Capital punishment

[ncjohn]

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.

This is basically where I stand also. An example might be a political prisoner who committed grave crimes and whose incarceration would lead others to commit crimes or hold society hostage in some way as an attempt to free him. I can think of a few examples where that could happen in our modern world, but it would still be quite rare overall.

I cannot condone it for any other reason for two basic reasons. First, the state should not be acting in ways it professes to condemn, nor condoning actions which are unacceptable for others. Other examples of this are legalized gambling and prostitution, which try to use regulation of an evil to promote a greater good in some way. The state killing as a punishment or deterrent to killers is hypocritical and use of an evil to attempt to accomplish a good.

The more important reason to me though is that all the killing accomplishes is to create more victims and more angry people. Each time we execute someone we create an angry or deeply grieved parent, spouse, sibling, child, or friend. The state, in its killing, helps to pass on the “sins of the father” through its succeeding generations by making victims of the innocent left behind, thereby perpetuating the cycle.

Since there are better alternatives in almost all cases, we would be well advised to follow the church’s teaching and stop the killing.

Peace,
John

 

[vern_humphrey]

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 consider that to be the LEAST moral standard for the death penalty – it amounts to saying, “You aren’t any different from all the other dangerous criminals, but we don’t have a place to keep you, so you die.”

One instructive story is that of Tommy Silverstein. He was serving a life sentence and killed another prisoner. And he got another life sentence. Later on, while in Marion (the original “Super Max”), he cooked up a plot to kill several corections officers – two WERE killed – one by Silverstein, himself.

Since there was no federal death penalty at that time, he got a THIRD life sentence.

What do you do with the Tommy Sliverstiens of this world – keep adding one meaningless life sentence on top of another every time they kill?

 

[johnshelby]

i’ve heard that reasoning, and it accomplished exactly
what you said…

but Jesus is more than brilliant, Jesus is God, exactly
like you said…

any ‘lawyer’ can entrap, but God entraps using
truth… if Jesus said, that only the sinless should cast
a stone at the woman, then he meant, only the sinless
should do so… we know no man is sinless …
Jesus knew the Pharisees weren’t sinless, he told them so
in the same passages… (( 24 I said therefore unto you, that
ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he,
ye shall die in your sins.))

Jesus said the laws were written thus, because of the ‘hardness’ of the peoples hearts… and that we should not be so hard,
lest the Father be as hard with us…

like i said, i have the same feelings as most people when someone
commits a horrible crime… but, i still feel that if Jesus were here,
he’d be against capital punishment…

and this is just my humble opinion… (( and i can be swayed ))

lol

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

I struggle with this one, too, but I have to admit it wouldn’t be as much of a struggle if our legal system safely incarcerated convicted criminals for their entire sentences. 20 years should mean 20 years.

I would not want to be the person who declared a child molester rehabilitated, when upon release, s/he committed more crimes against innocent children.

The only other type of case that would cause me problems would be someone like Saddam Hussein. Clearly his crimes were many, callous, and heinous. Taking his life may well be justice, BUT…

First, it might make him a martyr to the terrorist cause.

Secondly, if you don’t kill him, how many coups, terrorism, and hostage-takings will be attempted in order to free him, and freed, allow him to be a magnet to gather more like-minded monsters who make the Mafia seem naive.

Either way, in order to make capital punishment less necessary to the state, shouldn’t we, as Catholics, put pressure on our legislatures to pass legislation that enforces the complete serving of sentences?

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

 

[Philip_P]

Many discussions on capital punishment touch on questions of the proper relationship of justice to punishment.

An excellent article on this is in the most recent edition of First Things, a Catholic magazine:

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0508/articles/bottum.html

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I voted only for the most horrible crimes, but the choice I was looking for was only for the irreformable offenders. The Death penaly is certainly over-applied in many places (including my own state, Harris County in particular), but the view of the capabilities of our prisons held by our bishops and the late JP II shows every sign of a view only seen through rose colored glasses.

Despite the claims I keep hearing that our prisons are capable of permanently preventing a violent offender from putting any member of society at risk, my own experience (10 years) working within a state prison system leaves me quite unimpressed. We might have the technological capability to do it, but actualy building those sorts of facilities cost big $, and spending more on building new prisons capable of that intended for long term storage without education or rehabilitation intents also draws fire by Church leaders (and actually has a weightier argument against direting resources needed to - literally - keep the needy alive in order to secure the irreformable).

I am aware of instances where inmates held in isolation have managed to seriously injure others. Serial killers with “fan clubs” that inspire copycat crimes. Add to that the mentioned problems with storing terrorists, etc. The thought that we might not need the DP any more is nice, and I hope we get there soon, but we are not there yet.

 

[Petertherock]

Take Osama Bin Laden, if we caught him he would still be dangerous to the general public. His terror cells would commit acts of terror to win his release. They would do things in his name. If he is dead, they may do things in the short run but in the long term it would stop a lot of attacks. So someone like him deserves death providing we ever catch him.

Also, if public safety is at risk such as the person has either escaped or attempted to escape from prison and if they have commit violent crimes after escaping especially they deserve to die.

