Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[akoso]

The primary objective of all punishment is retribution, that is a requirement of justice as defined by the Catechism. Capital punishment, like any other punishment, must be a just punishment in order to be employed. All punishment is subject to the obligation that it be, first and foremost, just.

The primary objective of sentencing someone to prison is to improve the safety of the rest of society… not to get revenge or retribution.

 

[severus68]

Keeping the evil heinous criminals alive in our prisons will mean more expenditures for the Government. In effect we would be spending taxpayers’ money to feed and keep these evil people alive! Eliminating them altogether would be the best and cheapest solution. Plu8s, there wouldn’t be any possibility of escape at because they’re dead.

Cost and money can never be the criteria if we are moral and if we are Christian.

 

[severus68]

The primary objective of sentencing someone to prison is to improve the safety of the rest of society… not to get revenge or retribution.

Agreed Akoso. Developed and civilised societies also emphasis rehabilitation for the good of the offender and of society.

 

[Bengoshi]

It’s also cheaper to execute those that have stolen… so why not do that? Because capital punishment should never be an argument of saving money. That is a completely irrelevant argument. Choosing to decide whether another human being has his/her God given right to live or not has nothing to do with cost.

Didn’t I say heinous criminals? Let us remember the Old Testament rule of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Jesus did not abolish the law, in fact he fulfilled it. Jesus also said that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18)

Lest you take that too literally, we have to get the idea of it. God never forbade capital punishment, which is the death penalty. Other argumants which say that it should not be practiced due to the inefficiency of our justice system is out of the question. Again, simple logic would tell us that once a person is dead, then he could not commit any more crimes. Moreover, knowing that death is at hand would motivate him more to repent of his sins instead of postponing it thinking that he still has a lot of time left.

 

[severus68]

Didn’t I say heinous criminals? Let us remember the Old Testament rule of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Jesus did not abolish the law, in fact he fulfilled it. Jesus also said that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18)

Lest you take that too literally, we have to get the idea of it. God never forbade capital punishment, which is the death penalty. Other argumants which say that it should not be practiced due to the inefficiency of our justice system is out of the question. Again, simple logic would tell us that once a person is dead, then he could not commit any more crimes. Moreover, knowing that death is at hand would motivate him more to repent of his sins instead of postponing it thinking that he still has a lot of time left.

The Old Testament punishments for crimes are part of the Islamic Sharia law. They are not part of any Christian penalties for crimes set out by Christ.

Why is the argument about the inefficiency of the justice system out of the question?

A person who kills in anger for example would probably regret it soon after. Such a person is unlikely to kill again. A person who kills believing that there is no God or that there is a God who does not care about him will not repent even if his death is imminent. If he is sentenced to life imprisonment, there would be all that more time for good Christians to show him Christian love and show him that there is a good God who loves him, sin and all, don’t you think?

 

[Bengoshi]

The Old Testament punishments for crimes are part of the Islamic Sharia law. They are not part of any Christian penalties for crimes set out by Christ.

Why is the argument about the inefficiency of the justice system out of the question?

A person who kills in anger for example would probably regret it soon after. Such a person is unlikely to kill again. A person who kills believing that there is no God or that there is a God who does not care about him will not repent even if his death is imminent. If he is sentenced to life imprisonment, there would be all that more time for good Christians to show him Christian love and show him that there is a good God who loves him, sin and all, don’t you think?

The criminal would have time to think because the execution would not be immediate. Of course, due process should be observed. Islamic law is not relevant here, but since you yourself admitted that the death penalty is part of the OT law then it follows that it is still allowed for us Christians today. Remember, God is immutable (unchanging), therefore, His laws stand forever. Lastly, most, if not all, states which have the death penalty do not mete out such penalty for a simple killing, unless it is aggravated/qualified into murder or complexed with other crimes such as robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, etc. In our jusrisdiction, the penalty for simple homicide (manslaughter in US laws) is not death but reclusion temporal (12yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs.) to reclusion perpetua (20yrs. and 1 day to 40yrs.) depending on the attendant circumstances.

I mentioned that the efficiency of the justice system is out of the question because I am only refering to whether or not the death penalty is a biblical way (hence allowed by God) of punishing criminals.

 

[severus68]

The criminal would have time to think because the execution would not be immediate. Of course, due process should be observed. Islamic law is not relevant here, but since you yourself admitted that the death penalty is part of the OT law then it follows that it is still allowed for us Christians today. Remember, God is immutable (unchanging), therefore, His laws stand forever. Lastly, most, if not all, states which have the death penalty do not mete out such penalty for a simple killing, unless it is aggravated/qualified into murder or complexed with other crimes such as robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, etc. In our jusrisdiction, the penalty for simple homicide (manslaughter in US laws) is not death but reclusion temporal (12yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs.) to reclusion perpetua (20yrs. and 1 day to 40yrs.) depending on the attendant circumstances.

