Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

I would agree that the Bible communicates truth at all times and in all places. What is the truth that the authors of Sacred Scripture intended to communicate?

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation is that God commands us (or allows us) in any era to kill someone for certain offenses, including murder, adultery, or doing work on the Sabbath.

My interpretation is that God so instructed the Hebrews in the Old Testament era because of the hardness of their hearts. The Gospel surpasses the Old Law. We are no longer bound by every regulation and practice of the Old Law. In some cases, the New Law may even go against the Old Law, as when Jesus healed the sick and the lame on the Sabbath.

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming

For more than 2000 years, there has been Catholic/Christian New Testament support for the death penalty, from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians that, in breadth and depth, overwhelms any teachings to the contrary, particularly those wrongly dependent upon secular concerns such as defense of society and the poor standards of criminal justice systems in protecting the innocent.

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html

 

[LongingSoul]

Prior to the abolitin of the death penalty in many countries, public executions were firstly dispensed with because it was recognised that it fed a disordered lust in people. That disordered lust is still evident in some people these days also. The Church can recognise that also hence calling the act ‘cruel, unnecessary and unworthy’.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP (the death penalty’s) use should be virtually non-existent in countries/states which have secure prison systems, and sentencing laws which permit life, without the possibility of parole in penitence. In a penitentiary. This way, if the person is eventually found to be innocent by DNA or other means, the person is still alive to be released. And if they are truly guilty, there is more time for reflection and sorrow for their actions.

First, innocents are more protected with the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

Secondly, secure prisons?

crime recidivism 1.73 million results (0.40 seconds)
crime in prison 104 million results (0.25 seconds)

Some few examples:​

The following suggests that some 200,000 innocents were murdered buy those criminals the US released from custody, just since 1973, which does not include the staggering numbers of additional innocents harmed by non lethal violent crimes, such as rape and robbery.

“Prisons are a bargain, by any measure”, John J. DiIulio, Jr., OPINION, New York Times, 1/16/96
brookings.edu/research/opinions/1996/01/16crime-john-j-diiulio-jr​

“At least 20 members of the security forces were killed . . .” “. . . 500 (to 1200) prisoners had escaped from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. Most of them were senior members of al-Qaeda who had been sentenced to death . . .”

“Iraq jailbreaks: Hundreds escape in Taji and Abu Ghraib”, BBC, 22 July 2013 Last updated at 13:54 ET​

U.S. correctional institutions are a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda.

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . in October 2003, John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’

“Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004​

“We have proof (cell phones) have been used in escapes, to put hits out on people, and for other criminal activities.”

“In California, for instance, the number of contraband cellphones discovered by corrections staff jumped to more than 15,000 in 2011, more than 10 times the 1,400 seized in 2007.” (“Smuggled cellphone use a growing concern for U.S. prisons,” BY COLLEEN JENKINS, REUTERS,WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina, Apr 18, 2014)​

“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”

“Hell in the heart of paradise”, 4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543

and on and on and on

 

[dudleysharp]

It is sad this act of vengeance is so ingrained in our DNA.

The death penalty has a foundation in justice, as do all sanctions.

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge
homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge/

Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do. Instead, they might reflect on why others believe it is a just and deserved sanction for the crimes committed.

The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances. Retributive justice as opposed to revenge.

Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US - unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge - also an unreasonable, unfounded position.

 

[LongingSoul]

dudleysharp, stop spamming the thread with the same cut and paste that you always use. None of it will change the teaching of the Catholic Church which is…

CCC 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.”

The majority of western countries had already moved in this direction prior to the new Catechism and recognise that that choice to do so eminated from the natural and good human desire to promote human dignity and fraternity among people.

 

[dudleysharp]

If the primary objective is justice. And justice according to the bible for adultery is death than why do we not put to death adulterers to satisfy justice? In fact we do not punish adulterers at all.

The US is a secular republic.

The board, on the other hand, is discussing Catholicism and the death penalty. I that context, Genesis gives a solid foundation, for all peoples and all times that murder should be punished by execution, as discussed within the most recent CCC.

 

[dudleysharp]

The majority of western countries had already moved in this direction prior to the new Catechism and recognise that that choice to do so eminated from the natural and good human desire to promote human dignity and fraternity among people.

As a rule, the act of getting rid of the death penalty is a non democratic decision of elite politicians, in contradiction to the will of their population.

Europe’s Death Penalty Elitism
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/TNR%20Online%20%20Death%20in%20Venice.htm

Public Reasons for Abolition and Retention of the Death Penalty Journal: International Criminal Justice Review Volume:12 Dated:2002 Pages:77 to 92, Peter J. van Koppen ; Dick J. Hessing ; Christianne J. de Poot
ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=197693

86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim’s Family Members Support Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

 

[LongingSoul]

The US is a secular republic.

