Catholics are free to vote/support on pro-death penalty issues, right?

[humanavitae]

As I understand…although the church recommends that in countries such as America, where criminals can easily be locked-up, the death penalty should not be required…(contrary to the situation in a very undevoloped villiage where they don’t have prisons and you have someone killing/hurting people, and no easy way to contain him).

That said, I was recently informed that Catholics are still FREE to vote/support the death penalty in America, and are not morally obligated to condemn it (contrary to the case with Abortion where Catholics ARE morally obligated to condemn it and never support it by voting or encouraging it).

So…my question is this:

Do I be have the right/freedom to be an advocate for the death penalty in the United States, or am I committing a sin if I do so?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

America, where criminals can easily be locked-up, the death penalty should not be required?

Locked up safe and sound. No, many prisoners murder, beat up other prisoners and murder guards and rape other prisoners. Also, some are released then murder and rape again. I think the death penalty is still needed in America

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Do I be have the right/freedom to be an advocate for the death penalty in the United States, or am I committing a sin if I do so?

Currently you can disagree on when it’s use is appropriate. It might be a sin to support inappropriate or unneeded use of the death penalty, but I’m not sure.

The death penalty usually isn’t carried out immediately. People will wait for years for their execution. It wouldn’t be “He might kill another prisoner, quick, execute him”, it would “he might kill another prisoner, quick, wait 15 years and execute him”.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

I have the understanding that you are free to take a position on either side of this issue as long as your reason to do so does not go against your faith (i.e. being pro death penalty out of a desire to exact vengeance). You may also want to consider how the sanctity of human life fits into your reasoning as well as the possibility of a wrongfully convicted person.

It is unfortunate that our correctional facilities do not always correct the problem.

 

[Godfollower]

As I understand…although the church recommends that in countries such as America, where criminals can easily be locked-up, the death penalty should not be required…(contrary to the situation in a very undevoloped villiage where they don’t have prisons and you have someone killing/hurting people, and no easy way to contain him).

That said, I was recently informed that Catholics are still FREE to vote/support the death penalty in America, and are not morally obligated to condemn it (contrary to the case with Abortion where Catholics ARE morally obligated to condemn it and never support it by voting or encouraging it).

So…my question is this:

Do I be have the right/freedom to be an advocate for the death penalty in the United States, or am I committing a sin if I do so?

It depends on the reasons for your advocating it. E.g., if you’re advocating the death penalty because you legitimately believe that prisons can’t protect society from murderers, that’s permissible; while, if you’re advocating it cynically because – even though you believe U.S. prisons are adequate to protect society – it’s the only way you can get elected in your state, then no.

Obviously there’s a whole host of impermissible reasons to be pro-death penalty: racism, vengeance, partisan politics, willful failure to investigate the issue, etc. But it’s not a sin to support the death penalty in appropriate cases, if you believe that society needs the death penalty to protect itself against murderers.

 

[bilop]

As I understand…although the church recommends that in countries such as America, where criminals can easily be locked-up, the death penalty should not be required…(contrary to the situation in a very undevoloped villiage where they don’t have prisons and you have someone killing/hurting people, and no easy way to contain him).

That said, I was recently informed that Catholics are still FREE to vote/support the death penalty in America, and are not morally obligated to condemn it (contrary to the case with Abortion where Catholics ARE morally obligated to condemn it and never support it by voting or encouraging it).

So…my question is this:

Do I be have the right/freedom to be an advocate for the death penalty in the United States, or am I committing a sin if I do so?

You are correct. A Catholic is free to take either side on this issue.

God Bless

 

[humanavitae]

It depends on the reasons for your advocating it. E.g., if you’re advocating the death penalty because you legitimately believe that prisons can’t protect society from murderers, that’s permissible; while, if you’re advocating it cynically because – even though you believe U.S. prisons are adequate to protect society – it’s the only way you can get elected in your state, then no.

Obviously there’s a whole host of impermissible reasons to be pro-death penalty: racism, vengeance, partisan politics, willful failure to investigate the issue, etc. But it’s not a sin to support the death penalty in appropriate cases, if you believe that society needs the death penalty to protect itself against murderers.

What about if I support it because I believe that the death penalty (if excersied properly, efficiently, more frequently) can act as a Powerful deterent for criminals, so that future criminals think twice before raping or killing/torturing people) ??? Is that still a valid reason to support it?

 

[Ender]

What about if I support it because I believe that the death penalty (if excersied properly, efficiently, more frequently) can act as a Powerful deterent for criminals, so that future criminals think twice before raping or killing/torturing people) ??? Is that still a valid reason to support it?

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment although, like protection, it is a secondary objective. As defined by 2267, capital punishment is allowed if other means are not sufficient to protect society, so by that logic, if executions do in fact deter others, then there should be no objection to employing them and it would seem to be proper to support capital punishment on that basis alone.

Ender

 

[Christy_Beth]

Having a death penalty doesn’t deter crime. Also, it’s my understanding, it takes up more tax dollars than life imprisonment does.

