capital punishment

[Andreas_Hofer]

otm:

It can be reasonably presumed that at least in Canada and the United States, imprisonment of a convicted murderer will be in a facility capable of securely housing them; the technology exists; if the prison has not been built, would you suggest that there is a dollar figure large enough that the State would be justified in executing rather than building?

I don’t think anyone is arguing that we are incapable of keeping prisoners behind bars. The disagreement is over whether we actually always manage to protect society through that incarceration. pnewton linked to an older thread about organized crime continuing to function from prison. I myself would also cite the number of murders and assaults carried out by prisoners on other prisoners. Just within the last few years, a death row inmate at an Indiana penitentiary killed another inmate - if death row is supposed to be some of the tightest security there is, then there seems to be some sort of incapacity to prevent such crimes from occurring. (name removed by moderator)risonment does not remove an individual from protection of the law, therefore I think protection of society should also cover other prisoners, which would cause serious problems for the pope’s prudential judgment on the capabilities of modern, Western penal systems.

 

[NathanCarson]

faith in Jesus taught me:

Everyone deserves a second chance. They deserve a chance to change. If we kill them, they might not get that chance. What were the apostles like before Jesus?

Many people sit on death row for crimes they didn’t commit.

Even worse: 60% of convictions in america are drug charges. Most of which are simple possesion.

It costs more money to send someone to jail for 8 months than it does to send somebody to a community college for 2 years.

the justice system does NOT know Jesus.

I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know what the answer is. We need some sort of rules and law, but if we were capable of coming up with a better system than christianity…well…we’d be deceiving ourselves.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

faith in Jesus taught me:

Everyone deserves a second chance. They deserve a chance to change. If we kill them, they might not get that chance. What were the apostles like before Jesus?

Many people sit on death row for crimes they didn’t commit.

Even worse: 60% of convictions in america are drug charges. Most of which are simple possesion.

It costs more money to send someone to jail for 8 months than it does to send somebody to a community college for 2 years.

the justice system does NOT know Jesus.

I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know what the answer is. We need some sort of rules and law, but if we were capable of coming up with a better system than christianity…well…we’d be deceiving ourselves.

Your brain has been washed by the liberals very well. The vast majority of people in jail are not there mistaknly. Drugs are bad news and people are not executed for doing drugs anyway. Which of the apostoles would have been executed before Jesus came…I know several were executed afterwards (although Peter and Paul make the clear distiction between just executions and unjust ones)–but before Jesus??? What are you talking about?

Of course people should be forgiven if they repent of their sins…but do you honestly believe that forgiveness of sins equals being excused from punishment? Your faith in Jesus seems to contradict the teachings of Jesus. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

And yes it does cost a lot to jail and execute people…we need to reform the justice system that’s all. A bullet only costs a quarter after all…

 

[otm]

Andreas Hofer:

I don’t think anyone is arguing that we are incapable of keeping prisoners behind bars. The disagreement is over whether we actually always manage to protect society through that incarceration. pnewton linked to an older thread about organized crime continuing to function from prison. I myself would also cite the number of murders and assaults carried out by prisoners on other prisoners. Just within the last few years, a death row inmate at an Indiana penitentiary killed another inmate - if death row is supposed to be some of the tightest security there is, then there seems to be some sort of incapacity to prevent such crimes from occurring. (name removed by moderator)risonment does not remove an individual from protection of the law, therefore I think protection of society should also cover other prisoners, which would cause serious problems for the pope’s prudential judgment on the capabilities of modern, Western penal systems.

I am aware of the issues you state. I am not saying that all prisons in the US are technologically up to snuff, nor am I saying that there are no failures in the process of handling inmates. I only say that the technology and processes are available in the Western world to safely incarcerate someone for their natural life. Too often, the immediate dollars are not available to make the changes necessary to revamp the prisons, which is not grounds to continue capital punishment. I believe his prudential judegement is correct; much of society does not agree with him; some for perceived dollars and cents; others because they want vengence; others still because they do not have a consistent ethic of life.

 

[otm]

Tom of Assisi:

And yes it does cost a lot to jail and execute people…we need to reform the justice system that’s all. A bullet only costs a quarter after all…

Given the number of people who have been convicted and executed, or are sitting on death row now, for a crime that someone else committed, mand given that the law of the appealate courts too often do not allow new evidence to be brought in, there is a serious probelme with the potential for a major miscarriage of justice.

