Capital Punishment- right or wrong?

[uncleauberon]

2267

First of all, I direct your attention to the second paragraph. Let’s say you have a guy who kills kids. So he kills some kids, gets caught and goes to jail. Well, he isn’t going to be killing kids in jail. But let’s assume he’s just crazy enough to now try to divert his murderous rage towards anyone. Well, he can be locked in a box for the rest of his life and have his meals passed through a hole. There is a non-lethal means.

The last sentence, while not a blanket, is most definitely enough to keep a person warm at night. It leaves room for exceptions, but notes that they are few and far between.

Yep… but the question is always in context to the society that it is in.
There are non-lethal means - but do we use them ?
Can we guarentee that they will be sufficient ?

The real question is case by case.

If a convicted murder has demonstrated that he/she is a continued threat to the lives of others :

• demonstrated violence towards other prisoners or guards
• a successfull escape from prison
• leadership in outside lethal crimes

Then that would constitute a need for self defense. Apparently the current state of incarceration is not a sufficient non-lethal means to protect against this person.

I would submit that the Death Penalty should be reserved for those murderers that have demonstrated a continued threat after the first initial conviction.

This would be consistant with the Spirit and the Letter of Church Teaching.

tjp

 

[Brendan]

Didn’t Jesus stop the execution of the woman who had committed adultery? .

Actually, He didn’t, he put conditions on it’s use.

The Bible specifically says that the Pharisess brought the woman to Christ to test Him.

If Christ advocated the stoneing, the Pharisess could have brought Him to the Romans for violating Roman law (only the Romans could sentance someone to death)

If He freed her, He would be violating the Law of Moses (something that Christ Himself gave). If the violated the Mosaic Law, then they could arrest Christ on heresy charges.

What He did was very sublime. Under the Law the Pharisees WERE sinless. The hallmark of Pharisetics was a total following fo the Law.

So Christ told the Pharisees that they COULD stone the woman, but did it in a way that the Pharisees could not bring charges against Christ to the Romans. No Roman procurator would believe that the Pharisees were ‘sinless’.

Of course, the Pharisees could not stone the woman anyway, as they needed Roman approval for that.

So they left.

 

[Brendan]

And here is the Council of Trent (on the Fifth Commandment)

From the Council of Trent, Decree on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment? is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

 

[john_doran]

Why cannot an individual be acting on behalf of the state? The judge may sentence someone to prison, yet I cannot. Civil authorities have authority we each do not.

because the proscription is not against “intentional, direct killing ‘unless it is on behalf of the state’”. it is against intentional killing. period.

we’re talking about the ***moral ***licitness of certain actions, not the political licitnessof those actions.

 

[john_doran]

There is a misinterpretation of the 5th commandment here. Murder is not the same as intentional killing.

yes, i’m afraid it is.

mosher:

In an act of self-defense one can intend to kill the aggressor and it is morally licit.

no. it isn’t.

look, you have to define what counts as murder first, and then go to the data of action: if murder just is intentional killing, then whenever one kills intentionally, one murders.

when one commits an act of morally licit lethal self-defense, one intends to save one’s own life or the life of another; the death of the person one kills is simply accepted as a foreseen but unintended side-effect.

mosher:

In a war a soldier and intend to kill an adversary and that is also morally licit.

no, a soldier cannot intend to kill and be guiltless. all that means is that it’s hard to be a (good) soldier.

 

[john_doran]

Self-defense is not controlled by the principle of double effect which only deals with unintended consequences.

but that’s exactly why self-defense is licit: because the death of the individual is willed only incidentally to the good of (preserving) one’s own life.

but don’t believe me - here’s aquinas:

ST II:II:64:2 "For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump”

ST II:II:64:3 “it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community…”

mosher:

However, in this issue there is no need to not intend to kill that material or formal agressor. If that is the necssary level of force then it is licit. St. Thomas also discusses this in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q 64, a 7).

did you actually read the relevant passage? far from stipulating that self-defense doesn’t involve double effect, thomas says this:

“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor.”

mosher:

For this reason the 5th commandment is not properly translated “thou shalt not kill” but rather according to the hebrew it is better translated “Thou shalt not murder.”

maybe. but “murder” means “intentional killing”.

