Death Penalty

Hasn’t the death penalty been proven to deter crime?

As early as the mid-1700s, there were doubts about whether the death penalty acted as a deterrent to crime. When expert criminologists were polled on their views of existing deterrent studies, 84 percent of them concluded from the research that the death penalty did not act as a deterrent to murder.  A 1995 poll by Hart Research Associates found that the majority of police chiefs do not believe the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides - in fact, they ranked it as the least effective way to reduce crime. (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide through the Death Penalty Debate.”)  These theories are supported by comparisons of murder rates: A 2000 review of murder rates over the past 20 years by the New York Times found that murder rates in states with the death penalty have been 48 to 101 percent higher than in non-death penalty states.  The same is true when regions within the United States are compared. The south accounts for more than 80 percent of executions and yet consistently has the highest murder rate of the four regions. The northeast is responsible for less than 1 percent of executions, and has the lowest murder rate. On a national scale, the United States has a far higher murder rather than many European countries that do not use the death penalty. (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide through the Death Penalty Debate.”)

Doesn’t the death penalty provide closure and retribution for the crime to the victim's family? 

Less than 1 percent of all homicides result in a death sentence and execution, which means that only a tiny section of families of murder victims receive whatever benefit is associated with executing the perpetrator. Additionally, which defendants are sentenced to death and which receive life without parole is often a result of a combination of luck, geography, racial elements, and the resources available to the defendant.  What's more, a prosecutor advocating for the death penalty is not necessarily doing so according to the victim's family’s wishes or even their consent. (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide through the Death Penalty Debate.”)  There is no consensus that executing the perpetrator brings closure to the victim's family. In fact, death penalty cases generally result in numerous, prolonged appeals, causing the victim's family to relive the event over and over before a final judgment is reached. Some murder victims’ families have come together to express their opposition to the death penalty, forming groups such as Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation and Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights. These are organizations composed of family members of victims working to oppose the death penalty from a human rights perspective. (MVFHR, MVFR.) 

Doesn’t the death penalty costs less than sentencing defendants to life without parole?

A 2007 report from the Death Penalty Information Center states that, "As executions decline and the costs for each prosecution go up, the cost per execution (including all the legal and custodial costs of all the cases in the death penalty system) has become a concern in many states." (Death Penalty Information Center report, "A Crisis of Confidence: Americans' Doubts about the Death Penalty.") Cost studies conducted in individual states confirm that these concerns are warranted: a 1993 study from Duke University found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty system imposing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; in 2000 the Palm Beach Post reported that the death penalty costs Florida taxpayers $51 million a year above what it would cost to sentence all first-degree murderers to life without parole; according to the Dallas Morning News a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million in Texas; in 1999, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature found that, "Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide through the Death Penalty Debate.”)  Rural counties are often hit especially hard by the exorbitant costs associated with the death penalty. For example, the Associated Press reported in 1999 that, because of anticipated death penalty costs, officials in Okanogan County, Washington delayed pay raises for the county's 350 employees, ordered a halt on non-emergency travel, and put a hold on updating computers and county vehicles. (The Death Penalty Information Center, “Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide through the Death Penalty Debate.”)

Doesn’t the death penalty system effectively convict the guilty and exonerates the innocent?

In 2001 Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “More often than we want to recognize, some innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death.” For every 8 executions that have been carried out since the death penalty was reinstated, one person has been exonerated from death row - over 120 people in 25 states as of July 2007. These exonerees spent an average of 8 years in prison before being released - time they can never get back. In January 2000 Republican Governor George Ryan concluded the system was broken after 13 innocent inmates were freed during the same period that the state executed 12 and placed an immediate halt on executions in Illinois. Additionally, there is considerable evidence that some innocent people have been put to death. However, there is no real process or funding for analyzing these “closed” cases to see if the state has erroneously executed an innocent defendant.  The numerous exonerations have exposed systemic problems within the death penalty that lead to wrongful convictions, including mistaken eyewitness identifications, inadequate representation, and prosecutorial misconduct. A study from Columbia University looked at all the death penalty trials from 1973 to 1995 in which the appeals process was completed, and concluded that 68% were plagued with serious errors requiring them to be done over. While some steps have been taken towards reforming the criminal justice system, a 2007 poll shows that 69% of Americans believe that reforms will not eliminate all wrongful convictions and executions.  

Don’t the numerous exonerations from death row prove that the system works?

Actually, the over 120 innocent people who have been freed from death row were not exonerated by the system, but in spite of it. For many of them, their innocence was discovered through fortuitous coincidence or through the work of those outside the legal system. For example, exoneree Anthony Porter had exhausted the appeals process, and was only freed when motivated journalism students discovered evidence of his innocence. The system also failed Kirk Bloodsworth, who was twice convicted of rape and murder before being exonerated by DNA testing in 1993. 

