Remember the Catechism teaches, “…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” (No. 2267). “If this is the only possible way” is an important qualification.
Moreover, it is worth quoting the two sentences which follow: “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 — cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent’ (No. 2267).”
The last sentence included a quotation from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”: “It is clear that … the nature and the 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. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically non-existent” (No. 56). Note that the Holy Father has always pleaded for a commutation of a death sentence; however, he has not condemned the right of the state to exercise its authority in executing a criminal in principle, but has questioned whether the state ever needs to exercise such authority given today’s circumstances.
Therefore while the Church upholds the traditional teaching permitting capital punishment for heinous crimes, there are serious qualifications which must be met to exercise this authority: Is this the only possible way to protect society or are non-lethal means available? Will the person be rendered “incapable of doing harm”? Will the person have the possibility of redeeming himself? Is this an exceptional case that warrants the rare exercise of such a punishment?
So, consider the case at hand. On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a massive truck bomb in front of the Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more. He permanently scarred families who lost loved ones. He referred to the 19 innocent children killed at the day care facility in the building as “collateral damage.” He has shown no remorse, and has not apologized or sought forgiveness. As a matter of fact, he has admitted his culpability. He was duly tried and convicted of a heinous crime which carries the death penalty, and will be put to death on Monday morning, June 11.
Now apply the qualifications: Would execution be the only possible way to protect society or are non-lethal means available? McVeigh could be sent to one of the new, state-of-the-art prisons for the remainder of his life. Currently, the Commonwealth of Virginia has two new “super maximum” security prisons, one at Big Stone Gap and one at Pound. Both will hold 1,267 inmates. Those in the special segregated population will be confined individually 23 hours a day in a 7-by-12 foot cell. The narrow slat for a window will have smoked glass so the prisoner cannot see outside the cell. The prisoner will have an exercise period of one hour a day, pacing by himself in a narrow concrete yard surrounded by a 12-foot high concrete wall and topped by barbed wire. These segregated prisoners will have no group activities and no educational or vocational programs. The worst criminals will have no reading materials. When visitors are admitted, no physical contact will be allowed. A similar federal prison exists in remote Florence, Col., where the “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski is incarcerated; since May 4, 1998, he has been serving four life-term sentences plus 30 years for a series of mail bombings that killed three people and injured more than 20 others during a 17-year bombing campaign.
Such conditions are hellish, but effective. Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether such facilities inspire reform or whether they further harden the criminal in his contempt for society. One too has to question whether such incarceration is cruel and unusual. Society too has to be careful of not letting the “lock him up and throw the key away” mentality obscure the need to offer rehabilitation for such a criminal.
Will the person be rendered incapable of doing harm? With the violence in our prisons and the high recidivism rate for released prisoners (as high as 60 percent) serious doubts emerge. Could this man, who has shown contempt for the authority of our country, kill a prison guard or a fellow prisoner? What if, by chance, he escaped? All of the citizens of a country, even prisoners and particularly the victims of a crime and those who testified against the criminal, have a right to live without fear. Criminals who commit heinous crimes violate not only the physical well-being of others, but also the spiritual well-being. While a Christian must show mercy to the criminal, he must also show mercy to the innocent victims who have suffered from that criminal's actions.
Will the person have the possibility of redeeming himself? Timothy McVeigh has had this opportunity since April 1995. Indeed, capital punishment does place an end limit to the time for reform. St. Thomas would argue that such an end limit motivates reform. On the other hand, one must question whether the super maximum security prisons offer any hope of reform or rehabilitation, or simply offer a “fate worse than death.”
Is this a rare case that warrants such a punishment? If Timothy McVeigh is executed, this will be the first federal execution since 1963, indeed a rare instance of judicial authority. Moreover, this crime stands out as a rare incident in our nation that hopefully will never be repeated.
Without question, the issue is complex and causes anguish for any good Christian. No judicial system is perfect. Questions of fairness, deterrence, swiftness of trial, adequate legal counsel and the like will continually surround the question. Debate over the qualifications for using capital punishment will continue. The need to transform a prison system from a place where we cage human beings into a place where we rehabilitate is critical. Nevertheless, given our present system, as best as possible, fair trials must be granted and just punishments meted out which restore the order of justice and protect all people.
In all, vengeance must be avoided. After the guilty verdict for Timothy McVeigh, a local Denver radio station set up a stand near the federal courthouse and enticed drivers to honk if they wanted to “fry” him. When Timothy McVeigh is executed, the families of victims may watch on closed-circuit broadcast, each having his or her own motive for doing so. However, the execution will not bring their loved ones back to life; it would be better not to watch and further lose their innocence. Poor, wounded victims of original sin that we are, each of us can easily lose sight of justice and slip into seeking vengeance, whether such vengeance is expressed through an execution or simply locking someone up in a super maximum security prison. True justice mandates that we eliminate vengeance, and pursue a just resolution for all parties. Only such a pursuit of justice with forgiveness will bring peace and closure to the past.
The entire McVeigh episode has placed all good Christians in turmoil. For those who hold that the execution fits the criteria of justice and meets the standard of traditional Catholic teaching, they will anguish over the need to show mercy, and to respect the sanctity of human life and the dignity of each individual. For those who oppose any use of capital punishment and perhaps hold an even higher standard of the sanctity of human life — just like some Christians are pacifists in time of war — they will anguish over the kind of life they would have been condemning McVeigh to live in prison and whether society would truly have been safer had this been the outcome. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, the great champion of the truth and the sanctity of human life, has repeatedly called for an end to capital punishment and pleaded for the commutation of death sentences, including McVeigh's. Each Catholic Christian then is challenged to wrestle with this issue, and not just take one side or the other, but work for a more just system in all aspects. Only through justice will we enjoy peace and order in our community.
(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
