Political Authority: Inflicting punishment 3
The death penalty – right or wrong?
By Nadine Bushell 09.12.07
Member of the Catholic Commission for Social Justice
For many the death penalty is a possible remedy to growing crime rates because it acts as
deterrent and provides retribution. It is felt that the threat of death will prevent people from
committing crimes. Others feel that some crimes are so horrible that the only appropriate
punishment is death.
Those who oppose the death penalty point out that there is no solid evidence that the death
penalty serves as a deterrent. Rather, they note, examples point in the opposite direction: Some
countries that have eliminated the death penalty have had decreasing rates of violent crime, and
some death penalty states have had increasing rates of homicide.
Supporters of capital punishment counter with the argument that the death penalty would be
more effective as a deterrent were it not for the many appeals, long delays and limited numbers
of those actually executed. (Overberg 2007)
Opponents of capital punishment claim that there is no place in a civilised society for justifying
death in terms of retribution. They believe such action is closer to sheer revenge. They doubt that
death can be a means of balancing the disturbed equilibrium of justice that resulted from the
original crime. Again, supporters of the death penalty counter with the claim that society will not
respect the law unless society's sense of justice is satisfied by the criminal's death
Opponents believe that the death penalty causes anguish not only for the convict's loved ones but
also for the executioners and the witnesses and executions attract great publicity, much of it
unhealthy. There is also concern that criminals are sentenced to death in a discriminatory way.
Adequate legal representation is also an issue that puts poor people at a disadvantage.
The Church’s stance on the death penalty
However, the Church’s position on the death penalty is rooted in the fact that punishment is not
meant to be revenge but restoration of justice, deterrence, and possible rehabilitation (Trigilio
and Brighenti 2003).
The Social Doctrine of the Church tells us “Modern society in fact has the means of effectively
suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance
to reform”.
The death penalty removes the possibility of reform and rehabilitation. However, the abolition of
the death penalty 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 – the rehabilitation of the offender. We must believe in the inherent
goodness of every individual.
1
Another position of the Church regarding the death penalty is: “Whereas, presuming the full
ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the
Church does not exclude the death penalty ‘when this is the only practicable way to defend the
lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor’. What this is saying is that we must be
sure that the person accused of a crime is in fact guilty. We must be sure, and those facts must be
firmly established. If this is not done, there is the possibility of putting an innocent person to
death.
Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the
concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human
person”. We as Catholics believe in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the
moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God.
This applies to everyone including the worst criminal. God is the Lord of life, so human life in
all its stages is sacred, and human beings are called to care for life, that is, to exercise good
stewardship and not absolute control (Overberg 2007).
It is also important to recognise that crime is rooted in the complex reality of modern society,
including those social conditions of poverty and injustice which often provide the breeding
grounds for serious crime. More attention therefore should be paid to correcting the root causes
of crime than to enlarging death row.
The Church has had increased signs of hope as more and more countries are seeking to abolish
the death penalty. “The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death
penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely
necessary to execute the offender ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent’.
The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions
aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a
heightened moral awareness.”
What must be made clear is that while the Church is in support of the abolition of the death
penalty, it also recognises the need society has to protect itself. Imprisonment will be necessary,
but ought not to dehumanise the convicts. Significant changes in the prison system are therefore
necessary to make it truly conducive to reform and rehabilitation.
There is also to be special concern for the victims of violent crime and their families. They must
be assisted in practical ways such as financial assistance, pastoral care, medical and
psychological treatment.
Next week we look at the democratic system.
Persons interested in purchasing the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, can
contact the Justice Desk, Archbishop’s House at 622-6680. Also on sale at the Justice Desk is
Responses to 101 Questions on Catholic Social Teaching.
2