Capital Punishment in politics

[Ender]

It is not impossible to satisfy the intent of both sections. You just have to be willing to realize that though the teachings are constant, the conditions under which they have to be applied are liable to change.

Conditions change with the times but morality does not. If execution was the just punishment for murder in the past then it remains the just punishment for all time. Again, though, you focus on the wrong objective of punishment. It may well be true (although I don’t accept this) that capital punishment is unnecessary to prevent future murders but that says nothing whatever about whether imprisonment is an adequate punishment for the murder already committed. 2260 calls for the execution of murderers to satisfy the demand of justice; 2267 calls for the imprisonment of murderers because their execution is (assumed) unnecessary to prevent more killing. You cannot satisfy both passages.

The citation of Gn. 9:5-6 cannot be suggesting that the Noahite law in favor of capital punishment is binding. If that were true, then the Lord could not have asked “Forgive them, they know not what they do”, without asking for a violation of the demands of the law, could he?

Yes, absolutely he could. The command to forgive is given to the individual while the command given to the State is to execute punishment. Beyond that, forgiveness does not mean that sins are not to be punished. Forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive.

The law must not demand that the people responsible for the murder of an innocent man be killed, or else the Lord could not have said that. St. Stephen said the same thing while he was being stoned, so it was not just the redemptive death of Jesus that may rightly ask for mercy on the offenders, then.

Show me what the Church has said that supports your position, don’t give me your personal interpretation of scripture. Mercy is appropriate in some cases but not in all and was never meant to be applied universally.

Also, keep in mind that the ability of the state to successfully and safely incarcerate murderers is not the same now as it was 1600 years ago.

First, I disagree, but, more importantly, it doesn’t matter. As I keep saying, the defense of society is only a secondary objective of punishment. Let’s focus on what is necessary to satisfy the primary objective.

The teaching does not change, but the conditions can and do change.

The conditions for satisfying the primary objective have not changed nor can they change since they are based on the nature of the crime, and the nature of murder is constant.

Ender

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Hmm.
Not all “crimes” are sins against God (( for example, blocking the entrance
to an abortion clinic has been declared a “crime.” You’d have a hard time
proving it to be a sin against God )).
But all sins against God are CRIMES against God, even
if they are not crimes against the State.
So, all of us who have ever sinned have committed crimes against God.
Do YOU want to suffer retribution in this life for your repented sins?
Examine your life’s history. Have you ever committed any acts which happened
to be illegal? Most Christians have, statistically speaking. So, in order to accept
“Society’s” retribution, should those forgiven Christians go to the civil authority
and confess their past misdeeds? So that they may receive their retribution?
Even if that would mean that innocent people could be destroyed in the process?
This is a difficult issue. Have you ever committed adultery? Did you know that in most locations, adultery is still a “crime” on the law-books? True, it is usually never prosecuted, but it is STILL on the books. Would YOU, if you have ever committed adultery, be willing to go down to your courthouse, confess to the adultery, and insist that a prosecutor file punitive charges against you and put you in jail, in order to fulfill
the retribution that God allegedly requires the State to take against you??
Now, murder is another matter entirely. I am amazed when I watch documentaries on television, how murderers seem utterly remorseless about their heinous acts of violence. In such cases, I really believe that the death penalty could be necessary. If such violent men are put into prisons with young people or nonviolent offenders, it is said that they viciously prey upon these people. Unbelievable.
This is all very difficult.
Still, it must be acknowledged that the Catholic Church has always, in certain cases,
upheld the right of the Authorities to inflict the death penalty, and not merely to
prevent future crimes. And I don’t agree at all that Forgiveness and No Punishment are unrelated to each other. Even on Divine Mercy Sunday, those who meet the conditions for the indulgence are promised COMPLETE forgiveness of their SINS AND ALL PUNISHMENT due for the sins. COMPLETE means COMPLETE. PERIOD.
The Woman Caught in Adultery, was breaking the LAW OF THE LAND in Jesus’s day.
Her “sin” was also, legally, a “crime.” TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the religious leaders who hauled her in front of Jesus, demanding that she be stoned to death, were not at all acting against the Law. Jesus KNEW that she had broken the Law, and probably repeatedly, and that her Lawbreaking was a death-penalty offense. Yet he basically FORBADE them to carry out the sentence against her, by telling them, LET HE AMONG YOU WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE AT HER.
Yes, it is true, as Saint Paul taught, that the Magistrate is God’s instrument for punishing offenders. But all New Testament teaching must be taken together. Paul’s teaching does not mean that God gives the State CARTE BLANCHE to do whatever it darned well pleases.

 

[Ender]

Do YOU want to suffer retribution in this life for your repented sins? … And I don’t agree at all that Forgiveness and No Punishment are unrelated to each other.

Your comments are not clear so let me cite what has been said on this subject by those in a position to know.