Let’s look back a few years. Remember the Oklahoma City attack? Tim McVeigh, in an interview, said that he was scared of getting a sentence of life in prison. Well, that’s what he should of gotten. If people were that afraid of the death penalty then there would be a lower crime rate. But there isn’t. So, obviously, it isn’t working as a determent.

 

[humanavitae]

Having a death penalty doesn’t deter crime. Also, it’s my understanding, it takes up more tax dollars than life imprisonment does.

Let’s look back a few years. Remember the Oklahoma City attack? Tim McVeigh, in an interview, said that he was scared of getting a sentence of life in prison. Well, that’s what he should of gotten. If people were that afraid of the death penalty then there would be a lower crime rate. But there isn’t. So, obviously, it isn’t working as a determent.

the death penalty can be a very powerful deterant if employed correctly, and more frequently, and efficiently. Our broken judicial system allows these criminals to do endless appeals wasting our tax dollars. Obviousally, the death penalty showed only be employed where there is 100% evidence and proof, so that we don’t ever condemn a innocent man. (DNA, video evidence, etc)

 

[humanavitae]

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment although, like protection, it is a secondary objective. As defined by 2267, capital punishment is allowed if other means are not sufficient to protect society, so by that logic, if executions do in fact deter others, then there should be no objection to employing them and it would seem to be proper to support capital punishment on that basis alone.

Ender

Ender, thanks for your clear response. Basically, If I understand you correctly, we are allowed to support the death penalty (even in America) based on the reason of Deterrence. That means, I am free to vote for a candidate who is advocating capital punishment in the United States, right? Does it also mean, that if I was a witness on a capital punishment court case, I am free to vote yes on the Death Penalty in a court case (assuming undoubtable evidence, etc.??

 

[Ender]

Ender, thanks for your clear response. Basically, If I understand you correctly, we are allowed to support the death penalty (even in America) based on the reason of Deterrence. That means, I am free to vote for a candidate who is advocating capital punishment in the United States, right? Does it also mean, that if I was a witness on a capital punishment court case, I am free to vote yes on the Death Penalty in a court case (assuming undoubtable evidence, etc.??

It is certainly my opinion that Catholics may support capital punishment - and there is a great deal of evidence to support that position - but let me address the issue of deterrence again.

The primary objective of all punishment is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense”; that is, it is retribution … justice. Deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives but they are also all secondary. One of the several problems with 2267 is that it bases its opposition to the use of capital punishment on the opinion that it is unnecessary to fulfill one of the secondary objectives: to protect society; it ignores not only the primary objective but the other secondary objectives as well. The logic of your question about deterrence seems unassailable: if executions deter other murders then it obviously increases the protection of society and, given that it is the protection of society that controls the use of capital punishment (according to 2267), then it would appear obligatory to use it.

I’m sure you know that there is a rather fierce debate over whether executions provide any deterrence - which sets up the rather ridiculous situation where the morality of an act would it this case depend on the answer to an anthropological question rather than a theological one. In any event, Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2004 that:* “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”*. I would take him at his word. For myself, I support it because it believe it to be necessary to secure justice … and because God says so (CCC 2260).

Ender

 

[Christy_Beth]

Who are we to judge who gets the death penalty? And how many people got off death row after DNA testing proved them innocent? I’m sure that, in those cases, there was plenty of evidence showing that the person was guilty. With our flawed capacity to judge, do you want to be in the place of making such a decision and find out you were wrong?

Needless to say, I’m against the death penalty. If we protect the unborn under the sign of prolife, why can’t we do the same with others? There are times when a life sentence (or more) can be a determent. Why do I say more? Sometimes certain crimes can carry a long time behind bars. If a person is found guilty of several crimes (breaking and entering, kidnapping and murder), then the sentence for each crime could be made consecetive (sp?). This way the person would receive more than just life in prison. There wouldn’t be any chance of parole. This keeps the person off the street.

I realize that our prisons have problems. But you are looking at a bunch of criminals being put together. Many things can go wrong, and often do. More can be made of that as a deterrant than the death penalty.

 

[ChadS]

I realize that our prisons have problems. But you are looking at a bunch of criminals being put together. Many things can go wrong, and often do. More can be made of that as a deterrant than the death penalty.

I am asking this question rhetorically, but why is the first response to the statement that “prisons have problems” is that we should kill them all? Why not deal with the problems and issues that cause the violence in prisons that harms other prisoners and guards? Why does the response have to be more death penalty, more violence?

In my opinion when I read forums on CA that deal with war and the death penalty the first card that is always played is the one that says “The Church says we can support this” so that leads then to the next statement that we need more of this, more often and more quickly. Which to me seems to be counter and completely opposite of the entire thrust of Catholicism, namely justice, peace and mercy.

ChadS

 

[Christy_Beth]

Maybe I wasn’t exactly clear. I’m against the death penalty. The problems in the prisons can be, to some point at least, dealt with. Yes, there is the crimes commited on other inmates. But what do you expect from them? There may be efforts at rehabilitation, but that doesn’t seem to work in most cases. Or maybe the approach is wrong. I don’t know, all I know is I don’t think murdering someone is the answer to crime.

