purpose of capital punishment is punishment for crimes already committed. The aggressor's death is his punishment for his grave crimes.

[Papist]

No, putting a man to death primarily because he may commit future crimes against society is a grave injustice. The primary purpose of capital punishment is punishment for crimes already committed. The aggressor's death is his punishment for his grave crimes.

 

So we kill someone solely for the crimes committed. That seems vindictive. I find it hard to believe that is Church teaching. 

[KnightofChrist]

So we kill someone solely for the crimes committed. That seems vindictive. I find it hard to believe that is Church teaching. 

 

No the primary not sole purpose to put a man to death is for punishing him for his crimes. Secondary reasons can further justify the punishment such as being a threat to society. If you and I or a mob of people were to inflict capital punishment, or any kind of punishment upon someone thought to deserve it that would be vindictive in the manner you use the term, but government or the public power has the power of the sword. As Pope Pius XII stated, it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

Edited May 24, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Papist]

No the primary not sole purpose to put a man to death is for punishing him for his crimes. Secondary reasons can further justify the punishment such as being a threat to society. If you and I or a mob of people were to inflict capital punishment, or any kind of punishment upon someone thought to deserve it that would be vindictive in the manner you use the term, but government or the public power has the power of the sword. As Pope Pius XII stated, it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

 

Yes. The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.  The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life. 

[KnightofChrist]

Yes. The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.

I agree, in principle, plus if there are reasonable doubts about the guilt of the individual he shouldn't even be found guilty.  

 

The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

 

I disagree with John Paul the Great's pastoral opinion on that matter, and I am free to hold and believe the traditional and unchanging Catholic teaching on the matter. I believe a court can show mercy should it choose, but there are certainly cases where there is no other punishment equal to the crime of taking an innocents life from them other than the aggressor's life. For example a man that rapes and murders a child or children can be justly put to death for his grave crimes whether or not there be safe jails and bloodless means of punishment available. Whether or not a court hands out Capital punishment should be based on the severity of the crime(s)committed and the merits of the individual case. Edited May 24, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Papist]

I agree, in principle, plus if there are reasonable doubts about the guilt of the individual he shouldn't even be found guilty.  

 
 

I disagree with John Paul the Great's pastoral opinion on that matter, and I am free to hold and believe the traditional and unchanging Catholic teaching on the matter. I believe a court can show mercy should it choose, but there are certainly cases where there is no other punishment equal to the crime of taking an innocents life from them other than the aggressor's life. For example a man that rapes and murders a child or children can be justly put to death for his grave crimes whether or not there be safe jails and bloodless means of punishment available. Whether or not a court hands out Capital punishment should be based on the severity of the crime(s)committed and the merits of the individual case.

 

An eye for an eye. That's traditional and unchanging Catholic teaching?

[Basilisa Marie]

Yeah, see, I don't think you're reading the Catechism right, KoC.   Paragraph 2266 talks about punishment, but then singles out the death penalty in 2267 as a separate issue.  The primary purpose of punishment is addressing disorder.  That disorder is in both the person and society - one isn't more important than the other.  The death penalty ultimately fails at correcting disorder in the person because there is no expiation even if it's willingly accepted. The only way it corrects disorder is by protecting society...which is the only reason given in the Catechism for the proper use of the death penalty.  And because the Catechism takes the time to single out the death penalty as a separate issue, if the purpose of it was primarily medicinal for the criminal, wouldn't you think it would say so?  

 

The death penalty can never be medicinal, because there's no "getting better" from it.  It's like giving someone arsenic for a bacterial infection. Sure, you killed the problem, but you also killed the person, so that's not a treatment. 

Edited May 24, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[dominicansoul]

RK, I'll be praying for you. 

 

 

I would think if this man continues to be a threat, it is self-defense to put him to death.  I know that people in prison still have the power to get people killed through a gang network.  It happened here in Texas to an attorney just a few months ago.   You put your own life on the line every time you work for justice.  If this criminal has the ability to continue to kill and destroy people's families and lives, I don't see why you should feel guilty in being a part of his death.  It's self-defense. 

 

The Church allows self-defense.