Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[dudleysharp]

There is common confusion regarding murder rates, deterrence and the death penalty. I hope this helps to clarify that issue.

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

The death penalty is a better protector of innocent lives, in, at least, three ways.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[severus68]

There is common confusion regarding murder rates, deterrence and the death penalty. I hope this helps to clarify that issue.

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

The death penalty is a better protector of innocent lives, in, at least, three ways.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Thank you for the links to your 2 articles, I have read them. I am against the death penalty for various reasons:-

1. It is too many if even one in a million is put to death for a crime he did not commit;
2. The death penalty is not a deterrant to the most evil or the most mad of men;
3. We as Christians are supposed to be better than them, we are bringing ourselves down to their level with the death penalty. Christt taught love and forgiveness;
4. We can be protected from those who can’t be rehabiltated by their incarceration, for their life if necessary;
5. I am pro all life.

I do not believe the Catholic Church will say I am wrong in my thinking.

 

[Ender]

I do not pursue your arguments because that is not the topic of the thread, which is Catholicism’s stand on capital punishment, not the stand of the SSPX, the Old Catholic Church, or any other group or individual.

I don’t think I’ve come across anything quite so dismissive of Sacred Tradition as this. Given that Sacred Tradition - what you dismissively refer to as the Old Catholic Church - is as significant as scripture itself, rejecting it is to reject one of the foundational beliefs of the Church.

In this arena, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the standard by which we are measured, not the Catechism of Baltimore or Pius V.

In this arena - 2267 - what we are dealing with is the prudential opinion of JPII which, as you note, is different from the catechisms of both Baltimore and Trent. Those represent Church teaching; JPII’s opinion does not.

If the Church stagnated and became fetid, then we would never need new Catechism.

Do you consider morality, being constant through time, to be stagnant and fetid?

Again, the CCC allows for the possibility of the death penalty in a narrow range of need based on protection of society.

It should be clear by now that the protection of society is the wrong standard as it is only a secondary objective of punishment; it is the primary objective of punishment - retribution - that must be satisfied. The true standard is justice.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There is common confusion regarding murder rates, deterrence and the death penalty. I hope this helps to clarify that issue.

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”

I agree with the argument that - based solely on a protection of society standard - we should execute more people instead of fewer. Since 2267 ignores the question of justice that seems to imply that there is no concern as to whether executing someone is a just punishment; the sole valid concern is simply whether it is effective and it really is difficult to dispute that society would be better protected if more criminals were executed.

I would not, however, get drawn into a debate - on this thread - about whether executions either deter or are fairly applied. Those are valid concerns but are unrelated to the morality of capital punishment and what the Church teaches about it.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think I’ve come across anything quite so dismissive of Sacred Tradition as this. Given that Sacred Tradition - what you dismissively refer to as the Old Catholic Church - is as significant as scripture itself, rejecting it is to reject one of the foundational beliefs of the Church.

I never said I have dismisses Sacred Tradition. That is ridiculous. I do not accept that the Catechism is dismissive of Sacred Tradition. Everything in it is well documented. As to the Old Catholic Church, what I dismiss is the Old Catholic Church, a dissident group that separated from the Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II,** hence the capitalization**.

In this arena - 2267 - what we are dealing with is the prudential opinion of JPII which, as you note, is different from the catechisms of both Baltimore and Trent. Those represent Church teaching; JPII’s opinion does not.

This is an opinion of yours I do not share. Since the topic is Catholicism’s stand, not yours, the catechism trumps you.

Do you consider morality, being constant through time, to be stagnant and fetid?

Of course not! This is precisely why I do not dismiss that which we have learned as a Church in the last couple of centuries. The concept of progressive revelation and the application of morality to each generation is kind of obvious, though. For example, we do not place people under the ban in time of war where we go kill every man, woman, child and animal of our enemies. This is also why Jesus said all the “You have heard it said” and then, “but I say to you” Love of enemies was taught after love of neighbor. This does not mean that morality has changed. God’s name has always been mercy. It has always been an option to leave justice to God. Have you ever read the life of David? He was a man of war but often spared his enemy in order to let God protect him.

