I sympathize
with his reasoning. People who are undoubtedly guilty of heinous crimes sure do
seem to deserve death. I do not know how I would react as the father or husband
of a victim of a serious crime. I would certainly be grieved beyond my
imagination of grief, and angrier than I have ever been. I do not know what
that could feel like, because it exceeds my experience.
Yet the Catholic
Church has said more than once that a civilized society ought not resort to the
death penalty if the protection of society from that same criminal can be
attained in other ways. As a Catholic, I must take what the Church says
seriously -- and since the arguments the Church presents do not rely strictly
upon Catholic doctrine, everyone else ought to give these arguments serious
consideration too. So there are two things to look at: What the criminal
deserves, and what society needs.
If justice is
tempered by mercy, and the needs of society can be achieved while being
merciful, then mercy should prevail. Easy for me to say, considering my loved
ones are at the moment safe. Maybe I would see things differently if my
circumstances were different.
But ethical
principles are universal and apply also to the grieving as much as to the
clear-headed. While it may be permissible for civil authorities to use the
death penalty, that does not bind civil authorities into actually using it. If
a criminal has thrown away his right to live in a free society by his crimes,
the penalty can be achieved by removing him from society or by killing him. If
a secure way to removing him exists without killing him, then civil authorities
should choose that as the means to achieving their goal of protecting society.
Killing someone
is always serious business. The Catholic Church recognizes the rights of civil
authorities to use lethal force in the protection of the innocent whether it be
in a just war or by the death penalty, just as it recognizes the use of lethal
force by individuals when it is necessary. But, taking the latter -- what are
the ethics that govern the use of lethal force as self defense? First, the use
of force should be proportionate to the risk, so there has be a legitimate and
real fear of being killed or seriously injured to use potentially lethal force.
Second, the use of potentially lethal force should also be the only available
means, so if non-lethal force could stop the aggressor, it should be used
instead.
I use the word
"potentially" by intent. If I am being attacked and I have a gun and
the use of that gun is the only way to protect myself in that moment, and
disabling the aggressor would accomplish my protection, I should aim for
disabling him. If mere disablement would not do it, I should aim for his body,
hoping I do not actually kill him. The death of the aggressor is acceptable
under the principle of double effect. The secondary effect of his death is
foreseen and accepted, but not primarily intended. I should not want to kill
him. I should want to stop him. I should accept the possibility of his death
only as an unfortunate consequence of the circumstances.
As a Catholic, I
must be concerned not only for my own eternal welfare, but also that of the
assailant. Yes. Getting the assailant into heaven should be a concern of the
victim, believe it or not. It hardly conduces to my own eternal welfare, not to
mention his, to wish him dead and to kill him in the midst of his committing a
mortal sin and under circumstances in which I might also be meeting God.
With the death
penalty, the death of the criminal is expressly desired and accomplished cooly,
after a long deliberation, and not in the heat of an immediate and serious
conflict. This at least affords the criminal a chance to repent and reconcile
to God before he dies. But that same time also demonstrates to civil authorities
that the criminal can be removed from civilized society without killing him.
Also, I wonder
where the virtues of forgiveness and mercy come into play with the death
penalty. Can a grieving father forgive the loss of his beloved child through a
brutal and heinous murder? I do not know. Is the death penalty consistent with
such forgiveness? Can a society forgive? I do not know these things. But it
seems to me that forgiveness is a trait of civilized people more than is
vengeance. Mercy is higher and a greater act of power than is justice without
mercy.
Jesus said of
mercy, The measure with which you measure shall be measured out to you.
Forgive, so that you may be
forgiven. I hope if I ever am unfortunate enough to sit face to face with my
daughter's killer, I would be to him like I would want God to be with me. All
of our sins are guilty of the death of Jesus. It is Jesus's suffering by which
those same sins are forgiven. What a mystery. If my pious daughter is with God,
and I suffer on earth, could not the sins against her and me somehow turn into
the salvation of her killer? What harm and what good would come of trying? Of
course, being merciful and forgiving does not necessarily mean not using the
death penalty. But it leans in that direction.
All this is easy
to say.
And I am
convinced that civil authorities need to have the death penalty available to
them. It's a matter of use.
But
"pro-life" reflects an attitude toward its use that I think is rather
different than Richard Land's take on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment