Fr. Stephen Pawley on Capital Punishment

[Dorothea]

What justifies punishment? What constitutes the proper amount of punishment for a particular sin/crime? How do we make expiation for our sins and is it necessary to do so? You have to be able to address these questions before you can say that executing a murderer is not an appropriate punishment for his crime.
God seemed pretty explicit on this point: the life of a murderer is forfeit for his crime.
Justice is nothing more than treating a person as his actions merit.

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice.[FONT=&quot] Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another's advantage or hurt[/FONT]. (Aquinas)
​

We may not be comfortable with the idea that retribution is the primary objective of punishment but that's probably because we've come to think of it as nothing more than bloody vengeance. If we understood it as justice it would be more palatable.

Just wanted to remind you that you're in the Orthodox community's subforum. But anyhow, as I understand it, an eye for an eye is not a Christian belief, but the belief of the Jews and Muslims (it comes from the OT).

 

[jmc1214]

Just wanted to remind you that you're in the Orthodox community's subforum.

True, and I am not familiar with the details of that faith, so, for instance, I don't know if it matters to you what Aquinas said on the subject. How far back in history must I go to find Church documents that you would accept? Surely Augustine and the Early Fathers are part of the Orthodox tradition.

But anyhow, as I understand it, an eye for an eye is not a Christian belief, but the belief of the Jews and Muslims (it comes from the OT).

Believing that the God of the Old Testament is somehow different from the God of the New Testament is a Marcionite heresy from the 2cd century. If you want to discuss Christian teachings as opposed to Orthodox ones however, your statement is at least mistaken in this regard: what was condemned was revenge, not punishment.

when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; (St. Robert Bellarmine)
​

 

[ArmyMatt]

Just wanted to remind you that you're in the Orthodox community's subforum. But anyhow, as I understand it, an eye for an eye is not a Christian belief, but the belief of the Jews and Muslims (it comes from the OT).

and it was an ancient way of limiting revenge. so I take your eye you don't take my farm. it was actually a form of limitation on retribution.

 

[jckstraw72]

as St. Maximus stood on trial before the civil government he acknowledged that they had the God-given right to execute him.

 

[Dorothea]

True, and I am not familiar with the details of that faith, so, for instance, I don't know if it matters to you what Aquinas said on the subject. How far back in history must I go to find Church documents that you would accept? Surely Augustine and the Early Fathers are part of the Orthodox tradition.

I don't believe the Orthodox Church takes Aquinas' writings to be of any great value or consider him one of the Church Fathers (no, I know he's not considered a Church Father).

Relying heavily on St. Augustine's writings is solely a Roman Catholic tradition, not ours. We rely on the totality of all the CF's in consensus on matters of doctrine and so forth.

Believing that the God of the Old Testament is somehow different from the God of the New Testament is a Marcionite heresy from the 2cd century. If you want to discuss Christian teachings as opposed to Orthodox ones however, your statement is at least mistaken in this regard: what was condemned was revenge, not punishment.

when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; (St. Robert Bellarmine)
​

I don't believe the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. The Word/Logos spoke in the OT. He's always been present with the Father and the Spirit. The difference is that Christ fulfilled the law and He wouldn't have asked us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies if the OT law still was in effect.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Fathers, yes 100%. Augustine, nope.

Surely Augustine and the Early Fathers are part of the Orthodox tradition.

 

[Dorothea]

as St. Maximus stood on trial before the civil government he acknowledged that they had the God-given right to execute him.

Ok.

What the government does with regard to capital punishment doesn't mean we have to agree with it, does it? I guess, for me, I don't see God leading our governments as other people do, especially secular ones that do not share the Christian beliefs of loving our enemies and such.

 

[dudleysharp]

People who are put in jail cannot hurt the public any longer. That's the whole point of separating them from society. This is sufficient, imo.

Dorthea:

Let's look at the facts, as opposed to opinon.

4) a) "Prisons and the Education of Terrorists", Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

"The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel."

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

"Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast."

In 10/2003 , " . . . John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being 'particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.' "

b) "Hell in the heart of paradise"

"The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells."

4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP , http(COLON)//tvnz(DOT)co.nz/travel-news/hell-i...radise-3174543

c) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San'a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim's to duplicate those acts. "Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter", Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET http(COLON)//news.yahoo(DOT)com/s/ap/20091109/...t_hood_muslims

UPDATE: "New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot", www(DOT)foxnews(DOT)com/politics/2011...key-player-11/

UPDATE: al-Awlaki killed in a CIA drone strike - nor more a living threat.

d) " . . . Today's prison inmates are willing to pay up to $10,000 for a smartphone that can allow them to run a drug ring, stalk their prey—and maybe even escape."

