Capital Punishment- right or wrong?

[Neo_Canaan]

I think that your reasoning is a missunderstanding of what a State is. Sometimes we forget that the State is us. I am not speaking only about Republics such as the United States or Democracies or other “Liberal” forms of Statehood but also of Monarchies and more authoritarian states.

The State exists by the will of the people and it is established for the protection of those same people. As such, it acts as a juridical person and therefore has the right to self-defense. For this reason the leaders of the State act as an Agent for all of us in that action of self-defense (in this case Capital Punishment). If a State lacks this right then it is not a true State as it does not have the ability to do the very thing for which it exists.

There is such a thing as the right way in matters of defense, such as non lethal methods, life exile and life in jail without parole.

 

[fix]

No, your are wrong, I don’t misunderstand what the State is. You are correct in that it is supposed to represent the people, but it does not always do so in a way that follows our Christian values, such as states that allow abortion. My state does not represent me when it passes laws that allow it. I also have never heard of a single instance where the Vatican did not disagree with whatever state’s, whether U.S. or anothers use of capital punishment.
Not to mention, there are documented cases where individuals have been put to death and information came out later that would have, if not made them innocent, made them guilty of an offense that would not carry the death penalty. One innocent person put to death is one too many.

That some laws are unjust or that sometimes the state does not administer just laws fairly does not mean the state lacks proper authority.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his/her honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. We are repaying evil with evil.

 

[fix]

It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his/her honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. We are repaying evil with evil.

Captial punishment does not contradict our stewardship. That is why He left a Church with a living authority to settle these matters.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

And they’ve been playing God and Jesus for too long.

 

[fix]

And they’ve been playing God and Jesus for too long.

If I am understanding correctly you are saying you speak for Jesus, but His Church does not?

 

[dch1983]

I’m sure it’s been said in this post and in previous ones, so my apologies for being repetitive…
I fail to see how the legalized killing of another person, innocent or not, can be supported by the Church that is such a staunch supporter of the “culture of life”. It’s not “the culture of INNOCENT life”. So why does the culture of life not apply to those who are deemed wretched by society. Do we not pray for the non-innocent as well - criminals, murderers, even those who reject God?

The death penalty is meant to serve three main purposes: deterrance, punishment, and revenge. Its deterrant value can certainly be called into question. Numerous studies (and frankly common sense as well) show that an execution only serves as a deterrant for the individual, the one who is killed. Would incarceration not serve the same purpose? Second, it is clearly a punishment, but is it the right one? Considering the numerous occasions where an innocent person is executed, I have to ask: is killing the best punishment? And lastly, revenge, which I think we can all agree is not a very Christian attitude.

I believe TimOliv said earlier that the Church does condemn execution, except in very specific circumstances. But this does not seem to be everyone’s understanding on the matter… I am not as versed on the CCC as I should be, so I plan to consult there and elsewhere…

 

[mosher]

I’m sure it’s been said in this post and in previous ones, so my apologies for being repetitive…
I fail to see how the legalized killing of another person, innocent or not, can be supported by the Church that is such a staunch supporter of the “culture of life”. It’s not “the culture of INNOCENT life”. So why does the culture of life not apply to those who are deemed wretched by society. Do we not pray for the non-innocent as well - criminals, murderers, even those who reject God?

The death penalty is meant to serve three main purposes: deterrance, punishment, and revenge. Its deterrant value can certainly be called into question. Numerous studies (and frankly common sense as well) show that an execution only serves as a deterrant for the individual, the one who is killed. Would incarceration not serve the same purpose? Second, it is clearly a punishment, but is it the right one? Considering the numerous occasions where an innocent person is executed, I have to ask: is killing the best punishment? And lastly, revenge, which I think we can all agree is not a very Christian attitude.

