Capital punishment

[LighthouseRon]

I just heard that the last person executed in Oregon was a convicted murderer nine years ago. This person chose not to appeal at all and wanted to die. Aside from the murder itself, was it sinful for him not to pursue the appeal process and try to save his own life?

Another issue is capital punishment itself. While I think the church teaches it is okay under proper circumstances, I don’t understand because it is not allowed to create a good through a grave sin. The commandment says “Thou shall not kill”. It doesn’t say Thou shall not kill except when… If someone breaks into my house and threatens the life of my family, I believe I would be correct in killing him, if that’s the only means to stop the threat. But with incarcerated individuals there are other options such as life without parole. While it is a financial drain on society, isn’t it the right thing to do?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

As I have stated in the past, the death penalty is needed, but only for the most extreme cases. As the Catechism states:

**2267 **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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 are 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 non-existent.”

As for me, I have state that I would not be able to vote for the death penalty if I were to serve on a jury. I have not seen a case that would meet the requirements stated above.

PF

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I dont like any of the options. I think the death penalty should be used only in cases where public safety is at risk. For example, if all the max security prisons were full, and the only option to keep a killer off the street was to execute him-- then it’s legit. But those situations are rare today. So, in gerneral i do not support it.

 

[abcdefg]

UKcatholicGuy:

For example, if all the max security prisons were full, and the only option to keep a killer off the street was to execute him-- then it’s legit.

I don’t think it’s fair who commits the same crime earlier can be spared while the one whodunnit later are executed.

premediated murder for money is a typical crime that deserve capital punishment. the criminal generally has no mental disorder to harm his judgement. so no excuse for him. serial killing is a more severe crime but criminals generally have one mental disorder after another.

 

[Mike_Dye]

I would be against the death penality in all cases we could have an ironclad guarentee that the offender would never be set free and could not do harm to others in prison.
Mike

 

[TOME]

I think this is a topic that has to be discussed in the most rational way and with as little emotional imput as possible because we are talking about Human Life. This is my position on this topic not only here but in all my discussions.

I oppose Capital punishment period. I can see no justification for Capital Punishment and over the course of years of discussion on this I have seen two basic reasons given for its justification and I reject both.

The first reason given is that some crimes a so terrible that they deserve the ultimate punishment. In my opinion this argument is usually based on emotions not reason. But more important, for me is that the bottom line is we would be acting out of revenge not justice.

The second argument I find given in defense of Capital Punishment is the argument based on the Principle of self defense. The State does have the right and duty to defend itself, however, in the case of self defense, first, there is no agression on the part of the murderer. That person’s aggression has been stopped and we have the means of perpetually preventing the individual from further attacks on society as a whole and individuals in a society. Self defense demands that only the necessary force to stop an aggression be used. Capital punishment, in my opinion goes beyond the necessary force to stop and aggression.

A futher argument, in line with self defense, is that Capital Punishment is a deterrant. Our murder rate clearly shows that it is not the deterrant we hope it would be and never would be.Other countries whose trial and punishment is almost immediate still experience murders. But again, even if Capital Punishment could serve as a creditable deterrant I return to my pervious point, Capital Punish to unjustified force used to stop an aggression that has already be stopped.

 

[Brendan]

The poll is somewhat off.

It is not necessarily the the most horrible criminals should be subjected to the Death Penalty.

The death penalty, per the Church, should be reserved for when there are no other reasonable alternatives to protect society (which also includes other inmates)

 

[Brendan]

TOME:

IThe State does have the right and duty to defend itself, however, in the case of self defense, first, there is no agression on the part of the murderer. That person’s aggression has been stopped and we have the means of perpetually preventing the individual from further attacks on society as a whole and individuals in a society.

The biggest question I have here is:

Has the aggression been actually been stopped? External Society is protected while the aggressor is in prison, but that is not the only segment to home the State owes protection.

Are other prisoners vulnerable to the killer’s aggression?

That factor must also be considered.

 

[pnewton]

Put me down for one big undecided. Some days I would volunteer for the firing squad. I am, however, still struggling with the issue.

 

[TOME]

Brendan, as I was writing my post I had thoughts about that my self. I have a couple of responses.

First, the reason for the punishment would be for a particular crime that already been committed, the person caught and brought to trial with the sentencing which could (should) stop further aggression, so that element of self defense as a justification I believe is not valid.