" . . . Parchman Mississippi State Penitentiary . . . shocked everyone when it blocked more than 216,000 texts and 600 phone calls in a (SINGLE MONTH) from within the prison walls."

In the first 9 months of 2011, California seized 11,400 cellphones from criminals behind bars.

"Smartphones Are the New Prison Contraband, Daily Beast, 10/16/11
www(DOT)thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/16/smartphones-in-prison-new-contraband-allows-inmates-to-make-money.htm

e) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
www(DOT)theage(DOT)com.au/world/alqae...0924-g4no.html

f) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
www(DOT)globalsecurity(DOT)org/securi...k_in_yemen.htm

g) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
www(DOT)google(DOT)com/hostednews/ap/...OLEwwD9CACTHG0

h) Repeat sex offender,"cripple" serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
http(COLON)//blog.taragana(DOT)com/law/2009/11...ongoing-17934/

i) Officials "embarrassed" by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
www(DOT)policeone(DOT)com/corrections...inmate-escape/

". . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson's attorney." "After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner's booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General's office." "This was 100 percent human error; that's the most frustrating thing about it." "There were multiple failures." Trial jurors and victim's relatives were terrified.

 

[Dorothea]

dudley, I realize the problems with prison systems here in the U.S. and all over the world. The problems with our justice system and all that goes with it (at least to a decent point). Because of all these problems, I'm supposed to be ok with executing people?

 

[jmc1214]

We rely on the totality of all the CF's in consensus on matters of doctrine and so forth.

The Church Fathers were very nearly unanimous in their support of capital punishment.

I don't believe the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. The Word/Logos spoke in the OT. He's always been present with the Father and the Spirit. The difference is that Christ fulfilled the law ...

I wonder how you think fulfilling the law is the same as abolishing it given what Christ said on the subject:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Mat 5:17)
​

... and He wouldn't have asked us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies if the OT law still was in effect.

The command to turn the other cheek applies to the individual; that is a personal responsibility. The responsibility of the State is to punish the criminal; it is the State that has the right and the duty to avenge crime, a right that is denied the individual. Nor does loving our enemies mean they escape their just punishment or you wouldn't find it appropriate to punish them with prison sentences. How can you claim to be turning the other cheek by sentencing someone to life in prison. Are we not both seeking to apply a just punishment?

 

[Dorothea]

The Church Fathers were very nearly unanimous in their support of capital punishment.
I wonder how you think fulfilling the law is the same as abolishing it given what Christ said on the subject:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Mat 5:17)
​

The command to turn the other cheek applies to the individual; that is a personal responsibility. The responsibility of the State is to punish the criminal; it is the State that has the right and the duty to avenge crime, a right that is denied the individual. Nor does loving our enemies mean they escape their just punishment or you wouldn't find it appropriate to punish them with prison sentences. How can you claim to be turning the other cheek by sentencing someone to life in prison. Are we not both seeking to apply a just punishment?

Again, placing a person in jail away from harming people out in the communities, is rendering justice. It's a type of punishment. There have been stories I've heard of because of the time locked in their cells, they came to repentance and God. This can and does happen. Sure, the state is to render justice through the system. That usually means arrest, go through a trial, and then whatever the verdict, the person is imprisoned for a while, for a long while, or for life.

I don't see the problem here. Why are you saying that putting someone in prison for the safety of the public and even for the criminal in many circumstances, or putting them in a treatment facility, is the same as electrocuting them in the electric chair, or shooting them up with poison? I find it inhumane. Just because a person committed a heinous crime does not mean we need to follow suit.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For me, my biggest concern is killing the wrong man. It happens far far more than hard right wingers like to admit. It's a frightening prospect.

 

[rusmeister]

Standing a child in a corner is a punishment. But who would call it humane to stand a child in a corner for life? I think standing an ADULT in a corner for life to be inhumane. Either we face up to the fact that what the state does in punishment for life, either by incarceration or in taking it - even when it succeeds in incarcerating for life, the life is nevertheless taken - is inhumane, and that the state has a right and necessity to do it, or we stop punishing altogether.
I can find no Scriptural backing for participation in civil rule (to the extent that we actually do) that will not also back up capital punishment. And if "thou shalt not kill" applies to that, then so does "turn the other cheek".

I believe that the clergy today that stand against CP do so, not because Holy Tradition calls them to it, but in spite of it; because of a misapplication of commands to the individual as applied to the state and the compassion for individuals that we should, as individuals, properly have. In the Kingdom of Heaven, yes, there will be no capital punishment, no one will kill and everyone will turn the other cheek, because all will acknowledge Christ as Lord.