I believe TimOliv said earlier that the Church does condemn execution, except in very specific circumstances. But this does not seem to be everyone’s understanding on the matter… I am not as versed on the CCC as I should be, so I plan to consult there and elsewhere…

Your synopsis of the Death Penalty is flawed based on the principles that you premise your argument with. Rather, the use of Capital Punishment is an exercise in the Culture of Life and not against it. You state that the purpose of Capital Punishment is for the reasons of deterrence, punishment and revenge. While that may be true to some it is not true in the ethical usage of Capital Punishment. Rather, Capital Punishment has one purpose and one purpose alone - defense. The purpose of Capital Punishment is that when there is no means of securing society from an individual then it is just to take that persons life as they through their actions have forfeited their right to life. to not exercise the Death Penalty in such a circumstance would be for the state to not fulfill its primary responsibility of the protection of the families therein contained. This treatment is no different than killing a person is self defense which is ethical if necessary.

We cannot make moral equivalent things that are not even close to the same principle.

 

[dch1983]

… Rather, Capital Punishment has one purpose and one purpose alone - defense. The purpose of Capital Punishment is that when there is no means of securing society from an individual then it is just to take that persons life as they through their actions have forfeited their right to life.

I think it would be naive to say that each and every execution is the only means of securing a society from an individual. Can you honestly say that in the US (I don’t know much about CP in other countries except that much of the developed world does not see CP as a moral execution of power by the government), the vast majority of executions take place because the are the “only means” of maintaining the safety of the greater society??? The “only means” part of your statement I cannot argue too much with - but do we actually apply it using this principle?..

 

[mosher]

I think it would be naive to say that each and every execution is the only means of securing a society from an individual. Can you honestly say that in the US (I don’t know much about CP in other countries except that much of the developed world does not see CP as a moral execution of power by the government), the vast majority of executions take place because the are the “only means” of maintaining the safety of the greater society??? The “only means” part of your statement I cannot argue too much with - but do we actually apply it using this principle?..

No, I would gladly argue that the use of Capital Punishment in the United States is not in accord with moral principles as it usually stems from the principles that you spoke of in your previous post. I find this unfortunate and it must be something that we work to change. However, it cannot negate the right of a state to have recourse to the ethical use of the Death Penalty when it is necessary.

However, if we do get it to the point where it is used under proper ethical guidelines we will see that the number will drop significantly to possibly only a handful a year at most. This would necessitate the building of more prisons and people such as my own Governor Bill Richardson are of the mind that we need less and not more and that the cost would not be a wise investment. This line of thinking is flawed because it encourages the use of the Death Penalty in more capital cases through expedience rather than proper deliberation.

The further question that must be asked is if the treatment of St. Thomas that the Death Penalty can be just when done for purely punitive reasons is correct. The Catechism does not currently include this opinion but that does not negate it as a question. Perhaps if we got a state like our own to conform its use to more ethical standards then perhaps it will cause the further development of this issue and we can have a clearer view of this particular point.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

No, I would gladly argue that the use of Capital Punishment in the United States is not in accord with moral principles as it usually stems from the principles that you spoke of in your previous post. I find this unfortunate and it must be something that we work to change. However, it cannot negate the right of a state to have recourse to the ethical use of the Death Penalty when it is necessary.

However, if we do get it to the point where it is used under proper ethical guidelines we will see that the number will drop significantly to possibly only a handful a year at most. This would necessitate the building of more prisons and people such as my own Governor Bill Richardson are of the mind that we need less and not more and that the cost would not be a wise investment. This line of thinking is flawed because it encourages the use of the Death Penalty in more capital cases through expedience rather than proper deliberation.

The further question that must be asked is if the treatment of St. Thomas that the Death Penalty can be just when done for purely punitive reasons is correct. The Catechism does not currently include this opinion but that does not negate it as a question. Perhaps if we got a state like our own to conform its use to more ethical standards then perhaps it will cause the further development of this issue and we can have a clearer view of this particular point.

