There was a rumor making the rounds on some of the talk shows about the jury that sentenced Scott Peterson to death. It was said that a Catholic juror consulted with his priest about the moral dilemma he faced because he was leaning toward voting to execute Peterson.
Whether anything like that actually took place is doubtful. Still, it brings up an interesting point: Would it have been possible for a Catholic committed to the teachings of the Church to have voted for the death penalty for Peterson?
Indeed, would it even be possible for a Catholic to serve in good faith on a jury in a case like this? In the jury selection process in states with a death penalty on the books, the lawyers ask prospective jurors whether they will be willing to vote for the death penalty if the evidence in the case warrants it. How should a Catholic who knows and takes seriously the Church’s teaching on capital punishment respond to that question?
There has been spirited debate among Catholics over whether Pope John Paul II left a loophole for applying the death penalty in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Let us consider the pope’s words. He wrote that the death penalty is appropriate only “in cases of absolute necessity… when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are rare, if not practically non-existent.” “Practically non-existent” does not leave much wriggle room.
But it leaves some. The question I pose is whether a Catholic could conclude in good faith that Scott Peterson’s murder of his wife and unborn child is a crime “rare” enough to squeeze through. At first glace, the answer would seem to be no. This was a horrific murder. But so are most murders. I would be willing to bet there have been hundreds of murders committed this year with details as gruesome as the murder of Laci Peterson. The public is more outraged by her murder than the others because we know the details of what happened to her. The other trials were not televised and debated nightly on the talk shows. That said, I think I would have been tempted to vote to execute Peterson if I were on that jury.
How can I say that, after conceding that Peterson’s crime was no more vicious than hundreds of other vicious murders? Would not executing Peterson mean that all these other murderers would also have to be executed, which is clearly not what the Church wants to happen in the modern world? “Virtually non-existent” does not mean “most of the time.”
I don’t know if the juror with the red hair labeled “Strawberry Shortcake” by the press gives a hoot about what the Church teaches, but I submit that her words at the press conference following the verdict offer us a window into how a Catholic might think this matter through, and vote for death. She explained her vote by saying that Peterson was the “person who was supposed to protect and care for his wife and his child, and instead he coldly and deliberately plotted to kill them.” I don’t want to put words in this woman’s mouth, but I think she was saying that this was a uniquely horrific act, a breed apart from the run-of-the-mill murder that takes place in a stick-up or crime of passion.
Wouldn’t it be possible, then, for a Catholic to say to himself that executing such a man is within the pope’s guideline of a punishment necessary “in order to protect society”? That if we do not opt for the ultimate punishment for Scott Peterson for a crime like this we will send a signal to similarly depraved individuals that may lead them to commit comparable murders? That there is a need to jolt society with the death penalty in a case such as this to protect future Laci Peterson’s and their unborn children?
The answer to these questions hinges on what the pope meant when he wrote that a death sentence would be permissible only “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” Some interpret these words to mean only when there is no other way to ensure that the individual murderer in question will not escape and return to his evil ways. I disagree. I maintain that when the pope spoke of an execution being necessary when “it would not be possible otherwise to defend society,” he was granting permission for Catholics to weigh whether there are rare times when capital punishment is needed as a deterrent to future crimes. The encyclical did not condemn the concept of capital punishment for deterrent purposes.
The experts continue to argue about whether capital punishment works as a deterrent to murder. That does not change the equation. The point is that Catholics are free to side with the experts who say that it does. And then to conclude that executing Scott Peterson will save many lives. There is nothing immoral or irrational about coming to that conclusion. Everyone understands that executing Peterson will not stop all future wife-murderers. The verdict against him did not deter Lisa Montgomery, the woman from Missouri who recently killed an expectant mother and cut her 8-month-old child from her womb. But we don’t repeal laws against corporate polluters and real estate agents who discriminate against minorities because there will always be some individuals who will try to get away with those crimes.
How does the logic go? That the threat of a jail term will deter bigots and white-collar criminals, but the prospect of the electric chair will make no difference to the next Scott Peterson? That does not make sense. Not all murders are committed in an irrational rage. Some are plotted and planned. Laci Peterson’s, for example. It is not unreasonable to conclude that capital punishment will deter a good number of them. The neighborhoods where organized crime figures live are free of graffiti and street crime. Even derelicts who don’t know what day it is, know enough not to confront passersby for a handout in those places. The thought that they will end up floating in the East River does the trick.
But isn’t it immoral and unjust for mob thugs to use such intimidation to keep things orderly in their neighborhoods? It is. And can’t it be argued that it is equally immoral and unjust for the state to take a human life? It can. But that is not what the Church has taught for centuries. It is also not what is taught in Evangelium Vitae. I repeat: the encyclical holds that capital punishment is permissible “when it is not otherwise possible to protect society.”
You say what? That the Peterson case does not fit the bill? Fair enough. But why would it be immoral for a Catholic on that jury to disagree with you? For him or her to conclude that giving Peterson anything less than the toughest sentence on the books would send a signal to society that will endanger many innocent lives? I can’t find the reason.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