 

[MariaRegina]

In other countries, monks are taking in criminals, especially those convicted of alcohol and drug addictions. Cyprus and Serbia are two examples where this is being done. Some of those sentenced to the monasteries become monks.

I think there is a convent of Catholic nuns in New York State who are allowed to house girls and women convicted of lesser crimes. Some of these women have stayed on to become nuns themselves.

It is too bad that we cannot do that here in the United States.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You make an outstanding argument, Rus. No doubt. And it's interesting because I myself have often pondered the same exact sentiments about lifetime gigs in prison. I can't imagine how awful that would be!? You hear all these horror stories of multiple rapes, beatings, being sodomized by several guys at a time, hospitalizations, getting "shanked," and the continual state of fear and alertness one must maintain while being incarcerated. It's frightening to ponder....

My biggest concern, though, is what I stated last post---killing an innocent man. I was reading recently where the statistic stated 142 innocent men have been released from death row since 1973. The Death Penalty Information Center claims that there are slightly over 1,000 executed, dead men six feet under who had very compelling cases and were quite possibly innocent. Since the courts do not have post-execution analyses and hearings and they don't take the time to care about it, we'll never know. Imagine how many we've probably killed.....And a lot of them were African-Americans in the South, which leads me to really want a review!

I think if we are to argue that our nation's federal and state values should be in favor of the Christian view of marriage, forbidding homosexuals to marry, then we should expect our government to have Christian values as well when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. Where do we draw the line? Do we allow NSA/CIA to torture potential terror suspects as long as we private individuals don't torture? A do as a say not as I do approach seems odd also?

I suppose, though life sentences are brutal, at least the prisoner who IS innocent has the power of hope...some hope at least that someday he can be exonerated. But for the man going to the gallows, hope is lost. And Christianity is a religion of hope....

Standing a child in a corner is a punishment. But who would call it humane to stand a child in a corner for life? I think standing an ADULT in a corner for life to be inhumane. Either we face up to the fact that what the state does in punishment for life, either by incarceration or in taking it - even when it succeeds in incarcerating for life, the life is nevertheless taken - is inhumane, and that the state has a right and necessity to do it, or we stop punishing altogether.
I can find no Scriptural backing for participation in civil rule (to the extent that we actually do) that will not also back up capital punishment. And if "thou shalt not kill" applies to that, then so does "turn the other cheek".

I believe that the clergy today that stand against CP do so, not because Holy Tradition calls them to it, but in spite of it; because of a misapplication of commands to the individual as applied to the state and the compassion for individuals that we should, as individuals, properly have. In the Kingdom of Heaven, yes, there will be no capital punishment, no one will kill and everyone will turn the other cheek, because all will acknowledge Christ as Lord.

 

[rusmeister]

You make an outstanding argument, Rus. No doubt. And it's interesting because I myself have often pondered the same exact sentiments about lifetime gigs in prison. I can't imagine how awful that would be!? You hear all these horror stories of multiple rapes, beatings, being sodomized by several guys at a time, hospitalizations, getting "shanked," and the continual state of fear and alertness one must maintain while being incarcerated. It's frightening to ponder....

My biggest concern, though, is what I stated last post---killing an innocent man. I was reading recently where the statistic stated 142 innocent men have been released from death row since 1973. The Death Penalty Information Center claims that there are slightly over 1,000 executed, dead men six feet under who had very compelling cases and were quite possibly innocent. Since the courts do not have post-execution analyses and hearings and they don't take the time to care about it, we'll never know. Imagine how many we've probably killed.....And a lot of them were African-Americans in the South, which leads me to really want a review!

I think if we are to argue that our nation's federal and state values should be in favor of the Christian view of marriage, forbidding homosexuals to marry, then we should expect our government to have Christian values as well when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. Where do we draw the line? Do we allow NSA/CIA to torture potential terror suspects as long as we private individuals don't torture? A do as a say not as I do approach seems odd also?

I suppose, though life sentences are brutal, at least the prisoner who IS innocent has the power of hope...some hope at least that someday he can be exonerated. But for the man going to the gallows, hope is lost. And Christianity is a religion of hope....

Thanks, Gurney,
There's much I agree with, of course.

But ANY miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage of justice. If you take 40 years of a man's life unjustly, you cannot give it back. If you whip him with a cat-o'-nine-tails, you cannot "take it back". We may say we are sorry, whether we have unjustly taken the man's life, either by unjust execution or an unjust lifetime of incarceration, but that does not restore the man's life, either way.