Two wrongs never make a right. Murdering killers can never bring the victims back. Ergo, the earthly, Herodesque stae’s got no right to play God and Jesus. If I was a state killer, I’d sabotage all death machines, quit my job, send my medals i earned from murdering death row people back to the powers that be, and tell them where to stick it, and be a priest. DO violence to no one, remember?

 

[mosher]

Two wrongs never make a right. Murdering killers can never bring the victims back. Ergo, the earthly, Herodesque stae’s got no right to play God and Jesus. If I was a state killer, I’d sabotage all death machines, quit my job, send my medals i earned from murdering death row people back to the powers that be, and tell them where to stick it, and be a priest. DO violence to no one, remember?

And such an action of yours would be immoral. Just as with a Just War all citizens are bound to support that effort so to with the just application of the Death Penalty. Your opinion to the contrary is not based in reason.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

And such an action of yours would be immoral. Just as with a Just War all citizens are bound to support that effort so to with the just application of the Death Penalty. Your opinion to the contrary is not based in reason.

And whatever happed to forgiving our enemies? Death is our heavenky fater’s choice–not some church hating secular fat cat state vassal.And there’s no such thing as a so called just war. I happen to belong to an anti death penalty group, and i am thankful I joined. It’s The National Colition Against The Death Penalty. I cannot believe the state and goverment would pressure the church to conform to their secular ways.Perish the thought!!

 

[mosher]

And whatever happed to forgiving our enemies? Death is our heavenky fater’s choice–not some church hating secular fat cat state vassal.And there’s no such thing as a so called just war. I happen to belong to an anti death penalty group, and i am thankful I joined. It’s The National Colition Against The Death Penalty. I cannot believe the state and goverment would pressure the church to conform to their secular ways.Perish the thought!!

On the contrary it is not the Church that is being pressured but rather the Church informing the State of what is ethical and what is not. Your statement about just war is incorrect but has been treated in other places including the Catechism so I will not discuss it further.

Your statement about forgiving our enemies is correct and forgiveness is necessary. However, I do not believe that you understand forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessitate the avoidance of justice. For instance God forgives all for their sins and has forgiven all for their sin through the Cross. However, this does not negate the justice of God which demands not only repentance but satisfaction. Satisfaction is the imposed penalty for sin. This penalty is served on earth through making reparation and after death through purgation if complete satisfaction is not made on earth. However, just because God has forgiven does not mean the transgressor seeks that forgiveness and so that lack of desire for forgiveness has a penalty of eternal damnation. This is analogous to the use of Capital Punishment.

In crime against persons there are two types of forgiveness. The first is commutation which is the decision to not offer penalty or to give reduced penalty to the person as a free act. This is not necessary under the dictum of justice. Secondly there is the forgiveness given by the person(s) harmed which is a disposition. However, satisfaction is still necessary. Thus, apart from commutation justice demands a just penalty for an offense against persons. This must be proportionate to the crime. For instance restitution which can come in the form of labor, goods or time given either in freedom or in prison. For some crimes there is a more final judgment given by the State on behalf of the person injured (as all crimes are offenses against the State and the individual). If the ethical norms are met this can result in the use of Capital Punishment if and only if the requirements for such are just and fitting to the crime not as retaliation but as a function of justice. As can be seen this natural order reflects the divine order of the relationship between justice and mercy.

 

[Coop73]

That some laws are unjust or that sometimes the state does not administer just laws fairly does not mean the state lacks proper authority.

I couldn’t care less if the state has proper authority or not. If a law does not follow in line with my Christian and Catholic faith then I feel I should lobby the government officials to have said law changed. The state doesn’t have to answer for my eternal soul, I do!
Has the Vatican, the leadership of our church, ever thought that the United State’s use of capital punishment was correct? I can not think of a time.
We all have to answer to a higher authority than just the state. I am grateful to live in the U.S. but my allegiance is owed to Christ.