 

[2shelbys]

…look, you have to define what counts as murder first, and then go to the data of action: if murder just is intentional killing, then whenever one kills intentionally, one murders.

when one commits an act of morally licit lethal self-defense, one intends to save one’s own life or the life of another; the death of the person one kills is simply accepted as a foreseen but unintended side-effect.

I am sorry but you have it wrong. Killing truely in defense of self or others is not murder in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of the Church.

no, a soldier cannot intend to kill and be guiltless. all that means is that it’s hard to be a (good) soldier

So what would a “good” soldier be? One who intends to maim and inflict torturous injury instead of kill?

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is “a time to kill” (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Was God commanding them to murder? Did God “sin”?

 

[john_doran]

I am sorry but you have it wrong.

ok. can you explain how i have it wrong?

2shelbys:

Killing truely in defense of self or others is not murder in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of the Church.

a) what counts as killing “truely”?; and

b) how do you reconcile your position with the catechism of the catholic church:

CCC 2268: “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. the murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.”

2shelbys:

So what would a “good” soldier be?

one who doesn’t kill intentionally.

2shelbys:

One who intends to maim and inflict torturous injury instead of kill?

no.

2shelbys:

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is “a time to kill” (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms.

sure. and in the old testament it commaned “an eye for an eye”. how do you reconcile that particular doctrine with jesus’ “turn the other cheek”?

2shelbys:

Was God commanding them to murder? Did God “sin”?

no. and no.

 

[2shelbys]

ok. can you explain how i have it wrong?.

Do I really have to? Are you saying you have never heard of any of the countless cases where an attacker is killed and his intended victim is not charged? Are you saying you have never read CCC 2264 and have only read all around it? If you have not read it, it is quoted below.

a) what counts as killing “truely”?; and

b) how do you reconcile your position with the catechism of the catholic church:

a)When the application of lethal force is justifiable as the only way of preserving innocent life.

b)Quite easily with CCC 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:

CCC 2268: “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. the murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.”

This partial quote leaves out CCC 2264. CCC 2268 speaks of wanton murder, not self defense, which is addressed in CCC 2264.

one who doesn’t kill intentionally.

So, soldiers are supposed to shoot at a rock and hope the riccochet “accidently” kills the enemy? That makes absolutely no sense. Please explain how a soldier is supposed to kill “unintentionally” without “intentionally” maiming the enemy. Is he supposed to shoot over their head and hope they run away?

sure. and in the old testament it commaned “an eye for an eye”. how do you reconcile that particular doctrine with jesus’ “turn the other cheek”?

Jesus was speaking of being struck, not of a direct attempt at killing you.
Are you saying that the Old Testament is not the word of God? How do you reconcile that with Church teaching?

 

[john_doran]

Do I really have to? Are you saying you have never heard of any of the countless cases where an attacker is killed and his intended victim is not charged?

but i’m not talking about the ***legality ***of human action, but the morality of those actions.

but whatever: “murder”, at law, is defined as “intentional killing”; just because the court cannot determine whether or not specific acts of killing were performed with murderous intent has got absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not those acts actually were committed with such an intent.

2shelbys:

Are you saying you have never read CCC 2264 and have only read all around it?

you’re missing the point: i do not deny that it is possible licitly to kill in self-defense. my claim is that one cannot intentionally kill without committing (grave) sin.

have you read CCC 2268?: “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.”

2shelbys:

This partial quote leaves out CCC 2264. CCC 2268 speaks of wanton murder, not self defense, which is addressed in CCC 2264.

