U.S. Catholic
Bishops' Statement on Capital Punishment
Approved by the U.S. Bishops in November 1980
INTRODUCTION
In 1974, out of a commitment to the value and dignity of human life,
the U.S. Catholic Conference, by a substantial majority, voted to declare its
opposition to capital punishment. As a former president of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out in 1977, the issue of capital
punishment involves both "profound legal and political questions" as well as
"important moral and religious issues."(1) And so we find that this issue
continues to provoke public controversy and to raise moral questions that
trouble many. This is particularly true in the aftermath of widely publicized
executions in Utah and Florida and as a result of public realization that there
are now over 500 persons awaiting execution in various prisons in our
country.
The resumption of capital punishment after a long moratorium, which began in
1967, is the result of a series of decisions by the United States Supreme
Court. In the first of these decisions, Furman v. Georgia (1972), the
Court held that the death penalty as then administered did constitute cruel and
unusual punishment and so was contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution. Subsequently in 1976 the Court upheld death sentences imposed
under state statutes which had been revised by state legislatures in the hope
of meeting the Court's requirement that the death penalty not be imposed
arbitrarily. These cases and the ensuing revision of state and federal
statutes gave rise to extended public debate over the necessity and
advisability of retaining the death penalty. We should note that much of this
debate was carried on in a time of intense public concern over crime and
violence. For instance, in 1976 alone, over 18,000 people were murdered in the
United States. Criticism of the inadequacies of the criminal justice system
has been widespread, even while spectacular crimes have spread fear and alarm,
particularly in urban areas. All these factors make it particularly necessary
that Christians form their views on this difficult matter in a prayerful and
reflective way and that they show a respect and concern for the rights of
all.
We should acknowledge that in the public debate over capital punishment we are
dealing with values of the highest importance: respect for the sanctity of
human life, the protection of human life, the preservation of order in society,
and the achievement of justice through law. In confronting the problem of
serious and violent crime in our society, we want to protect the lives and the
sense of security both of those members of society who may become the victims
of crime and of those in the police and in the law enforcement system who run
greater risks. In doing this, however, we must bear in mind that crime is both
a manifestation of the great mysteries of evil and human freedom and an aspect
of the very complex reality that is contemporary society. We should not expect
simple or easy solutions to what is a profound evil, and even less should we
rely on capital punishment to provide such a solution. Rather, we must look to
the claims of justice as these are understood in the current debate and to the
example and teaching of Jesus, whom we acknowledge as the Justice of God.
I. PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT
Allowing for the fact that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle
that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an
extremely serious crime, and that the state may take appropriate measures to
protect itself and its citizens from grave harm, nevertheless, the question for
judgment and decision today is whether capital punishment is justifiable under
present circumstances. Punishment, since it involves the deliberate infliction
of evil on another, is always in need of justification. This has normally
taken the form of indicating some good which is to be obtained through
punishment or an evil which is to be warded off. The three justifications
traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence,
and reform.
Reform or rehabilitation of the criminal cannot serve as a justification for
capital punishment, which necessarily deprives the criminal of the opportunity
to develop a new way of life that conforms to the norms of society and that
contributes to the common good. It may be granted that the imminence of
capital punishment may induce repentance in the criminal, but we should
certainly not think that this threat is somehow necessary for God's grace to
touch and to transform human hearts.
The deterrence of actual or potential criminals from future deeds of violence
by the threat of death is also advanced as a justifying objective of
punishment. While it is certain that capital punishment prevents the
individual from committing further crimes, it is far from certain that it
actually prevents others from doing so. Empirical studies in this area have
not given conclusive evidence that would justify the imposition of the death
penalty on a few individuals as a means of preventing others from committing
crimes. There are strong reasons to doubt that many crimes of violence are
undertaken in a spirit of rational calculation which would be influenced by a
remote threat of death. The small number of death sentences in relation to the
number of murders also makes it seem highly unlikely that the threat will be
carried out and so undercuts the effectiveness of the deterrent.
The protection of society and its members from violence, to which the
deterrent effect of punishment is supposed to contribute, is a value of central
and abiding importance; and we urge the need for prudent firmness in ensuring
the safety of innocent citizens. It is important to remember that the
preservation of order in times of civil disturbance does not depend on the
institution of capital punishment, the imposition of which rightly requires a
lengthy and complex process in our legal system. Moreover, both in its nature
as legal penalty and in its practical consequences, capital punishment is
different from the taking of life in legitimate self-defense or in defense of
society.
The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration
of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.
