Christianity and the Death Penalty

[Debora123]

I know that Church Doctrine doesn’t officially condemn the death penalty in serious cases.

However, I also know that USCCB speaks out against it vehemently… along with our late Blessed, John Paul II.

… Especially in the United States, where we have the means to keep a prisoner locked up for life in high security without danger of escaping and hurting someone else.

Sooooo, I wanted to know what ya’ll think!

I’m against it, of course. Pro-life in every sense of the word.

**NOTE: The Poll applies only to Death Penalty in the United States. **

 

[Ender]

… Especially in the United States, where we have the means to keep a prisoner locked up for life in high security without danger of escaping and hurting someone else.

I wish whenever a discussion of capital punishment came up it would at least start with the recognition that public safety is not the primary objective of the punishment inflicted on the criminal. The obligation punishment must meet is not protection against possible future crime but justice for the one already committed. Can we at least agree that the primary objective must be met before we determine what needs to be done to achieve secondary objectives?

Ender

 

[FightingFat]

I wish whenever a discussion of capital punishment came up it would at least start with the recognition that public safety is not the primary objective of the punishment inflicted on the criminal. The obligation punishment must meet is not protection against possible future crime but justice for the one already committed. Can we at least agree that the primary objective must be met before we determine what needs to be done to achieve secondary objectives?

Ender

Got any doctrinal evidence for that assertion Ender?

 

[PerfectTiming]

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

CCC 2267

Though there are some individuals who’s crimes deserve the death penalty, it should only be used when it really is the only way to protect society from an offender. Modern justice systems allow for this need to have been greatly diminished but in the end the state in question has the right to punish offenders as the law sees fit. It’s not something one can take joy in but I am not opposed to it either.

 

[FightingFat]

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

CCC 2267

Nothing about punishment in that as far as I can see. Indeed, it states that the death penalty deprives the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself.

Though there are some individuals who’s crimes deserve the death penalty, it should only be used when it really is the only way to protect society from an offender. Modern justice systems allow for this need to have been greatly diminished but in the end the state in question has the right to punish offenders as the law sees fit. It’s not something one can take joy in but I am not opposed to it either.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Nothing about punishment in that as far as I can see. Indeed, it states that the death penalty deprives the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself.

It discusses the death penalty, by definition it is about punishment. The title of the section is Capital Punishment. Also, I only posted one section I thought relevant. The other preceeding section is this:

The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

CC 2266

 

[Ender]

Got any doctrinal evidence for that assertion Ender?

Section 2266 of the current Catechism:

• The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.*

That is regrettably not as clear as it ought to be, but this comment from the USCCB is helpful:

The third justifying purpose for punishment is* retribution or the restoration**** of the order of justice** which has been violated by the action of the criminal. *

The “third” purpose is simply the third in their list; they were not categorized by importance. Simply put, the primary objective of all punishment is retribution, which justice requires to redress the disorder of the crime.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Nothing about punishment in that as far as I can see. Indeed, it states that the death penalty deprives the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself…

Not true.

A great example is Timothy McVeigh. He was baptized a Catholic but never practiced his faith. While on death row, he had a reversion and requested (and recieved) Sacramental Confession as well as Last Rites.

Here is what Cardinal Dulles wrote in regards to conversion and the death penalty

Capital punishment does not reintegrate the criminal into society; rather, it cuts off any possible rehabilitation. The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

 

[Brendan]

Pro-life in every sense of the word.

So am I, that is why I agree with the Church that Captial Punishment is sometimes necessary. That is being pro-life

Here is the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. **The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment **which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.

Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Note that Trent specifically referenced God’s command through David to execute the wicked in the land. Was God not being ‘pro-life’?

 

[exnihilo]

There are far too many cases of innocent people being sentenced to death. Then again there are some men whose crimes are so heinous it can seem like justice demands death.

Practically speaking in the US anyone on death row is going to be there for at least a decade. They have plenty of time to repent in that ten years. The prisons are terrible places of great crime and immorality. Not only do prisoners commit terrible crimes against each other but also against the guards. Do decent people have to watch over a heinous murderer and be subject to his criminal activity for the rest of his natural life? How much should citizens have to pay to keep safe from these particularly bad criminals? Do you have to provide top notch medical care to these prisoners? If so does that then force you to provide medical care to everyone; would it not be unjust if prisoners got great medical care while the non-criminal poor went without? Should we be borrowing money from China to keep murderers alive? The technology and wealth argument against the death penalty might become irrelevant in the US in the near future.

At the same time I have some sympathy for the argument that modern technology might lessen the need for execution. This would be the *only *case where technology has lessened the power of the state.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I’m against the death penalty because I value the life of every human being.

But I don’t think it should be abolished, and I don’t think killing is intrinsically evil. If I was fighting in a war and I had to kill my enemy or be killed, I would try to capture him. If that wasn’t possible or practical I’d kill him.