CCC 2268 speaks only of direct, intentional killing - it does NOT make any qualifications for the sake of things like “wanton murder” or “self-defense”.

what is “wanton” murder, as opposed to your plain old garden variety murder, anyway?

but, again, whatever. presumably you agree that the CCC cannot contradict itself, right? i mean, how could it be that the catechism could say in 2268 that intentional killing is wrong, in 2269 that even unintentional killing is wrong if accepted without proportionately grave reason, but then blithely propose that intentionally ending the life of another in self-defense is ok?

more technically, though, what makes something an act of self-defense if not the simple fact that it was committed in an attempt to defend oneself? that is, my shooting my aggressor is actually only an act of self-defense if i’m trying to save my life - if my reason for shooting the person is that i want to preserve my safety…

if what i want, though, is for him to die, then i’m a murderer. plain and simple.

2shelbys:

So, soldiers are supposed to shoot at a rock and hope the riccochet “accidently” kills the enemy? That makes absolutely no sense. Please explain how a soldier is supposed to kill “unintentionally” without “intentionally” maiming the enemy. Is he supposed to shoot over their head and hope they run away?

he shoots enemy soldiers in order to preserve the security of his squad-mates and the civilians he is defending, and accepts the injury and death of those enemies as a foreseen but unintended side-effect of his actions.

just like i accept, as a side effect of defending myself, the pain and injury of the guy at the local bar whose nose i break when he takes a swing at me; i know he’s going to be hurting for a while, but it’s not important to me that he feels pain - what’s important to me is that he not hit me.

in the same way, what a good soldier wants is that the enemy soldiers stop fighting, NOT that they die.

2shelbys:

Jesus was speaking of being struck, not of a direct attempt at killing you.

tell that to the thousands of martyrs throughout christian history.

2shelbys:

Are you saying that the Old Testament is not the word of God? How do you reconcile that with Church teaching?

that was then, this is now…just like jesus said.

how do you reconcile, for instance, the OT approval of divorce with the NT’s universal ban on it?

 

[fix]

because the proscription is not against “intentional, direct killing ‘unless it is on behalf of the state’”. it is against intentional killing. period.

we’re talking about the ***moral ***licitness of certain actions, not the political licitnessof those actions.

Civil authorities derive their authority from God. It is a moral matter in that if the law is just it is licit for an agent of the state to act on behalf of the state.

 

[2shelbys]

but i’m not talking about the ***legality ***of human action, but the morality of those actions.

As was I.

but whatever: “murder”, at law, is defined as “intentional killing”;

I admit that I know little about Canadian law but I doubt it differs from American law and Catholic teaching on this point, which you have wrong. Murder is never defined in law simply as “intentional killing”. If it was, killing in self defense and capital punishment would be legally and morally impossible which they are not. You must be confusing “intent” and “premeditation”.

just because the court cannot determine whether or not specific acts of killing were performed with murderous intent has got absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not those acts actually were committed with such an intent.

You have this exactly backwards as well. The main deciding factor of whether or not a killling is legal or moral is whether or not there was an intent to murder (premeditation) or if it was the result of being forced to kill to protect one’s own life.

you’re missing the point: i do not deny that it is possible licitly to kill in self-defense. my claim is that one cannot intentionally kill without committing (grave) sin.

I am not missing the point and you are contradicting yourself. Your response to an earlier claim that killing in self defense and murder were not the same was “yes, i’m afraid it is”. Catholic teaching never allows sin but does allow both killing in self defense and capital punishment, both of which are “intentional”, when no other option will preserve innocent life.

have you read CCC 2268?: “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.”

You ask if I have read something I included in my post? Of course I have read it but it is only one part of a greater whole that you are taking out of context. As previously shown, Church teaching does allow killing in self defense without any qualification regarding “intent” and does allow for capital punishment which is always intentional. The fact that the Church allows these actions but never allows sin defeats your entire argument.

what is “wanton” murder, as opposed to your plain old garden variety murder, anyway?

