Conservative catholics and the death penalty

[fix]

Me too. Although I’m against the death penalty, I’ve spent alot of time defending that your alternate judgment is within the teaching of the Church. Even though I think you are incorrect .

I oppose it too.

 

[estesbob]

Would it cause great rabblement in the USA, if Benedict XVI would change the catechism and make the teaching “of death penalty being not acceptable in general and detail” to a general doctrine for the whole church?

For one thing he doesnt have that power to change a doctrine. If the Church did such a thing it would call into question all of our Doctrines and Dogma. If you follow these forums you will already see people claimng the Chruch has chaged its teachings on the death Penaty and therefore they can also change teir teaching oin Homosexua behavior, abortion, female ordination, etc.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I oppose it too.

OOOPS. Since you didn’t state it (or if you did, you didn’t repeat it enough for me to grasp it), I assumed you were defendingthe position you held.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes-there is no doubt the Vatican officals incudng the Pope oppose the death Penalty in all cases.

Yet in the past, Popes have executed criminals - usually as heretics or the like, but also for more obviously political offences. Nicholas V, Leo X, & Pius IX (for instance) used the DP, just like the other rulers of their times. They weren’t noticeably more humane, either.​

The squeamishness of the Vatican would have been unthinkable for it 160 years ago. It would be interesting to find out what the Vatican thought about the 18th/19th-century objections to, & beginnings of the movement to abolish, the DP.

 

[melissaP]

my husband and i always have this discussion. he and i are both against CP, but he doesnt understand how the Church isnt totally against it. he always sites that if you are against abortion and euthanasia, then you should be against the DP. how are we to judge another’s worth of life? isnt God the judge of our souls? i always think of the one who is doing the injection, or flipping the switch- how does this affect their souls? is ‘doing your job’ enough to absolve you of participating in a death that has nothing to do with you?

culture of death is culture of death

blessings,
melissaP

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

***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.

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.”

The thing I don’t understand is this – even assuming fully escape-proof prisons, how are we able to assure that a convicted murderer of a certain type won’t kill an inmate, or doesn’t an inmate count as part of society? Even with solitary confinement, can we assure that said murderer won’t kill a guard?

I haven’t seen this addressed and would like to. Anyone?

 

[Kendy]

The thing I don’t understand is this – even assuming fully escape-proof prisons, how are we able to assure that a convicted murderer of a certain type won’t kill an inmate, or doesn’t an inmate count as part of society? Even with solitary confinement, can we assure that said murderer won’t kill a guard?

I haven’t seen this addressed and would like to. Anyone?

You can’t. However, actions are not justified because they prevent something that hasn’t happened.

Kendy

 

[KathleenElsie]

my husband and i always have this discussion. he and i are both against CP, but he doesn’t understand how the Church isn’t totally against it. he always sites that if you are against abortion and euthanasia, then you should be against the DP. how are we to judge another’s worth of life? isn’t God the judge of our souls? i always think of the one who is doing the injection, or flipping the switch- how does this affect their souls? is ‘doing your job’ enough to absolve you of participating in a death that has nothing to do with you?

culture of death is culture of death

blessings,
melissaP

I have often wondered about this also. The Dr, nurse and the person involved in an abortion are all responsible for the death of the child. The Dr and others directly involved with the death of a human being all hold some responsibility for the death. Only God will be able to judge the actions and responsibility of those that participated in the deaths.

I am a conservative that in most cases does not believe in the death penalty. The only reason I can see to use the death penalty is if the guilty party can not be safely contained for life.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

You can’t. However, actions are not justified because they prevent something that hasn’t happened.

Kendy

And yet the Church teaches that the DP can be used to protect society (exact words, “human lives”) from a harm that hasn’t been committed yet…

Please know that I am not arguing for or against the DP. Even before I became Catholic, I went back and forth on this issue. My intent is to assent to whatever the Church teaches on this subject. Unfortunately, the teaching on this issue is not nearly as clear as it is on other issues. Fortunately, this issue does not affect my day-to-day Christian life. In fact, I can’t think of even one instance in which I would be forced to make a positive action on this subject other than deciding between two political candidates with equal chances of winning who had absolutely identical positions on every issue except the DP. Ha! Let’s see that happen.

I will give a few thoughts:

I don’t think it’s useful to question the motives behind any particular phrasing that is in the Catechism. What’s there is there and we have to accept it and interprete it in the light of all binding teaching – past, present, and future (when it happens).

I don’t understand anyone who has no problem at all with the DP. We are talking about the possible eternal damnation of a soul.

I don’t understand anyone who does not wish to see someone justly punished – yes, punished – for brutal crimes, especially when even the DP itself is much more compassionate than what the victims suffered. Plus, going back to the eternal damnation point, who knows how many victims died and went to Hell (without having murdered anyone!) but would’ve turned their lives around if they had not been murdered? Yes, of course, it is possible God may judge them on what they would’ve done had they lived, but we don’t know that for a fact.

On the DP issue, I don’t understand anyone who does not have a battle between our limited understanding of justice and our limited understanding of mercy in his heart. But whatever his heart leans toward, if he is Catholic, he must bow to the Church’s teaching.

