Death
Penalty
A Position Paper of the Florida Catholic Conference
The Church's
commitment to the value and dignity of human life leads us to oppose the
use of the death penalty. We do not question society's duty to protect
itself, but we believe that there are better approaches to protecting our
people from violent crimes. The application of the death penalty has been
discriminatory toward the poor, the indigent and racial minorities.
Capital punishment contributes to the escalating atmosphere of violence in
our society and undermines belief of the inherent worth and dignity of
human life.
Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, The Gospel of Life,
(1995) wrote:
. . . 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. Today however,
as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal
system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.
Survivors of
Victims: The deep
pain and very real anguish lived by families of victims cannot be fully
understood by most of us. Survivors suffer firsthand this agony of losing
a loved one to a terrible, horrific crime. Our churches and communities
cannot do enough to bring comfort into the lives of these grieving
families. Justice demands that survivors receive the greatest care and
compassion possible. Over time we hope they will be able to resist the
very natural, the understandable desire, to take the lives of those who
have committed such terrible wrongs.
The state of Florida, through its implementation of the death penalty,
promotes the myth of "closure" throughout trial, appeals and collateral
proceedings, a "closure" that comes, before or after an execution, only
with time. If the murder had taken place in West Virginia, Wisconsin or
some other state that rejects the death penalty, the survivors could find
"closure" much sooner.
Life Without Parole: Modern society has the means of protecting
itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. The
only alternative to a sentence of death in Florida for those convicted of
a first degree capital felony murder, since 1994, is a life sentence
without parole. Prior to 1994, a life sentence requires incarceration for
at least twenty-five years before "consideration" for parole. To date,
none have been paroled.
Roles of Juries: As long as the death penalty is to continue in
our state, juries should be given a greater role in deciding sentences,
not a lesser one. Most states (29) require a unanimous jury verdict for a
sentence of death. In Florida, a simple 7-5 majority can yield a death
sentence and a jury's recommendation of life in prison can be overridden
by a judge in certain circumstances. The Conference supports a jury
recommendation of life without parole as binding on sentencing. We
support legislation which requires a unanimous jury verdict to support a
death sentence.
Innocence: Mistakes can be made. This mistake is not
remediable. After an exhaustive study of the "collective wisdom and
moral insights" of Judaism and Catholicism, the National Council of
Synagogues and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a joint
statement in (December 1999) which the following excerpt is on point:
"In biblical
times, capital punishment was a search for justice when justice seemed
impossible to reach. As the Rabbis did years ago when they considered
the use of the death penalty, let us take time to ask ourselves some
relevant questions. Is justice reached when we are taking a chance of
executing an innocent person? Is justice reached when we are
discriminating against our minorities in our death sentences?"
Corruption and
Exploitation of Medical Technology:
Lethal injection involves a medical procedure, requires medical training
in order to administer, and requires medical knowledge in order to prepare
the drugs involved. Moreover, lethal injection is a violation of the
Hippocratic Oath. There is no humane way for the State to kill someone.
The electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection and the firing squad
all brutalize those who take part in them, and brutalize our society.
Racial Injustice: Any criminal penalty, and especially the death
penalty, must be based on justice. Our entire constitutional, legal and
civic system is based upon it and our civilization demands it. There are
several studies and recent statistics that show a decided bias in
application of the death penalty against murderers of whites and not
blacks. The Florida Supreme Court Racial and Ethnic Bias Study Commission
Report (December 1991), clearly documents that "defendants who kill Whites
are more likely to be sentenced to death than defendants who kill
African-Americans." According to the study, " . . . the odds of a death
sentence for those who kill white victims are approximately 3.4 times
higher . . . " David Baldus of the University of Iowa in testimony before
Congress cited that in Florida that a murder of a white person was 4.8
times more likely to receive a death sentence compared to a murder of an
African/American.
The February 1990 General Accounting Office report on death penalty
sentencing discussed the evaluation of 28 studies which showed a pattern
of racial disparities in the charging, sentencing and imposition of the
death penalty after the Furman decision. "In 82 percent of the studies,
race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged
with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who
murdered whites were found to be more likely to sentenced to death than
those who murdered blacks." More than three-fourths of the studies that
identified a "race of defendant effect" found that black defendants were
more likely to receive the death penalty.
Moratorium: The Conference has joined other groups in calling
for a Moratorium on the death penalty so that its many problems can be
carefully examined. It does so in the hope that conclusions will be
reached calling for alternatives to execution. It is not our goal that
some injustices may be corrected so that executions may proceed more
efficiently.
Violence by Example: The death penalty aggravates the level of
violence in society instead of diminishing it and empirical studies
indicate that it has no effect as a deterrent. It contributes to
disrespect for human dignity and human life. "The abolition of the
death penalty would help to break the cycle of violence." Bishops of
Florida, (1990)
In their statement, Confronting a Culture of Violence, the
United States Catholic Bishops said:
"Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some
of our most difficult social problems -- millions of abortions to
address problem pregnancies, advocacy of euthanasia and assisted
suicide to cope with the burdens of age and illness, and increased
reliance on the death penalty to deal with crime. We are tragically
turning to violence in the search for quick and easy answers to
complex human problems . . . . We are losing our respect for human
life . . . . We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing."