It is not “opposed” to it, that is the whole point. Premeditated or “wanton” killing of innocent life is murder.

but, again, whatever. presumably you agree that the CCC cannot contradict itself, right? i mean, how could it be that the catechism could say in 2268 that intentional killing is wrong, in 2269 that even unintentional killing is wrong if accepted without proportionately grave reason, but then blithely propose that intentionally ending the life of another in self-defense is ok?

Again you see 2268 and 2269 as the whole Church position which it clearly is not, and again you ignore 2264 which says “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:” and again you ignore that fact that the Church does allow captial punishment in certain grave circumstances. It really cound not be any more clear. The Church recognizes that not all circumstances are the same as you claim they are. You even gave the explaination yourself. The “grave reason” is the protection of innocent life.
.

 

[2shelbys]

more technically, though, what makes something an act of self-defense if not the simple fact that it was committed in an attempt to defend oneself? that is, my shooting my aggressor is actually only an act of self-defense if i’m trying to save my life - if my reason for shooting the person is that i want to preserve my safety…

if what i want, though, is for him to die, then i’m a murderer. plain and simple.

You are playing games with language in an attempt to salvage your position. Defending oneself is not self defense? “Wanting” someone to die is not the same as intending that they die. If you are forced to shoot someone to preserve your life you do intend that they die because you are engaging in an act that will cause their death, but that does not mean you wanted it to happen. You were forced by the circumstances to do it.

he shoots enemy soldiers in order to preserve the security of his squad-mates and the civilians he is defending, and accepts the injury and death of those enemies as a foreseen but unintended side-effect of his actions.

Again you are playing games with language. When soldiers drop bombs, fire missles, or line an enemy up in the crosshairs of their scope and fire the death of that enemy is not “uinintended”. “Foreseen but unintended” does not even make sense. Are you claiming that when a soldier intentionally shoots an enemy in a vital area of their body they “see” that it will kill them but do not “intend” to kill them. That makes absolutely no sense. If you “foresee” that an act will kill someone and you still commit that act, you intend to kill them, plain and simple.

just like i accept, as a side effect of defending myself, the pain and injury of the guy at the local bar whose nose i break when he takes a swing at me; i know he’s going to be hurting for a while, but it’s not important to me that he feels pain - what’s important to me is that he not hit me.

You intentionally inflicted pain on him to bring about the desired result. You may not have wanted to cause him pain but you surely did intend to cause him pain.

in the same way, what a good soldier wants is that the enemy soldiers stop fighting, NOT that they die.

But when killing them is the only way to make them stop fighting, which is ALWAYS the case in war, you do intend for them to die. Not all of them, but enough of them to bring about the desired result of ending the fighting. You may not “want” to do it but you “intend” to do it because you are forced to do it. “Want to” and “intend to” are not the same thing as you claim and that is why your argument fails.

tell that to the thousands of martyrs throughout christian history.

What does that have to do with anything? They made concious individual decisions not to defend their lives which they would have been legally and morally allowed to do.

how do you reconcile, for instance, the OT approval of divorce with the NT’s universal ban on it

I do not have to, Jesus did. And he would have done so in the case of “turning the other cheek” versus “defending ones life” if it was necessary which is was not because they are two different issues

 

[2shelbys]

but i’m not talking about the ***legality ***of human action, but the morality of those actions…?

As a matter of fact, the situation which you assert confers legality and morality, that a death was “foreseen but unintended”, would do exactly the opposite. If you were on trial for causing a death and you testified that you “foresaw that your actions would cause that death” but you went ahead and acted anyway but “did not intend” to cause the death, you would be convicted of “wrongful death” or “negligent homicide” because you saw that you were going to cause a death and proceeded anyway. Causing death in this way would also be immoral and a grave sin because it was within your power to avoid death and you chose not to avoid it.

 

[john_doran]

I admit that I know little about Canadian law but I doubt it differs from American law and Catholic teaching on this point, which you have wrong. Murder is never defined in law simply as “intentional killing”. If it was, killing in self defense and capital punishment would be legally and morally impossible which they are not. You must be confusing “intent” and “premeditation”.

have you read the US federal criminal law statute? here’s the entry for “murder”:

Section 1111. Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing;all of those words imply intent.

here’s the california statute:

1. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
   When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
   doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought.

and the canadian criminal code:

229. Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

of course, the criminal law actually*** punishes*** certain actions as if they were straight-out murder, simply because there are lethal actions that are just as bad. but the basic, core definition of murder always includes intention.