But as you brought up, and what I had thought about, answer is our penal system objectively, has the rules to prevent to prevent such actions. However, I’m not so out off touch with reality (despite what the neighbors say) as to deny what is possible in our jails. They are human institution, actually all too human their reflection our our fallen human nature.

But that is why I was moving that this discussion should be based on reason as much as possible, perhaps I should have said objective reasoning. One weakness that is inheriant to many discussions is the tendency to move from the objective to the subjective and focus on the exceptions rather than the rule. So while I’m not denying the reality of the exceptions I am presumming we are talking in the objective relm, at least that’s what I try to do.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s one example I think it would have been appropriate:

Remember that guy who was brought into court and then grabbed the cop’s gun and opened fire on everyone in the courtroom. That guy was obviously a danger even when in custody.

 

[amateurthomist]

Just a point of clarification. “Thou shalt not kill” means thou shalt not commit murder. There is justified killing in the bible. In fact, God commands the death penalty and war in the bible. I just point this out because the death penalty, even when used in a situation where life in prison is a possible alternative, is not equivalent to murder. If the state errs in administering the death penalty, it makes an error of judgment, not a mortally sinful error equivalent to murder. Of course, if the state knows someone is innocent or if someone does not receive due process, then that is a more serious problem.

 

[Dr_Paul]

I fully agree with TOME. One of the issues that I have wrestled with came up in one of Mr. K’s e-letters a while back when he was discussing the section of the catechism that deals with this. As I recall, the point was made that this was the only place in the entire catechism that “prudential judgement” was included (ie JPII’s personal beliefs rather than doctrine). I had a problem with that discussion then and continue to struggle with this. The point seems clear to me. In theory (and in reality in earlier societies) there could be situations in which capital punishment was the only real way to protect society. Even in this circumstance, the action of killing to protect falls short of the ideal set forth by God. Here, the intention is to protect, not to exact “justice” through the execution. In our present society, even with a less than perfect penal system, this justification rarely if ever exists.

Without getting into a political discussion, this is where I fail to see any conssistency in legislators who argue that they support life, but make clear distinctions about which lives are worthy to protect. Here, I see the Church as holding to a consistent life ethic.

 

[LighthouseRon]

Doesn’t this statement refer to when other options that are available? Does this not mean capital punishment is not needed in our modern day society?

"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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "

Another point. There is justified killing in the Bible and indeed there is today, such as in a war situation. But when a person is in custody, not being a threat to society, is it not murder to kill him? It is a question I struggle with.

 

[johnshelby]

lots of crimes were punishable by the death penalty in the
old testament…

but… Jesus, said, when confronted with an adulteress
( a crime punishable by death )…

Let whosoever is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.

sounds to me like Jesus was anti-death penalty… guess
i’ll have to join him…

even tho, i read things people do, and the first thought i have
is, “fry 'em”…

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

UKcatholicGuy:

I dont like any of the options. I think the death penalty should be used only in cases where public safety is at risk. For example, if all the max security prisons were full, and the only option to keep a killer off the street was to execute him-- then it’s legit. But those situations are rare today. So, in gerneral i do not support it.

I would have to agree with you.

Thats pretty much what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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."68

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

johnshelby:

lots of crimes were punishable by the death penalty in the
old testament…

but… Jesus, said, when confronted with an adulteress
( a crime punishable by death )…

Let whosoever is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.

sounds to me like Jesus was anti-death penalty… guess
i’ll have to join him…

even tho, i read things people do, and the first thought i have
is, “fry 'em”…

I don’t think that is a cut and dry arguement against the death penalty. It has more to do with jumping to judgement of others and the over legalisticness of the pharisees than being anti-death penalty. IMHO

GOd bless!

 

[Brendan]

johnshelby:

lots of crimes were punishable by the death penalty in the
old testament…

but… Jesus, said, when confronted with an adulteress
( a crime punishable by death )…

Let whosoever is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.

sounds to me like Jesus was anti-death penalty… guess
i’ll have to join him…

Actually God (which includes Christ) set out several crimes for which the punishment was death, so Christ can’t be all that much against Capital Punishment.

Secondly, if you read a bit further before, the Pharisees are specifically shown to be laying a trap for Christ.

Most people forget that, and the trap is pretty obvious.