It is no contradiction to moral law to allow for punishment other than death.

 

[dudleysharp]

Thank you for the links to your 2 articles, I have read them. I am against the death penalty for various reasons:-

1. It is too many if even one in a million is put to death for a crime he did not commit;
2. The death penalty is not a deterrant to the most evil or the most mad of men;
3. We as Christians are supposed to be better than them, we are bringing ourselves down to their level with the death penalty. Christt taught love and forgiveness;
4. We can be protected from those who can’t be rehabiltated by their incarceration, for their life if necessary;
5. I am pro all life.

I do not believe the Catholic Church will say I am wrong in my thinking.

1. Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty. Your no death penalty position will result in more innocents dying.
2. The fact is, it is a deterrent. You would spare the lives of murderers, at the cost of more innocents murdered. Of course, many will not be deterred. All deterrence works that way.
3. We are all sinners, Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost all approved of the earthly death penalty. Nearly 2000 years of Catholic biblical, theological, rational and traditional teachings agree with that. Earthly punishment does not lessen the importance of love and forgiveness.
4. Their earthly life is not necessary. Eternal salvation in God’s grace.
5. As the last two Pope’s have stated, it is innocent life that must be spared. The death penalty is a greater protector of innocent life. Catholic’s in good standing can support both a just war and the death penalty, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing. The seamless garment has never been accepted by the Church, for that very reason.

I do not believe the Church would say I am wrong in any of this.

 

[iluvburpees]

I agree with the argument that - based solely on a protection of society standard - we should execute more people instead of fewer. Since 2267 ignores the question of justice that seems to imply that there is no concern as to whether executing someone is a just punishment; the sole valid concern is simply whether it is effective and it really is difficult to dispute that society would be better protected if more criminals were executed.

I would not, however, get drawn into a debate - on this thread - about whether executions either deter or are fairly applied. Those are valid concerns but are unrelated to the morality of capital punishment and what the Church teaches about it.

Ender

I had written all these answers to chaunceygardner’s first long attack at me, but the browser messed up near the end, erasing everythin…grrrrrr.

Anyway, I will address just three of the points, one of which is deterrence, which Ender is discussing here. The truth of the matter is, deterrence is hugely relevant to this issue. Why? Because if a certain punishment acts well as a deterrent, the crime will be committed less and less. Therefore, if capital punishment is a better deterrent than incarceration, then it would be simply foolish to not use it. You would be ridding society of the bad members (i.e. those convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, who no longer have the right to live), and protecting the innocent members who might be murdered without the strong deterrent value of capital punishment. And capital punishment is the most effective deterrent of murder. Why? 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. Life imprisonment is not going to give him this fear.

Now, why do the stats seem to show that capital punishment isn’t so effective? Because no one is being executed! So many people are sitting on death row for years, some even decades! Which brings me to my next point: a punishment must follow certain principles in order to be effective. Here they are, according to former warden Stabinski:

1. The punishment must be stated in the clearest, most explicit language for anyone who might fall under the penalty
2. There has to be certainy of punishment
3. It will happen with great immediacy.

These are simple principles, but very, very important. As #1 states, the punishment has to be clear. It cannot be ambiguous; it must mean what it says. #2 says that the punishment has to be certain. A murderer (or potential murderer) has to be sure that, if he is found guilty, he will receive the death sentence. Period. And #3 is EXTREMELY important. So many people are on death row for an eternity. This is such a bad way of saying “don’t murder,” that it would be better for capital punishment to just not exist. The punishment MUST happen in the near future, such as a year, at most.

