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

[Ender]

Other than the one about the inherent dignity of the human person

If this were true then the Church would never allow capital punishment under any condition, but, since the Church does allow it (regardless of how constraining the conditions are), this cannot be true.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

If this were true then the Church would never allow capital punishment under any condition, but, since the Church does allow it (regardless of how constraining the conditions are) this cannot be true.

Ender

Explain to me how the death penalty is necessary in the United States. I want statistics. Lots of them. Specifically on the numbers of people who were victimized by people who were serving life sentences without the chance of parole, and were then either released or escaped. Unless there are a significant number of victims, I think that pretty much proves that execution is unnecessary.

 

[Ender]

Explain to me how the death penalty is necessary in the United States. I want statistics. Lots of them. Specifically on the numbers of people who were victimized by people who were serving life sentences without the chance of parole, and were then either released or escaped. Unless there are a significant number of victims, I think that pretty much proves that execution is unnecessary.

Statistics are irrelevant in answering the question of whether capital punishment is morally justifiable. They may be quite relevant to the prudential question of whether a particular country’s penal system is just but the answers to the two questions are completely independent of one another. I am only addressing the moral question as this is the only one the Church can properly answer. This is the point I just made three posts ago.

Ender

 

[John_Pascendi]

I also believe in Capital punishment…why should we taxpayers support a serial killer for 40 years in prison ,he or she getting room and board,and clothing and food and thus more in many ways then 16% of the worlds population. I recall reading where Jesus forgave one of the thieves on the mount of calvary but I dont recall Him asking or ordering the Roman Guard to release the criminal…He let the execution continue!

 

[Bluegoat]

I also believe in Capital punishment…why should we taxpayers support a serial killer for 40 years in prison ,he or she getting room and board,and clothing and food and thus more in many ways then 16% of the worlds population. I recall reading where Jesus forgave one of the thieves on the mount of calvary but I dont recall Him asking or ordering the Roman Guard to release the criminal…He let the execution continue!

This is totally irrelevant. It’s like saying we should do this because it is too expensive to do what is right.

If capital punishment is ok it is irrelevant. If it isn’t, it is evil.

 

[CWBetts]

I also believe in Capital punishment…why should we taxpayers support a serial killer for 40 years in prison ,he or she getting room and board,and clothing and food and thus more in many ways then 16% of the worlds population. I recall reading where Jesus forgave one of the thieves on the mount of calvary but I dont recall Him asking or ordering the Roman Guard to release the criminal…He let the execution continue!

You don’t want to argue economics as a defense for capital punishment for two reasons:

1. It is morally repugnant to attempt to place a monetary value on human life. While the crimes are monstrous, they are still human beings.
2. Execution is more expensive than life imprisonment due to the expense of the appeals process, which must remain in place to alleviate chances of wrongful execution.

 

[severus68]

I also believe in Capital punishment…why should we taxpayers support a serial killer for 40 years in prison ,he or she getting room and board,and clothing and food and thus more in many ways then 16% of the worlds population. I recall reading where Jesus forgave one of the thieves on the mount of calvary but I dont recall Him asking or ordering the Roman Guard to release the criminal…He let the execution continue!

That kind of arguement can be extended to include all who the State finds expensive or inconvenient to keep alive. While I don’t know the actual figues, it is also expense to put to death anyone especially in a country like the US. Anyway, expense can never be a reason for Christians to support the death penalty.

Christ should be the reason to oppose the death penalty. How could he have got them to release the thievies next to him? The Jewish/OT penalty for adultery was stoning but Christ stopped it in his mercy. Perhaps we should show mercy and not stoop to the level of those we penalise?

 

[Ender]

The Jewish/OT penalty for adultery was stoning but Christ stopped it in his mercy. Perhaps we should show mercy and not stoop to the level of those we penalise?

The suggestion to show mercy in all cases raises two other questions: if you want to argue that the merciful sentence is life without parole don’t you first have to admit that the just sentence is execution? The merciful sentence cannot be as severe as the just sentence or mercy itself makes no sense. Second, what is the argument that the state should be merciful to the unrepentant? It may be true that the individual needs to forgive those who injure him whether or not they are repentant but the State has other obligations - primarily to justice - which means that it is the just sentence that should be imposed, not the merciful one.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

The suggestion to show mercy in all cases raises two other questions: if you want to argue that the merciful sentence is life without parole don’t you first have to admit that the just sentence is execution? The merciful sentence cannot be as severe as the just sentence or mercy itself makes no sense. Second, what is the argument that the state should be merciful to the unrepentant? It may be true that the individual needs to forgive those who injure him whether or not they are repentant but the State has other obligations - primarily to justice - which means that it is the just sentence that should be imposed, not the merciful one.

Ender

I would argue that the death penalty is unjust. It is little more than sate sanctioned murder. In fact, that is precisely what death certificates say in the state of Ohio on victims of execution.

 

[severus68]

The suggestion to show mercy in all cases raises two other questions: if you want to argue that the merciful sentence is life without parole don’t you first have to admit that the just sentence is execution? The merciful sentence cannot be as severe as the just sentence or mercy itself makes no sense. Second, what is the argument that the state should be merciful to the unrepentant? It may be true that the individual needs to forgive those who injure him whether or not they are repentant but the State has other obligations - primarily to justice - which means that it is the just sentence that should be imposed, not the merciful one.

Ender

It is only a just sentence if you believe the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. To me, that would bring us down to the level of the worst. We show mercy when we at least know better. The death penalty is the deliberate taking of a life by those who should know better and whose actions should be above what was done by the murderer.