I believe what Jesus said about forgetting “an eye for an eye.” But I think hanging Saddam Hussein and killing Bin Laden wasn’t an eye for an eye. It was more like a slap on the wrist for decapitation. I think that’s an acceptable use of the death penalty. I don’t think it’s good to celebrate their deaths, as I said I value all of life, but it’s the best way to stop them.

But I don’t think it should be used in our country on criminals. It’s just a tough issue because it costs a lot of money and space to keep people locked up forever. And I don’t think murderers should be re-released into society. Though I do think they should be forgiven.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I think the death penalty should be used more often.

Serious crimes deserve severe punishments. Murder is the worst crime one can commit against another individual. Thus, convicted murderers deserve to die since execution is the worst punishment society can inflict upon an offender. However, by penalizing a convicted murderer with a prison sentence (a lesser punishment) we are devaluing human life because we are treating the unjust taking of human life as a lesser crime.

 

[Ender]

At the same time I have some sympathy for the argument that modern technology might lessen the need for execution. This would be the *only *case where technology has lessened the power of the state.

The only thing that can justify the use of capital punishment is whether or not it is the just punishment for the crime; if the nature of the crime cannot justify its use then it cannot be used regardless of whether it would provide better protection for society. Technology may offer new varieties of punishment but it cannot alter the nature of the crime, and since the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, if the death penalty was justified in the past it is equally justified today.

Ender

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I don’t disagree with the reference above to the Council of Trent.
But it is kind of Ironic that Trent references King David’s comments in
support of the Death Penalty. After all, King David committed murder, too.
So did King Manasseh, and Manasseh murdered thousands of innocent people
including his own little children. Yet God not only forgave him,
he actually restored Manasseh to the throne of Israel.

Not all murderers in the OT received the death penalty.
Nor did Saint Paul, who (because of misguided religious zeal) murdered many Christians.
So I guess a question might be how to properly apply it.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t disagree with the reference above to the Council of Trent.
But it is kind of Ironic that Trent references King David’s comments in
support of the Death Penalty.

This was actually one of the Psalms that David wrote as inspired text. Psalm 101

So it’s just as much the Word of God as the Gospels are.

 

[Edward_H]

The Catholic Church hasn’t ruled out the concept of the death penalty. It’s simply said that in this day and age, with the vast resources we have at our disposal, it’s hard to consider a case where carrying out the death penalty could reasonably be seen as the last resort.

So, this view remains consistent and actually springs from its view on just war. A society has an obligation to protect its people.

In the US we probably spend far more on Coke, Pepsi, and pizza than we do dealing with capital criminal cases.

There is no practical need to kill the guilty. This doesn’t for a moment remove the “protect society” obligation of the state, which it continues to fail to uphold by releasing vicious criminals into society for a whole host of mumbliheaded reasons. But that failure doesn’t give reason for capital punishment in these times.

Were we, one day, to have chaos and true breakdown of societal structures and government, with gangs of criminals roving about, I could see the Church quite naturally reminding us that society has an obligation to defend its people, even using the means of last resort.

 

[FightingFat]

The third justifying purpose for punishment is* retribution or the restoration***** of the order of justice** which has been violated by the action of the criminal.

The “third” purpose is simply the third in their list; they were not categorized by importance. Simply put, the primary objective of all punishment is retribution, which justice requires to redress the disorder of the crime.

Ender

But you said this was the primary objective didn’t you?

 

[Ender]

But you said this was the primary objective didn’t you?

Well, the Church has said retribution is the primary objective. As I pointed out, the USCCB did not order the objectives by priority, they simply listed them and retribution was the third one listed. It remains, however, primary. Cardinal Dulles made a similar observation in 2001:

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.

Again, he only lists them, he does not prioritize them, but it should be reasonably clear that retribution is the only one of the four purposes that could possibly be meant by “redressing the disorder”.
EdwardH:

There is no practical need to kill the guilty.

It is justice that demands retribution; your statement could be true only if you see no practical need for justice.

Ender

 

[Edward_H]

Well, the Church has said retribution is the primary objective. As I pointed out, the USCCB did not order the objectives by priority, they simply listed them and retribution was the third one listed. It remains, however, primary. Cardinal Dulles made a similar observation in 2001:

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.

Again, he only lists them, he does not prioritize them, but it should be reasonably clear that retribution is the only one of the four purposes that could possibly be meant by “redressing the disorder”.

It is justice that demands retribution; your statement could be true only if you see no practical need for justice.

Ender

Letter, opinions and statements taken out of context aside…the Catechism says:

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. [emphasis mine, doesn’t mention retribution, does it?]
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 are 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 non-existent.”

 

[estesbob]

I
I’m against it, of course. Pro-life in every sense of the word.

NOTE: The Poll applies only to Death Penalty in the United States.

I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. However let us not muddy the issue by claiming that one must oppose the death penalty to be pro-life. . Too often we see people try to draw this moral equivalence and use it to rationalize supporting pro-abortion candidates.