Capital punishment

[Jim_Baur]

There are many wars going on right now.

If the leaders in those countries were executed, would that not be just?

I believe in the way Jesus Christ lived and died, so I wouldn’t be part of it.

But for those leaders that cause so many deaths–would it not be justice to them?

 

[Jim_Baur]

Hydra will always grow one more head.

The only way to beat evil is with love–as the Cross shows.

It is love that beats evil, sin and death.

Justice cannot heal evil.

Scheol is both death and Hell.

Love conquered death.

It is Love that gives life (zoe). Just cannot do it.

Jesus Christ shows us that.

Therefore, as a Christian I must reject justice as solution for the Kingdom of God.

Justice is left to the State!

 

[z_0101]

Pope St. John Paul II his Evangelium vitae taken therefrom as a commentary cited within the CCC: 2267:
CCC2267: the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent

therefor from reading the entire CCC2265 - 2267 and the cross referenced CCC2306 and in keeping with St.JP-2 we can interpret that Governments should and must seek all reasonable, non-lethal means, sufficient to protect and defend the population - even in a time of war.
IN FACT CCC2267 states: “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means (…)”

So, for the leaders of a War, NO, execution cannot be automatically justified.
No matter how heinous the individual’s actions are… let our Lord exact “Justice.”

Let them atone for their sins… we may not like it; however, Christ didn’t ask of 12 legions of Angels to squash the people, NO, he humbly asked the Father to forgive us. The GREATEST SIN, to kill our Lord, Our God, and he forgives us.
No, we must not violate our own values because the Devil tempts us to do so… this is just another fruit from the forbidden tree…

As Monty Python would say: >>>> RUNAWAY! RUNAWAY! RUNAWAY!>>>>

 

[GEddie]

There is a difference between execution and lynching or assassination.

The former is the only retributive killing that can be morally defensible, and it requires a formal legal process.

This cannot be applied to the leaders in a war, until the other side has already won the war.

So, no good.

Killing of human beings is not the moral solution to killing of human beings, though it may not be avoidable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Nelka]

If the leaders in those countries were executed, would that not be just?

No!

Everybody has the right to reconcile with God.

We do not have the right to stop somebody from doing that.

 

[Ender]

No!

Everybody has the right to reconcile with God.

We do not have the right to stop somebody from doing that.

This is not what the church teaches, either now or in the past. She has always recognized that the state has the moral right to execute people duly convicted of serious crimes.
“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[z_0101]

This is not what the church teaches, either now or in the past.
She has always recognized that the state has the moral right to execute people duly convicted of serious crimes.

Provided certain conditions have been met and these conditions are more often are not met as the execution is most often in the private interest of the government, sometimes for the people, and very often just a means for efficiency.

Furthermore, we now have a deeper understanding:

Vatican: CCC 2267 (click here)
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. (…) (emphases mine)

and as Pope St. John Paul II said, (and I pointed out in my prior post: )

Pope St. John Paul II his Evangelium vitae taken therefrom as a commentary cited within the CCC: 2267:
CCC2267: the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent

Vatican: CCC 2267 (click here)
2267 (,)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. (…) (emphases mine)

Therefore with all due respect to St. Aquinas, just as our Lord brought us a deeper understanding of the faith, so, in our continued growth, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we now have a deeper understanding that the state has, by Church teachings (and mind you the CCC didn’t change any of the teachings of the Holy Church, only codified them in succinct and efficient format), always had the moral and ethical duty to find an alternative, humane method of segregating the threat from society.

We’ve seen one too many cases (Ranging from death-penalty to simply criminal in nature) overturned by new forensic methods here in the U.S. We’ve seen one too many cases overturned after discovery of falsified evidence, perjurious testimonies, and coerced confessions. Most industrialized countries have the means to incarcerate an individual for the remainder of their natural life… and therefor we must do so whenever possible.

and if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Aquinas)

Now I would agree here, that there are men in our history, despotic leaders, that by their hand (either actually or by orders given) murdered an uncountable number of humans and we could incarcerate these persons and they’d never repent.

However, did St, Aquinas forget how long it took for some of the people who we now recognize as Saints to even convert to the faith? For some it took many years, indeed a majority of the early years of their lives to convert.

So who, are we, as the Body of Christ, to deny the possibility for this conversion and repentance when the possibility is available to the State?

Should Christ have condemned us from the Cross?
He could have called forth the legions of Angels and had us all put to death upon the moment of his arrest (Matt.26:53).
He had every right to do so.

Should Christ have condemned the repentant thief, for the thief initially mocked and jeered and condemned our Lord (( Matt. 27:39-44) ?
Christ had every right to do so.

No, he forgave us, he forgave the thief, he sent the Holy Spirit to guide us, and established his Church to help us grow to be more like Him in every way.

Taking of a human life is taking of a human life and we must understand, that to take a human life has dire consequences to our soul(s) - even when such is done as an act of self defense or in the defense of others and should only ever be done when we have no other recourse. This is the teaching handed down to Mosses, from the mouth of our Lord to the people when re-affirmed the ten commandments and said that if we even have anger in hearts we commit murder (Matt5-21-23 ), and to the Apostles; thus, our Church.

 

[Jim_Baur]

z_0101

thanks!!!

You made some excellent points.

One that really helped me is when you made me think of Just War Theory and capital punishment–I am not sure how you went about saying it, but I could not help think of the two together.

Those that would know the just war ideas could care less about it. Those that do have a deep understanding of just war are not given enough information-- so too with capital punishment.

Jesus from the cross is also profound–not only for capital punishment, but also for all of my sins, too!

THANKS!