We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. For the
practice of punishment both presupposes a previous transgression against the
law and involves the involuntary deprivation of certain goods. But we maintain
that this need does not require nor does it justify taking the life of the
criminal, even in cases of murder. We must not remain unmindful of the example
of Jesus who urges upon us a teaching of forbearance in the face of evil
(Matthew 5:38-42) and forgiveness of injuries (Matthew 18:21-35). It is
morally unsatisfactory and socially destructive for criminals to go unpunished,
but the forms and limits of punishment must be determined by moral objectives
which go beyond the mere inflicting of injury on the guilty. Thus we would
regard it as barbarous and inhumane for a criminal who had tortured or maimed a
victim to be tortured or maimed in return. Such a punishment might satisfy
certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the
satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and
Christian approach to punishment. We believe that the forms of punishment must
be determined with a view to the protection of society and its members and to
the reformation of the criminal and his reintegration into society (which may
not be possible in certain cases). This position accords with the general norm
for punishment proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas when he wrote: "In this life,
however, penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the
era of retribution; rather, they are meant to be corrective by being conducive
either to the reform of the sinner or the good of society, which becomes more
peaceful through the punishment of sinners." (2)
We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the
legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death
penalty. Furthermore, we believe that there are serious considerations which
should prompt Christians and all Americans to support the abolition of capital
punishment. Some of these reasons have to do with evils that are present in
the practice of capital punishment itself, while others involve important
values that would be promoted by abolition of this practice.
II. CHRISTIAN VALUES IN THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
We maintain that abolition of the death penalty would promote values
that are important to us as citizens and as Christians. First, abolition sends
a message that we can break the cycle of violence, that we need not take life
for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective
responses to the growth of violent crime. It is a manifestation of our freedom
as moral persons striving for a just society. It is also a challenge to us as
a people to find ways of dealing with criminals that manifest intelligence and
compassion rather than power and vengeance. We should feel such confidence in
our civic order that we use no more force against those who violate it than is
actually required.
Second, abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief
in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a
creature made in the image and likeness of God. It is particularly important
in the context of our times that this belief be affirmed with regard to those
who have failed or whose lives have been distorted by suffering or hatred; even
in the case of those who by their actions have failed to respect the dignity
and rights of others. It is the recognition of the dignity of all human beings
that has impelled the Church to minister the needs of the outcast and the
rejected and that should make us unwilling to treat the lives of even those who
have taken human life as expendable or as a means to some further end.
Third, abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction,
a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is
indeed the Lord of life. It is a testimony which removes a certain ambiguity
which might otherwise affect the witness that we wish to give to the sanctity
of human life in all its stages. We do not wish to equate the situation of
criminals convicted of capital offenses with the condition of the innocent
unborn or of the defenseless aged or infirm, but we do believe that the defense
of life is strengthened by eliminating exercise of a judicial authorization to
take human life.
Fourth, we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with
the example of Jesus, who both taught and practiced the forgiveness of
injustice and who came "to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45) In
this regard we may point to the reluctance which those early Christians who
accepted capital punishment as a legitimate practice in civil society felt
about the participation of Christians in such an institution(3) and to the
unwillingness of the Church to accept into the ranks of its ministers those who
had been involved in the infliction of capital punishment.(4) There is and has
been a certain sense that even in those cases where serious justifications can
be offered for the necessity of taking life, those who are identified in a
special way with Christ should refrain from taking life. We believe that this
should be taken as an indication of the deeper desires of the Church as it
responds to the story of God's redemptive and forgiving love as manifest in the
life of his Son.
III. DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
With respect to the difficulties inherent in capital punishment, we
note first that infliction of the death penalty extinguishes possibilities for
reform and rehabilitation for the person executed as well as the opportunity
for the criminal to make some creative compensation for the evil he or she has
done. It also cuts off the possibility for a new beginning and of moral growth
in a human life which has been seriously deformed.
Second, the imposition of capital punishment involves the possibility of
mistake. In this respect, it is not different from other legal processes; and
it must be granted our legal system shows considerable care for the rights of
defendants in capital cases. But the possibility of mistake cannot be
eliminated from the system. Because death terminated the possibilities of
conversion and growth and support that we can share with each other, we regard
a mistaken infliction of the death penalty with a special horror, even while we
retain our trust in God's loving mercy.
Third, the legal imposition of capital punishment in our society involves long
and unavoidable delays. This is in large part a consequence of the safeguards
and the opportunities for appeal which the law provides for defendants; but it
also creates a long period of anxiety and uncertainty both about the
possibility of life and about the necessity of reorienting one's life. Delay
also diminishes the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent, for it
makes the death penalty uncertain and remote. Death Row can be the scene of
conversion and spiritual growth, but it also produces aimlessness, fear, and
despair.
Fourth, we believe that the actual carrying out of the death penalty brings
with it great and avoidable anguish for the criminal, for his family and loved
ones, and for those who are called on to perform or to witness the execution.
Great writers such as Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky in the past and Camus and
Orwell in our time have given us vivid pictures of the terrors of execution not
merely for the victim but also for bystanders. (5)
Fifth, in the present situation of dispute over the justifiablity of the death
penalty and at a time when executions have been rare, executions attract
enormous publicity, much of it unhealthy, and stir considerable acrimony in
public discussion. On the other hand, if a substantial proportion of the more
than five hundred persons now under sentence of death are executed, a great
public outcry can safely be predicted. In neither case is the American public
likely to develop a sense that the work of justice is being done with fairness
and rationality.