The board, on the other hand, is discussing Catholicism and the death penalty. I that context, Genesis gives a solid foundation, for all peoples and all times that murder should be punished by execution, as discussed within the most recent CCC.

“murder should be punished by execution”. Rubbish. That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches or has ever taught. It is permissable to use a death sentence if it serves human justice and the common good. If it does not serve human justice and the common good, it has no divine merit and its abolition is warranted.

 

[Ender]

I still though, don’t understand your point in advocating for the death penalty in the United States today…

The justification for capital punishment today is the same as it has always been: it is the just and appropriate punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. I don’t accept that the only justification for the death penalty is when it is necessary for the protection of society since protection, like deterrence and rehabilitation, is only a secondary objective.

The only purpose in the United States is Vengence, to get pay back, to watch someone suffer like they made their victim suffer.

Why would you say that? It certainly isn’t the reason I support it, and the fact that some people have this motivation doesn’t affect the morality of its use in general.

I suppose you are calling this justice…unfortunately it is a great injustice when it is sentenced to the innocent! This happens far too much.

If you want to take this position to oppose capital punishment that’s fine, but at least recognize that the opposition is prudential and not moral. As for whether it happens far too often, that claim is much more overblown than is generally recognized.

Our prisons can hold them…

Put a number to the claim that prisons effectively protect society: how many recidivist murders would you allow before conceding that prisons do not provide such protection? If you cannot define what “effective protection” means there is no way you can justifiably claim that we have achieved it. Where is the threshold: one murder per decade? One per year? One a month?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

As a rule, the act of getting rid of the death penalty is a non democratic decision of elite politicians, in contradiction to the will of their population.

Rubbish. I’ll match you blogger for blogger if you want to trade someones biased opinions. In Australia and England there was a natural discomfort at the high representation of racially disenfranchised and chronically poor people in the noose. People who by virtue of their racial, financial and class status, needed to be spoken for through the charity of their fellow humans. When there is a high degree of disadvantage in the community, good on the ‘elite politicians’ who vote with their consciences to abolish an unjust and cruel measure.

huffingtonpost.com/david-a-love/death-penalty_b_1516121.html

 

[Ender]

Ender, as I’ve stated previously, I’m no longer willing to discuss this topic with you. Having a position that those who oppose capital punishment are denying the teaching of the Church for 2000 years, that the Catechism promotes a weak and dangerous teaching, that Pope StJPII and other post V2 Popes are deficient and ignorant theologians compared to your illustrious educated self … is utter tosh.

It is utter tosh…which is why I’ve never said it. As I’ve suggested before, you really should quote exactly what I’ve said and not comment on your personal interpretations of my statements. My specific comment was this:* The objections presented in 2267 are weak and have had unfortunate consequences. *(post #21)I’m prepared to debate that point with anyone who disagrees with me. I am less prepared to discuss it with someone who first distorts it and then dismisses it. If you’d care to address the point we can start with this statement from R. Michael Dunnigan (J.D. J.C.L.) who is a canon lawyer and expressed this opinion:*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *
Finally, I’m not concerned with whether you engage in dialogue with me or not, but if you present an argument with which I disagree you can be fairly certain I will respond to it.

I’m just simply not interested in your “Catechism is weak and dangerous” non Catholic rubbish mongering. Take it to someone else with more patience than me.

If you’re not interested in my comments all you have to do is stop responding.

Ender

 

[accitenor]

I agree with Neofight’s post on Sept 10 almost 99%
However, conversion takes place in the soul in communion with God, and not in a courtroom, where the condemned may cry and carry on that he is repentant and sorry to sway a judge, but the Judge of all will decide.
I believe that the Death penalty has helped stop some criminals from repeating gheir crimes. It must be applied with 100% deliberate thought and research of each case. This, however, does not excuse the endless pleas and expenses generated by each case.

 

[Ender]

If you cite Genesis in support of the death penalty for murder, must you not also cite Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, etc., in support of the death penalty for blasphemy, adultery, etc.? Why do you ignore the latter? They are all in the Bible.

I have already twice responded to this same objection (posts #20 and #30). Why do you repeat it? The significant point here is that this passage (Gn 9:6) is not something I have cherry picked on my own to bolster my position, this is the passage the church herself repeatedly cites in this very context. This is one of the foundational passages the church cites in support of her doctrines on this issue. If the church doesn’t cite Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, etc then why should I?

