Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Death?
From the New York Times:
The defendant, Steven J. Hayes, sat motionless at the defense table as a court clerk read, again and again, the jurors’ findings that Mr. Hayes should die for joining in the July 2007 home invasion that led to a night and morning of unimaginable terrors, of sexual abuse, baseball-bat beatings and flames, in the bucolic suburban town. Only one person has been executed in the state since 1960.
The crime was savage–beyond savage; evil–and Hayes’s guilt was never in doubt.
Has the jury done right? I’d be particularly interested to learn what my friends Richard Epstein, John Yoo and Bill McGurn have to say. Legal scholars, Richard and John will have given a lot of thought to Supreme Court cases on the death penalty over the years, as also to the practical aspects of the penalty. (Hayes’s appeals will take years, costing Connecticut taxpayers millions.) Bill McGurn? He’s a learned Catholic, no doubt aware that Bishop William Lori, in whose diocese (if I’m not mistaken about the boundaries) the murder took place, represents one of the Church’s–and the nation’s–leading advocates for abolishing the death penalty outright.
Richard? John? Bill?
Published in General
A lifelong conservative Catholic, I was a staunch defender of the death penalty until I read JP II’s “Gospel of Life.” It gave me pause.
Like others here, I reject entirely any moral equivalence between abortion (an intrinsic evil) and capital punishment after due process of law.
Here’s another thing I reject (as problematic and inadequate) and think everyone should reject: Aquinas’ argument as quoted by John Boyer:
Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump”
By that logic, individuals are subordinate to society and society may dispose of them if it deems them a threat.
In the person of the personalist pope JP II, the Church has endorsed and made her own the great Kantian axiom: a person is an end in himself. It might also be written: A person is a whole and never a mere part.
The most important moral argument against capital punishment (I agree with Yoo and others that its legality under the Constitution is clear), in my view, is that citizens who are conscious of being under God and serious about limited government, should beware giving the power of life and death to the state, except in the greatest emergency, and then only with fear and trembling.
Matt, my own uneasiness with the death penalty doesn’t at all stem from the liberal notion that people are basically good. I agree with you that a person who commits heinous crimes forfeits his right to life. I deny that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, as murder is, and as abortion is.
My uneasiness comes from a growing sense of the mysterious sacredness of human life (which I would like to see cherished in our society), a reverence for God as the Author of Life, an informed awareness of the frailty and faultiness of human justice, a conservative mistrust of government, wariness of the problem of abuse of power…
PS: I think the “modern uneasiness” with the death penalty might be compared to “modern uneasiness” with racism or male chauvinism. They stem from a deepening and more sensitive appreciation of the dignity of persons as persons.
Not all modern developments are bad. Let’s take care not to be mere reactionaries. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Katie, from Whence comes that sacredness? You and I both agree it comes from God, man bearing the imago Dei. Why then is there difficulty in accepting God’s teachings on the matter?See Numbers 35:16-22 & 30 & 31.
” (Hayes’s appeals will take years, costing Connecticut taxpayers millions.)”
Hayes should do a single decent thing in his life, beg forgiveness of God, the families involved, and then not lodge an appeal.
I yield to the discussion between Katievs and John Boyer, both of whom, despite being on opposite sides, are presenting their case with far more elegance than I can muster on the topic.
Nice job.
·Nov 9 at 8:21pm
When you refer to JP II’s “Gospel of Life,” Katievs, which document do you mean? One of the encyclicals? A homily?
·Nov 9 at 8:21pm
Peter, Evangelium Vitae was an encyclical of Pope John Paul II. You may find this EWTN/Zenit 2002 summary of the controversy helpful in getting bearings in the debate. There was also some confusion with respect to a change in wording in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in further editions. These issues weren’t helped by ambiguity in the French working draft, which was then translated into Latin and then refined for infelicities particularly in the English translations.
And here is Ralph McInerny circa 1998 on the subject.
I thought I would provide this link for anyone who would like to read Evangelium Vitae and form opinions for themselves. Not any easy read (for me anyway). But, a must read for anyone really interested in the theological side of this debate.
I second the recommendation, Katie O. The second part offers the philosophical heart of the matter.
Matt, I agree, of course, that ultimately our dignity as persons come from God, who made us in His image and likeness. But, we are a pluralist society, where we can’t rely on “the Bible says” arguments. Our moral reasoning (unlike in Islam) should be grounded in natural law and accessible even to those who do not acknowledge the authority of the Bible.
Further, that moral reasoning is an essential part of the dignity of our being as persons. “I no longer call you slaves, but friends”.