The American criminal justice system is one of the most advanced in the world – why isn’t our death penalty fair and just?

Studies have shown that the death penalty in the United States is applied in an arbitrary manner and tends to discriminate on the basis of race. Former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said in 1994, “Even under the most sophisticated death penalty statutes, race continues to play a major role in determining who shall live and who shall die.”  Studies have consistently shown that defendants are more likely to get the death penalty if the victim was white. Studies of state death penalty systems have supported this: In 96% of the states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race of victim or race of defendant discrimination, or both. A study of Georgia’s death penalty system revealed that, even when controlling for hundreds of variables that might make one case worse than another, defendants whose victims were white were 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than defendants whose victims were black. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that if the death penalty is applied arbitrarily, it should not be applied at all, and struck it down for that very reason in 1972. Even though the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there is evidence that it is still applied unfairly and arbitrarily.  

Isn’t the death penalty necessary to preserve social order?

Many countries are able to preserve social order and maintain public confidence without using the death penalty, such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Also, these countries generally have lower murder rates than does the United States.  The U.S. is in some very disreputable company with regard to retention of the death penalty. Other countries that still use capital punishment include Afghanistan, Burundi, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Uganda. Some may say that countries without the death penalty are fundamentally different from the United States in terms of values and crime rates. However, many American states do not have the death penalty, including Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These states generally have lower murder rates than do states with the death penalty.  

Aren't most Catholics in favor of the death penalty?

Until recently, polling data showed there was very little difference between Catholics and non-Catholics in support of the death penalty (around 65%-70%). But a poll taken by Zogby International in late 2004 indicated that less than half (48%) of Catholics support the use of the death penalty. Moreover, that poll and others show that support for capital punishment decreases even further when people are offered the option of life without parole combined with attempts at restitution for the surviving victims. Our culture often sees violence as a way to solve problems. A common human response to violence is to seek revenge for these grisly crimes. But our faith calls us to proclaim life at every level…from the moment of conception until natural death.  As the U.S. Catholic bishops have said in their document "Living the Gospel of Life": "Our witness to respect life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others. The antidote to violence is love, not more violence."

Doesn't the Bible support the death penalty (“…an eye for an eye, respecting the authority of the state” etc.)?

The Hebrew Scriptures call for the death penalty for many offenses, including being disrespectful toward your parents, using God's name in vain, and adultery. The saying "an eye for an eye" was meant to limit punishment to no more than what would restore the community, and not to call for excessive punishment. God's own punishment to Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was not death, but banishment. And a special mark was given to Cain, so no others would harm him.  The New Testament message of Our Savior underscores the rich Catholic tradition of respect for life and repaying evil with love. Jesus confronted the would-be executioners of the adulteress (John 8) and forgave those who were crucifying Him (Luke 23:34). He preached about life in abundance and forgiveness and urged non-violent ways to confront violence and evil.

Why does it seem like the Church is only standing up for the criminals, not the victims?

The Church understands the enormous pain that those close to a murdered loved one must feel. Our family of faith must stand with all victims of violence as they struggle to overcome their terrible loss and fear, and find some sense of peace. The Church understands that those who commit violent crimes must be separated from society lest they create new victims. We do not suggest that they should not be punished. Jesus Himself was not "soft on crime."  What He did was to shift the focus of judgment to a higher court, one that has absolute knowledge of the evidence, of good deeds and evil, of faith, and of things private and public.

Isn't the death penalty something that family members deserve, so they can feel that justice is done?

Vengeance is an understandable human reaction when great evil confronts us. However, as people of faith living in a violent culture, the Church urges victims' families and friends to seek justice without vengeance, and to seek an end to the cycle of violence by punishing murderers without executing them.

Why else should we consider opposing the death penalty?

In addition to the faith-based arguments outlined above, one can cite many other problems related to the death penalty: it extinguishes the possibility for rehabilitation and compensation; executions fuel the human desire for revenge, which is not a Christian virtue; recent news stories about the exoneration of over 100 former death row inmates show there is the possibility that innocent persons may be executed; long and unavoidable delays in death penalty cases are harmful to local communities since they divert public funds from law enforcement and other more pressing needs, and create anxiety, anguish and uncertainty for the loved ones of both the victim and the criminal; the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory manner.

Isn't it true that the Vatican supports the death penalty?

Yes, but only on a theoretical level -- in cases where executing an offender is the only way of protecting society against an unjust aggressor. This was often the case in past eras, when the scarcity of law enforcement personnel and the absence of maximum security prisons left governments with no other recourse to protect human lives. But, as the Catholic Catechism points out, such instances "are rare, if not practically non-existent" as a result of the ability of present-day states to effectively prevent offenders from doing harm without killing them. The Vatican's position was made clear in its June, 2001 declaration to the World Congress on the Death Penalty in France. Calling the practice "a sign of desperation," it stated: "The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment as an integral part of the defense of human life at every stage of its development, and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death."