 

[Al_Masetti]

An architect who designed prisons told me that the Spanish had a system in which prisoners served their entire sentence in a large cell but they remained in that cell at all times by themselves. No exercise periods outside the cell. Perhaps maybe not being allowed out for any reason.

I wonder how true that is and how effective it is in terms of recidivism and in terms of inmates injuring or killing staff.

 

[pnewton]

Al Masetti:

An architect who designed prisons told me that the Spanish had a system in which prisoners served their entire sentence in a large cell but they remained in that cell at all times by themselves. No exercise periods outside the cell. Perhaps maybe not being allowed out for any reason.

I wonder how true that is and how effective it is in terms of recidivism and in terms of inmates injuring or killing staff.

It might work in theory, but never in practice, at least in the US. Here are some of the reasons that they would have to be let out, besides for sunlight and recreation:
Medical treatment
Court appearances
Legal prep/law library
Religious services

 

[Jay74]

There are good people, and moral arguments, on both sides of this issue. I’m not going to debate it much here, since such debates have already been made, and they seldom change people’s minds. I do think, however, that sometimes people on both sides ascribe inaccuracies to the other that are not there, and that is more what I plan to discuss.

The Bible says “thou shalt not kill,” but as it was pointed out it is more precisely translated as “thou shalt not murder.” Thou shalt not murder must be the correct translation, otherwise God has contradicted Himself–considering the death penalty was ascribed to murders in the first 5 books of the Bible (including the book the ten commandments are in). We know that it is not possible for God to contradict himself.

I’ve heard the argument that “life is precious.” Both sides should acknowledge that the other side believes this too. Those against capital punishment do not want to take life because they value it. Those who support capital punishment also value life, and because life is so precious, the highest penalty must be paid for taking another’s life.

I’ve heard the argument “you can’t teach not to take a life by taking a life.” It is a little shallow. Not to demean the good intentions of those who make this argument, but its almost like arguing “you can’t teach someone not to kidnap/abduct someone by doing the same to them (locking them up)”. To the contrary, it is very possible murders would decrease should people know it will certainly end their life, not merely their freedom.

You may have guessed I do support the death penalty.

However, there are pro-death penalty arguments I don’t like. Like the argument about prison capacity, for example. I understand that prisons are full, and repeat offenders are a problem, not to mention those who murder guards or fellow (less violent) prisoners. People should be judged, convicted, and sentenced, based on their actions and merits. To execute them, but not someone worse, simply because of timing isn’t justice.

I really enjoy philosophical discussions about capital punishment, the pros, the cons, the effects on society, the value of life, etc. This is lost when we make shallow arguments like “thou shalt not kill”, “life is precious”, and “the prison is full”. It also deteriorates when we start judging the motives of others. We all have good motives, so lets talk results.

Blessings to all.

 

[mlchance]

johnshelby:

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…

Actually, in that particular situation, it’s more like Jesus was anti-lynch mob. Were the woman’s accusers the proper authority to pronounce sentence over her? Nope.

Capital punishment is positively condoned in both the Old and New Testaments. It has always been Church teaching that capital punishment can be justly applied by the state.

So, the question isn’t: Is capital punishment sinful?

The question is, instead: Is capital punishment the just punishment in this particular case?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vegpotter]

Dr Paul:

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.

Beautifully put. I’m uncomfortable with making distinctions over whose life is more valuable. It really bothers me to hear politicians use the phrase “Culture of Death” when they support the death penalty. It’s up to God to determine when to end a life, not men. We support life or we don’t. I realize many of you will disagree, but I feel that it’s that simple.

 

[Jay74]

Great post, Mark.

mlchance:

Actually, in that particular situation, it’s more like Jesus was anti-lynch mob. Were the woman’s accusers the proper authority to pronounce sentence over her? Nope.

I agree. Not too mention, adultery is a far less serious sin than murder.

mlchance:

Capital punishment is positively condoned in both the Old and New Testaments. It has always been Church teaching that capital punishment can be justly applied by the state.

It is the only punishment repeated in all of the first five books of the Bible.

mlchance:

So, the question isn’t: Is capital punishment sinful?

Very true. It can’t be the question, because if we deem capital punishment sinful, then we are saying the first five books of the Bible prescribe a sinful punishment for murder.

mlchance:

The question is, instead: Is capital punishment the just punishment in this particular case?

In the case of adultery, no. Murder, yes.

-- Mark L. Chance.

If this is the last line of a post, the lines about it usually speak truth.

 

[ncjohn]

Jay74:

It can’t be the question, because if we deem capital punishment sinful, then we are saying the first five books of the Bible prescribe a sinful punishment for murder.

I don’t think we would be saying that at all. I think we would just be admitting that the state of human conciousness was not as advanced at that time. God in the OT is largely considered a wrathful, vengeful God, but Jesus came to show us differently.

In fact, Jesus specifically told us that many things in the OT were not what God had in mind. Most of Chapters 5-7 of Matthew are composed of what we are actually supposed to be doing. Chapter 5 in particular is full of the “you have heard…but I tell you this” messages, which clearly imply that people were misinterpreting God’s will in the past.