And the second point point, based on what chaunceygardner said:

Here is where “burpee” really strikes out. Study after study of the crime and sentencing statistics show that in the U.S. (or at least many parts of it) there is little justice in how sentences and punishments are applied. It is skewed by the race and socio-economic status of the victim and of the perpetrator; it is skewed by where they live (state, jurisdiction, etc.). We have a long history of NOT applying the death penalty in a fair and just manner. So true justice would then require, if we can’t dispense this extreme and final punishment in a non-discriminatory manner, that we should forgo using it.

Fortunately, I do not strike out, because I do not support capital punishment in the way that it is used today. Although I should have stated this before, it doesn’t really matter, because we are talking about capital punishment IN PRINCIPLE, not how it is in a certain present government. So no, I do not support it in our government today, but I would if our government weren’t so corrupt and anti-God.

Finally, I must address the “Holocaust” question. It seems that chaunceygardner is trying to emulate the persecution of Bishop Williamson merely because he questioned the validity of the Holocaust. It amazes me that some people literally think it to be a dogma of the Church that the Holocaust happened. Well, since it is not something that I know that much about (nor wish to try to) I cannot state a bunch of evidence that I think contradicts the Holocaust. Therefore, with a question like this, I will go to people I trust, such as my dad, who thinks that the whole “6 million” number is ridiculous. He knows more about this stuff than I do, so I’ll take his word for it. And my grandfather is a WWII vet, who’s been all over the world, and was actually there in the heat of the war. He thinks that the “6 million” number is ridiculous. I think it is quite logical to take the opinion of one who was actaully there, so that’s what what I do. You believe in the Holocaust? OK, fine. But don’t make the rest of us out to be senseless, cold-blooded animals, which you have countless times in this thread.

Hopefully, we will someday return to a society where those in command aren’t so liberal and will finally use capital punishment in its most effective way. That will be a time where crime is kept to a limit.

 

[iluvburpees]

1. Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty. Your no death penalty position will result in more innocents dying.
2. The fact is, it is a deterrent. You would spare the lives of murderers, at the cost of more innocents murdered. Of course, many will not be deterred. All deterrence works that way.
3. We are all sinners, Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost all approved of the earthly death penalty. Nearly 2000 years of Catholic biblical, theological, rational and traditional teachings agree with that. Earthly punishment does not lessen the importance of love and forgiveness.
4. Their earthly life is not necessary. Eternal salvation in God’s grace.
5. As the last two Pope’s have stated, it is innocent life that must be spared. The death penalty is a greater protector of innocent life. Catholic’s in good standing can support both a just war and the death penalty, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing. The seamless garment has never been accepted by the Church, for that very reason.

I do not believe the Church would say I am wrong in any of this.

1. Very good point, which is why, in fact, those who are against capital punishment are actually the ones who are unmerciful - they’d rather have the disguisting murders, rapists, and torturers live rather than justly execute them and protect the innocent.
2. Quite true
3. Very true. You can’t go wrong with Scripture, the Church, rational arguments, and God Himself!
4. Another very good point. The most important thing for the convicted criminal is that he save his soul, and there is a much greater chance of that if he is given the death sentence instead of life imprisonment.
5. Truth.

Awesome points dudleysharp. Keep it up, I need some help here. I’m getting way too many responses, and I don’t feel like spending the entire day going over them all.

 

[severus68]

1. Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty. Your no death penalty position will result in more innocents dying.
2. The fact is, it is a deterrent. You would spare the lives of murderers, at the cost of more innocents murdered. Of course, many will not be deterred. All deterrence works that way.
3. We are all sinners, Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost all approved of the earthly death penalty. Nearly 2000 years of Catholic biblical, theological, rational and traditional teachings agree with that. Earthly punishment does not lessen the importance of love and forgiveness.
4. Their earthly life is not necessary. Eternal salvation in God’s grace.
5. As the last two Pope’s have stated, it is innocent life that must be spared. The death penalty is a greater protector of innocent life. Catholic’s in good standing can support both a just war and the death penalty, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing. The seamless garment has never been accepted by the Church, for that very reason.