I mentioned that the efficiency of the justice system is out of the question because I am only refering to whether or not the death penalty is a biblical way (hence allowed by God) of punishing criminals.

It is not a matter of admitting, I do know what is in the Old Testament. The Muslims basically follow the Old Testament in respect of their dietary laws are concerned and the most … follow it with regard to th laws on “crimes”, hence my reference to the Islamic Sharia Law. Christ taught only one commandment, that of love. As a Christian I follow or at least I try to follow what Christ taught. If you believe all the rules in the Old Testament still apply, then you must believe that a woman who has committed adultery must be stoned to death , for instance. What about the laws about the keeping of slaves?

It is not only a matter of enforcement, it is ultimately whether we believe the death penalty is not in line with Christ’s teachings.

Thank you for clarifying the matter of the effeciency of the system.

 

[Ender]

"Akoso:

The primary objective of sentencing someone to prison is to improve the safety of the rest of society… not to get revenge or retribution.

Agreed Akoso. Developed and civilised societies also emphasis rehabilitation for the good of the offender and of society.

This is simply incorrect … at least as far as the Church is concerned. She defines the primary objective of punishment in the Catechism, section 2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” The protection of society, along with deterrence and rehabilitation, are secondary objectives; the primary objective is retribution. This was covered in earlier posts.

A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty. (Pius XII)

This applies to capital punishment equally with all other forms of punishment, and expiation is accomplished only if the severity of the punishment is comparable with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[Sonny1954]

I believe that this is a moral issue on which the Hierarchy allows the individual Catholic to form his or her own conscience, taking Church statements into account, of course. So the Church is not really opposed to capital punishment per se, though it might reject how it’s applied in certain cases.

Ironically, if capital punishment really deterred crime, there probably would not be any Christianity today. It’s leader and 11 of his 12 apostles were executed for the “crime” of their beliefs and consequent actions.

 

[tcurrey]

The Church rejects it altogether

This is incorrect.

 

[iluvburpees]

I have read your previous comments on deterrence. First, I don’t think deterrence is a reason to kill someone. Second, if you think deterrence is such a motivating force, then why not bring back dismemberment, flaying, boiling to death, etc? If you think the capital punishment is a deterrent, these would have to be the rare way to make something perfect even better.

You said “Well, let’s remember that a man’s life is his greatest temporal possession. If he were certain that he would lose it if he were to commit a certain heinous crime, he would be far less likely to commit the crime.” I would argue that a man’s family is even more dear to him than his own life. Why not threaten to have them be involved in the punishment, so as to act as a further deterrent?

This is just ridiculous. I never said deterrence is a reason to kill someone. I said that, in terms of the aspect of deterrence of murder, capital punishment is far better than life imprisonment and that, since it would deter people from murder, innocent people who would be murdered without the deterrent value of capital punishment would be safe. Therefore, this would protect the innocent.

And the idea of torturing someone or killing one’s family so as to improve the deterrence value is even more ridiculous. Capital punishment was enacted by God Himself. He did not say “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, he shall be tortured,” or “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his family’s blood shall be shed;” he said, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed…” To do those things you suggested would be cruel, not just. They wouldn’t be just, seeing as how his family has nothing to do with his murder. So it’s simply absurd to consider the possibility.

You see, whether it is a deterrent or not is irrelevant. If the deterrent is unjust, then it shouldn’t be used. How effective of a deterrent it is becomes a moot point.

I would argue that it is not irrelevant. In fact, I think it’s extremely relevant. Justice in this case demands that the innocent be safeguarded from the murderers. Deterrence does just that; if more people are deterred, fewer murders will occur, and the innocent will be safe (as safe as we can make them). So deterrence is, in fact, hugely relevant.

Now, if killing a murderer were intrinsically evil, then deterrence would be irrelevant. But if God Himself permits it, who am I to argue.

God Bless

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually, He did refuse to follow the Mosaic Law. He specifically told the Pharisees that they COULD stone her.

They were, as Pharisees, sinless under the old law.

That was how he got out of the trap ( note that the Pharisees WERE placing a trap for Him, and the trap was an attempt to force Him to either deny the Mosaic Law or agree to follow Roman law.)

Christ got out of the trap by AGREEING with Mosaic law, but in a way that would have not stood up in a Roman court.

