Pope Francis’ arguments against any use of the death penalty strongly depend on the assertion that it is possible in this day and time to incarcerate so that the prisoner cannot escape.  Such an allegation is offered without proof, or evidence of expertise in that arena. The conclusion would appear to be a prudential judgment resting on a prudential judgment; therefore, it would seem to make sense to examine the foundational judgment in stating: “The Death Penalty is Inadmissable.”

There are three broad considerations: 1) the big picture, at least at a national and state level, 2) the practical experience in New York State in recent times and 3) the very human underpinning to the presumed efficacy of incarceration.

The US and NYS experience

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) for the US in 2013 (last year of compiled data available) listed 2,001 records of “AWOL/Escape” among prisoners serving a greater than one year sentence.  More than 2,500 escaped in 2010; more than 3,100 escaped in 2011; and more than 2,500 escaped in 2012. Of those 2,001 escapes in 2013 there were 22 in NYS (actually the total is an improvement from prior years). Obviously, even a low percentage is not insignificant when the escapees are murderers.

But the life and death aspects of these data mean that mere percentage numbers are not arguments for outlawing capital punishment. There is a tendency today to imagine that we have become so smart and so technologically advanced that we can control anything!

• “In the US, despite an unprecedented level of modern prison construction in the closing decades of the 20th century and the development of increasingly sophisticated security technology, prison escapes are seemingly inexorable,” Elizabeth Bracco and Richard F. Culp wrote in an academic paper published in Corrections Compendium in 2005. “In a correctional setting populated with potential escapees, dependent upon sophisticated and functioning security technology and staffed by rotating shifts of correctional officers of varying levels of skill and experience, the possibility of escapes is omnipresent.”
• The Washington Post offers the conclusion of British criminologist Sir Leon Radzinowicz, who wrote in “Adventures in Criminology” in 1999:  “As a general rule, it can safely be assumed that cemeteries are the only places which effectively ensure the non-recurrence of escapes.… It is therefore unsound to examine prison escapes in absolute terms and it is much more realistic to talk about ‘tolerable escape rates.’” Tolerable, that is, unless you or a beloved family member or friend are the victims.
• While it is reported that proportionately fewer escapees flee federal prisons or walled security, nevertheless it is not “zero.” After a prison escape in Michigan, Keramet Reiter, an assistant professor of criminology at University of California at Irvine, said: “This is really unusual … it’s incredibly rare with a prison that has perimeter security.” Yet in 2015 two convicted murders with life sentences escaped  from a NYS high security prison and terrorized upstate New York for over three weeks.

Escape from the Clinton Correctional Facility in 2015

When convicted murderers David Sweat and Richard Matt escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate New York on June 6, 2015, using power tools, steam pipes and manhole covers, NY Governor Cuomo said: “This is a crisis situation for the state ….These are dangerous men capable of committing grave crimes again.” At the end of three weeks of search and expense of over a million dollars per day, one of the escapees was dead, and the other hospitalized after being shot twice by police; he eventually recovered to be re-imprisoned.  Only a miracle kept others from being killed or injured in the pursuit. The wilderness area in the Adirondacks is populated with camps and cabins, most of which were not yet opened for the season.

Detail on the Escape from a High Security Prison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An “external breach” (tunnel exit) was found on a street about 500 feet outside the prison wall. The escapees had planned to be picked up by prison employee, Joyce Mitchell, who is believed to have been influenced by one or both of the prisoners through sexual relationship. Mitchell did not follow through with the pick-up. A second employee, prison guard Gene Palmer admitted he smuggled tools into the prison and did other favors for Richard Matt in exchange for paintings, believed to include a number of political portraits. County Sheriff David Favro concluded multiple people may have assisted Matt and Sweat.

The search continued for the three weeks through many small villages and remote areas until Matt was killed and Sweat was stopped about a mile and a half from the Canadian border. An autopsy of Matt was released on August 6, which revealed he had a blood alcohol level of 0.18%, more than twice the level of intoxication for drunk driving under New York law.

Governor Cuomo directed Inspector General Catherine Leahy Scott to conduct a thorough investigation to determine all factors potentially involved in the escape of inmates Richard Matt and David Sweat. The Inspector General was to obtain the services of a respected outside expert in corrections and law enforcement on issues such as prison design, operations and security with a view toward identifying how these inmates were able to escape, and recommend any potential reforms and best practices to prevent future incidents.

The Inspector General’s report was released in June 2016 and found “that longstanding, systemic failures in management and oversight by DOCCS enabled two convicted murderers to meticulously orchestrate their escape from a maximum security facility almost in plain sight. The report noted the failures of 20 individual correctional employees, both civilian and uniformed. Excluding Gene Palmer and Joyce Mitchell, no criminal charges were brought against any other prison employee. One was demoted, two suspended pending arbitration, nine returned to work after lesser penalties were applied, and the remainder retired or resigned before being punished. The report was highly critical of a lack of cooperation, and misleading and lying testimony by prison employees.

The Human Condition

It is not really a matter of fault-free security systems, break-through technology, high speed saws, bribing guards or other clever ideas and methods. The reason that escape will always be in the incarceration system is the weakness of the human condition. Whether it is “sexual favors” or financial bribes, or holding prison officials’ family members hostage, or an inmate uprising, there will always be some way to manage the escape because of human foibles, greed, fear or just plain evil.

To prevent legitimate government from using one of the methods given to it by God to provide protection for those under its care is like keeping individuals from protecting themselves and the family in their care. Those who interfere with legitimate methods of protection by denouncing capital punishment should be responsible for the results. In the Sweat / Matt case there could have been many more lives lost over three weeks of pursuit and desperation.

Such realities are the reason that support for (or opposition to) capital punishment has been and should continue to be a matter of prudential judgment. The above comments are offered regarding the following ‘reason’ for the change reported on Zenit 8/2/18 regarding reason #2 for revision to Catechism paragraph 2267:

|

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 5th, 2018 at 11:11 PM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.