Most of the Bible, especially the old testament, is the story of people moving 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. They get it, then they don’t get it. They live it, then they fall away from it. They get to the promised land, then lose it through unfaithfulness and end up in exile. It’s the same story we all live, day-to-day. One day we’re on the mountain top, the next we feel abandoned in the desert. But overall, it’s an evolution of conciousness and awareness of God’s overall plan–imperfect as that awareness may be.

The New Testament, as the fulfillment of the signs of the OT, is based on forgiveness. That doesn’t mean we don’t oppose evil; we must. But it does mean we can’t become part of the evil to oppose a “greater evil.”

 

[Jay74]

ncjohn:

The New Testament, as the fulfillment of the signs of the OT, is based on forgiveness.

I agree with this. And the most beautiful thing about Godly forgiveness is it is preceded by repentances–a promise to do so no more, which means it truly is a thing of the past.

 

[Steven_Merten]

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?

Hello Ron,

You directly contradict yourself. You say God’s commandment says to never kill under any circumstances and then you proceed to tell us when you believe it is okay in God’s eyes to kill. So which is it in your mind, never or “except when”.

I remember Pope John Paul II, from behind the protection of Swiss Guard snippers, stating “violence is never the answer”. He contradicts himself. So which is it Pope John Paul II? “Never” or sometimes when Pope John Paul II’s life and property is in danger?

It is true that one should not commit evil, even lesser of two evils to protect themselves. What ever Jesus wills us to do when our lives and the lives of our families lives are in danger, must be done. Jesus certianly would have known and taken into consideration the disasterous danger Pope John Paul II would be in if Jesus willed him “never” to use force to protect himself.

If Jesus wills us never to kill then, starting at the Vatican, this is what must be done regardless of loss of papal lives and property. Pope St. Peter committed three “lesser of two evils” evil lies to protect himself from being murdered along with Jesus. Jesus had to pray hard to retrieve St. Peter’s soul from the lesser of two evils life saving lies he committed in defiance to the will of Jesus.

I believe Jesus does will us to draw the sword He commanded us to sell our coat and buy and use it to kill to protect the innocent. Please visit Throwing Stones

**NAB MAT 5:38 **"you have heard the commandment, ‘An eye for an eye. a tooth for a tooth.’ But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the cheek, turn and offer him the other.

**NAB LUK 22:35 **

**"…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one." **

 

[Petertherock]

pnewton:

It might work in theory, but never in practice, at least in the US. Here are some of the reasons that they would have to be let out, besides for sunlight and recreation:
Medical treatment
Court appearances
Legal prep/law library
Religious services

Another reason it wouldn’t work is because of the liberals and groups like the ACLU who worry more about the rights of criminals than they do the rights of the victims and the law abiding citizens who want to make our world safer.

 

[Petertherock]

Someone in another topic said something that applies here…Jesus told us to turn the other cheek but he did not say for us to let our wives and children be raped and murdered.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The reference to protection of one’s wife and children is very relevant and important in this discussion. It also speaks to one of the previous posts discussing apparent contradiition in John Paul II opposing capital punishment while having his own body guards ready to shoot to protect his life. The Church fully acknowledges the right (and in some instances, duty) to protect the lives of others. The catechism makes this clear in its reference to capital puishment when it leaves open the possibility of using this means if no other option exists that can guarantee the safety of society. The problem comes when one advocates the death penalty to serve “justice”, get rid of a difficult (and perhaps costly) problem of incarcerating a person for life, or any other reason other than the protection of other lives. If there is a means to provide this protection without killing the aggressor, this is the only moral option. Obvioulsy, in threatening situations, split second decisions need to be made and unfortunately, sometime wrong decision are made. However, with proper intent, there is no sin.

It is important to keep the Church’s (as reflecting Christ’s) embrace of the value of EVERY human life, including that of a criminal. If choosing to exercise this option (for the “good” of society), one is obligated to maintain the dignity of the condemned persons life. The intent, as in circumstances in which one is protecting his family from an aggressor, has to be to protect life to the extent that this is possible. There are clearly situations in which decisions have to be made in which the lessor of two evils is allowed (though not willed) in order to minimize the evil produced by the opposing action.

As I see it, this is another example of the doctrine of the double effect.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Jay74:

The Bible says “thou shalt not kill,” but as it was pointed out it is more precisely translated as “thou shalt not murder.” Thou shalt not murder must be the correct translation, otherwise God has contradicted Himself–considering the death penalty was ascribed to murders in the first 5 books of the Bible (including the book the ten commandments are in). We know that it is not possible for God to contradict himself.
.

I recall that it was common practice in the old testament days to “doom” an entire city after conquering it to prevent the infiltration of the defeated people’s culture into the victor’s society. This included the killing not only of combatants but women and children as well. It is stated that this was “God’s will” as the people of the time understood it. Few would argue that such treatment of innocent noncombatants would be anything less than murder in our present society. Seems to me that one should be very cautious in trying to justify capital punishment by looking to killing in the old testament.