July 6, 1990 As the Bishops of the State of Florida, we seek to promote the safety and well being of all the citizens of the state and to preserve good order. We affirm the right and the duty of our state to protect its citizens and the right to impose punishment on criminals. We recognize that the Old Testament not only countenanced but even assigned the death penalty for certain offenses. The spirit of the New Testament, however, opposes the death penalty. Suffering the death penalty himself, Christ spoke of forgiveness. He frequently forgave sinners and showed that he valued them. He set before us the highest ideal of love. In history, the Catholic Church has approved the death penalty. However in 1976, in a carefully detailed statement, the Papal Commission on Justice and Peace expressed opposition to the death penalty. Pope John Paul II has frequently asked for clemency for persons condemned to death. In 1974, 1978, 1980, 1984 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued statements opposing the death penalty. In 1976 the Bishops of Canada issued a statement opposing the death penalty. In the past 25 years a number of State Conferences of Bishops and a number of individual bishops have written against the death penalty. The Bishops of Florida have issued statements in opposition to the death penalty in 1972, 1979, 1983. In 1984 they joined religious leaders of fourteen denominations in an ecumenical statement against the death penalty. The consistent efforts of Amnesty International demonstrate that opposition to the death penalty is not only a religious concern but it is a matter of importance to secular society. We acknowledge that the subject of capital punishment is controversial and emotional and that many intelligent persons in good conscience advocate the death penalty. All murders are violent and shocking; some are savage. They all stir emotions of revulsion and anger. We express deep sympathy for the victims of murder, for their brutalization and loss of life. We express sympathy for the families and friends of victims, for their grief extending through the years. We affirm that the State has the duty to punish criminals and to prevent the repetition or any occurrence of crime. At the same time we believe that the prevention of crime lies elsewhere than in the death penalty. The roots of crime are in human sinfulness, in poverty, lack of education and moral formation, poor housing, poor neighborhoods, lack of nurturing environment, broken or abusive family life, alcohol, drug abuse. We believe that society should address more earnestly the root causes of crime. The question is not whether the State has the right to impose the death penalty but whether or not at this stage in the development of civilization it should impose it. Hopefully that society is sufficiently developed to protect itself in ways other than the death penalty, for example, life or long term imprisonment in maximum security with no early release. In particular, we hope that society has arrived at the stage where it places primary value on the inviolable dignity of every individual and the sacredness of each human life. For the following reasons we don not consider the death penalty to be any longer an appropriate form of punishment for murder or other serious crimes: 1. The Death penalty contributes to disrespect for human dignity and human life. It contributes to the atmosphere of violence. 2. It is not a deterrent to crime. Empirical studies indicate that it has no effect as a deterrent. There is certainly no clear evidence that it is a deterrent. As the death penalty continues to be imposed in Florida, violence continues to escalate. 3. In its application it is discriminatory. The death penalty falls most often on the underprivileged -- the indigent, the friendless, minorities, ethnic groups. 4. Mistakes can be and have been made through which innocent persons die. This mistake is not remediable. 5. It precludes the possibility of reform or rehabilitation. 6. The legal imposition of the death penalty necessarily involves long delays which in themselves become a form of cruel and unusual punishment. 7. The death penalty and its delays cause anguish to the family of the victim and to the family of the criminal. 8. The publicity attendant upon executions arouses animosity and escalates the level of violence. 9. There is no humane way for the State to kill someone. The electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection and the firing squad are all brutal in their application and brutalize those who take part in them. 10. The ability of a judge to override a jury's recommendation of a life sentence is especially offensive. It is our belief that the abolition of the death penalty would help to break the cycle of violence. It would manifest belief in the unique dignity of every individual and the sacredness of human life. It would acknowledge God as the Lord of Life and it would be more consonant with the spirit of the Gospel. The mere absence of the death penalty would not in itself set society aright. There needs to be public support for legislative efforts to eradicate the roots of crime. There need to be improved laws for gun control. Measures must be taken to reform jurisprudence - the manner in which crime is adjudicated and punishment is assigned. Sentencing Commissions and guidelines have proved helpful. Great improvement is needed in our correctional institutions. There is need for more intensive rehabilitation and closer supervision of released prisoners. We all live in an imperfect world. We share the human condition with all of our sisters and brothers. We grieve for the victims of crime and we affirm the necessity of the protection of all citizens and the necessity of punishment for criminals - but that punishment must be consonant with the spirit of Christ's Gospel and with the values of a mature society. Edward A. McCarthy John J. Snyder J. Keith Symons John J. Nevins John C. Favalora Norbert M. Dorsey Agustin A. Roman |