Fundamentally, most Americans who support the death penalty do so because they want to believe that our justice system is just, and not merely a mechanism for quarantining the dangerous in order to keep the law-abiding safe. The case for executing murderers is a case for proportionality in punishment: for sentences that fit the crime, and penalties that close the circle.As Douthat notes, the move against the death penalty is more often than not grounded in dispair. Russell Kirk made a similar point many years ago in an essay on the death penalty which, unfortunately, isn't available online. Kirk's basic argument was that opposition to the death penalty was grounded not so much in a belief in the sacredness of human life, but in a materialist view of existence that saw this life as the only thing of value. Belief in an afterlife, and its attendant judgment, had wained in public life, and as a consequence people began to see this life as the only thing with value. As a result, execution became to be seen as a punishment too extreme to be inflicted.
Instead of dismissing this point of view as backward and barbaric, criminal justice reformers should try to harness it, by pointing out that too often our punishments don’t fit the crime — that sentences for many drug crimes are disproportionate to the offenses, for instance, or that rape and sexual assault have become an implicit part of many prison terms. Americans should be urged to support penal reform not in spite of their belief that some murderers deserve execution, in other words, but because of it — because both are attempts to ensure that accused criminals receive their just deserts.
Abolishing capital punishment in a kind of despair over its fallibility would send a very different message. It would tell the public that our laws and courts and juries are fundamentally incapable of delivering what most Americans consider genuine justice. It could encourage a more cynical and utilitarian view of why police forces and prisons exist, and what moral standards we should hold them to. And while it would put an end to wrongful executions, it might well lead to more overall injustice.
Dispair leads to enervation.
2 comments:
So how does all of this square with Catholic social teaching?
Catholic social teaching does not state that the government may never use the death penalty. It is a prudential consideration that is left to the wisdom of the appropriate secular authorities. The Church counsels for mercy -- as it has since the day of St. Augustine in the West. The Church advises that the death penalty should be used only rarely, which it is, even in Texas if one looks at the percentage of people convicted of homicide who are actually executed. While the Church counsels that the death penalty should not be used if other means exist to protect society, it leaves the question on whether that condition exists open to be decided by the legitimate authorities of the state.
So, the Church says that the state may execute under the appropriate circumstances, and that it is up to the rightful authorities to determine when those circumstances are present. The Church also counsels that the death penalty should not be used -- that mercy should be shown. But it does not command that the death penalty not be used. While the state MAY execute, the Church reminds it (as the Church should), that it does not HAVE to execute.
Post a Comment