Lastly, I am by no means a progressivist, but, as I see it, the history of salvation displays the truth of what Newman called “the development of doctrine”. There is a sense in which our moral understanding develops over time, so that things that used to be seen as normal and acceptable are now recognized to be offenses against personal dignity. Take polygamy. Or slavery. Or the civil and social subordination of women. Or child labor. Or the notion that everyone will worship according to the religion of the regent of his territory…
Katievs, two points: 1) As a student of philosophy, i caution against dismissing the Angelic doctor out of hand. The notion of the individual as subordained to the state isn’t summed up as denial of the individual’s dignity or worth. It rather understands the particular good of the individual with respect to life as subordained both to his shared good of salvation and the common good of the community. Man is a social animal and one who act against the community in murder violates this good (both his own and that of the whole). The context of Thomistic political philosophy does not support your interpretation. 2) Be careful in usig Kant. His ethics are not Catholic and the adoption of the principle of the individual as end is only realized in acting justly within society. Either you have misunderstood JP II or JP II wrote ambiguously or is wrong. I will side with Aquinas over JP II IF there actually is disagreement here.
This issue is more contentious than it needs be and unfortunately I think the emphasis on the culture of life understood without qualification is part of this contentiousness. I respectfully disagree with those who maintain there is no philosophical/theological/political/ethical basis for the death penalty. It is an unfortunate state if affairs when to convince people of the heinous immorality of abortion, we think it necessary to suppose opposition to the death penalty is necessary as well in order to maintain internal consistency. One might as well rule out the use of leathal force by police or soldiers. We need to examine what the first principles are. I place the end of the common good over the particular, absolute good of the individual considered as end in self without further ordination to the good of the community. Individual man is not the ultimate end and we would do well not to make him one. Man is a social animal and only achieves his natural good within society.
This is an interesting, at least to me, aspect of the American polity. As sovereign franchise holders, the state, and even the Constitution, have no final authority on the formation of our opinions and conscience. Secularists and atheists argue that all points from scripture are at best ineffective and at worst offensively theocratic, but do their axioms really derive from firmer ground? Is the opposition media’s embrace of this bias a compelling argument?
A Catholic debate on an issue so centered on the fundamental dignity of human existing is, I have found, far more illuminating than what passes for public discourse in the Republic. That it is learned believers seeking in earnest among themselves rather than trying to foist a ready-made argument from sheer authority makes it more compelling. Surely such a debate has a place on Ricochet.
Why I do not personally support the death penalty: We delegate tasks to the government that we, as individuals, cannot practically do ourselves. Tasks like national defence, for example.
That being said, I believe that I only have the right to delegate tasks to the government that I am UNABLE to do myself, and not tasks that I am UNWILLING to do myself. I am justified delegating the task of national defence to the government because, if required to do so, I would also be willing to serve in my country’s armed forces.
However, I do not feel that I would have the intestinal fortitude to inject another human being with poison, or to flip the switch on an electric chair, etc. As such, I do not believe that I have the right to delegate that task to government.
I have no problem with other people supporting the death penalty if they believe that they COULD serve as an executioner. I simply think it’s hypocritical to ask the government to do something I would not be willing to do myself.
Yes, I wasn’t suggesting non Catholics couldn’t participate merely that a contribution started by one of us raving papists would be fair warning to anyone who jumped in on the thread, and I do think it would be very illuminating to those who wonder if there is a way to debate these philosophically without going Olbermann quickly.
Katievs and others have cited Evangelium Vitae in opposing the death penalty. I myself stand with Justice Antonin Scalia on this one: Catholics must consider very seriously any argument the supreme pontiff advances in an encyclical, but, a) encyclicals do not represent definitive statements of faith or morals, b) the invariable teaching of the Church throughout the centuries has been that in certain circumstances the death penalty is indeed warranted, and, c) the prudential arguments that John Paul makes against the death penalty in this document are, frankly, unpersuasive.
For Justice Scalia at length on this issue, look at this.
but, a) encyclicals do not represent definitive statements of faith or morals,
Peter, careful with that one. I refer you to a wonderful little book that Cardinal Dulles wrote before his death, really targeted at lay people, on the Magisterium. In brief, there are indeed some items that are not binding as pronouncements of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”, but the encyclical requires close reading as to which ones those are. That the death penalty is different from the other pronouncements such as abortion is clear, but I think its a stretch to say that all encyclicals are non binding in toto.
For the record, I haven’t quite said I oppose the death penalty. I have said EV gave me pause. It still does. The more I study JP II, the more I am impressed by his depth and stature as an original thinker. I think the Church (never mind the wider world) has hardly begun to grasp and absorb his legacy.
I’m an admirer of Justice Scalia. And I do not want to dispute his position as to the non-binding authority of an encyclical. My argument was not from authority. I’m not (here) concerned so much with the Catholic teaching as with the moral case.
Excuse Me, but I just want to state that this has been the most remarkable discussion Here yet.