Ender

 

[Jon_S_1]

The justification for capital punishment today is the same as it has always been: it is the just and appropriate punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. I don’t accept that the only justification for the death penalty is when it is necessary for the protection of society since protection, like deterrence and rehabilitation, is only a secondary objective.
Why would you say that? It certainly isn’t the reason I support it, and the fact that some people have this motivation doesn’t affect the morality of its use in general.
If you want to take this position to oppose capital punishment that’s fine, but at least recognize that the opposition is prudential and not moral. As for whether it happens far too often, that claim is much more overblown than is generally recognized.
Put a number to the claim that prisons effectively protect society: how many recidivist murders would you allow before conceding that prisons do not provide such protection? If you cannot define what “effective protection” means there is no way you can justifiably claim that we have achieved it. Where is the threshold: one murder per decade? One per year? One a month?

Ender

I would argue one innocent person sentences to death erroneously is one person too many. I am sure you would agree if it was you. And all it takes is being at the wrong place at the wrong time or having the unfortunate lot of looking like someone else among dozens if not hundreds of other possibilities.

Again, if you were wrongly convicted and sitting on death row for something you had no involvement in, I would be astonished if your opinion did not change.

 

[Ender]

What is it that you consider the primary objective to be?

I consider the primary objective of punishment to be what the church says it is: retribution.

I would think that life in prison, without any possibility of parole would satisfy every moral and ethical objective, whether it is punitive, redemptive, or penitential.

On what basis have you formed this opinion and how would you argue that someone (me for example) who has a different opinion is mistaken? I can cite the teachings of the church for nearly 2000 years along with virtually all the Fathers and Doctors of the church, a half dozen popes, and an equal number of catechisms…not to mention the words of God himself. It is not at all clear to me that my position is the weaker one.

The only thing this sentence would not address would be the eye for an eye bit from the Old Testament, before the incarnation.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this principle as well. To a degree, all punishment is “an eye for an eye” (lex talionis) inasmuch as a just punishment is one that is *“commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266) More significantly, Jesus did not repudiate this principle. when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St Bellarmine)
It is not vengeance that is condemned but private vengeance. The state has the duty to punish wrongs; the individual is forbidden to.

I will give you that death may, like life without parole, also satisfy the punitive aspect, if that is one’s only objective, or strong primary objective, but it doesn’t allow for the redemptive or penitential (in some cases)…

I think this is based on a misunderstanding as well.*"The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. *(Romano Amerio, peritas, Vatican II)
Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

“murder should be punished by execution”. Rubbish. That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches or has ever taught. It is permissable to use a death sentence if it serves human justice and the common good. If it does not serve human justice and the common good, it has no divine merit and its abolition is warranted.

LS:

You are mistaken.

1. Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Paramount obediience.

1. Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.
2. “Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.”

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” " . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary,** they have ‘a general and abiding validity.**’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)." Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

1. “There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.
2. Some opposing capital punishment " . . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life." Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.: "Amerio on capital punishment ", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007
3. 2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” CCC last amended 2003
4. St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
5. “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: **Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. **(St Bellarmine) (Just stole from Ender)

and on and on and on

 

[Ender]

“murder should be punished by execution”. Rubbish. That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches or has ever taught.

This is not quite the rubbish you presume it to be.*And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: **Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. ***(St Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Rubbish. I’ll match you blogger for blogger if you want to trade someones biased opinions. In Australia and England there was a natural discomfort at the high representation of racially disenfranchised and chronically poor people in the noose. People who by virtue of their racial, financial and class status, needed to be spoken for through the charity of their fellow humans. When there is a high degree of disadvantage in the community, good on the ‘elite politicians’ who vote with their consciences to abolish an unjust and cruel measure.

huffingtonpost.com/david-a-love/death-penalty_b_1516121.html

LS:

If you fact check the story to your link, you would find that all states in the US, which have recently gotten rid of the death penalty ONLY did so because they had a Democratic Governor and a Democratic majority in the legislature and did so in contradiction to the majority of there citizens, just as my linked stories presented - elitist politicians in conflict with their citizens.

Illinois and New Jersey government did so in a lame duck session.

 

[Ender]

I would argue one innocent person sentences to death erroneously is one person too many.

The problem with this argument is that the choice is not whether the execution of an innocent is or is not acceptable. Rather it is between accepting the possibility that an innocent man may be executed and the certainty that innocents will be murdered by the guilty who are not executed. There is no free lunch here; innocent lives are at risk no matter which choice we make. The real question is which choice presents the greater risk? The evidence strongly suggests that (far) more innocent people will die at the hands of recidivist killers than will die from wrongful execution.

Ender

 

[Beryllos]

Dudley Sharp, if only this argument could be won by sheer volume of words, you would have it. I cannot keep up with the torrent. Good luck and good bye.