Am I a dissenter if I reject Catholic teaching on the Death Penalty?

[Bartolome_Casas]

As I understand it, the current, modern, recently developed Catholic teaching on the death penalty should be for rare, extraordinary criminals only, like maybe Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, and that it should not be applied to run-of-the-mill premeditated murderers.

As I understand it, the law in U.S. states that have the death penalty that it can be applied in any case of premeditated murder, and even in some situations of “felony murder” (no specific intent to murder required).

 

[Nate13]

As I understand it, the current, modern, recently developed Catholic teaching on the death penalty should be for rare, extraordinary criminals only, like maybe Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, and that it should not be applied to run-of-the-mill premeditated murderers.

As I understand it, the law in U.S. states that have the death penalty that it can be applied in any case of premeditated murder, and even in some situations of “felony murder” (no specific intent to murder required).

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

In summary the key is whether there is a reasonable alternative method by which justice can be obtained and the prevention of further crimes from the person in question is assured.

 

[RCIA4]

The pope has recently condemned the death penalty and multiple Catholics including pro life organizations and Bishops have condemned it…

Personally I am opposed to both capital punishment and prisons…

 

[Luvtosew]

The pope has recently condemned the death penalty and multiple Catholics including pro life organizations and Bishops have condemned it…

Personally I am opposed to both capital punishment and prisons…

Prisons? what to you want to do with murderers, pedifiles, rapist, etc.
can I ask??

 

[Aelred_Minor]

We are not in a position to simply reject the guidance of the Church on this matter. On the other hand there some degree of leeway on the prudential matter of whether there is a sufficient reason to use the death penalty in a particular case.

 

[RCIA4]

Prisons? what to you want to do with murderers, pedifiles, rapist, etc.
can I ask??

Okay prisons only ruin peoples lives… They are miserable places that violate human rights and create more crime… They seldom rehabilitate prisoners back into society… Once you end up in prison and you get out your more likely to end up back inside…

So I propose we abolish prisons (They’ve done this sort of in the Netherlands)

And replace them with a series of locked clinics and hospitals… These establishments would be secure locations that are very comfortable and aim to rehabilitate criminals back into society…

I pray to Saint Dismas for the day when prisons will be abolished and replaced by a humane and more comfortable alternatives such as a hospital…

Criticize me if you must…

Here is an article on Dutch TBS clinics justletmeknow.info/2011/06/tbs-typical-dutch-imprisonment-treatment-after-jail-sentence/

 

[Nate13]

Okay prisons only ruin peoples lives… They are miserable places that violate human rights and create more crime… They seldom rehabilitate prisoners back into society… Once you end up in prison and you get out your more likely to end up back inside…

So I propose we abolish prisons (They’ve done this sort of in the Netherlands)

And replace them with a series of locked clinics and hospitals… These establishments would be secure locations that are very comfortable and aim to rehabilitate criminals back into society…

I pray to Saint Dismas for the day when prisons will be abolished and replaced by a humane and more comfortable alternatives such as a hospital…

Criticize me if you must…

I will just merely reiterate what was posted above from the Catechism:

266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. **Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.**67

1. Primary aim of punishment is to redress (remedy or set right an undesirable or unfair situation).
2. Also servers to defend public order and protect public safety.
3. And third it serves as a medicinal purpose as far as possible after meeting the above criteria.

You seem to be over inflated about achieving the third purpose which comes after the first two in importance.

 

[Luvtosew]

I see, personally I think some most of them are comfortable enough. Free room and board, education, They have different levels of prisons and minimal security ones are not so bad. Oh did I mention free medical and dental care, more than our seniors get.

Its very nice of you to feel that way, but I disagree, I feel bad for the victims.

 

[RCIA4]

No one is saying punishment goes away… Instead of prisons it will be Psychiatric hospitals

Crime is a public health problem… Punishment and rehabilitation are carried out by forensic psychiatrists… Not inhumane prison guards

 

[Leegal]

As I understand it, the current, modern, recently developed Catholic teaching on the death penalty should be for rare, extraordinary criminals only, like maybe Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, and that it should not be applied to run-of-the-mill premeditated murderers.

