Capital punishment...again

[Ender]

It is personal but well, that is where I am at

The church teaches that when (and only when) it is necessary, one may kill in self defense. I find no fault in those who would not kill even in those circumstances. That is a personal choice we are all free to make. My concern, and the reason I engage in these debates, is to ensure that what the church actually teaches about capita punishment is understood as well.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

You cannot claim that the death penalty is intrinsically evil and that there are still cases where its use is justifiable. Something that is intrinsically evil is never justifiable. A need for defense does not justify using immoral means to attain it.

It’s not proper or even moral to ignore prudence in application of capital punishment.

In general, the death penalty should be eradicated, but to remove it entirely is to disrespect the dignity of human life of the innocent. But the society should have a freewill to decide when it’s best warranted. For instance, I think it’s an evil to allow Steven Hayes to live. That said, there are prudent and righteous applications of its use. A person should be able to seek forgiveness before they’re executed as the dignity of the human person is essential. Also, we should respect life from conception to natural death, thus abortion and euthanasia are wrongs and capital punishment could be a wrong.

That said, there are times when imprisoned people still commit murder where they either commit murder directly within the walls of a prison or indirectly outside the prison, such as using code that other gang members respect. I think death row should be available for anyone whom convicted of murder somehow figures out a way to murder another outside the prison walls.

 

[Ender]

It’s not proper or even moral to ignore prudence in application of capital punishment.

This is true of all punishment.

…if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice. (Aquinas)

In general, the death penalty should be eradicated, but to remove it entirely is to disrespect the dignity of human life of the innocent.

The argument to eradicate it is prudential. The argument to retain it is moral.

… the society should have a freewill to decide when it’s best warranted.

2309 The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

A person should be able to seek forgiveness before they’re executed as the dignity of the human person is essential.

Nothing about capital punishment precludes this.

…we should respect life from conception to natural death, thus abortion and euthanasia are wrongs and capital punishment could be a wrong.

Abortion and euthanasia are always wrong without exception. Capital punishment is wrong only when it is used unjustly, which is generally a prudential judgment. The former are sins, the latter is a mistake.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

Abortion and euthanasia are always wrong without exception. Capital punishment is wrong only when it is used unjustly, which is generally a prudential judgment. The former are sins, the latter is a mistake.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

A person should be able to seek forgiveness before they’re executed as the dignity of the human person is essential.

I concur

 

[Emeraldlady]

The argument to eradicate it is prudential. The argument to retain it is moral.

You made that up. You disagree with the Church.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

You made that up. You disagree with the Church.

I think it’s fine to oppose the death penalty and oppose abortion. I don’t think it’s wise or moral for someone to believe that a supporter of the death penalty is either a Neanderthal or barbaric.

There are places for the death penalty but it should be limited to the absolute most severe crimes, treason, or where a convicted murderer cannot be contained. In my opinion, a person who commits robbery and someone is killed during the robbery should not be adequate for a death sentence but should involve life without the possibility of parole.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

You made that up. You disagree with the Church.

I think it’s fine to oppose the death penalty and oppose abortion. I don’t think it’s wise or moral for someone to believe that a supporter of the death penalty is either a Neanderthal or barbaric.

There are places for the death penalty but it should be limited to the absolute most severe crimes, treason, or where a convicted murderer cannot be contained. In my opinion, a person who commits robbery and someone is killed during the robbery should not be adequate for a death sentence but should involve life without the possibility of parole.

I believe there are many people who support the death penalty with the reasoning that it would make for a safer society. That is especially the case in the US which still uses it in many States and haven’t experienced death penalty free justice. I don’t engage in those arguments because I think they are part and parcel of the local justice process and I can’t really speak to local US situations.

However, I’m totally with the Church which has found it necessary to counter a false argument among some US Catholic quarters, that abolition of the death penalty is against the teaching of the Church.

Do you like Ender believe that abolition of the death penalty is against the teaching of the Church?

 

[prayerrider]

Amazing how many Catholics are okay with legal abortion–51% according to the Pew Report.
53% of Catholics supported the death penalty, as of the same 2018 report.
So 51% of Catholics support the death penalty for human beings who have committed the crime of being conceived.
I wonder what percentage of Catholic abortion supporters oppose the death penalty?

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

The problem is that the death penalty is largely unnecessary & seen as being inhumane. The church basically has to choose between ‘changing’ its teachings or defending something that inhumane or unnecessary. Should the church defend stonings in the Middle East?

 

[Isearch]

And it seems the Roman Catholic Church did change its teachings on this point.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And it seems the Roman Catholic Church did change its teachings on this point.

The unchangeable truth is that the Church recognises that the death penalty was permitted in defense of human dignity, if the common good (which is the legitimate end of human justice) warrants it. That was the case in the past but it’s no longer the case and the Church by her authority is duty bound to reject false claims that it can never be abolished for any reason.