Put someone away for life, and he still lives; if justice is miscarried, he can be released.

Kill him wrongly, and unless someone starts exercising the power to raise the dead, a travesty has occured.

The cost of bullets is not the issue, and we both know it.

Further, there is not a whole lot of press being given to the number of people on death row who will not persue appeals; to them, death is preferrable to life imprisonment. Just a thought, but if you truly wish to punish these folks, putting them in an 8 x 12 and throwing away the key may be the perfect punishment. 40, 50, 60, 70 years or more is along time to stare at four walls and contemplate one’s responsibility. It respects life, gives them more than ample oppportunity for reconcilliation with God, protects society, and is way less costly.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Sometimes we self absorbed Americans have a habit of thinking every word out of the Pope’s mouth is directed solely at us. The Pope is the leader of one billion Catholics of which only 60 million (6%) live in America. When the Pope speaks on faith and morals it is, majority wise, to third world nation poor people that he is speaking.

The pope basing the use of capital punishment on whether or not a nation has wealth enough to house criminals makes capital punishment the prefered Catholic method for dealing with criminals in poor nations. I have heard that some Church leaders suspect that even American prisons, which cost tax payers $40,000 or $50,000/year/criminal, are inadequate to properly respect a human being’s dignity. How could third world poor nations ever respect human dignity of prisoners at this price tag? If you cannot feed your citizens, it seems logical, in the Pope’s argument, that capital punishment for your criminals is a preferred option in poor third world nations.

Of course maybe the Pope’s full focus is on America and he never thought of how his logic toward capital punishment would effect the rest of the nations in the world?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Trelow]

Tom of Assisi:

Your brain has been washed by the liberals very well. The vast majority of people in jail are not there mistaknly. Drugs are bad news and people are not executed for doing drugs anyway. Which of the apostoles would have been executed before Jesus came…I know several were executed afterwards (although Peter and Paul make the clear distiction between just executions and unjust ones)–but before Jesus??? What are you talking about?

Of course people should be forgiven if they repent of their sins…but do you honestly believe that forgiveness of sins equals being excused from punishment? Your faith in Jesus seems to contradict the teachings of Jesus. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

And yes it does cost a lot to jail and execute people…we need to reform the justice system that’s all. A bullet only costs a quarter after all…

 

[pnewton]

otm:

I . Too often, the immediate dollars are not available to make the changes necessary to revamp the prisons, which is not grounds to continue capital punishment.

You are correct as far as it goes. Money is not the only issue, however. In order to properly secure some inmates completely we have to violate what has been defined (by a liberal judiciary) as constitutional rights.

What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment keeps expanding every generation. I could develop a system to make inmates totally safe, but I could only do so by violating the civil rights of the convicted, as currently intrepreted by the courts.

 

[Sowndog]

if in OT times people were given punishments to fit the crime why would she believe that now in the NT times the same premises should apply? I believe the answer has a lot to do with the fundamentalists interpretation of the bible. From a Catholic point of view what changed from the time of Jesus that would have us use this form of punishment much less?

Many people throughout history have had trouble linking morality in the OT with that in the NT. A standard answer has been that the writers of the OT did not have full understanding of the nature of God. Only with the coming of Jesus did we gain an insight into His will. This was originally a response against Marcionism (I forget exactly who said it, possibly Tertullian but I will look this up) and is used by the church to this day.

Concerning CP, nobody has the right to take the life of another human being. Who are we to judge that another person’s life is not fit for this earth?

Any moderately civilised society has the ability to control and contain a prisoner. However, if there is a high degree of certainty that a person will commit more murders and there is no feasible means of controlling him/her, then perhaps you could make a case for CP; The intention being to save lives. As a form of punishment or vengence I cannot understand any possible Christian argument.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Sowndog:

As a form of punishment or vengence I cannot understand any possible Christian argument.

