Fry 'em, drug 'em, hang 'em high

I have a confession to make. When Timothy McVeigh, the cowardly, vicious Oklahoma City bomber was executed, I was as happy as anyone to know it was done. If you're going to have a death penalty, then McVeigh was the poster boy for the reasons. I'm old enough to remember the old Westerns where the bad guy always got his. By God, I still want the bad guys to get theirs.

I said all that to say that I'm opposed to the death penalty. Under any circumstance. For anyone.

I know the arguments for the death penalty. These arguments do not withstand examination.

One argument is deterrence. One aspect of deterrence - individual deterrence - is inarguable. Once you've executed someone, that particular individual is forever deterred from killing. But, on a societal level the deterrence argument falls apart. Texas, Florida and Virginia have the death penalty and use it liberally. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin do not have it. If the death penalty were a deterrent, we would expect the three southern states to have lower murder rates. But, the numbers (murder rate per 100,000 population): Minnesota, 2.1, Virginia 4.7. Wisconsin, 2.6, Florida 6.4. Iowa 2.5, Texas 5.6. There are other factors, to be sure, but those other factors do not change the basic fact: capital punishment does not deter murder.

I mean, seriously: if you had to be downtown alone at night, would you rather take your chances in Minneapolis or Miami?

Ricky Rector was executed in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was governor (I didn't say that either political party is entirely right on this issue). Ricky Ray Rector had his last meal on the eve of his execution. He didn't want to eat his dessert. He wanted to save it for later. He was unaware that there would be no later.

Question for those who think highly of the deterrent argument: How is the death penalty to deter someone who was so mentally challenged that, even when his own time came, he was unaware of what an execution means?

A second reason for the death penalty relates to some foggy concept of the cosmic order of things. The murder disturbed that cosmic order, and the only thing that can set that order right is the state-imposed death of the murderer. A term commonly used for this idea is "retribution" - the making right of the whole thing. Those who use this reasoning need to be able to explain something, though:

What happens to that cosmic order when the person who is executed is innocent of the crime?

My first argument against the death penalty is the imperfection of the judicial system. To illustrate: At the time that Governor George Ryan placed a moratorium on Illinois' use of capital punishment Illinois had executed twelve people since 1977. Illinois had exonerated  thirteen - not legal-technicality-exonerated but DNA-and-physical-evidence-exonerated. Thirteen people put on death row for crimes that they did not commit - for which they were not at the crime scene.

What happens to the cosmic order if people who are sent to death row have only a 50-50 chance of actually belonging there? What happens if the odds are 90-10 or any other number less than 100% that you're guilty? And please don't bother with the idea that Illinois juries, Illinois judges, Illinois prosecutors or defense lawyers are any less competent than those of any other state. It's not just a ghastly possibility that at least one person who's been electrocuted - hanged - gassed - shot - injected - was innocent. It's nearly a certainty.

One thing about capital punishment. It not only ensures that the executed one cannot kill again. It also ensures he can never prove himself innocent. Even if he is.

So, my question for those for whom retribution and deterrence are convincing reasons for capital punishment: how many innocent people being executed is a tolerable number for you? If retribution is a legitimate consideration, then when an innocent person is executed, is not retribution due upon the judges, juries, prosecutors, legislators, governors who set the possibility up? How, exactly, is that retribution to be enforced?

The Catholic pro-life position goes beyond the question of abortion. It presents consideration for both the beginning and the end of life. It raises questions on the death penalty. Capital punishment is acceptable - ONLY if the reason is protection of the larger society, AND only if there is no bloodless way to accomplish this protection. Both of the two most recent Popes have been against executions. The American bishops, as a group, have called for the end of the use of the death penalty in America.

I think it's time we caught up to them.