*3. At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7).
…
*In this context temporal punishment expresses the condition of suffering of those who, although reconciled with God, are still marked by those “remains” of sin which do not leave them totally open to grace. Precisely for the sake of complete healing, the sinner is called to undertake a journey of conversion towards the fullness of love.
(JPII, General Audience, 1999)

Paul’s teaching does not mean that God gives the State CARTE BLANCHE to do whatever it darned well pleases.

No one is making that argument. You identified the point yourself: *“it must be acknowledged that the Catholic Church has always, in certain cases, upheld the right of the Authorities to inflict the death penalty, and not merely to prevent future crime.”

*Ender

 

[Jaypeeto4]

In this context temporal punishment expresses the condition of suffering of those who, although reconciled with God, are still marked by those “remains” of sin which do not leave them totally open to grace. Precisely for the sake of complete healing, the sinner is called to undertake a journey of conversion towards the fullness of love.
(JPII, General Audience, 1999)

I agree with this, of course. But there are other ways of punishing than
placing people in violence-filled, racism-filled, hate-filled, rape-filled, blasphemy-filled
places of incarceration, where they will be further corrupted.
Again, adultery is a death penalty offense in the eyes of God. That has not changed, even if Christians are not under the Mosaic law. Moreover, in many locations, adultery is still on the state’s law-books. If a Christian woman commits adultery, then with this concept of retribution, does the state have the obligation to arrest her, prosecute her, and throw her into prison where, instead of the “journey of conversion” spoken above by the late pope, she will be subjected to a violent and extremely-morally corrupt environment??
Even after she repented and went to confession???
The state has the obligation to keep order. Violent offenders are a danger to innocent people, to nonviolent people. They have to be locked up for sure. Preferably in solitary, where they cannot prey on others unless and until they repent of their violence.
But strictly speaking, does God strictly require the state to kill them?
I don’t think so. Yes, this was required under the Mosaic law, the principles of which are still valid. But even under the Mosaic law, this penalty was not universally applied. King Manasseh the mass-murderer and child-killer is a prime example of this.
I’m NOT saying that the death penalty is inherently sinful, for it is not.
I’m questioning whether the state is morally obligated by God
to always, always inflict it, in order to fulfill “retribution.”
If a person who has murdered, repents, how does killing that person
really un-do the damage done? All it does is satisfy (an understandable) blood-lust
in such a situation.

 

[valentino]

I don’t think so.There are certain people (say some serial murderers)who are actually beyond the state of changing.At least in the current world in which we live.What Im saying is that some super saint may be able to get one to change his or her behavior but that isn’t practical reasoning.There is no purpose in postponing one’s life in prison to the detriment of the whole society.As sad as this may sound until everyone because sinless there will always be seriel killers.

 

[Ender]

Again, adultery is a death penalty offense in the eyes of God. That has not changed, even if Christians are not under the Mosaic la w.

This is not relevant to the issue. Whether or not adulterers should be executed says nothing about whether murderers should be; it’s more useful to stay on the subject.

I’m NOT saying that the death penalty is inherently sinful, for it is not. I’m questioning whether the state is morally obligated by God to always, always inflict it, in order to fulfill “retribution.”

The issue is not whether there are ever exceptions to the command that murderers be executed for their crimes - as clearly there are - the real question is whether that should the standard punishment as opposed to the exceptional one.

If a person who has murdered, repents, how does killing that person really un-do the damage done? All it does is satisfy (an understandable) blood-lust in such a situation.

No punishment undoes a murder but this is hardly an argument that murderers should not be punished. Nor does repentance eliminate the need for punishment; justice still demands retribution - and it is inappropriate to conflate a desire for justice with blood-lust.

Ender

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I’m sorry, but people who relish seeing the death penalty applied,
are in fact giving in to blood-lust. When you hear people say things like,
FRY THE BASTARD!!!, that is not altruistic desire for Justice, but pure,
self-righteous bloodlust. Period.

I believe that Ted Bundy and Gary Gillmore deserved the death penalty,
and that it was Just in their cases, but
it still made me heart-sick when it was inflicted.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**justice still demands retribution **

Another way of saying this,
is that each person must pay his or her KARMIC debt.
This can easily get out of hand.
And eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

And JUSTICE is a concept, not a person.
And the only truly JUST human being to ever walk the earth
as a man, was Jesus Christ.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

It is also stated above that Forgiveness has nothing to do with No Punishment.
That’s not entirely accurate, especially if we are talking about the punishment
of being put to death.

Name one instance in the ENTIRE Old Testament where a sinner,
however wicked, who was forgiven, was then put to death even after
being forgiven.