As I understand it, the law in U.S. states that have the death penalty that it can be applied in any case of premeditated murder, and even in some situations of “felony murder” (no specific intent to murder required).

No you are not a dissenter. The Church’s teaching has an exception on the death penalty.
It is “near total opposition.” The exception being when it would not be otherwise possible to defend society, which is not really clear.

And, yes, some states will apply the death penalty to felony murder in the U.S.

Little by little we are whittling away at the death penalty. In 2005 the USSC ruled that the DP could not apply to juveniles (I remember in the 1990s that at some point, I think, Arizona, wanted to lower the DP eligible age to 10).

In 2002, the USSC eliminated the DP for the mentally retarded in a case that covered a man who had an IQ of 59, never lived on his own and had never held a job. Science can take an IQ and assign an age to it; an IQ of 59 is the equivalent of the mental abilities of an 8 or 9 year old boy. Would anyone execute a 9 year old?

I am not comfortable with this as it does not go far enough since the medical definition of retarded and the legal definition of retarded are separated by about 20 IQ points.

I oppose the death penalty in all cases. So, I would be a dissenter.

 

[Nate13]

I oppose the death penalty in all cases. So, I would be a dissenter.

Nope just an optimist.

 

[A_G]

In extreme cases, the Catholic Church allows for the support of the death penalty.

St. Thomas Aquinas was also a supporter of the death penalty. We are not to use the death penalty as a form of revenge on the sinner, however, it can be used to protect society. If there is no other way to protect society, the death penalty is allowed for extreme cases according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so it is ok for us to support it. Capital Punishment can be used to make people think twice before causing horrible crimes also. It is good to have it available, although I feel it should be rarely used. I think it should be used in extreme cases only.

 

[Leegal]

In extreme cases, the Catholic Church allows for the support of the death penalty.

St. Thomas Aquinas was also a supporter of the death penalty. We are not to use the death penalty as a form of revenge on the sinner, however, it can be used to protect society. If there is no other way to protect society, the death penalty is allowed for extreme cases according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so it is ok for us to support it.** Capital Punishment can be used to make people think twice before causing horrible crimes also. It is good to have it available,** although I feel it should be rarely used. I think it should be used in extreme cases only.

Respectfully disagree. Most murders are crimes of passion or in felony murder where the intent was never to commit murder at all.

It’s been proven that the DP has not acted as a deterrent. In fact, NY has not had a viable DP since 1965. We made an attempt in 2005 but that was struck down as unconstitutional and only 5 people were sentenced to death and never executed in that short time the supposed DP was in effect.

However, in 1990, the murder rate in NYC was 2245 murders. – just NYC. This year the number is down to just around 500.

States Without the Death Penalty Have Consistently Lower Murder Rates

 

[A_G]

I feel sad when someone dies, however I feel it should be available for those extreme cases. It should rarely be used, if ever.

Why would one not give Adolf Hitler the death penalty? Or the sick guy that murdered his whole family, wife and children? Or Osama Bin Laden? Or Timothy McVeigh? Or the big drug lords who bring drugs into the streets and give to your children?? …

There were a few terror plots spoiled in NYC not too long ago. A terrorist (domestic, might I add) group was going to blow up the NYC subway system and thank God they were caught in time… imagine coming home from work going to your family and then all of a sudden you’re gone because of some evil people?? and who knows how many more would have been killed besides you at that moment?? Since they caught them in time I would give them life in prison, however if they killed thousands, then they should get death.

What about when some innocent person gets killed due to a gang initiation? They do have that. This world isn’t all sunshine and daisies…

All the people I mentioned above deserve the death penalty. Which one of them would you let live free while our tax dollars feeds, clothes, and entertains them for the rest of their lives? We are to respect our laws, God gave our laws to us (Romans 13:1-2) , (1Peter 2:13-17). If our laws go against God, then that is another story because we are not to follow those laws, we are to challenge them if need be** (Acts 5:41)**. Again, the Church is against death and so am I, but the death penalty is allowed under certain circumstances. The Catechism allows it. It should rarely be used, if ever. Having it available is fine.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I will just merely reiterate what was posted above from the Catechism:

1. Primary aim of punishment is to redress (remedy or set right an undesirable or unfair situation).

1. Also servers to defend public order and protect public safety.
2. And third it serves as a medicinal purpose as far as possible after meeting the above criteria.