 

[Ender]

Provided certain conditions have been met and these conditions are more often are not met…

The conditions that have to be met are rather straightforward: the crime has to be serious, guilt has to be fairly established, and the punishment should not cause more problems than it resolves. Of all these, however, it is the first that establishes the just severity of the punishment.

Furthermore, we now have a deeper understanding:

I am unimpressed with the argument that the church’s teaching on this topic was deficient for nearly 2000 years, and it is only in the last 20 that she has come to truly understand it.

… the state has, by Church teachings… always had the moral and ethical duty to find an alternative, humane method of segregating the threat from society.

This is inaccurate. The state has the obligation of applying just punishments for crimes; the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. Eliminating the threat of future crimes does not redress the disorder of ones already committed.

So who, are we, as the Body of Christ, to deny the possibility for this conversion and repentance when the possibility is available to the State?

You cede power to the state which it does not have.*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. *(Romano Amerio)

Taking of a human life is taking of a human life and we must understand, that to take a human life has dire consequences to our soul(s) - even when such is done as an act of self defense or in the defense of others and should only ever be done when we have no other recourse. This is the teaching handed down to Moses, from the mouth of our Lord to the people when re-affirmed the ten commandments…

Actually, nothing in the ten commandments (including the fifth) prohibits capital punishment. God did speak directly to this issue, however, when establishing his covenant with Noah:Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gn 9:6)
Ender

 

[nmgauss]

Does it make sense to burden taxpayers with supporting convicted murderers during their life-in-prison sentences?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does it make sense to burden taxpayers with supporting convicted murderers during their life-in-prison sentences?

It makes about as much sense as burdening taxpayers with the support of totally non-productive mental defectives or those with severe handicaps.

Of all the reasons to execute someone “You cost too much to hold in prison” is the worst. If we allow ourselves to justify execution on those grounds, what is to stop this “tax saving” measure from applying to thieves, embezzlers, and tax evaders?

 

[Ender]

Of all the reasons to execute someone “You cost too much to hold in prison” is the worst. If we allow ourselves to justify execution on those grounds, what is to stop this “tax saving” measure from applying to thieves, embezzlers, and tax evaders?

A more interesting take on this question is to ask why, if executions are allowed when necessary to protect the public, we should not in fact execute a great deal more people for some of the much less serious crimes you list?

Now - please - whoever reads this, before breaking out the capital letters to denounce me and the horse I rode in on, at least read carefully what I wrote. I am not suggesting that we should in fact execute thieves and jaywalkers. I am making a very particular point, essentially that Who says A must say B. If one makes the argument that we should execute someone who is a threat to the public, ***then ***on what basis can we object to executing someone who does in fact represent a threat?

Ender

 

[nmgauss]

It makes about as much sense as burdening taxpayers with the support of totally non-productive mental defectives or those with severe handicaps.

Of all the reasons to execute someone “You cost too much to hold in prison” is the worst. If we allow ourselves to justify execution on those grounds, what is to stop this “tax saving” measure from applying to thieves, embezzlers, and tax evaders?

Why should I be compelled to support somebody who would kill me, steal from me, or otherwise do bodily harm to me? Our society would benefit without predators, and providing them with free food, bed and clothing while serving out their sentences is counter-intuitive.

If we put them in cages like animals without ordinary comforts and let them die in situ if they get sick, then we would not have to feel guilty about doing anything violent to them. If we fed them gorilla chow, that might be cheaper than the gourmet fare we provide for them now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why should I be compelled to support somebody who would kill me, steal from me, or otherwise do bodily harm to me? Our society would benefit without predators, and providing them with free food, bed and clothing while serving out their sentences is counter-intuitive…

I’ll tell you why after you tell me why my taxes should go to support an institutionalized mental patient.

 

[nmgauss]

I’ll tell you why after you tell me why my taxes should go to support an institutionalized mental patient.

Your example amounts to welfare, and these patients are not convicted felons. In my example, what gives the right to convicted felons to take money out of my pocket to support them?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But for those leaders that cause so many deaths–would it not be justice to them?

Christ discusses the fate of such people (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus then said, 'Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your example amounts to welfare, and these patients are not convicted felons. In my example, what gives the right to convicted felons to take money out of my pocket to support them?

I didn’t ask you how mental patients differ from convicted felons. I just asked you what the basis is for supporting institutionalized mental patients. They do me no economic benefit. Are you afraid that if you spell out exactly why I have an obligation to them that I will then use that same justification to show why we have an obligation to care for convicted felons? Because that is exactly what I intend to do.

 

[z_0101]

IMHO: Time to close this thread.
The last several posts go against the basic teaching of the CCC in the sections that I’ve cited earlier and with the current standing of the Church.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Society has the right to separate itself from those who violate its laws. The extent of that separation generally exists on a sliding scale depending on the severity of the violation. I am against the death penalty. But I understand there may exist circumstances when the desired separation is not practical or cannot be paid for. That’s a definite slippery slope however and I fear to tread on it.

 

[nmgauss]

I didn’t ask you how mental patients differ from convicted felons. I just asked you what the basis is for supporting institutionalized mental patients. They do me no economic benefit. Are you afraid that if you spell out exactly why I have an obligation to them that I will then use that same justification to show why we have an obligation to care for convicted felons? Because that is exactly what I intend to do.

I’m curious about your intentions. In the case of institutionalized mental patients, there may be a difference between incarceration in a mental hospital versus a prison. If someone is a menace to society, what obligation does society have to support that person? Whether it is confinement in a prison or mental hospital, society should not have to pay for it. In poor countries, there certainly is less tax revenue for those purposes and, for the most part, incarceration is a much more unpleasant experience than in affluent countries. Available monetary resources dictates what takes priority.