And the question of whether adulterers should be put to death
is NOT irrelevant to this discussion. If adultery is a death penalty offense
in the law of God, then it remains one today. And thus the “retribution” even
today, demanded by this crime, remains the death penalty. For such immorality
is also against the Noahide Laws, to which all nonIsraelites are considered bound.
We cannot pick and choose which death penalty offenses we will insist upon
having enforced. I can understand wanting murderers put to death, because frankly
they won’t be able to offend again once they are dead.

And I have a REAL problem with the concept that there are crimes/sins for
which Jesus’s precious blood was not a sufficient FULL PAYMENT.
The Jesus, whose Blood TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE ENTIRE COSMOS,
does not adequately satisfy the demands of Justice in the case of a murderer?
In practical terms, this is a playing down of the value of the Blood of Christ.
Something must be ADDED to the blood of Christ for the payment to Justice to be complete.
Think that through. It smacks of blasphemy.

 

[valentino]

Jesus said we’re to do on this earth as it His will will be done in Heaven.Jesus wants peace and love on this earth.Some people will never be able to live by the rules and simply don’t care to.Like Hitler.People like that should gotten rid of.

 

[pnewton]

And I have a REAL problem with the concept that there are crimes/sins for
which Jesus’s precious blood was not a sufficient FULL PAYMENT.
The Jesus, whose Blood TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE ENTIRE COSMOS,

From the Catechism:

**

1473

The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.**

 

[Jaypeeto4]

“But temporal punishments of sin remain…”

I know that. But that is not absolute, either.
For the simple reason that those temporal punishments
can be totally obliterated by receiving a Plenary Indulgence.

Therefore, on what BASIS are those temporal punishments
remitted by a Plenary Indulgence?
The answer can only be, primarily by the application
of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to the one receiving the indulgence.

 

[pnewton]

Therefore, on what BASIS are those temporal punishments
remitted by a Plenary Indulgence?
The answer can only be, primarily by the application
of the Blood of Christ shed on the Cross to the one receiving the indulgence.

Yes, but perhaps I do not understand what any of this has to do with the topic.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Hi pnewton,
I had been responding to statements that the primary purpose of punishment
is retribution. And the related issue of whether a repentant murderer must
always suffer retribution, as a temporal punishment, and how much?
That’s why I mentioned in an above post the concept in some religions
of Karma and Karmic Debt being similar to the concept of a strict application
of “an eye for an eye.”
I’m trying to point out that God does not always bring on people the full weight
(even temporally) of what their sins/crimes deserve.
I know I mention King David and King Manasseh a lot.
These men were forgiven and both kept or were restored to their kingship over Israel.
Strict “retribution” would have required them to be put to death. They weren’t.
God is not “partial,” so that couldn’t have merely been because they were kings.
And Manasseh murdered thousands of innocent people, including his own children,
not just one person. He was forgiven and restored to the throne. So as far as
“retribution” goes, how could Manasseh even have been given an adequate strict
retribution, temporally speaking, since he killed, not one person, but thousands???
That’s why I think that, very often,
forgiveness and removal or reduction of punishment, are most definitely related.
God bless.

 

[pnewton]

Hi pnewton,
I had been responding to statements that the primary purpose of punishment
is retribution. And the related issue of whether a repentant murderer must
always suffer retribution, as a temporal punishment, and how much?
That’s why I mentioned in an above post the concept in some religions
of Karma and Karmic Debt being similar to the concept of a strict application
of “an eye for an eye.”
I’m trying to point out that God does not always bring on people the full weight
(even temporally) of what their sins/crimes deserve.

Thank you for the reply. I would like to point out that there is a major difference between God mitigating temporal punishment and man doing the same. Specifically, God knows when there is repentance. Man does not. Therefore, comparing God’s temporal punishment with what human justice can deliver is an imperfect standard. I would also like to point out that in the case of David, temporal punishment was not remitted for his sin with Bathsheba. His son died. In the case of the census he took, he repented and yet many died as a result of his sin.

Now to the case at hand, if we look to Church teaching, instead of arguing with it, the principle remains that the application of capital punishment is to be determined based on the need for the protection of society. Therefore, I agree that if a jury determines that the subject is no longer a danger to society (perhaps because of repentance), that they should commute the sentence.

I think the problem is that there are still some who argue from the idea of balancing of justice. While I understand the temptation to give into the desire for retribution, I understand the difference between this and what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Rand2410]

It is also stated above that Forgiveness has nothing to do with No Punishment.
That’s not entirely accurate, especially if we are talking about the punishment
of being put to death.

Name one instance in the ENTIRE Old Testament where a sinner,
however wicked, who was forgiven, was then put to death even after
being forgiven.

And the question of whether adulterers should be put to death
is NOT irrelevant to this discussion. If adultery is a death penalty offense
in the law of God, then it remains one today. And thus the “retribution” even
today, demanded by this crime, remains the death penalty. For such immorality
is also against the Noahide Laws, to which all nonIsraelites are considered bound.
We cannot pick and choose which death penalty offenses we will insist upon
having enforced. I can understand wanting murderers put to death, because frankly
they won’t be able to offend again once they are dead.

