Pro-Life Means Pro-Life

Before Anonymous pounces on me for being a hypocrite, I want to go on record as being dismayed that Sarah Palin chose to make a pro death penalty statement when she answered (in a Fox News interview) Katie Couric's question about her second least favorite Supreme Court decision.  When liberals tell conservatives that it is completely inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro death penalty, they are correct. And it's particularly depressing to see Sarah Palin, who is the Poster Politician for Pro Life Causes, to make a pro death statement.

(Joe will be along shortly to tell you why I'm wrong.)

Her third least favorite Supreme Court case was the one I was yelling at the television when she wasn't answering Katie. That was the Kelo decision, which is the one that gave us eminent domain. Regular readers will remember that one from Juli(e)'s senior year Government term paper.

Comments

[Catholic Audio]

K,

I'm not a big death penalty guy (at least as it's currently employed), but here's the anti-abortion moral maxim:

"It is never morally permissible to kill an innocent human being."

I just don't see how the death penalty enters into that equation. That means there's nothing hypocritical about Palin's position...or at least that's what John Finnis and Charlie Rice taught me.

God Bless,
Ryan

[anon-813]

(I'm leaving my name out on this one. I'd hate to make anyone think I speak for the group I'm associated with or that I speak with any authority...)

Karen,

It looks like here’s two issues we disagree on: 1. To be “pro-life” you must support the abolition of the death penalty by the Supreme Court, and 2. Kennedy versus Louisiana.

Part 1.

CCC 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 an unjust aggressor...”

Of course that is a big “if” there and we certainly live in a country where we have options in most every case. But do not forget CCC 2266 “... Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense...”

Of course I oppose the death penalty in nearly all cases, and all things being equal, I’d choose a presidential candidate who would work to reduce the number of executions over the candidate who wouldn’t. (Yes, I know “all things being equal” isn’t the case in this presidential race!) So we agree the death penalty is bad, basically, but I don’t think one must accept this to be consistently “pro-life” as I understand you to claim.

Now for part 2.

Palin’s problem with Kennedy versus Louisiana is a legitimate one. The Supreme Court’s role should be to judge the Constitutionality of earlier lower court decisions, not impose what it understands as “evolving standards of decency” beyond what the Constitution actually says and what the framers meant when they wrote it. Our Constitution should be amended by an elected Congress, not by 5 of 9 people who serve as long as they want.

At the root of it, I oppose Kennedy versus Louisiana for the same reason I oppose Roe versus Wade. Until Congress can pass an amendment that protects babies in the womb, the states should be able to decide on the matter. Same goes for executing criminals guilty of crimes the framers would have certainly seen as bad enough to incur the death penalty.

So for the record: I’m anti-Roe, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty (in most all cases) and anti-Kennedy. I think this is consistent thinking. And I think it qualifies me as “pro-life”

And go LSU! Beat them Gators! ;)

[Joe]

My position is very simple, and grounded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (Paragraphs 2266-67) Capital punishment is very specifically not proscribed by the Church. The Church teaches the situations in which there is "absolute necessity" for capital punishment "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Contrast that with the language on abortion: 2271 "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion."

or

2273 "The inalienable right to life of every innocent [emphasis mine] human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation."

In sum: Abortion is intrinsically evil, always and everywhere. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil; if something is allowed under some very restricted set of circumstances then it cannot be a grave evil, always and everywhere.

This is why I don't necessarily* find SP's position on capital punishment at odds with a "pro-life" outlook.

-J.

* Now, if she advocated the garrote for jaywalking, etc., that'd be something else...

[Karen]

Gee anon, that's really anon!

Hope you saw the Gators school Arkansas today.

I spent five years on the board of directors of an anti-death penalty group and, as you know, I did a ton of research while writing my novel. During all of that, I learned a lot and I think the anti death penalty side is correct when they say there is no argument for favoring the death penalty over life in prison without parole. The only argument is that we get vengeance, and we're not supposed to get that.

I will say, though, that there are cases where I feel something like, "if there has to be a death penalty, that guy would get my vote as a candidate." Like the guy in FL who buried that little girl alive. People like him make it tough to argue with the pro death penalty crowd.

[Joe]

Oh, there are ways to properly punish that guy without the oh-so-terrible lethal injection.

Say, put him in GenPop for a prison sentence. That should prove adequate.

-J.

[Susan Johnston]

My opposition to the death penalty is pragmatic rather than either theological or philosophical -- I agree with those who have cited the Catechism here that in quite plain language it does not exclude capital punishment, and the reasoning seems pretty sound to me. (There's also the minor issue, common to reverts, that on every issue where I have disagreed with the Magisterium, I have been wrong and sometimes in grotesquely idiotic ways, so I'd be likely to accept this teaching even if the reasoning seemed to me unsound; my response to such problems of late has been "I have most likely too little faith and too small a brain to fully understand this teaching. I will read more and pray more.")

The pragmatic objection? If we get it wrong, we can't take it back. Since taking an innocent life is not justified, we cannot risk making a mistake. Period.

I must observe, though, that to me the pro-death-penalty, anti-abortion stance makes more sense than the position I frequently encounter in "progressive" thinkers, who support abortion and oppose the death penalty. How does that work, exactly?