I do not believe the Church would say I am wrong in any of this.

I. I am not suggesting that murderers be left on the streets to kill further. Not all and not most are serial killers or assassins who kill again and again;
2. Incarceration is also a deterence;
3. When did Jesus approve of the death penality? Jesus preached forgiveness. Why has the “punishment” be so final as the death penalty?;
4. Who decided anyone’s life is not necessary?;
5. Agreed, innocents should be protected but the only way is not by the death penalty. The only just war is a war of defence. How many wars have not been those.

You do have the right to voice your views and have them lauded by those who believe as you do. I however, will continue to oppose the death penalty.

 

[iluvburpees]

I. I am not suggesting that murderers be left on the streets to kill further. Not all and not most are serial killers or assassins who kill again and again;
2. Incarceration is also a deterence;
3. When did Jesus approve of the death penality? Jesus preached forgiveness. Why has the “punishment” be so final as the death penalty?;
4. Who decided anyone’s life is not necessary?;
5. Agreed, innocents should be protected but the only way is not by the death penalty. The only just war is a war of defence. How many wars have not been those.

You do have the right to voice your views and have them lauded by those who believe as you do. I however, will continue to oppose the death penalty.

1. Since you never really know, you shouldn’t risk the lives of the innocent because they may not have the desire to murder again;
2. Look at my recent post on deterrence;
3. Our Lord taught about forgiveness, but He didn’t tell us to put away punishment. Christ was talking about personal forgiveness, about us forgiving each other. An example of this would be a relative of a murdered victim forgiving the murderer, but allowing the state to punish him accordingly. The state, once again, has its authority from God. They are the “sword” of God, as St. Paul said. And what do you do with a sword?
4. I don’t think that he meant it in that way; I believe he was just stressing that some people put way too much emphasis on this life, and not on the eternal life. The point is that capital punishment, while ending the temporal lives of the criminals, doesn’t destroy the soul, which is infinitely more important than the life of the body. And since capital punishment is much more effective in moving sinners to repentance than imprisonment, it follows that capital punishment is more beneficial to the criminal than imprisonment.
5. Too broad to talk about in a sentence or two.

 

[severus68]

1. Very good point, which is why, in fact, those who are against capital punishment are actually the ones who are unmerciful - they’d rather have the disguisting murders, rapists, and torturers live rather than justly execute them and protect the innocent.
2. Quite true
3. Very true. You can’t go wrong with Scripture, the Church, rational arguments, and God Himself!
4. Another very good point. The most important thing for the convicted criminal is that he save his soul, and there is a much greater chance of that if he is given the death sentence instead of life imprisonment.
5. Truth.

Awesome points dudleysharp. Keep it up, I need some help here. I’m getting way too many responses, and I don’t feel like spending the entire day going over them all.

I am unmerciful? I am really not concerned about that remark seeing it comes from someone with such views. You talk about the truth, didn’t you say there was no Holocaust?

 

[iluvburpees]

I am unmerciful? I am really not concerned about that remark seeing it comes from someone with such views. You talk about the truth, didn’t you say there was no Holocaust?

I said I do not believe that it happened.

 

[severus68]

I said I do not believe that it happened.

And how does that contradict what I said? If you say that you do not believe the Holocaust happened, then aren’t you saying there was no Holocaust?

/

 

[Ender]

{Ender: 2267 is the prudential opinion of JPII.}
This is an opinion of yours I do not share. Since the topic is Catholicism’s stand, not yours, the catechism trumps you.

It is not a question of being trumped by the Catechism; the question is the nature of the teaching in section 2267. Nor is it simply about my opinion. Cardinal Dulles (who was given a red hat because of his theological brilliance and was one of the very few men to be made a cardinal without being made a bishop) specifically stated in an article he wrote in 2001 that JPII and the Magisterium were expressing a prudential opinion when they wrote 2267 (and EV).

