The Death Penalty Saves Lives – the Pope Is Wrong to Call for a Ban
23rd February 2016
An odd piece to see in lefty Voice of the Crust The Guardian.
I have never defended the use or availability of capital punishment on the grounds of retribution and would echo his holiness’s own phraseology in saying that no matter how serious the crime, it is wrong if its purpose is merely an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Using it as a deterrent is, however, a very different matter for it saves innocent lives.
This position ignores the effect on others of ‘retribution’. If we call it by its street name, ‘payback’, it acknowledges that the taking of a life has created a social imbalance that is only rectified by the loss of the murderer’s life. People on the street understand this, even though they often cannot articulate it.
Pope Francis claims that the death penalty is “an offence against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the person” but what about the life and dignity of a victim who would not be a victim if the death penalty were in force?
That’s not what the Pope was talking about, and this author really needs some instruction on what Christianity is all about, not to mention what the Pope’s role is in the Roman Church. (Such ignorance is not surprising in a writer for the Guardian, whose exposure to Christianity is likely restricted to seeing things on TV.)
As a Christian, the Pope is committed to the view that any person, no matter how evil or how criminal, can be saved if brought to repentance. Killing a person, even a murderer, puts that repentance out of reach, and takes from them forever that opportunity for salvation. That is the Pope’s concern, and that is his only concern.
The state’s duty in these circumstances is an extension of the individual’s right to self-defence. If we believe our lives or those of others are at genuine risk then we can use whatever force is necessary to mount a credible defence including, in extremis, killing.
Irrelevant. Under no reading of the law are individuals, pursuing their ‘right to self-defence’, entitled to kill someone merely to avoid the possibility of that other person is, or might be, a murderer.
The government’s duty in these circumstances is part and parcel of its essential function of ensuring that its citizens can associate with each other in mutually beneficial ways without being constantly afraid of arbitrary, even whimsical, violence on the part of those with whom they come in contact. Self-defense doesn’t have anything to do with it (unless we’re talking about invasion by foreigners). This is reflected in the libertarian mantra, ‘Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.’ How the government does this is, of course, subject to discussion.
Therefore the crux of the argument is: is it really a deterrent? In the five years immediately following the abolition of the death penalty in Britain the government still collected statistics based on the distinction between capital and non-capital murder precisely in order to assess the effect of abolition and the effect was startling. As Duncan Sandys, a senior Conservative MP, told parliament in December 1969, the capital murder rate had risen almost 125%. It is worth pausing just to absorb that. There was also a substantial rise in the number of times firearms were taken on robberies.
But of course the people who are against capital punishment have all sorts of studies of their own that show that capital punishment is not a deterrent. This ‘battle of the studies’ has been going on ever since sociology reared its ugly head. In any event, that’s not the Pope’s concern, nor is it in any way related to why he made his statement.
In the old days, ‘journalists’ were expected to be able to listen and understand what people are saying, and why, and to ask if they were confused. Today, it is merely sufficient to be confused.