Truly fascinating.
katievs,
I apologize if I came across as a prig. Late night commenting isn’t the best idea apparently. However, I wasn’t making an argument from authority (although, you are right. Argument from authority is the weakest, so says Boetheus). On the issue of the Kantian axiom, it’s a question of how to interpret its use. JP II doesn’t actually adopt it as Kant lays it out. Rather he adopts a modified version of it which does not contradict Aquinas. The idea that we should treat people as ends in themselves is only partially true. It requires a clarification as to what kind of end they are: an absolute end simpliciter or a end secundum quid. To treat others as ends simpliciter means that the common good is placed below the individual good. I do not want to make the individual higher than the common good, which includes that individual’s good. Perhaps you disagree.
As far as dismissing Aquinas out of hand, I did not find your argument against Aquinas substantial (no offense intended). To deny the place of the individual within the state strikes me as leading to an extreme libertarianism.
John, you are kind.
Now, to the substance:
I explicitly endorsed Kant’s axiom as interpreted by Wojtyla/JP II, which does, however, by my lights, invalidate Aquinas’ argument (as quoted by you) that the person is related to the community as an organ to the body.
Let’s make it concrete. (I’ll follow my former prof. John Crosby here.)
A solution is proposed to end religious violence: For the common good, all persons of a given region will take the religion of the prince. Suppose my prince is Protestant. Should I be forced to foreswear my Faith because the common good is above the individual good?
Or: An interracial crime has been committed. Let’s say a white rapist of a black girl. Mobs are threatening to destroy the city. Should the chief of police frame a local bum they know to be innocent to appease the crowds and stop the violence? If the bum protests that he’s innocent, could they not reply: “It’s better for one innocent man to die than for the whole city to go up in flames?”
“As far as dismissing Aquinas out of hand, I did not find your argument against Aquinas substantial (no offense intended). [None taken.] To deny the place of the individual within the state strikes me as leading to an extreme libertarianism.”
Where did you find me denying the place of the individual within the state? I claimed only that he is not reducible to his part in the state. The person is metaphysically prior to the state and (unlike a limb or organ of a body) has dignity and value and rights that the state must respect.
Now, to the substance:
Let’s make it concrete. (I’ll follow my former prof. John Crosby here.)
A solution is proposed to end religious violence: For the common good, all persons of a given region will take the religion of the prince. Suppose my prince is Protestant. Should I be forced to foreswear my Faith because the common good is above the individual good?
·Nov 10 at 6:43pm
katievs,
I wonder aloud (my texts are packed away because of a home renovation) whether, in the example you’ve cited, your definition of the common good and individual good excludes the insightful work that Yves Simon did earlier in the 20th century on Thomistic political philosophy?
Sorry I should have included this link to a 50 page summary of Yves Simon’s contribution to political theory.
As I understand the matter, Pseudodi, encyclicals are not in themselves binding. They might–indeed, they always do–repeat or reflect upon binding pronouncements. Perhaps 80 percent of Evangelium Vitae, for example, represents an extended meditation on the wrong of abortion, and abortion has, of course, been condemned since the Didache. But the section on the death penalty–section 56, if I recall correctly–represents something entirely new, a departure, a fresh or original consideration. It does not, in other words, repeat a binding teaching–and therefore has a claim only to our consideration, and not (at least not necessarily) to our assent.
Peter – agreed, I just wanted to be clear that you weren’t using the argument that many Catholics who reject Humanae Vitae use to dismiss the entire encyclical without even reading it. Clearly, you’re not doing that, but I’m continually surprised by the number of Catholics who can froth over Humane Vitae or the “spirit” of Vatican II, but can’t parse the document, nor understand that parts of these documents require varying levels of assent.
Well, dear Pseud, being completely unacquainted with his name, never mind his work, I couldn’t say.
Let me stress again that my argument is against the reduction of persons to a mere part within the greater whole of the state.
I am not a libertarian; I oppose radical individualism.
I hold with Wojtyla (and the Church) that the person has a communitarian dimension. We are not radically self-standing. We owe our existence to others; we are indebted and responsible to others in various ways….
Posted without having read in between comments. Sorry.
Hey – no problem. As a former Communio wannabe (the journal that is) who gradually drifted toward a more traditional Thomism, I think that the one area that North American thomistic philosophers have an edge over their European counterparts is in the in area of political philosophy. So, I understand your concerns but think that transplanted thinkers such as Yves Simon sought to wrestle with the Enlightenment tensions buried in the US founding documents to address some of those issues that JPII/Wotylja raised.
As well, there is a difference among Thomists of various stripes on obediential potency and the ranking (or perhaps more precisely ordering) of goods that bears directly on the discussion.
I should note that I’m right now merely throwing out lines for further exploration rather than trying to hammer out a definitive analysis much less a synthesis that would be acceptable to everyone.