That is why the oldest and wisest of the Pharisees left first, they saw that their trap failed. They could not accuse Christ of violating a matter of Moral Law articulated in the Mosaic Law, nor could they bring Him up on charges in a Roman court.

If your point is that Christ DID, in fact, publically denouce the Mosica law at that point, your claim is that the Pharisees trap suceeeded. Is that what you are really trying to say?

No, I find the whole scenario rather weak for a couple of reasons 1) what would the Pharisees do if Jesus was not present stone or no? 2) Since the Pharisees were famous for calling all sinners that left only the Pharisees themselves to throw the stones. I would suggest the Pharisees wanted to see her stoned but only through the actions of others. But neither address the core issue, if Jesus believed the stoning was required he would have stoned yet he clearly did not stone so the law was NOT FOLLOWED so Jesus fulfilled the law but did not follow it. In all 3 cases referenced it was God who prevented capital punishment.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I believe that this is a moral issue on which the Hierarchy allows the individual Catholic to form his or her own conscience, taking Church statements into account, of course. So the Church is not really opposed to capital punishment per se, though it might reject how it’s applied in certain cases.

Ironically, if capital punishment really deterred crime, there probably would not be any Christianity today. It’s leader and 11 of his 12 apostles were executed for the “crime” of their beliefs and consequent actions.

I must disagree.

Respectfully, your point is not ironic and is a poor analogy. Comparing Christ’s Sacrifice on the cross and eleven martyred saints to a criminal’s execution is not right. Yes, Christ died in the way a criminal was executed, but it was not punishment.

He went willingly out of His Love for us.

Eddie Mac

 

[Bengoshi]

It is not a matter of admitting, I do know what is in the Old Testament. The Muslims basically follow the Old Testament in respect of their dietary laws are concerned and the most … follow it with regard to th laws on “crimes”, hence my reference to the Islamic Sharia Law. Christ taught only one commandment, that of love. As a Christian I follow or at least I try to follow what Christ taught. If you believe all the rules in the Old Testament still apply, then you must believe that a woman who has committed adultery must be stoned to death , for instance. What about the laws about the keeping of slaves?

It is not only a matter of enforcement, it is ultimately whether we believe the death penalty is not in line with Christ’s teachings.

Thank you for clarifying the matter of the effeciency of the system.

You’re welcome! I am an attorney that is why I am familiar with the law.

I know what I will say may be too simplistic, but just get the idea anyway. Not all laws in the OT are applicable in our time, it depends on the circumstances. With regard to stoning to death, if that is what our penal laws would provide, then I would be ok with it since the Bible did not prohibit it. When Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor, he didn’t mean for us not to punish crime or even abolish the death penalty. Those things are different. The keeping of slaves was legal during their time, hence the Bible didn’t abolish it either. Again, the context of the era must be taken into account. If you would notice, Christ and the apostles even taught slaves to obey their masters. However, they also taught that slaves should be treated well, as opposed to the common stereotype that slavery automatically means cruelty and suffering. Slaves should be treated with dignity as well. Anyway, this would require another thread to talk about. We just used this as an illustration.

As our instructor said in our class last night on the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture, “let us be careful not to put additional burdens on our brethren such as when we absolutely declare somethng to be sin or prohibited by God when it is not expressly or impliedly taught or prohibited in Scripture.” This is a paraphrase of course. Furthermore, as I have read from the other posts in this thread, the RCC really doesn’t absolutely prohibit the death penalty but is just weary of its application. As for me, for as long as the justice system is quite corrupt and inefficient,then the State is not yet mature enough to enforce the death penalty, but if it is, then go ahead! I’m not saying that it should be perfect, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our magistrates and tribunals shoould be able to arrive at just verdicts and decisions.

 

[pnewton]

A person who kills in anger for example would probably regret it soon after. Such a person is unlikely to kill again.

Not really. A person subject to explosive anger doesn’t just gains control after he commits a crime. Regret ususally evaporates the next time some one else ticks them off. Ask any woman who has been repeatedly beaten if her husband regrets it after and if that regret breaks the cycle of violence.

 

[akoso]

This is simply incorrect … at least as far as the Church is concerned. She defines the primary objective of punishment in the Catechism, section 2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” The protection of society, along with deterrence and rehabilitation, are secondary objectives; the primary objective is retribution. This was covered in earlier posts.

I find it very difficult to accept that the loving and forgiving God presented in the New Testament has drawn up laws for us, not based on love, forgiveness, happiness, etc., but based on revenge. This is more in line with the wrathful and fearful God we encounter in the Old Testament, but is very different than the teachings of Jesus (forgiveness, love for one’s enemies, turning the other cheek, etc).

