Why We Must Oppose the Death Penalty

by Dan Masterton

Do you know what the Church teaches on the death penalty?

As a former high school theology student and current high school theology teacher, I know that high school students will often erroneously connect theological engagement with debate. They look forward with relative eagerness to social justice, morality, and ethics lessons largely as a chance to argue with peers and articulate the certain rightness of their perspective.

First, theology class, where faith ought to be seeking understanding, should be a place of thorough engagement with Catholic teaching and Tradition, such that, as I say it, “You may not agree with it, but you’ll understand it.” In other words, every day should be open to students’ questions, divergent observations, and critical reactions, as long as they come with respect, patience, and a charitable hearing to the content of the course and lesson.

Secondly, debate -- except for in debate club, speech class, or specifically designed projects -- is not the pursuit of theology class, or that of most good foundational learning. Rather, dialogue and discussion should be the goal. Debate rewards rhetorical excellence, argumentative strategies, and refined eloquence; discussion makes space for all to share their perspectives and listen to others’ points of view in turn.

I remember engaging with the death penalty in Catholic Ethics & Christian Morality during senior year of high school. We’d start and end each unit with a “four corners” exercise, in which every student had to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with particular statements. When we considered the death penalty, I remember sauntering over to the “disagree” corner, thinking primarily of the likely execution awaiting recently detained Saddam Hussein, the fallen leader of Iraq. A discussion ensued; a hearty unit on Church teaching followed. When we looped back to those four corners, I found myself instead strongly disagreeing. I remember learning of wrongfully executed innocent people, of the expense of death row appeals, and of the mercy of God reaching those serving prison time, but I don’t remember learning the Church teaching specifically, even as my stance evolved.

As I journeyed through undergraduate theology, came into my own as an adult in the Church, and stepped into my first pastoral ministry and teaching roles, I sunk my teeth more deeply into the teaching. At my first job, my colleague and I devised a social justice course grounded in Rerum novarum (dignity of work and workers’ rights), Humanae vitae (marriage, family, and sexual ethics), and Evangelium vitae (life issues). It was in re-reading the words of John Paul II in that latter encyclical that I found the distinction that made the puzzle fall into place.

First, the Church actually allows the death penalty as a just punishment for the gravest crimes, echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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” (CCC 2267). So, if guilt is certain in these cases, the penalty may be fitting and would be morally just.

However, John Paul II articulates the crucial nuance: “It is clear that, for these purposes [to redress the disorder caused by the offense] to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society” (Evangelium vitae §56).

Essentially, this is an extension of the teaching on legitimate defense (or, self-defense). If a society has no other way to protect itself from a murderer, then it becomes justifiable to execute that person. Their crime warrants such a punishment, and the gravity of their actions creates a threat to safety and life that must be eliminated. So, when facilities, when resources, when politics and corruption prevent a society from safely and certainly detaining such an absolutely guilty and eminently dangerous person, then execution can be warranted.

On the other hand, when safe and certain incarceration is possible, society is legitimately and sufficiently defended by that detention, which makes execution unjustifiable. John Paul II explicitly says, “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases [that make executions necessary] are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” JPII adds that life in prison, or “bloodless means” of redress, are preferable, too, because they “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person" (Evangelium vitae §56).

This is true in most areas of the world in 2017, 22 years after John Paul II felt it was already true, and it’s certainly true in the US, where we have a sophisticated and thorough system of prisons (though their use is certainly another justice issue). Even before engaging the issues of wrongful convictions, the disproportionate racial makeup of death row, and the costs related to the death penalty, the ability of our prison system to imprison dangerous criminals renders the death penalty completely morally untenable in practice, as it’s unnecessary as a means of legitimate defense of American society.

As executions resume in the US -- Arkansas executed multiple men on the same day, and Ohio can use its drugs on hand to resume executions -- Sr. Helen Prejean, of Dead Man Walking fame, has re-upped her social media game. She does an amazing job of communicating the details of what the public should know about the imprisoned people and their cases, about the state and their governors, and challenging followers to spread the word and contact the officials who can intervene.

We’ve talked here about the mixed role of social media, how it’s a tool that can be used well or poorly and how it’s tempting to settle for slacktivism. Sr. Helen is a role model for how we can use this platform to strive for justice well. I’ve been inspired by her ever since hearing her story, first on film and then in person when she visited a school where I worked. She complimented our students as being like tilled soil because of their receptiveness to the message of justice. And I’ve found in teaching and ministry that this is a justice issue on which many young people agree, preferring in large numbers that we abolish the death penalty. I hope you’ll consider following her and tracking her alerts and challenges as a way to direct you in fighting this social injustice.

It’s time to stop this immoral killing, and I pray that our holy martyrs who clung to their faith steadfastly even to execution will hear our prayer and intercede to end the death penalty.