States Debate Use and Expense of Capital Punishment

States Debate Use and Expense of Capital Punishment – National Constitution Center

The Nebraska Legislature last month came within one vote of repealing its death penalty law. The new governor of Maryland called for the outright repeal of capital punishment. Most of Georgia’s 72 capital cases have been stopped because the state’s public defender system has run out of money. New Jersey lawmakers are drafting a bill to repeal that state’s death penalty. And last month the governor of Virginia, a state whose 96 executions since 1976 are exceeded only by those in Texas, vetoed five bills that would have expanded the use of capital punishment.

The legal system’s delivery of death sentences has dramatically slowed. During the 1990s the nation’s courts would customarily issue about 300 death sentences annually.

Those numbers have plummeted in the last seven years, to 128 in 2005 and 102 last year, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that lobbies against capital punishment.

Capital punishment is one of the issues where I stray from views that are typically associated with conservatives, although I believe that opposition to the death penalty is the true conservative position. First, and foremost, if conservatives are to oppose intrusive government, how can we support the ultimate intrusion, the ability to end someone’s life? Second, conservatives, being primarily concerned with culture over politics, must admit that the death penalty brings with it a certain hardening of the hearts of our culture. It encourages people to view others as expendable and not worthy of life. That can only have a negative impact on our view of the importance of life over all.

In addition, as a Christian, and a Catholic, I agree with the statement of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#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 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 more in conformity with 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 definitively 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.”

It would seem axiomatic that all decisions must be made on the side of saving lives, allowing for the taking of a life when there is no other way to save other lives. So, it would be permissible for a woman to seek an abortion in the case of a tubal pregnancy, where the embryo lodges in the Fallopian tube rather then the uterus. Since the object in this case is to save the woman’s life with the destruction of the child as an unavoidable consequence, an abortion would be permitted in such a case. Similarly, capital punishment would be permissible when there is no other way to protect society from the dangers posed by the criminal in question. (I think this is a good summary of the ethical principle of “double effect.”)So, for this reason, if Bin Laden were still alive (which is in doubt given his three year absence) and we were to catch him, I think it would be permissible to execute him since there would be no other way to protect innocent lives given his obvious determination to kill as many Westerners as possible. So, given this caveat, I would be against an effort to permanently ban capital punishment in America. While it’s not currently needed, given the peace prevalent in our society, should that order no longer exist, situations may arise where the good of society demands it.

But, in any situation, the burden of proof should weigh strongly against execution given the importance of every human life. In addition, if someone has committed crimes worthy of execution, don’t we, as Christians, want to try to save their souls? Don’t we want to gain them a conversion of heart and the forgiveness of God before we send them to meet their eternal end? Wouldn’t God want us to take every opportunity to save the person’s soul rather than rid ourselves of them at the first opportunity? Which is the more Christian approach: working to bring them to God, no matter how long it takes, or to execute them as son as we can?

That said, I am obviously pleased with the decline in executions and death sentences being handed out, but am less sanguine about the long term outlook. I can’t shake the feeling that given the decline in crime over the past decade or so, that people are feeling less threatened by crime and so are less likely to strike out at criminals. If (when?) crime increases to higher levels, we will likely see an increase in support for the death penalty again.

So, despite the decline in public support for the death penalty, there’s still much work to be done if we’re to prevent the tide from turning back in the future.

5 thoughts on “States Debate Use and Expense of Capital Punishment

  1. Excellent post. A lot of people don’t understand why we have so many executions in Texas. It’s isn’t a brutal “law and order” mentality.

    Here’s the problem: Texas law does not allow for a “true” life sentence. Juries can sentence someone to life; but they are also instructed that the killer may be paroled anyway, based on what a state board decides.

    So jurors sentence many people to death not because they want them dead, but because it is the only way to be sure they stay locked up forever. If we had a life w/o parole option, I think the trend here would match that in other states.

  2. The basis for the Catholic Church’s limitation on the death penalty conradicts biblical, theological and tradition teachings, as well as reason.

    Please review:

    Pope John Paul II: His obvious errors, Evangelium Vitae & the Death Penalty
    by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
    (contact info, below)
    October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 8/06


    Pope John Paul II made significant errors within his Evangelium Vitae, with regard to the death penalty and, as a result, those teachings should not have been enterred into the Catechism. Please review.

    In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II’s comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required “to defend society” and that “as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent.”

    This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.

    Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope’s consideration.

    First, in the Pope’s context, “to defend society” means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.

    When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again — in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them.

    Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers.

    Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could “err” on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.

    History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.

    Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope’s position should call for increased executions.

    If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.

    If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again – again, saving more innocent lives.

    No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 8 recent ones, find that executions do deter.

    As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives.

    If the Pope’s defending society position has merit, then the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.

    Thirdly, we know that some criminals don’t murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. Executions save lives.

    Therefore, the Pope’s defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered — a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope’s, and other’s, emphasis on defending society.

    Contrary to the Church’s belief, that the Pope’s opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.

    Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended — unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims.

    When the choice is 1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or 2) executing murderers, who have on average, an additional 10 years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered, the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)

    Pope John Paul II’s death penalty stance is his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.

    Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all.

    A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important point of fact.

    Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.

    Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a “defending society” consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration “to defend society.” Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 (“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: “He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death.” Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.

    These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope’s position that if “bloodless means” for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. The Pope’s prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.

    Most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction.
    1. Defense of society against the criminal.
    2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
    3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal’s transgression.
    4. Deterrence

    It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was very incomplete and, thus, improper.

    At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.

    The Holy Ghost decided that execution was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.

    For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not “to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution. (read “A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World” by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).

    “In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)

    Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of “paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment.” (“Thou shalt not murder,” sometimes improperly translated as “kill” instead of “murder”). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.

    Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.

    The relevant question is “What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from ‘paramount obedience’ to God’s eternal law to a civil standard reflecting ‘steady improvements’ . . . in the penal system?”. Such teachings hadn’t changed. The Pope’s position is social, not biblical nor theological.

    If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent “paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?

    The Church’s position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.

    Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, ” . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope’s, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases.” Grabowski continues: “What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society — given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty.” (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)

    The Pope’s position is now based upon the state of the corrections system — a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before — meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary – something that all historians and biblical scholars — now and then and in between — were and are well aware of.

    Since it’s inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it could have been revealed long before 1995.

    There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope’s new standard. The Pope’s defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope’s standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope’s standard, the moral/biblical rational — that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder — is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder.

    If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.

    The Pope’s new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church’s historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.

    Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope.

    “Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?” (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)

    Again, with regard to the Pope’s prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent.

    Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.

    In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in “cases of extreme gravity,” nor does it do so with these recent changes.

    Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. And there is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?

    Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.

    So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position — a defense of society — which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?

    It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.

    The Pope’s position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.

    Please also refer to:

    (1) “Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty”, at

    (2) “Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective” at

    (3) “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003



    copyright 1997-2007 Dudley Sharp

    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
    e-mail sharp(at), 713-622-5491,
    Houston, Texas

    Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

    A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

  3. You ought to learn how to spell first….”soon” has two o’s….
    And it’s the Liberals who want to abolish the death penalty.
    The death penalty is good…
    You are STUPID!!!

  4. You need to learn how to spell….”soon” has two o’s.
    If you can’t spell, then you shouldn’t have a website!!!
    And Liberals are the ones who want to abolish the death penalty!!!
    The death penalty is good.
    You are STUPID!!!!

Comments are closed.