The USCCB wrote on the subject of capital punishment in 2005 and stated that, regarding people who disagreed with the Church, they offered neither “judgment nor condemnation”, a position that would be ridiculous if applied to any doctrine of the Church. Finally, we’ve already seen what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about capital punishment - that there can be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” even among Catholics. Again, that could not possibly be true of anything the Church considered doctrine.

It has always been an option to leave justice to God.

For an individual, perhaps, but a state has a positive obligation to punish the guilty - which is an obligation of justice.

It is no contradiction to moral law to allow for punishment other than death.

This is possibly true, but the point is ignored by 2267 which makes no mention of what justice does or does not require.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

I. I am not suggesting that murderers be left on the streets to kill further. Not all and not most are serial killers or assassins who kill again and again;
2. Incarceration is also a deterence;
3. When did Jesus approve of the death penality? Jesus preached forgiveness. Why has the “punishment” be so final as the death penalty?;
4. Who decided anyone’s life is not necessary?;
5. Agreed, innocents should be protected but the only way is not by the death penalty. The only just war is a war of defence. How many wars have not been those.

You do have the right to voice your views and have them lauded by those who believe as you do. I however, will continue to oppose the death penalty.

1. I never suggested you would leave murderers on the street. The death penalty is a greater protector of innocent lives than lesser sanctions. I was clear in my point.
2. Many things deter. All criminal sanctions deter. The evidence is that the death penalty is not only an enhanced deterrent, but that it als saves additonal innocent lives in additonal ways, as well.
3. If you are a Christian, the death penalty is far from final. Eternal life is final, in a Christian meaning. If you read the link I posted “Modern Catholic Scholars”, you will find many references of death penalty support by Jesus.
4. I think your choice of life being necessary was improper and I shouldn’t have used it. My apologies. The death penalty is a just and appropriate sanction for some crimes and there is much biblical support for it. Expiation argues for the death penalty. see the references.
5. I never suggested or believed that the death penalty was the only way to protect innocents. There are many ways to protect innocents. As the death penalty is an enhanced protector of innocents, iIt is just very strange for the Catholic Chuch to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents.

 

[Ender]

The truth of the matter is, deterrence is hugely relevant to this issue. Why? Because if a certain punishment acts well as a deterrent, the crime will be committed less and less.

Deterrence is relevant inasmuch as it is one of the four valid objectives of punishment. What I want to avoid is not a discussion about deterrence in general but the specific debate about whether the death penalty deters. I think most people can agree that this is a question which, despite any number of conflicting studies, remains open as regards a definitive answer. That alone, however, poses a problem. Since no one knows for sure how effectively executions deter criminal behavior the moral question remains: if capital punishment should turn out to be an effective deterrent, wouldn’t that require us, under a protection of society criterion, to execute people whether or not the punishment was just?

If the protection of society is now the primary objective of punishment then we no longer need to worry about whether the criminal deserves execution; we not only can but we must execute anyone where it increases the overall security of the state. If someone makes the obvious objection that we cannot behave unjustly, that person is going to have to explain which objective takes precedence: protection or justice. If it is justice then concern for whether capital punishment is needed for protection becomes an irrelevant question; if protection is primary, however, it is the need for justice that becomes irrelevant.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

That alone, however, poses a problem. Since no one knows for sure how effectively executions deter criminal behavior the moral question remains: if capital punishment should turn out to be an effective deterrent, wouldn’t that require us, under a protection of society criterion, to execute people whether or not the punishment was just?

If the protection of society is now the primary objective of punishment then we no longer need to worry about whether the criminal deserves execution; we not only can but we must execute anyone where it increases the overall security of the state.

Ender

If the punishment is not just, you cannot support it simply because it saves innocents. If we executed all criminals, regardless of the crime, the crime rate, I suspect, would drop like a rock.

But, because that would be unjust, juries would stop convicting people for many crimes, regardless of the evidence.

I support the death penalty because I find it just and appropriate for some crimes, the same foundation that most of use to support all sanctions. It just so happens that the death penalty, as all criminal sanctions, deter some potential criminals.