And I have a REAL problem with the concept that there are crimes/sins for
which Jesus’s precious blood was not a sufficient FULL PAYMENT.
The Jesus, whose Blood TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE ENTIRE COSMOS,
does not adequately satisfy the demands of Justice in the case of a murderer?
In practical terms, this is a playing down of the value of the Blood of Christ.
Something must be ADDED to the blood of Christ for the payment to Justice to be complete.
Think that through. It smacks of blasphemy.

And some times you have to thin out the gene pool. Burn the bad seed. Kill the sick “animal”. I say capital crimes deserve the ultimate price.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**And some times you have to thin out the gene pool. Burn the bad seed. Kill the sick “animal”. I say capital crimes deserve the ultimate price. **

Uh huh. They certainly do.
Have you ever fornicated? Ever blasphemed? Ever cursed at your parents?
Ever committed adultery? Ever had an abortion (committed murder?)
These, according to God’s laws, are capital crimes,
and there are quite a few others. And God does not change, so they still are.

If repentant Christians and repentant Catholic Christians, were put to death for
these capital offenses, the USA and Europe would be awash in
a sea of blood.

It is one thing to acknowledge that a person “deserves” death.
It is another to relish the idea, which is exactly what the above
comments indicate.
And yes, there are plenty of violent predatory killers
who “deserve” death 100%, and will quite possibly live out the rest of
their lives without a shred of remorse… a rotten shame.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Specifically, God knows when there is repentance. Man does not. Therefore, comparing God’s temporal punishment with what human justice can deliver is an imperfect standard. I would also like to point out that in the case of David, temporal punishment was not remitted for his sin with Bathsheba. His son died. In the case of the census he took, he repented and yet many died as a result of his sin. **

Hi Pnewton, thanks again for the new comments.
Actually, look at David’s case again.
Temporal punishment was not remitted?
As for David HIMSELF, it largely most certainly WAS.
David’s BABY was allowed to die. David himself was not executed.
Perhaps he suffered grief as he watched the baby sicken and die,
but he himself was not put to death.
And who got punished for David taking the census?
Was it David?? No, HE was not executed, but rather,
(relatively) Innocent people were executed.
How is THAT a carrying out of a death-sentence against David??

Let’s look at Moses.
While still in Egypt, Moses saw an Egyptian abusing an Israelite.
Moses took the law into his own hands and murdered the Egyptian.
Then he fled to avoid capture.
Now, according to Egyptian law,
Moses committed murder.
By the legal standards of Egypt in Moses’s day, Moses
was now a felon.
Now you and I might think that what Moses did was a justifiable homicide,
but the Egyptian magistrates would not have agreed at all, and Moses knew it,
and knew that according to their law, he was now a criminal. A murderer. So he fled.
Yet God used this man as his prophet and mouthpiece and leader,
to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and to the holy Mount Sinai to receive the commandments and the Law.

And I don’t agree that men cannot always know when a killer or violent criminal has
become repentant. There are often fruits that demonstrate repentance.
Look at Karla Faye Tucker, a murderess who later accepted Christ while incarcerated, and her whole life and demeaner did a 180 degree change. This once brutal and vile woman now beamed with love and joy. Yet, to show how “tough on crime” he was,
George W. Bush while governor put this repentant, godly Christian woman to death by refusing to commute her death sentence. I believe that “W” has much to answer for,
for this deed alone.
But Karla Faye is probably up there praying for him, so he might get away with it.

 

[Rand2410]

**And some times you have to thin out the gene pool. Burn the bad seed. Kill the sick “animal”. I say capital crimes deserve the ultimate price. **

Uh huh. They certainly do.
Have you ever fornicated? Ever blasphemed? Ever cursed at your parents?
Ever committed adultery? Ever had an abortion (committed murder?)
These, according to God’s laws, are capital crimes,
and there are quite a few others. And God does not change, so they still are.

If repentant Christians and repentant Catholic Christians, were put to death for
these capital offenses, the USA and Europe would be awash in
a sea of blood.

It is one thing to acknowledge that a person “deserves” death.
It is another to relish the idea, which is exactly what the above
comments indicate.
And yes, there are plenty of violent predatory killers
who “deserve” death 100%, and will quite possibly live out the rest of
their lives without a shred of remorse… a rotten shame.

Why should they be allowed to live out their lives at my financial expense? Why am I forced to pay for the incarceration of violent felonious offenders?

 

[pnewton]

Why should they be allowed to live out their lives at my financial expense? Why am I forced to pay for the incarceration of violent felonious offenders?

Do you propose that they all be release or that we kill all criminals?