 

[john_doran]

2shelbys:

You have this exactly backwards as well. The main deciding factor of whether or not a killling is legal or moral is whether or not there was an intent to murder (premeditation) or if it was the result of being forced to kill to protect one’s own life.

this is just not right. at all. but i do not want to get into a legal debate here.

2shelbys:

I am not missing the point and you are contradicting yourself. Your response to an earlier claim that killing in self defense and murder were not the same was “yes, i’m afraid it is”. Catholic teaching never allows sin but does allow both killing in self defense and capital punishment, both of which are “intentional”, when no other option will preserve innocent life.

you are missing the point: you continually express your posts in terms of “killing”, which is just causing someone’s death. but what makes one act of killing “self-defense”, and another “murder”? the acts are the same to the extent that they both involve causing a death…so. if the difference is not the reason or the goal of the action, what is the difference?

2shelbys:

You ask if I have read something I included in my post? Of course I have read it but it is only one part of a greater whole that you are taking out of context. As previously shown, Church teaching does allow killing in self defense without any qualification regarding “intent” and does allow for capital punishment which is always intentional. The fact that the Church allows these actions but never allows sin defeats your entire argument.

look, the CCC explicitly states that direct and intentional killing is always wrong. period. AND the CCC says that the only time capital punishment is permissible is if it is the only way to preserve the security of others - i.e. if it is an act of (communal) self-defense.

the only way to reconcile those to views is to conclude that morally licit acts of capital punishment cannot be intentional killing, but rather killing the intent of which is defense of common security…

there is no contradiction there - on the contrary, it is the only manner in which to avoid contradiction.

read aquinas on double effect…

2shelbys:

Again you see 2268 and 2269 as the whole Church position which it clearly is not, and again you ignore 2264 which says “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:” .

2264 and 2268 must not contradict each other, and in fact they do not: 2264 just says that it is sometimes permissible to cause a death. 2268 says that one cannot intentionally kill. thus, read together, the conclusion is that one can cause a death just as long as it is not caused intentionally.

but you’re right: it really couldn’t be any more clear.

maybe we’re missing each other on the meaning of the word “intentional”: i’m using it in the very specific and precise manner in which it is used in moral philosophy…maybe browsing through some aquinas and some commentaries on the summa might be helpful.

 

[2shelbys]

this is just not right. at all. but i do not want to get into a legal debate here.

I guess there is no point in arguing here because this is exactly right.

you are missing the point: you continually express your posts in terms of “killing”, which is just causing someone’s death. but what makes one act of killing “self-defense”, and another “murder”? the acts are the same to the extent that they both involve causing a death…so. if the difference is not the reason or the goal of the action, what is the difference?

The reason IS the difference. That is exactly what I have been saying. Whether or not the death was intentional is not the issue. The issue is the reason why it occurs. If the reason is that it was absolutely necessary to preserve innocent life than it is not murder. If it was for any other reason than it is murder.

look, the CCC explicitly states that direct and intentional killing is always wrong. period. AND the CCC says that the only time capital punishment is permissible is if it is the only way to preserve the security of others - i.e. if it is an act of (communal) self-defense…the only way to reconcile those to views is to conclude that morally licit acts of capital punishment cannot be intentional killing, but rather killing the intent of which is defense of common security…

No, it does not. CCC 2264 does not say that the death is not murder only if it is unintentional. In an execution the death is ALWAYS intentional. To say it is not is to misuse language. The reason is to protect life but the death is undeniably intentional. You are still confusing reason and intent.

2264 and 2268 must not contradict each other, and in fact they do not: 2264 just says that it is sometimes permissible to cause a death. 2268 says that one cannot intentionally kill. thus, read together, the conclusion is that one can cause a death just as long as it is not caused intentionally.