Catholic Exchange ran a two-part series about a year or so back presenting just those arguments. I believe there were about 4 reasons for capital punishment articulated by popes and Church Fathers throughout the ages, those being punishment of the offender, protection of society, a spur to conversion, and an opportunity for a converted offender to do penance by accepting the penalty. As you see, punishment was foremost among them. In fact, until liberal secularists began campaigning against it, most of Christianity still believed that capital punishment was a proportionate punishment for certain offenses. The current anti-CP attitude of the Church has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the death penalty, which the Church still upholds, and has everything to do with prudence of the government implementng that penalty given current societal conditions, among them a general disregard for the sanctity of life.

 

[Sowndog]

Originally Posted by Andreas Hofer
Catholic Exchange ran a two-part series about a year or so back presenting just those arguments.

Despite the fact that your view is supported by a TV show, I too have backing from sources of great esteem:

“When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature.”
Lactantius, 260-330AD

“We oppose the death penalty not just for what it does to those guilty of heinous crimes, but for what it does to all of us: it offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.”
Most Rev. Joseph A. Fiorenza, President, National Conference of Catholic Bishops / U.S. Catholic Conference, 1999.

…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." (John Paul II)
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

[Sowndog]

If any of you care for the opinion of a non-American, I would like to point out that much of the world (or Europe at least) is quite shocked at the amount of support CP has in the USA.

At the risk of being accused of hiding behind statistics, I would just like to share some facts that I found interesting. Of the countries listed below, only the United States and Japan still have a death penalty. Japan execute 2-3 prisoners per year. U.S. have executed between 45 and 98 every year since 1996.
Does CP help reduce murders? Judge for yourself:

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):
United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5

statistics from huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Sowndog:

Despite the fact that your view is supported by a TV show, I too have backing from sources of great esteem:

You should learn how to construct better arguments from primary sources because your first and third sources contradict each other - Lactantius obviously stands in opposition to the Church in this issue for he holds that all killing is always forbidden whereas the Church, as you quote from the Catechism, holds that it is sometimes permissible to take human life. As for your third source, while the authority is to be respected, I’d hardly consider a single bishop from a conference known for colossal pastoral failure to be a source of as “great esteem” as Church Fathers and popes. Call it elitism if you will, he hasn’t quite reached that level.

While you’ve shown an ability to proof text ancient writers without respect to the consensus of the Church, you’ve illustrated your unwillingness to accept that the Church affirmed in the past and continues to affirm, even in the present climate of “opposition” to the death penalty, the validity of capital punishment (you provided that citation from the Catechism for me). The bone of contention is not whether civil authorities may have recourse to capital punishment but whether prudential judgment indicates they should. The Holy Father believes the modern prisons of industrialized society are capable of eliminating a need for the death penalty by assuring the protection of society through life imprisonment. What I and a few others contend is that the Holy Father is mistaken in this prudential judgment because of evidence that even inmates under the tightest security are still capable of harming others (and thus, society).

Because the application of the Holy Father’s teachings on capital punishment involve such a prudential judgment, a Catholic may in good conscience either support or oppose the use of the death penalty. But a Catholic who denies the *validity *of the death penalty is not speaking with the Church.

 

[Sowndog]

Andreas Hofer:

You should learn how to construct better arguments from primary sources because your first and third sources contradict each.

I accept that I didn’t really explain the sources I chose. (It was rather late last night when I was typing.) My point in using Lactantius was to show that the earliest Christians were against capital punishment. The developed view now, as stated in the Catechism, is that the cases for CP are rare. (Which was also the point I made in a previous post.)

My frustration derives from the use of the death penalty as punishment, a spur to conversion, or as penance by accepting the penalty. The punishment argument is contrary to Jesus’s teaching that ‘an eye for an eye’ is not the correct way to live. As a spur to conversion the idea seems ghastly to me, that one would sanction death as a legitimate means of evangelism. The third point (penance) is ultimately suicide and I find it hard to belive that our all-loving, Father would ask for this in return for forgiveness.

Your uncertainty over the Holy Father’s judgement may or may not be valid. But does it mean there should be more killing of prisoners or a rethink of the prison system in your country? I do not deny that the Death Penalty is valid in extreemly rare cases, as explained in the Catechism. However, we get along fine without it in Europe and I believe it’s usage in developed countries should be near obsolete.