The Mosaic Law (which Christ Himself gave to Moses) specified death for the woman’s crime.

The Roman law prohibited Jews from excercising the death penalty without Roman permission,

So the trap was: Christ could either renounce the Mosaic Law (which would be heresy) or go against Roman law (in which case they have a crime against him)

Christ’s answer was brilliant. The Pharisees were sinless under the O.T. law. Their hallmark was that they obeyed every aspect of the Mosaic law to the fullest, which to them, meant they were sinless. They honestly believed they were devoid of sin.

So Christ was telling the people that the Pharisees should throw the stone (which upheld the Mosaic Law, no heresy). But they could not go the Romans with a charge against Christ because no Roman court would believe the Pharisees were ‘sinless’.

If you also noticed, it was the elders who walked away first, they were experienced enought in politics to realize that Christ had 'em over a logical barrel.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Brendan:

The Pharisees were sinless under the O.T. law. Their hallmark was that they obeyed every aspect of the Mosaic law to the fullest, which to them, meant they were sinless. They honestly believed they were devoid of sin.

So Christ was telling the people that the Pharisees should throw the stone (which upheld the Mosaic Law, no heresy). But they could not go the Romans with a charge against Christ because no Roman court would believe the Pharisees were ‘sinless’.

If you also noticed, it was the elders who walked away first, they were experienced enought in politics to realize that Christ had 'em over a logical barrel.

Christ said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, not “Let he who thinks he is without sin cast the first stone”. Obviously, regardless of what the pharasees believed, they, like everyone else, had sinned. Christ, being God, knew this. While the effect either way was indeed brilliant, preventing this woman from being stoned, this does not demonstrate that Christ advocated the death penalty in this case.

There is quite a bit of evidence in scripture that Jesus did NOT teach that the death penalty was the best way to deal with sin. Jesus often took the mosaic law, and while not rejecting it outright, he raised it to a new level, going beyond the law. He often provided a better way to handle the problem of sin. Examples include, “love your enemy”, “pray for those who persecute you”, “turn the other cheek”… If we truly strive to imitate Christ, we would be in error to advocate the death penalty if other options existed that are more in line with the teachings of Christ. That there are better options today to protect others is indeed what that Catechism (and our own common sense) tells us.

Even if you accept that Jesus would support the death penalty for adultery in the case that you cite, this does not autmatically apply to the crimes in which the death sentance is applied today. I don’t know of anyone in our present society who was executed because of adultery.

 

[Brendan]

Dr Paul:

Christ said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, not “Let he who thinks he is without sin cast the first stone”. Obviously, regardless of what the pharasees believed, they, like everyone else, had sinned. Christ, being God, knew this. While the effect either way was indeed brilliant, preventing this woman from being stoned, this does not demonstrate that Christ advocated the death penalty in this case.

Christ was, in effect, offering the Pharisees, to thrown the first stone. And I’m sure a Pharisee would have happily picked up a stone and threw it, except that it would have violate Roman Law.

He was showing them to be hypocrites, challenging Christ in to do what they themselves would not

There is quite a bit of evidence in scripture that Jesus did NOT teach that the death penalty was the best way to deal with sin.

When did I say that Christ taught that the D.P was the best way. Of course it is not.

But that is quite a bit different from saying that Christ did not teach it. There is plenty of Scriptural evidence to show he did

(read Leviticus)

Those are just as much Christ’s words as anything in the Gospel.

Jesus often took the mosaic law

He WROTE the Mosaic Law

and while not rejecting it outright, he raised it to a new level, going beyond the law. He often provided a better way to handle the problem of sin. Examples include, “love your enemy”, “pray for those who persecute you”, “turn the other cheek”… If we truly strive to imitate Christ, we would be in error to advocate the death penalty if other options existed that are more in line with the teachings of Christ. That there are better options today to protect others is indeed what that Catechism (and our own common sense) tells us.

Even if you accept that Jesus would support the death penalty for adultery in the case that you cite, this does not autmatically apply to the crimes in which the death sentance is applied today. I don’t know of anyone in our present society who was executed because of adultery.

Again, I never said anything about the death penalty being the best way to deal with sin. I fully accept that it is not.

The point I was making is that, in accordance with Scripture and Church Teaching, the use of the death penalty has a place, abiet very rare place, in God’s Justice.