Can a Catholic judge give capitalist punishment?

[Matthias]

(hallo, everyone I have been having much problem with my ISDN connection because some construction cut my wires with the big digging machine. But it is now all repaired)

Catholics are not agreeing with capitalist punishment, yes? This is being done in some places (example in the USA), yes? So I ask this - what if a judge is a Catholic and he has a trial with a very bad crime that is OK for capitalist punishment. If the person is going to the court and they say he is guilty, can the Catholic judge give him the sentence of capitalist punishment and be OK with the Catholic church? Or would this be getting him into trouble with the bishop or the priest? But if he is not giving the sentence then he is getting in trouble with his boss (I am not knowing who the boss of a judge is, but it is not mattering here).

What does the Catholic judge do in this?

[DavidFilmer]

Hello, Matthias, glad you got your computer problems sorted out.

You ask a very good question (though I believe you mean "capital punishment" (ie, the death penalty) - capitalist punshiment would mean going after business owners   ).

In the US, a judge can (and should) "recuse" himself from a case if he might have (or might be thought to have) a conflict of interest (or some factor which might call his impartiality into question). For example, if the defendant in the trial was a friend or relative, or if a lawsuit is being brought against a business that the judge owns stock in.

But should a Catholic judge automatically recuse himself from any capital trial? Hmmm.

In many US juridictions, the death penalty is actually imposed by a jury. And it is not unusual for a potential juror to be dismissed (not empaneled on the jury) because of his/her views on capital punishment - in a capital case the potential jurors would be closely quesioned about their views before being selected for a capital jury. So it's not uncommon to hear of potential jurors being dismissed from duty because of their views on capital punishment.

But I've never heard of a judge recusing himself over this issue. I should point out that, in most US jurisdictions, the judge can override a capital jury verdict and impose a lesser punishment (the judge can never impose a more severe punishment than the jury calls for, but may impose a lesser one). So a Catholic judge can't "wash his hands" of the matter (as Pilate tried to do), because he does have the power to prevent the death penalty from being imposed.

The Catholic Church is the largest church in the US - 25% of Americans are Catholic. So it is resonable to assume that somewhere around 25% of judges are Catholic. But I have never heard of a Catholic judge (or any judge) recusing himself from a capital trial because of his personal convistions.

But there is the question: What should a good Catholic judge do? The judge could

• Recuse himself from the case, in which case a different judge would preside and the prisoner would be executed - not good.
• Preside over the trial but prohibit the death penalty from being imposed because of his personal convictions (which goes against his oath of office) - not good.
• Preside over the case and enforce the law and allow the prisoner to die, even though he knows in his heart that the law is deeply flawed, and thus not take a stand for his principals (not good).

I don't know the answer. What if I were that Catholic judge - what would I do? What should I do? I'm gonna have to ask the Community to help me out on this one...

[Melody]

Matthias you did indeed asked a good question & David you answered well, as usual.

David,
Based on what you wrote wrt US Law, I feel that the judge should recuse (excuse?) himself from the case especially if he feels it defenitely will call for a capital punishment verdict.

If he isn't sure, he should go & then judge the trial as best he can - no matter what the repercussions. I do believe that  no one should be given the death penalty and I don't believe any judge is "compelled" to give such a verdict. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, this is only my own personal opinion  

FYI,

In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be handed down only in the "rarest of rare" cases, implying that the judge - there are no jury trials in India - must be compelled by exceptional circumstances to take such a decision.

Read this very interesting account on the state of capital punishment issues in India, given the recent hanging of Dhananjay Chatterjee less than 2 weeks ago (on the 14th).

Blessings on us all,

Melody

[Rev. Eric]

Let me just add a few side notes to clarify the Church's teaching on capital punishment.

It is the duty of civil authority to protect its citizens from unjust aggressors.  For example, if a country is invaded, its government can send out troops to defend it, and these troops may conduct warfare resulting in the death of enemy soldiers.  So long as an army is true to the Just War Principle, it engages in a legitimate use of force.

The question of captial punishment is related to this on a lesser scale.  Once again, the civil authority is required to protect its citizens from unjust aggressors.  Historically, the Church has always recognized a legitimate government's authority to execute criminals who pose a deadly threat to people.  Therefore, the Church does not view capital punishment, in and of itself, as an intrinsic evil.  Note that I am using the word "criminal", so I am referring to people who commit actual crimes against society.  I am not referring to innocent people killed by totalitarian regimes, as the intentional killing of an innocent is always an intrinsic evil.

Nevertheless, because of the sanctity of human life, the Church teaches that the taking of a human life should always be a matter of last resort.  If a society has the resources to properly lock deadly criminals away then incarceration should replace the death penalty.  Once again, the goal is to protect society from unjust aggressors, and if incarceration suffices then criminals should be locked up rather than executed.  This information is covered in #2267 of the Catechism.

Now I would like to address David's questions as to what a Catholic judge should do in light of capital punishment.  I haven't had time to give this much thought so I will not answer at this time.  However, I will suggest that we re-examine the questions in a different way.  Consider the possible options that David listed for a Catholic judge:

Recuse himself from the case, in which case a different judge would preside and the prisoner would be executed - not good.
Preside over the trial but prohibit the death penalty from being imposed because of his personal convictions (which goes against his oath of office) - not good.
Preside over the case and enforce the law and allow the prisoner to die, even though he knows in his heart that the law is deeply flawed, and thus not take a stand for his principals (not good).

Basically, the question at hand is whether or not a Catholic judge has a moral obligation to use his position to prevent people from receiving the death penalty. So I offer this question as a possible new way of discussing the matter.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Matthias]

The judge, he takes an oath, yes? This is a promise that he will do what the law says, and it is not mattering what the judge thinks personal about it, yes?

But the Catholic judge is also making the promise to the Catholic church, yes? To also be doing what the Church is saying.

I am already knowing about what the law is saying to this judge about when these promises are being in conflict. The law is saying he should ignore the Catholic church, and the law is not caring about the promise that the judge has to the Catholic church.

But what is the Catholic church saying to this judge? Does the Cathoilic church tell this judge to ignore the law?

[Seeker]

Matthias,

I think the Church would only approach a judge who upholds laws of the land that were evil (in contradiction to Christian morals).  If a judge were placed in the situation where he had to uphold a law that went against his Catholic faith, then he must remove himself from the case and let another judge handle the matter.  

However, if the judge can uphold the law or interpret it without contradicting his faith, then I think he would be able to make a fair judgment.

For example, abortion is contrary to Church teaching.  If a judge were to be placed in a position where he was forced to judge in favor of a woman obtaining an abortion in order to uphold an evil law, he should remove himself from the case.  However, if he could judge in the case by upholding the unborn child's right to life while still upholding the law of the land then he could and should judge that case.  In the US, many judges can interpret the same laws differently.  Kind of similar to how some Christians interpret the Bible differently.