Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Randolph]

I don’t think that is exactly correct. Usually a jury only determines guilt or innocence - not sentencing. The fact that the justice system might apply the death penalty is no reason for a Catholic to refuse to find the defendant guilty.

The laws vary state by state. Some states require the jury to also decide on the death penalty after a guilty verdict. In other states, the judge decides.

 

[John10]

All those effective methods have existed for centuries

I would disagree, technological advances has helped us a lot in terms of containing evil persons without needing to kill them. There is also the issue as I stated before that in executing the death penalty we are killing a person who is already locked up for a crime committed in the past. That sounds more like revenge rather than justice.

 

[mythbuster1]

No, to my knowledge, in every State with the death penalty, it can only be imposed by unanimous consent of the jury and the presiding judge. After conviction of capital murder, the trial proceeds to the penalty phase, to determine whether the murderer should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

 

[Muzhik]

The “morality” of it isn’t what the Church is challenging- it’s challenging its legitimacy in modern days in light of the fact that we can have relative assurance that offenders won’t be able to escape and hurt others.

It is also not an acceptable remedy in the modern age.

I would beg to differ, based on what I think is a misapplication of “community”. (And my apologies if someone has already brought this up – I’ve only scanned the beginning of this thread.)

When politicians talk about the death penalty and the need to “protect the community”, they are referring to the schools, churches, and small children in the general population. BUT… when someone is sentenced to prison, their community is no longer the one in the outside world. It is made up of guards, prison workers, and the rest of the prisoners. So the question becomes, is it reasonable to believe (NOT “assume”) that this prisoner’s beliefs and actions will pose a danger to the lives of the people in his or her NEW community – the prison?

Almost 20 years ago, there was a case where some white men, driving along a road at night, came across a black man walking alone. The stopped their truck, beat the man senseless, then tied him by his legs to the back of the truck and proceeded to drag him down the gravel road until his head separated from his shoulders.

At their trial, the jury recommended that they be put to death, NOT just because of the brutality of their crime, but because in reviewing statements the men had made before and after the event, the jury was reasonably sure that these men would pose a threat to the lives of the people in the prison – their new community.

 

[IdaCatholic]

Every civilization has had the ability to contain those it has deemed criminal. France when it beheaded people had jails and prisons. And England um colonized a whole continent by sending people on an unbelievably long boat ride. In fact the world may have been easier to not enforce the death penalty in an age where the world was large enough to exile people. Siberia, austrailia, patmos… take your pick.

 

[Randolph]

I would disagree, technological advances has helped us a lot in terms of containing evil persons without needing to kill them. There is also the issue as I stated before that in executing the death penalty we are killing a person who is already locked up for a crime committed in the past. That sounds more like revenge rather than justice.

Since we have been discussing the death penalty from the Church’s point of view, it affects the whole world—not just the US.

1. In the US and in “Western” countries in general where there are sufficient resources to lock up criminals for life, there have been numerous cases where drug king pins and mobsters/gangsters still ran their criminal operations from prisons and even ordered killings from prisons. Their actions indeed pose clear and real dangers to society;
2. In most other countries especially in third world countries where this is little/no resources allocated to lock up criminals for life, convicted criminals/murderers/kidnappers could potentially (likely) get out of prison either via escape or bribery. This clearly also presents a clear danger to their societies.
3. Retributive punishment is the primary reason for imposing the death penalty—not revenge. Deterrence and prevention are secondary.

 

[John10]

The Romans crucified their convicts, but that has never shown to deter criminal activity (nor has the imposition of the death penalty), it is merely a cheap way for the state to get rid of “unwanted” elements of society while giving the victims their “revenge” and a false “peace” that things are finally even. While at the same time continues to perpetuate that which Christ warned us against “An eye for an eye”, soon the world would be blind.

What you mention does not justify the death penalty it simply points out to the corruption of the penitentiary systems which happens both to under developed and developed countries. The solution is to fight against the corruption not to impose the death penalty.

 

[Randolph]

Even after they are locked up, and given all the resources and technological advances available, the convicted criminals are still able to run their criminal operation and even order killings from inside the prison. So, yes, they are still doing harm to society—corruption or otherwise,

 

[John10]

Yes I agree there might be some cases where that happens, however I do not think that justifies killing them. Fighting against corrupt penitentiary systems is the way to stop such things from happening (which is why criminals are still able to operate even behind bars), without needing to kill the convict.