And yes, actually, I think your DHS example (which, by the way, if you translate into Russian essentially back translates as "KGB", I kid you not - "Department"="Ministry"= the Soviet "Committee", "Homeland" does equate to the State, and "Security"= "Security") quite apropos: It is precisely that the law and its enforcement are supposed to be the province of the state, not the individual, the individual is NOT supposed to take the law into his own hands. "L'Etat is NOT moi".
But torture is something that the Christian state has never countenanced, even though the death penalty has always been implemented (and when it did - and now does - it was and is decidedly un-Christian). Even in the worst applications of force, such as the forced relocation of Japanese Americans in the war, we refused to torture the Axis prisoners of war, even though we hung them at Nuremburg.

And again, however we die, we must die, and an atheist who has no hope after death in the face of the gallows will have none as a powerful head of state, and the Christian unjustly condemned to death can still hope for God's justice in eternity as he does when he lies on his death-bed. It seems to me that such concerns, that treat death as the ultimate evil, are atheistic rather than Christian in origin.

 

[jmc1214]

Again, placing a person in jail away from harming people out in the communities, is rendering justice.

This is a misunderstanding of what justice is, which has nothing to do with protecting ourselves from future crimes. Justice is about retribution for crimes already committed.

It's a type of punishment.

This is surely true, but the desire to protect ourselves does not justify punishing someone else.

I don't see the problem here. Why are you saying that putting someone in prison for the safety of the public and even for the criminal in many circumstances, or putting them in a treatment facility, is the same as electrocuting them in the electric chair, or shooting them up with poison? I find it inhumane.

The debate here is not about what we personally find appropriate but what the Church teaches and as I pointed out before, the Church Fathers were almost unanimous in supporting capital punishment.

Just because a person committed a heinous crime does not mean we need to follow suit.

Neither your church nor mine has ever taught that capital punishment is a sin let alone that it is a crime.

 

[jmc1214]

My biggest concern, though, is what I stated last post---killing an innocent man. I was reading recently where the statistic stated 142 innocent men have been released from death row since 1973. The Death Penalty Information Center claims that there are slightly over 1,000 executed, dead men six feet under who had very compelling cases and were quite possibly innocent.

Since 1973 there is not a single situation where someone who was executed was shown to be innocent. The suggestion that there may have been as many as 1000 such cases is a gross exaggeration. In fact there are fewer than 10 cases where a reasonable argument for innocence can even be suggested. On the other hand, there are innumerable instances where killers who were not executed went on to kill again. If you make the argument strictly about which approach will lead to more innocent deaths then the conclusion that we should have more executions is inescapable.

 

[tekiahteruah]

[oops, accidentally posted twice!]

 

[tekiahteruah]

It might be worth mentioning that historically, Orthodox theology/culture has not always supported the death penalty. For instance, the Byzantine Empire largely abolished the death penalty on theological grounds:

"Indeed, they did not kill. And the big difference is evident in the initial period. When the Roman Empire turned Christian, one of the most essential changes was to stop gladiatorial games, not throw people to lions anymore, and all those things. The empire became much more humanitarian. And they always avoided as much as possible the death penalty. At times, some emperors resorted to it, but the majority used as a last resort punishment, a method that today seems hideous to us: some sort of mutilation."

-- from Byzantium and Us

Mutilation was the alternative to capital punishment because large-scale incarceration had not yet been developed. [For whatever faults it might have, Foucault's Discipline and Punish is a very illuminating text on the development of prisons as a form of punishment (which we sometimes assume have always existed, or must exist.)] The reason capital punishment is a given in the Hebrew Scriptures, in my understanding, is that there was no obvious alternative in providing order and safety in a society that was resource-limited and threatened by violence. Later developments by both Christians and Jews in interpreting these texts often used creative thought to apply the ethics of forgiveness and lovingkindness to these calls for justice, which is why both Talmudic Jewish tradition and (as I said above) the Roman Empire under Christianity largely avoided the death penalty.

I personally think that what we can take from the best of Orthodox tradition, particularly the Byzantine model, is to not expect theology/morality to be separate from culture and ethics, which in this case would mean that ethics about reconciliation, healing, and forgiveness should be practical not only interpersonally, but structurally, socially, and politically. This is one of the reasons I feel strongly about both prison abolition (The Real Cost of Prisons Project) and restorative justice movements (RJ Online —), which are involved in developing alternatives to our current penal system.

Did anyone else see this article in the New York Times about a month ago? It's a piece about a victim's family that chose the path of restorative justice in the prosecution of their daughter's murder (mainly because they are devout Catholics), and it's (in my opinion) written in a very balanced, thoughtful, sensitive way: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/m...in-criminal-justice.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

I think that if we believe that God is a God of forgiveness, love, and healing, that we have a responsibility, much like our Byzantine forerunners, to think seriously and thoughtfully about what that might mean if we allow that ethic to permeate our justice system.