 

[Coop73]

On the contrary it is not the Church that is being pressured but rather the Church informing the State of what is ethical and what is not. Your statement about just war is incorrect but has been treated in other places including the Catechism so I will not discuss it further.

Your statement about forgiving our enemies is correct and forgiveness is necessary. However, I do not believe that you understand forgiveness. Forgiveness does not necessitate the avoidance of justice. For instance God forgives all for their sins and has forgiven all for their sin through the Cross. However, this does not negate the justice of God which demands not only repentance but satisfaction. Satisfaction is the imposed penalty for sin. This penalty is served on earth through making reparation and after death through purgation if complete satisfaction is not made on earth. However, just because God has forgiven does not mean the transgressor seeks that forgiveness and so that lack of desire for forgiveness has a penalty of eternal damnation. This is analogous to the use of Capital Punishment.

In crime against persons there are two types of forgiveness. The first is commutation which is the decision to not offer penalty or to give reduced penalty to the person as a free act. This is not necessary under the dictum of justice. Secondly there is the forgiveness given by the person(s) harmed which is a disposition. However, satisfaction is still necessary. Thus, apart from commutation justice demands a just penalty for an offense against persons. This must be proportionate to the crime. For instance restitution which can come in the form of labor, goods or time given either in freedom or in prison. For some crimes there is a more final judgment given by the State on behalf of the person injured (as all crimes are offenses against the State and the individual). If the ethical norms are met this can result in the use of Capital Punishment if and only if the requirements for such are just and fitting to the crime not as retaliation but as a function of justice. As can be seen this natural order reflects the divine order of the relationship between justice and mercy.

Are you speaking from a state’s point of view in the beginning of your statement? Because I always understood Christ’s teaching to be to turn the other cheek and that vengeance was God’s not ours. I found that fairly clear.
Mosher, you speak with some authority, are you a priest or in Church leadership in some way? Just wondering, so that I will know if I am completely off base.

 

[fix]

I couldn’t care less if the state has proper authority or not. If a law does not follow in line with my Christian and Catholic faith then I feel I should lobby the government officials to have said law changed. The state doesn’t have to answer for my eternal soul, I do!
Has the Vatican, the leadership of our church, ever thought that the United State’s use of capital punishment was correct? I can not think of a time.
We all have to answer to a higher authority than just the state. I am grateful to live in the U.S. but my allegiance is owed to Christ.

My point was in reference to one who claimed the state lacks authority in these matters. I corrected that misunderstanding.

From the CCC:

**

The duties of citizens

**

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

Now if a law if unjust, or not being administered justly, then we ought to work to rectify that. The state has the authority to administer the death penalty. If we think they are not doing so justly, that may be true, but that does not mean they lack authority in the matter.

 

[dch1983]

Well, until we as a country use capital punishment as it is ‘intended’ - as the only means of protecting a society - I simply cannot in good faith support it. And frankly, I can hardly imagine this being the case, as our application of it is so far off. So until it is more justly and prudently practiced, I will continue to believe that vengeance is God’s, not ours, as Coop73 reminded us above…

 

[fix]

Has the Vatican, the leadership of our church, ever thought that the United State’s use of capital punishment was correct? I can not think of a time.

I am not a staunch defender of capital punishment, but I like the truth to be presented in all matters. When has the Church bound our consciences in this matter? To be more clear where can I find the Church has said to support the death penalty in any particular case in the USA today is to commit as grave sin?

 

[dch1983]

I am not a staunch defender of capital punishment, but I like the truth to be presented in all matters. When has the Church bound our consciences in this matter? To be more clear where can I find the Church has said to support the death penalty in any particular case in the USA today is to commit as grave sin?

Didn’t the late Pope John Paul II strongly oppose the use of capital punishment? In much of what I have read, his stance has been seen as more of an inconvenience to Catholics who support capital punishment rather than words of guidance resulting from prayer and God’s grace. It is something to consider. This, of course, does not mean the Church has considered support of the death penalty by any to be a grave sin.