[Joe]

Susan,

That's why the Catechism pretty cleary reads: "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 an unjust aggressor..."

Two pragmatic aspects of the discussion which have always kept my position on capital punishment from weakening is:

1- Why is lethal injection -- a remarkably painless way to die -- considered vengeful but sticking someone in prison for life not?

and

2- Can we GUARANTEE with 100% certainty that society will be protected by placing someone in prison for life? In the case of someone like, say, Osama bin Laden (who may issue edicts, or be the subject of terroristic release efforts) this seems, to me, to be quite unlikely.

-J.

[Susan Johnston]

Dear Father Joe,

(You are probably right. I will read more and pray more.)

I don't think vengeance is the province of justice. If it is vengeance we were after, I'd hold out for having child rapists burned at the stake. While listening "I am the Living Bread" played on electric guitars and accompanied by the bodhran drum.

Protecting society is, as is meting out just consequences for actions. So the "what is worse, prison for life or lethal injection" argument doesn't seem to me to hold much water -- I understand that you are not making that argument, but responding to it; I just wanted to be sure you understood that I was not making it either.

Sure, if we can be 100% certain, then I don't have any opposition to the death penalty, principled or otherwise. I don't know about you all down there in the States, but we've had a couple of famously wrong cases overturned in the past few years on new evidence . . . and if we had still had the death penalty, we couldn't have released them from prison because they'd be dead.

I think there are lots of cases where guilt is not in doubt. And I think there are lots of other cases where guilt or innocence doesn't appear to be in doubt, but later is revealed to have been. These cases are, to me, the ones that shake my confidence in the justice system sufficiently to make capital punishment untenable.

I could probably be swayed, though. Did the Paul Bernardo case get much play where you are?

[anonymous bosch]

Karen is right on the consistency point. Evangelium Vitae shows that. It also clarifies (as does the CCC) that the rationale behind the execution of offenders (St. Thomas' term) is defense, not retribution ("death penalty" is actually a misnomer in the context of Catholic tradition; St. Thomas' exposition in the ST and the SCG is all about the defense of the common good).

[Catholic Audio]

Susan,

You said the following:

" Since taking an innocent life is not justified, we cannot risk making a mistake. Period. "

I do hope I'm not being obnoxious, but I don't agree with this statement. Take war for example. Innocent civilian casualties MAY be morally acceptable...in fact, it would be difficult to wage even the most just war without them. The question is whether you're intentionally targeting innocent humans for slaughter -- with abortion (and bombing hospitals during wartime) you are, which makes for an unjustifiable evil, whereas with the death penalty (and wartime bombing of legitimate military targets) you're not, which makes them not intrinsically evil. Again, I just don't see how the one implicates the other.

Perhaps you don't like the distinction, and I'll grant that it can take some work to make the distinction clear, but this is the distinction Holy Mother Church makes.

Does that make any sense?

God Bless,
Ryan

[Janny]

I totally agree with Joe and others who have cited the Church's allowance for capital punishment, IF the guilt of the party involved is certain. That's an important IF, but in the present judicial system--especially with the help of DNA evidence and the like--the odds of someone truly innocent being convicted of a capital crime are next to none. It could happen, true. But we must not allow the "could" to overshadow common sense to the point where we throw this particular baby out with the bathwater, as is so commonly done by our American Catholic bishops.

I have long been irritated by "touchy feely" interpretation of Catholic doctrines such as the recommendations against capital punishment and the "just war" doctrine; in their haste to be compassionate and careful, most interpreters of both of these translate them to the rest of us as the Church saying "don't ever do either of these things." The Church never said that, any more than she has said that bringing the Mass into the vernacular was supposed to rid all Churches of Latin forever. :-) It's the exact same kind of knee-jerk response; it takes a position that is initially open to some interpretation and latitude and comes down squarely on one side or the other, then shoves that side down everyone else's throat and accuses those who disagree as not being either in obedience to the Magisterium or "true" in their convictions.

People who insist that you have to be anti-capital punishment in order to be pro-life are missing the important distinction of INNOCENT life versus life of one who has committed a heinous crime. It has nothing to do with vengeance. It has everything to do with ensuring that at least THAT person will never be freed on society to do it again. And no, we cannot guarantee that safety, even with a life sentence (or many of them). Liberal judges, lawmakers, and governors come into power and overturn even death sentences--witness what George Ryan did in Illinois with all the Death Row prisoners, just shy of his leaving office. Mass pardons of even capital offenders can happen, and when mass pardons happen, mass paroles and releases are only a breath away. It stands to reason that if this can be done with Death Row inmates, it can certainly be done with those who would normally have been executed but were spared that fate by legal maneuverings or a misguided "guilt" on the part of a prosecutor.

This is not the kind of "safety" upon which most of us want to rely when we consider what Death Row-eligible inmates are, by and large, guilty of. Even the Catechism allows that a state has the right to adjudicate in such a way as to protect its citizens and exact fitting punishment for crime. In some cases, the only fitting punishment for someone causing another to lose his or her life is for the offender to give up that right as well. I think we tread a dangerous line when we start assuming that, by definition, any ruling to that effect is "cruel and unusual punishment." What was done to the victim was the cruelty. What is done to the perpetrator...should be justice.

My take,
Janny