 

[akoso]

This is just ridiculous. I never said deterrence is a reason to kill someone. I said that, in terms of the aspect of deterrence of murder, capital punishment is far better than life imprisonment and that, since it would deter people from murder, innocent people who would be murdered without the deterrent value of capital punishment would be safe. Therefore, this would protect the innocent.

If deterrence is not a reason to kill someone, then it can’t be a reason to have capital punishment. Whether capital punishment even serves as a deterrent or not is very debatable (see Texas Roofer’s graph at the bottom of page 13) and even if it is an effective deterrent, this should not serve as a reason to implement capital punishment (i.e. kill people) or not.

“Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed…”

Why ignore what Jesus said Himself? “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.” How does capital punishment fit this?

I would argue that it is not irrelevant. In fact, I think it’s extremely relevant. Justice in this case demands that the innocent be safeguarded from the murderers. Deterrence does just that; if more people are deterred, fewer murders will occur, and the innocent will be safe (as safe as we can make them). So deterrence is, in fact, hugely relevant.

I feel as though you’re contradicting yourself. If deterrence is so important, then why not make the punishment greater, so as to deter even more? And if that is not acceptable, then why is this level of deterrence? At what point is deterrence “hugely relevant” and at what point is it unacceptable? When choosing whether a human deserves to live or not, I don’t think we can take that responsibility and judgement away from God and into our own hands.

 

[akoso]

Not all laws in the OT are applicable in our time, it depends on the circumstances. With regard to stoning to death, if that is what our penal laws would provide, then I would be ok with it since the Bible did not prohibit it.

I just want to clarify your post. You say that not all laws in the OT are applicable in our time. Consequently, you are against stoning now (because it is outside of what American laws permit), but if they did permit it, you would be okay with it.

So if the American penal laws outlawed capital punishment, then you would categorize it as one of those laws from the OT that isn’t applicable any more, and therefore shouldn’t be done.

Is that not putting your beliefs in the penal system rather than the Word of God?

 

[severus68]

You’re welcome! I am an attorney that is why I am familiar with the law.

I know what I will say may be too simplistic, but just get the idea anyway. Not all laws in the OT are applicable in our time, it depends on the circumstances. With regard to stoning to death, if that is what our penal laws would provide, then I would be ok with it since the Bible did not prohibit it. When Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor, he didn’t mean for us not to punish crime or even abolish the death penalty. Those things are different. The keeping of slaves was legal during their time, hence the Bible didn’t abolish it either. Again, the context of the era must be taken into account. If you would notice, Christ and the apostles even taught slaves to obey their masters. However, they also taught that slaves should be treated well, as opposed to the common stereotype that slavery automatically means cruelty and suffering. Slaves should be treated with dignity as well. Anyway, this would require another thread to talk about. We just used this as an illustration.

As our instructor said in our class last night on the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture, “let us be careful not to put additional burdens on our brethren such as when we absolutely declare somethng to be sin or prohibited by God when it is not expressly or impliedly taught or prohibited in Scripture.” This is a paraphrase of course. Furthermore, as I have read from the other posts in this thread, the RCC really doesn’t absolutely prohibit the death penalty but is just weary of its application. As for me, for as long as the justice system is quite corrupt and inefficient,then the State is not yet mature enough to enforce the death penalty, but if it is, then go ahead! I’m not saying that it should be perfect, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our magistrates and tribunals shoould be able to arrive at just verdicts and decisions.

I do get what you are saying. By the way I am a lawyer too.

So we pick and choose on the penalties in the OT. What about the stoning of a woman who commits adultery? So you would be alright with that too if secular law provides for it? Could you please quote from the Gospels where Christ said slaves should obey their masters? So if slaves were legal that would be alright too?

I was not in your class but your instructor’s words as paraphrased may well mean something rather different from issues like the death penalty. My apologies if that is what he meant.

I have read what the RCC says. Yes while it does not absolutely prohibit the death penalty it says other means should be used if possible, to paraphase. There are other ways of treating such criminals. Why then are all those religious of the RCC protesting outside prisons when someone is to be executed? By the way, I do think the RCC should prohibit the death penalty.

Justice is dealt out by human beings. Human beings are not perfect.

 

[severus68]

Not really. A person subject to explosive anger doesn’t just gains control after he commits a crime. Regret ususally evaporates the next time some one else ticks them off. Ask any woman who has been repeatedly beaten if her husband regrets it after and if that regret breaks the cycle of violence.

You are correct about that particular situation. That cycle should be broken by law enforcers but many are slow to respond in “domestic matters”. Incarceration for life works just as well for those who are likely to kill again in any situation.