 

[Randolph]

The key point you made was since they are locked up, the criminals no longer pose a danger to society. My point is they still do.

Read my post # 58 for further info regarding my point.

 

[John10]

There will always be exceptions to everything but the general principle still holds. Of course if the penitentiary system is so corrupt the criminals can still operate even behind bars, I think we have bigger problems than implementing the death penalty or not (which by the way could easily in such a corrupt system end up killing an innocent person, rest assured mistakes can and will happened with the death penalty)

More importantly the revised Catechism also mentions that it no does not consider the death penalty an adequate mechanism to deal with criminal activity.

 

[Randolph]

You just made my point. It is precisely because we can not stamp out corruption and because we can not prevent criminals from running their criminal operations from prisons, and from ordering killings from prisons, the death penalty must remain a viable option in the judicial process.

 

[John10]

I understand where you are coming from, but do not agree with it. We can stamp out corruption and prevent criminals from running their business behind bars. I have read many cases of criminals ordering a hit from within jail and getting caught (and having an increased sentence and more isolation as a result). So I can say it can be dealt with.

 

[Emeraldlady]

How does that even relate to my post? If the death penalty is ever to be used, the standard must be “proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.” It doesn’t change the fact that there are people who commit murder from behind bars, and the State has an obligation to protect society from them. If the death penalty is off the table, then they must be isolated, either in solitary confinement, or on a deserted island. Those are your choices: lock them up in solitary and throw away the key, or exile them to a society entirely consisting of murderers and leave them to their own devices.

In the countries without the death penalty, there are different prisons with different levels of security to deal with these issues.

 

[Randolph]

Then, until we are successful at stamping corruption in prisons and completely seal the criminals from committing further criminal actions, these criminals are still posing a grave danger to society.

 

[Ender]

I would disagree, technological advances has helped us a lot in terms of containing evil persons without needing to kill them.

It really is important to recognize that protection, “containment”, has never been what justifies capital punishment. It is justified only if it is deserved, only if it is the appropriate punishment for the crime, and that depends on the nature of the crime, not the capabilities of penitentiaries.

Can a Catholic serve on a Jury that imposes a death penalty?

Yes, without question.

Let me expand on this a bit.

• There is pretty unanimous agreement that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil.
• That being so, the determination of whether or not to use it in particular circumstances is a prudential judgment.
• That judgment is based on what is perceived to be best for the common good.
• “It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society.…” (CCC 1910)
• The State authorizes jurors to make that determination for the specific trials on which they serve.
• It is therefore the right and the duty of each individual juror to decide whether or not capital punishment is appropriate. That is not a moral decision; it is a prudential one we are each free to make.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The point being that the Church has never considered the death penalty as a divine command…

Yeah, that’s not actually true, and not only the church but God himself commanded it.

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. (Catechism of Trent, 1566)

…we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death (Pius VI, 1568)

Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine, 1598)

If anyone strikes someone a fatal blow with an iron object, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. (God - Num 35:16)

All of which explain the 'prudential judgement’ of the Church pertaining to the concrete situation of the era.

 

[Randolph]

All of which explain the ’ prudential judgement’ of the Church pertaining to the concrete situation of the era.

The word of God, echoed and proclaimed by the long held tradition of the Church, is definitive moral teaching for all the ages

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

All of which explain the ’ prudential judgement’ of the Church pertaining to the concrete situation of the era.

The word of God, echoed and proclaimed by the long held tradition of the Church, is definitive moral teaching for all the ages

Taking your claim to it’s logical conclusion, do you charge all the Christian countries which have abolished the death penalty with disobedience to the Word of God?

 

[Randolph]

Taking your claim to it’s logical conclusion, do you charge all the Christian countries which have abolished the death penalty with disobedience to the Word of God?

My conclusion is in communion with the Church which based its teachings from God and from its long tradition. It is a prudential judgement for countries to make decisions on whether to abolish or keep the death penalty. The death penalty has it roots and foundation in the long tradition of the Church. To say otherwise is incorrect and wrong.

To borrow from Ender’s quote from an earlier post:

“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.” (Catechism of Trent, 1566)