 

[Ender]

I am asking this question rhetorically, but why is the first response to the statement that “prisons have problems” is that we should kill them all?

That is a distortion of what is being said. The position of 2267 is that executions are unnecessary because society can be sufficiently protected by locking up killers. The counter to that argument is: that claim is untrue; criminals continue to pose a threat to other prisoners, guards, and society at large.

Why not deal with the problems and issues that cause the violence in prisons that harms other prisoners and guards?

Which seems more likely: that the penal system hasn’t tried to deal with these problems or that they have tried and failed?

Why does the response have to be more death penalty, more violence?

One of the first things to happen when people run out of good arguments to support their position is a redefinition of words. There are any number of words that could describe an execution but “violent” is not one of them.

Which to me seems to be counter and completely opposite of the entire thrust of Catholicism, namely justice, peace and mercy.

You really ought not raise the concept of justice as that is the strongest argument in favor of executions.

I don’t think murdering someone is the answer to crime.

This is another example of twisting the meaning of a word. Neither the Church nor any state has ever considered the execution of a criminal to be murder and since we’re talking about what the Church teaches that really ought to settle the issue.

Ender

 

[RosaMystica]

I am asking this question rhetorically, but why is the first response to the statement that “prisons have problems” is that we should kill them all? Why not deal with the problems and issues that cause the violence in prisons that harms other prisoners and guards? Why does the response have to be more death penalty, more violence?

In my opinion when I read forums on CA that deal with war and the death penalty the first card that is always played is the one that says “The Church says we can support this” so that leads then to the next statement that we need more of this, more often and more quickly. Which to me seems to be counter and completely opposite of the entire thrust of Catholicism, namely justice, peace and mercy.

ChadS

This seems to be off the track of the thread. The OP simply is asking whether Catholics, in good conscience, can support the death penalty in the United States at this time. The answer seems to be “yes.” I’m not sure myself whether I agree with his perspective, but in light of the confusion over Catholic social teaching, it’s a good question, and I think it has been answered well. I’m teaching on social justice this week for RCIA, so I’m glad to have found this thread!

 

[CWBetts]

Locked up safe and sound. No, many prisoners murder, beat up other prisoners and murder guards and rape other prisoners. Also, some are released then murder and rape again. I think the death penalty is still needed in America

Interesting, that’s not what the Catechism says. Supporting the death penalty denies the convict of his dignity inherent as a creation of God. Only God has the right to take a life. Another chilling thought is that the system, being created and run by humans, is not a perfect system. Innocent people can, and do, get imprisoned. Support of the death penalty makes me share in the guilt of the innocents executed. Though we are not bound to oppose the death penalty as we are abortion, I there is no compelling evidence to support the death penalty. I have heard all of the arguments, I used to be a supporter of execution, until I realized that the true motive behind the death penalty is not justice, but vengeance.

 

[Ender]

I’m teaching on social justice this week for RCIA, so I’m glad to have found this thread!

The more you investigate this topic the more you will find that conflicts with 2267. Read the Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment for the best explanation of how the Church had always understood the question of capital punishment. There are also innumerable statements from Popes (at least half a dozen) and Catechisms (three preceding the current one) not to mention the writings of Augustine and Aquinas that are counter to the opinion expressed by JPII. I think the only way to make sense of all this is that what JPII was saying is that, in today’s society, executing criminals does more harm than good. I really don’t believe he was trying to overturn 1700 years of Church teaching on the subject.

Ender

 

[RosaMystica]

The more you investigate this topic the more you will find that conflicts with 2267. Read the Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment for the best explanation of how the Church had always understood the question of capital punishment. There are also innumerable statements from Popes (at least half a dozen) and Catechisms (three preceding the current one) not to mention the writings of Augustine and Aquinas that are counter to the opinion expressed by JPII. I think the only way to make sense of all this is that what JPII was saying is that, in today’s society, executing criminals does more harm than good. I really don’t believe he was trying to overturn 1700 years of Church teaching on the subject.

Ender

Thanks Ender!

I agree about JPII. I think he was influenced by the atheist regimes which he saw slaughter millions using “capital punishment.” And I think we do well to carefully weigh whether the death penalty really accomplishes those conditions which would justify it, which is the point JPII was making. But so many today (even Bishops) are making statements which elevate capital punishment to a “life issue,” implying that we have the same kind of duty to oppose it as we do to oppose abortion.

I think this kind of confusion is dangerous. We must distinguish those situations (such as abortion or euthanasia) where taking a life is intrinsically evil from those (such as just war and capital punishment) where it is not. This doesn’t (as some posters have accused) give us free rein to use capital punishment at will, but it does mean that we may support it as a policy, when it is used to deter, to protect the public, and to exact justice.

Personally, I don’t support the death penalty here in the U.S., but I do support the right to have that view, and I recognize that the Church gives us freedom in that area.