The people are the State. If the people as a whole believe in doing good and compassion, the actions of the State should reflect that.

 

[Ender]

I would argue that the death penalty is unjust.

I’m sure you would but this doesn’t address the issue I raised about the merciful punishment by necessity being less severe than the just punishment. Your response is not an argument, it is an evasion.

It is little more than sate sanctioned murder. In fact, that is precisely what death certificates say in the state of Ohio on victims of execution.

You don’t get to redefine the meaning of words; execution and murder are not at all the same. Nor does the death certificate of any state specify murder as the cause of death of someone who has been executed. I suspect they say “homicide”, which simply means the death was inflicted by another person and would be the same cause of death specified if someone was killed by another person acting in self defense.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is only a just sentence if you believe the punishment should be commensurate with the crime.

True - and I believe this because this is what the Church has always taught. Are you saying you don’t accept this teaching?

*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *CCC 2266

The people are the State. If the people as a whole believe in doing good and compassion, the actions of the State should reflect that.

The State has responsibilities that are different from those of the individual. As you can see from above, the State has not just the right to punish but it has the positive obligation to do so. The individual is forbidden to do so. This is a question of justice - a fundamental matter of right and wrong - which the State has the duty to maintain.

For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (Pius XII)

Ender

 

[estesbob]

I would argue that the death penalty is unjust. It is little more than sate sanctioned murder. In fact, that is precisely what death certificates say in the state of Ohio on victims of execution.

I agree with you-our Church does not.

 

[severus68]

True - and I believe this because this is what the Church has always taught. Are you saying you don’t accept this teaching?

*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *CCC 2266
The State has responsibilities that are different from those of the individual. As you can see from above, the State has not just the right to punish but it has the positive obligation to do so. The individual is forbidden to do so. This is a question of justice - a fundamental matter of right and wrong - which the State has the duty to maintain.

For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (Pius XII)

Ender

The Cathechism also says that today circumstances requiring the death penalty are virtually non existent. I would ask you the same, do you not accept this?

yes the State is not an individual but the State must represent the people.The State is obliged to maintain security but it is not obliged to impose the death penalty.

Two deaths, one caused by the wrong doer and the death/execution of the wrongdoer does not restore equilebrium. The innocent killed is not restored to life by the death of his murderer. The death penalty does not doe not prove the triumph of right over wrong. Good is supreme but you do not have to execute anyone to show that. The death penalty perpetuates a culture of violence.

 

[CWBetts]

I agree with you-our Church does not.

Prove it.

 

[severus68]

I agree with you-our Church does not.

The Church discourages its use today. Yes the Church has not come outright to say it is wrong and a sin to support the death penalty but what more do we need? It is my hope and belief that the Church will come out more directly to oppose it,

 

[estesbob]

The Church discourages its use today. Yes the Church has not come outright to say it is wrong and a sin to support the death penalty but what more do we need? It is my hope and belief that the Church will come out more directly to oppose it,

I do not beleive the Church has any more power to forbid the death penalty than it does to allow the ordination of women. The Church has consistenly allowed for the Death Penalty for the entire 2000 years of its existence. Something that was “moral” for two thousand years simply can not become “immoral” today. What the Church has said is that although it is allowed it should be used as sparingly as possible and only in extrme circumstance BUT it does not state as to what this circumatnaces are and leaves application of the Death Penalty up to the prudential judgement of the State and leaves support of the death penatly up to the prudential judgment of the individual Catholic.

 

[CWBetts]

I do not beleive the Church has any more power to forbid the death penalty than it does to allow the ordination of women. The Church has consistenly allowed for the Death Penalty for the entire 2000 years of its existence. Something that was “moral” for two thousand years simply can not become “immoral” today. What the Church has said is that although it is allowed it should be used as sparingly as possible and only in extrme circumstance BUT it does not state as to what this circumatnaces are and leaves application of the Death Penalty up to the prudential judgement of the State and leaves support of the death penatly up to the prudential judgment of the individual Catholic.

The Church did not condemn slavery until the 17th century. The world changes. Earlier in Church history, means of containing dangerous criminals did not exist. They do now. Furthermore, your comparison is invalid. Holy Orders is a Sacrament. Sacraments cannot be changed. Punishment of criminals, not so much.

 

[estesbob]

The Church did not condemn slavery until the 17th century. The world changes. Earlier in Church history, means of containing dangerous criminals did not exist. They do now. Furthermore, your comparison is invalid. Holy Orders is a Sacrament. Sacraments cannot be changed. Punishment of criminals, not so much.

Actually the Church condemened slavery in the mid 1400s. It NEVER took the position that slavery was moral. How is the contention that capital punishment is now immoral because of our culture any different than those who claim homosexual behavior should now be moral because of our culture?

As far as means of containing dangerous criminals not existing-I think before the days of the “human rghts for prisioners” it was far easier to lock someone up and throw away the key than it is today. Escapes form the Tower of London, for instance , were almost unknown.

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually the Church condemened slavery in the mid 1400s. It NEVER took the position that slavery was moral. How is the contention that capital punishment is now immoral because of our culture any different than those who claim homosexual behavior should now be moral because of our culture?

As far as means of containing dangerous criminals not existing-I think before the days of the “human rghts for prisioners” it was far easier to lock someone up and throw away the key than it is today. Escapes form the Tower of London, for instance , were almost unknown.

Are there many escapes from death row, or maximum security prisons? Most I hear of are from less secure facilities with prisoners who would never be considered for execution.