Catholic organisations have called a new Florida law that ends the unanimous jury requirement in death penalty sentencing “stunning” and a “thinly veiled attack on human life”, while the state’s Catholic governor and potential 2024 presidential contender Ron DeSantis argues the law allows proper justice to be served.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that allows capital punishment with a jury recommendation of at least 8-4 in favour of the death sentence, replacing the state’s previous unanimous requirement of 12-0 for such cases.
In response, Krisanne Vaillancourt Murphy, executive director of the anti-capital punishment organization Catholic Mobilizing Network, called the move deeply disturbing, saying in a statement: “in no uncertain terms, DeSantis has signed into law a thinly veiled attack on human life.”
The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement that it’s “stunning” that DeSantis and the Florida legislature would reverse the “common-sense” law from just six years ago that required a unanimous agreement from a jury to sentence someone to death. The new bill received bipartisan support from the Florida legislature.
DeSantis, a Republican, has advocated for the legislation ever since a divided jury voted 9-3 last October in the case of Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz, sparing him from the death penalty. Cruz killed 17 teenagers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018. He eventually pleaded guilty to 17 murder charges and 17 attempted murder charges.
The verdict angered the victims’ families, as Cruz instead received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. DeSantis signed the new law in a private ceremony with the families of the Parkland victims.
Prior to 2018, the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognised “the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” However, that has since been revised by Pope Francis to “the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” I still to this day, do not really understand what “inadmissible” means. This was a controversial change at the time and should remain so.
Catholic teaching tells us that it is always and everywhere wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life, but clearly if someone has been tried for a very serious crime such as murder in extreme circumstances we are no longer dealing with an innocent human life. Some people also say that the commandment “thou shalt not kill” alone prohibits the death penalty. This is not correct as it would rule out acting in self-defence or fighting in a just war. The commandment in its original Hebrew says “thou shalt not murder”. The death penalty, if imposed in a just manner, does not constitute murder.
I believe there are certainly crimes committed that, morally speaking, reach the threshold where the death penalty can be justly imposed. The deliberate terrorising and murdering of 17 teenagers in the sanctuary of their own school obviously passes that threshold. I believe it is no longer a case then of imposing the death penalty.
Indeed, in America there are many such cases where in principle the death penalty is justified. A triple murder which was covered in a documentary on Netflix, “The Family Next Door”, to me was particularly chilling.
In the early hours of August 13, 2018, Christopher Watts murdered his pregnant wife Shanann by strangulation and his daughters Bella, 4, and Celeste, 3, by smothering them. He buried Shanann in a shallow grave near an oil-storage facility and dumped his children’s bodies into crude oil tanks. (Watts in fact avoided the death penalty as part of a plea bargain, but it clearly passes the threshold.)
The details are chilling. During his confession Christopher Watts told police that after murdering his wife it took him 45 minutes to drive to a remote oil field with Shanann’s body in the back of the truck while his daughters, who were still alive at the time, sat clinging onto each other in the backseat. “During the ride, the girls were dozing on and off, held each other, and laid in each other’s laps,” Watts said.
Before burying his wife’s body in a shallow grave, Watts suffocated his youngest daughter Celeste in the backseat. After dumping her tiny body, he returned to suffocate Bella who asked in a low voice: “Is the same thing gonna happen to me as Cece?'” before uttering her last words, “Daddy no!”
In my view, Christopher Watts deserved the death penalty as a matter of justice. I also happen to believe that popes down the years should have spent more time arguing for the protection of innocent life than worrying about whether child killers should be spared the death penalty. Christopher Watts did not have to murder his two helpless, innocent, tiny daughters. He could have turned the car around in that 45 minute drive. But he didn’t. He went on and smothered those girls. In doing so he has sacrificed his right to life, no one else did that for him.
De Santis is well within his rights to change the requirements for a sentence of death. What procedural requirements should be satisfied are rightly subject to hot debate, but are separate from the moral question of whether the death penalty can ever be justified.
Personally, I think the threshold of all 12 jurors agreeing to the penalty is set too high, as it means a single person can veto it. However, I think DeSantis is wrong to set the threshold at 8-4 in favour. Given the gravity of the penalty, something that can never be reversed, I would ask for a 10-2 requirement. It is also the case that there are significant and serious racial biases in American society and the criminal justice system that should mitigate against the imposition of such a penalty.
Finally, I agree with Murphy when she says, “The death penalty should not be used to score political points. Human beings should not be used as political pawns — including human beings on death row.”
In some cases, the death penalty is morally justified. However, how it works in practise must be carefully considered.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.