Sixth, there is a widespread belief that many convicted criminals are
sentenced to death in an unfair and discriminatory manner. This belief can be
affirmed with certain qualifications. There is a certain presumption that if
specific evidence of bias or discrimination in sentencing can be provided for
particular cases, then higher courts will not uphold sentences of death in
these cases. But we must also reckon with a legal system which, while it does
provide counsel for indigent defendants, permits those who are well off to
obtain the resources and the talent to present their case in as convincing a
light as possible. The legal system and the criminal justice system both work
in a society which bears in its psychological, social, and economic patterns
the marks of racism. These marks remain long after the demolition of
segregation as a legal institution. The end result of all this is a situation
in which those condemned to die are nearly always poor and are
disproportionately black.(6) Thus 47% of the inmates on Death Row are black,
whereas only 11% of the American population is black. Abolition of the death
penalty will not eliminate racism and its effects, an evil which we are called
on to combat in many different ways. But it is a reasonable judgment that
racist attitudes and the social consequences of racism have some influence in
determining who is sentenced to die in our society. This we do not regard as
acceptable.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
We do not propose the abolition of capital punishment as a simple
solution to the problems of crime and violence. As we observed earlier, we do
not believe that any simple and comprehensive solution is possible. We affirm
that there is a special need to offer sympathy and support for the victims of
violent crime and their families. Our society should not flinch from
contemplating the suffering that violent crime brings to so many when it
destroys lives, shatters families, and crushes the hopes of the innocent.
Recognition of this suffering should not lead to demands for vengeance but to a
firm resolution that help be given to the victims of crime and that justice be
done fairly and swiftly. The care and the support that we give to the victims
of crime should be both compassionate and practical. The public response to
crime should include the relief of financial distress caused by crime and the
provision of medical and psychological treatment to the extent that these are
required and helpful. It is the special responsibility of the Church to
provide a community of faith and trust in which God's grace can heal the
personal and spiritual wounds caused by crime and in which we can all grow by
sharing one another's burdens and sorrows.
We insist that important changes are necessary in the correctional system in
order to make it truly conducive to the reform and rehabilitation of convicted
criminals and their reintegration into society. (7) We also grant that special
precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of those who guard convicts
who are too dangerous to return to society. We call on governments to
cooperate in vigorous measures against terrorists who threaten the safety of
the general public and who take the lives of the innocent. We acknowledge that
there is a pressing need to deal with those social conditions of poverty and
injustice which often provide the breeding grounds for serious crime. We urge
particularly the importance of restricting the easy availability of guns and
other weapons of violence. We oppose the glamorizing of violence in
entertainment, and we deplore the effect of this on children. We affirm the
need for education to promote respect for the human dignity of all people. All
of these things should form part of a comprehensive community response to the
very real and pressing problems presented by the prevalence of crime and
violence in many parts of our society.
We recognize that many citizens may believe that capital punishment should be
maintained as an integral part of our society's response to the evils of crime,
nor is this position incompatible with Catholic tradition. We acknowledge the
depth and the sincerity of their concern. We urge them to review the
considerations we have offered which show both the evils associated with
capital punishment and the harmony of the abolition of capital punishment with
the values of the Gospel. We urge them to bear in mind that public decisions
in this area affect the lives, the hopes and the fears of men and women who
share both the misery and the grandeur of human life with us and who, like us,
are among those sinners whom the Son of Man came to save.
We urge our brother and sisters in Christ to remember the teaching of Jesus
who called us to be reconciled with those who have injured us (Matthew 5:43-45)
and to pray for forgiveness for our sins "as we forgive those who have sinned
against us." (Matthew 6:12) We call on you to contemplate the crucified Christ
who set us the supreme example of forgiveness and of the triumph of
compassionate love.
NOTES:
(1) Statement of Capital Punishment, Archbishop Joseph L.
Bernardin, President National Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 26, 1977.
Cf. Community and Crime, Statement of the Committee on Social
Development and World Peace, United States Catholic Conference, February 15,
1978, p.8.
(2) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, TT-II, 68, 1; tr, Marcus Lefebure,
O.P. (London, Blackfriars, 1975).
(3) Tertulliam, De Idolatria, c. 17.
(4) Code of Canon Law, Canon 984.
(5) William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II, Scene 1; Fyodor
Dostoevsky, The Idiot; George Orwell, "A Hanging"; Albert Camus,
"Reflections on the Guillotine."
(6) Cf. Charles Black, Jr., Capital Punishment (New York: Norton, 1974),
pp. 84-91.
(7) Cf. The Reform of Correctional Institutions in the 1970s, Statement
of the United States Catholic Conference, November 1973.
HOME || PROS AND CONS || INTERVIEWS || FEEDBACK
FRONTLINE / WGBH Educational Foundation / www.wgbh.org
web site copyright WGBH educational foundation