This discussion is one of the reasons that PJPII “defense of society” discussion, with regard to limiting the death penalty, is so in error, morally, biblically and theologically. First, the death penalty is a greater defender of society, logically. Secondly, the death penalty is a product, biblically, of God’s instruction and, therefore, must have a foundation in justice or, if you believe governments are ordained by God, an instrument of God’s vengeance, not man’s. Govrnments have a duty to enforce justice.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is not a question of being trumped by the Catechism; the question is the nature of the teaching in section 2267. Nor is it simply about my opinion. Cardinal Dulles (who was given a red hat because of his theological brilliance and was one of the very few men to be made a cardinal without being made a bishop

) specifically stated in an article he wrote in 2001 that JPII and the Magisterium were expressing a prudential opinion when they wrote 2267 (and EV).

I guess you could quote the town’s dog catcher next? If you believe Cardinal Dulles is in authority to correct the Magisterium then we certainly see part of the problem

The USCCB wrote on the subject of capital punishment in 2005 and stated that, regarding people who disagreed with the Church, they offered neither “judgment nor condemnation”, a position that would be ridiculous if applied to any doctrine of the Church. Finally, we’ve already seen what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about capital punishment - that there can be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” even among Catholics. Again, that could not possibly be true of anything the Church considered doctrine.

Actually it can and is because the issue is whether the criteria is met not whether there is criteria

For an individual, perhaps, but a state has a positive obligation to punish the guilty - which is an obligation of justice.

and does not require the death penalty

This is possibly true, but the point is ignored by 2267 which makes no mention of what justice does or does not require.

Ender

completely 100% incorrect 2267 never ever in any form stopped punishment, nor required a single injustice

 

[akoso]

Finally, I must address the “Holocaust” question. It seems that chaunceygardner is trying to emulate the persecution of Bishop Williamson merely because he questioned the validity of the Holocaust. It amazes me that some people literally think it to be a dogma of the Church that the Holocaust happened. Well, since it is not something that I know that much about (nor wish to try to) I cannot state a bunch of evidence that I think contradicts the Holocaust. Therefore, with a question like this, I will go to people I trust, such as my dad, who thinks that the whole “6 million” number is ridiculous. He knows more about this stuff than I do, so I’ll take his word for it. And my grandfather is a WWII vet, who’s been all over the world, and was actually there in the heat of the war. He thinks that the “6 million” number is ridiculous. I think it is quite logical to take the opinion of one who was actaully there, so that’s what what I do. You believe in the Holocaust? OK, fine. But don’t make the rest of us out to be senseless, cold-blooded animals, which you have countless times in this thread.

I seriously, seriously, seriously hope you’re not doubting that the Holocaust happened. It isn’t “a dogma of the Church that the Holocaust happened”, but it also isn’t a dogma of the Church that World War II happened, but it still did.

I appreciate that your family (father, grandfather, etc) may be more knowledgeable than you on the subject, but they would be unbelievably wrong and harmful to suggest that the Holocaust did not happen. My great uncle was in the SS and his family would never imagine suggesting that the Holocaust did not occur.

 

[iluvburpees]

I seriously, seriously, seriously hope you’re not doubting that the Holocaust happened. It isn’t “a dogma of the Church that the Holocaust happened”, but it also isn’t a dogma of the Church that World War II happened, but it still did.

I appreciate that your family (father, grandfather, etc) may be more knowledgeable than you on the subject, but they would be unbelievably wrong and harmful to suggest that the Holocaust did not happen. My great uncle was in the SS and his family would never imagine suggesting that the Holocaust did not occur.

He doesn’t deny that the Holocaust happened, but he does deny the “6 million” number. Like I said, I have hardly any knowledge on the subject. In a case like this, I look to the opinion of those I respect. I respect my father, grandfather (especially since he fought in the war), and Bishop Williamson, so I agree with them on this issue.