You seem to be over inflated about achieving the third purpose which comes after the first two in importance.

How this truth applies to the Church’s current guidance concerning capital punishment, which so far seems only to take second and third points into consideration, is the big unanswered question in Church teaching on this subject, or at least I’ve never found an answer. As I’ve said before on these forums, I think the Church’s teaching on this subject is still in the process of development, and Catholics in future centuries may have a much more mature understanding of it. Meanwhile of course we must take what guidance we do have from the bishops.

 

[Ian_Ward]

No, you are human.

Jesus didn’t condem anyone to capital punishment so neither should would.

Jesus is God we are human, we don’t listen to God, so we are stuck trying to enforce justice via the death penalty it is a evil that we can’t live with out even though we are supposed to.

God is the judge if you were busy serving God you have no time to put anyone to death in-fact, you might be the one that is being put to death for representing God.

Its part of our modern life, its an outdated method of justice i don’t like it, i hate it, but what am i one person going to do to change it? nothing/tell others not to support it/tell them why its wrong/ tell them a better alternative/ and pray to God that i am never put in that situation to have to choose whether some lives or dies i would choose that they live, but again who’s to say what you would do in the heat of the moment?

Death Penalty bad
Death penalty hard to get rid of
Death penalty here to stay

 

[Ender]

1. Primary aim of punishment is to redress (remedy or set right an undesirable or unfair situation).

Sin (a criminal act) disturbs the natural order which cannot be set right - redressed - until the sinner has received an adequate punishment. This is the obligation of justice.

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)

The Church teaches that punishment has four valid objectives.

*The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

It is retribution,not defense, that is primary.

Ender

 

[Nate13]

Sin (a criminal act) disturbs the natural order which cannot be set right - redressed - until the sinner has received an adequate punishment. This is the obligation of justice.

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)

The Church teaches that punishment has four valid objectives.

*The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

It is retribution,not defense, that is primary.

Ender

Haha I can’t tell if your disagreeing with me or saying I’m partway right. In any event if you are disagreeing with me its not actually me your disagreeing with its the Catechism. It very plainly said the primary motive of punishment is to set right an unjust situation. This includes retribution though from my understanding.

 

[Ender]

Haha I can’t tell if your disagreeing with me or saying I’m partway right. In any event if you are disagreeing with me its not actually me your disagreeing with its the Catechism. It very plainly said the primary motive of punishment is to set right an unjust situation. This includes retribution though from my understanding.

Unfortunately there is nothing whatever plainly said in that section of the catechism. What 2266 says is: *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *What “redressing the disorder” means has been left undefined, although the USCCB pretty clearly explained it in a 1980 document:

*The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.
*
It is the “order of justice” which must be restored … and the restoration of that order of justice is retribution. Redress doesn’t include retribution, it is retribution.

Ender

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Okay prisons only ruin peoples lives… They are miserable places that violate human rights and create more crime… They seldom rehabilitate prisoners back into society… Once you end up in prison and you get out your more likely to end up back inside…

So I propose we abolish prisons (They’ve done this sort of in the Netherlands)

And replace them with a series of locked clinics and hospitals… These establishments would be secure locations that are very comfortable and aim to rehabilitate criminals back into society…

I pray to Saint Dismas for the day when prisons will be abolished and replaced by a humane and more comfortable alternatives such as a hospital…
Criticize me if you must…
Here is an article on Dutch TBS clinics justletmeknow.info/2011/06/tbs-typical-dutch-imprisonment-treatment-after-jail-sentence/

Yes, the Netherlands is a hot bed of social experimentation. Until recently they permitted open prostitution and the open purchase and use of marijuana and hashish, which made Amsterdam among other cities a magnet for European druggies. The situation became so bad they had to bring back the old drug restrictions. I predict the same as soon as they find their quality of life adversely affected.