They do not contradict one another and you still have it wrong. CCC 2264 through CCC 2267 all address the issues of self defense, either of individuals or of community, which is clearly identified as not being not murder. CCC 2268 speaks specifically of murder by name, that is intentional killing of innocents.

maybe we’re missing each other on the meaning of the word “intentional”: i’m using it in the very specific and precise manner in which it is used in moral philosophy…maybe browsing through some aquinas and some commentaries on the summa might be helpful

You may be misinterpreting the meaning of the word in relation to moral issues but the meaning of the word is very clear. If you commit an act thay you know will kill someone than your intent is to kill them. It may not be your desire to kill them, you may not want to kill them, but you are doing so intentionally because you are forced to do so. You are comitting the act intentionally whether or not the reason is sound.

 

[mosher]

John Doran:

There are too many posts that have past for me to respond to them all. However, in short you are absolutely wrong in your application of this moral principle. As cited it is only superficially a case of the Principle of Double Effect but St. Thomas affirms that that is only superficial and it is not related to the principle in fact.

Further, murder and intentional killing are not the same when murder is used in the precise language of morality. For intentional killing to be murder it must include premeditation and malice. For this reason Scripture makes a distinction between murder and other forms of killing in Leviticus.

It is perfectly licit for a soldier to kill intentionally as that is his job which he must do in a just war or else incur other moral evils on his person. What he cannot do is kill an enemy out of revenge or malice but only out of duty.

Also, the issue of self defense is proportionate means of self defense without qualifying that it is necessary to avoid the death of the assailant. However, the death of the assailant is to be avoided if possible.

Thus, as this relates to capital punishment and way (as another poster noted) we are dealing with completely different moral principles when we are speaking of abortion and the like. One involves innocent human life while the other does not. Further, there are other moral principles that govern the actions that are licit for what we are speaking about as opposed to abortion and the like so to draw a moral equivalence is not only absurd but it is false reasoning.

 

[ichabode]

I would like to make a comment. Many Posters commented on the fact that we place a criminal in jail and the citizens are safe. How fair is it to put a murderer in with a car jacker? Does the person who is in jail for five years have any expectation that we should protect his/her life? I see many “christians” seem not to care for the life of prisioners at all, and would willfully put thier lives in jeopardy by rejecting captial punishment outright. Of course all the guards that must be careful around murderers as well less they have their life taken. Perhaps individual jails for every criminal in the world would be a sane alternative.

PS
I just read post 17 and saw that DaveBJ did mention the protection “safety” of other inmates. I am still not sure why people do not generally think of the prisoners well being. It makes me wonder if those opposed to capital punishment have some alterior motive for not wanting it.

 

[2shelbys]

John Doran:

There are too many posts that have past for me to respond to them all. However, in short you are absolutely wrong in your application of this moral principle. As cited it is only superficially a case of the Principle of Double Effect but St. Thomas affirms that that is only superficial and it is not related to the principle in fact.

Further, murder and intentional killing are not the same when murder is used in the precise language of morality. For intentional killing to be murder it must include premeditation and malice. For this reason Scripture makes a distinction between murder and other forms of killing in Leviticus.

It is perfectly licit for a soldier to kill intentionally as that is his job which he must do in a just war or else incur other moral evils on his person. What he cannot do is kill an enemy out of revenge or malice but only out of duty.

Also, the issue of self defense is proportionate means of self defense without qualifying that it is necessary to avoid the death of the assailant. However, the death of the assailant is to be avoided if possible.

Thus, as this relates to capital punishment and way (as another poster noted) we are dealing with completely different moral principles when we are speaking of abortion and the like. One involves innocent human life while the other does not. Further, there are other moral principles that govern the actions that are licit for what we are speaking about as opposed to abortion and the like so to draw a moral equivalence is not only absurd but it is false reasoning.

An outstanding, knowledgeable post. Thank you.