I question many people’s zeal for CP. Do they truly believe it is the best Christian way or is this an excuse to justify a vengeful, bloodthirsty area within themselves?

Lest we continue eternally to pick holes in one another’s arguments, I suggest we should now leave our quarrel aside. I cannot see any total agreement on the subject in the near future! Good Night and God Bless.

 

[BayCityRickL]

KGM:

. My question is this: did God permit people to kill people for the crimes they commited, and if so why do we not practice this form of punishment today.
KGM

Sometimes Jesus taught with commands and words, sometimes He taught with parables, and sometimes He taught with examples.

You have another thread challenging the historicity of the gospels, so this explanation might not be of much value, if you doubt the gospels themselves.

But, what the Holy Spirit has given in the gospels, includes the account of the woman caught in adultery. We see that Jesus turns back the demands for capital punishment in a way that suggests that all are probably deserving of it, in some fashion.

I just heard someone on tv say (for what its worth) that the commands for death in the Old Testament were so that in the afterlife, God could judge the person immediately. That’s an interesting idea why there may have been such punishments specified, not to deter from crime/sin by fearing death itself, but of fearing the judgment that would follow.

 

[john_doran]

Andreas Hofer:

You should learn how to construct better arguments from primary sources because your first and third sources contradict each other - Lactantius obviously stands in opposition to the Church in this issue for he holds that all killing is always forbidden

no, he doesn’t: he says that “putting to death” is always wrong. i.e. executing a man is always wrong. if he meant “killing” simpliciter, that’s presumably what he would have said.
Andreas Hofer:

whereas the Church, as you quote from the Catechism, holds that it is sometimes permissible to take human life.

the catechism says that it is permissible to take life in self-defense, which is what “capital punishment” amounts to if it is used only when no other recourse exists for the maintenance of the mortal safety of the public.

that is to say, the catechism says that “capital punishment” is ok only insofar as it is not punishment, but self-defense.

sounds like lactantius to me.
Andreas Hofer:

As for your third source, while the authority is to be respected, I’d hardly consider a single bishop from a conference known for colossal pastoral failure to be a source of as “great esteem” as Church Fathers and popes. Call it elitism if you will, he hasn’t quite reached that level.

it is a statement by the president of the NCCB given on behalf of the NCCB, which is a not insignificant part of the magisterium. certainly not dispositive, but, just as certainly, indicative.
Andreas Hofer:

Because the application of the Holy Father’s teachings on capital punishment involve such a prudential judgment, a Catholic may in good conscience either support or oppose the use of the death penalty. But a Catholic who denies the *validity *of the death penalty is not speaking with the Church.

you’re missing the point. which is simply that a morally rectifiable use of what you’re calling the “death penalty”, isn’t, in fact, penal - it’s defensive.

what is uncontroversial is that the church condones the commission of (some) actions which cause the death of individuals where the point of those actions is to defend the life of an individual or individuals whose own lives would otherwise be or likely be lethally threatened.

what is perhaps not so clear is whether or not it is possible to end the life of an individual in order to “teach them a lesson”, or to “level the moral playing field”, or for some other pedagogical or punitive reason.

personally, it seems to me that what is wrong, always and everywhere, is intentionally to end the life of another human being. period.
Andreas Hofer:

You should learn how to construct better arguments from primary sources

and you should perhaps improve your reading comprehension, or at least the depth of your familiarity with moral philosophy and theology before you start pointing out the speck in your brother’s eye.

…how did that last line sound to you? if, as i suspect, you found it to be abrasive and rude, how do you think snowdog felt?

let’s leave stuff like this out of the conversation, shall we?

 

[pnewton]

john doran:

it is a statement by the president of the NCCB given on behalf of the NCCB, which is a not insignificant part of the magisterium. certainly not dispositive, but, just as certainly, indicative.

Excellent points. Your post reflects the one reason while tend to support the death penalty, that is, because I do believe there is no other way to assure that some people in society do not harm others. (I have worked for 19 years around these people.) Everytime I start to think that it might be possible to safely house convicts for life, one of them shows me why it is not true. We can senttence for life, but not safely.

I am familiar with the stance of the NCCB an you are absolutely right. It is significant. No one should take my position lightly in view of the opinions of the NCCB. Rest assured that I do not take it lightly.