Those are the things I don’t understand. What really blows my mind is people who say all killing is wrong. John the Baptist didn’t say that (he told the soldiers to quit complaining, not to quit), Jesus didn’t say that, the Church doesn’t say that (i.e. Just War Theory). But even more, taking religion out of it, I don’t understand how the raw human can hold that thought:

If a sniper is shooting children and I have the means and opportunity to kill him and stop the slaughter, not only is it not wrong, it would be wrong not to do so (not talking about freezing up; talking about choosing not to). Someone will say that we should aim to stop by other means; I say that if even one death results because of using other means, that death is on the person’s conscience. This is almost an unrealistic scenario – but it illustrates a principal that needs to be carried into other areas. That is why the Church says that there is such a thing as a Just War.

Anyway – back to the thrust of the post. The argument that you can’t use the DP to prevent harm that has not yet happened doesn’t hold because the Catechism says the DP can be used to protect human lives. The question is – are guards and inmates considered human lives? Or, can guards and inmates be protected without DP?

 

[Kendy]

And yet the Church teaches that the DP can be used to protect society (exact words, “human lives”) from a harm that hasn’t been committed yet…

Please know that I am not arguing for or against the DP. Even before I became Catholic, I went back and forth on this issue. My intent is to assent to whatever the Church teaches on this subject. Unfortunately, the teaching on this issue is not nearly as clear as it is on other issues. Fortunately, this issue does not affect my day-to-day Christian life. In fact, I can’t think of even one instance in which I would be forced to make a positive action on this subject other than deciding between two political candidates with equal chances of winning who had absolutely identical positions on every issue except the DP. Ha! Let’s see that happen.

I will give a few thoughts:

I don’t think it’s useful to question the motives behind any particular phrasing that is in the Catechism. What’s there is there and we have to accept it and interprete it in the light of all binding teaching – past, present, and future (when it happens).

I don’t understand anyone who has no problem at all with the DP. We are talking about the possible eternal damnation of a soul.

I don’t understand anyone who does not wish to see someone justly punished – yes, punished – for brutal crimes, especially when even the DP itself is much more compassionate than what the victims suffered. Plus, going back to the eternal damnation point, who knows how many victims died and went to Hell (without having murdered anyone!) but would’ve turned their lives around if they had not been murdered? Yes, of course, it is possible God may judge them on what they would’ve done had they lived, but we don’t know that for a fact.

On the DP issue, I don’t understand anyone who does not have a battle between our limited understanding of justice and our limited understanding of mercy in his heart. But whatever his heart leans toward, if he is Catholic, he must bow to the Church’s teaching.

Those are the things I don’t understand. What really blows my mind is people who say all killing is wrong. John the Baptist didn’t say that (he told the soldiers to quit complaining, not to quit), Jesus didn’t say that, the Church doesn’t say that (i.e. Just War Theory). But even more, taking religion out of it, I don’t understand how the raw human can hold that thought:

If a sniper is shooting children and I have the means and opportunity to kill him and stop the slaughter, not only is it not wrong, it would be wrong not to do so (not talking about freezing up; talking about choosing not to). Someone will say that we should aim to stop by other means; I say that if even one death results because of using other means, that death is on the person’s conscience. This is almost an unrealistic scenario – but it illustrates a principal that needs to be carried into other areas. That is why the Church says that there is such a thing as a Just War.

Anyway – back to the thrust of the post. The argument that you can’t use the DP to prevent harm that has not yet happened doesn’t hold because the Catechism says the DP can be used to protect human lives. The question is – are guards and inmates considered human lives? Or, can guards and inmates be protected without DP?

I generally agree with your post, but to kill someone requires more than just believing that he might possibly kill again. I think you can justify killing someone when you can be fairly certain that he will kill again. I think your case of the assasin is right on.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

When I was younger I was Pro Capital Punishment (CP). The logic is not bad it is based on an understanding of “liberty” in the true sense of the word. The logic does not violate Catholic Church teachings and goes like this. Cp is a punishment for a crime one chooses to commit with free will and knowledge of the circumstances. Abortion is a crime against one to young to speak. Euthanasia is a difficult situation because the will of person is often conflicted with temporary pain, uncertainty, depression, and communication issues. In summary the control of CP is by the person who is considering the crime. As I have aged I see the problems with CP simply out weight the benefits. This because the “truth” about a crime is rarely known, so lawyers spend decades in debates on a single case then even if executed little to no value is gained by society. Most executions are of older, worn out from death row prisoners after 13yrs(?) in prison.

Unrelated to logical argument above is the fact that every study I know shows the CP is disproportionally applied to poor and non white people. And it is PEOPLE several DNA cases have proven the death row inmate could not have possibly been the “one and only criminal” as his conviction was given.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

And it is PEOPLE several DNA cases have proven the death row inmate could not have possibly been the “one and only criminal” as his conviction was given.

Actually, I think you are mistaken here. It is my understanding that, to date, DNA has not yet exonerated even one executed person. (Maybe you are talking about people exonerated before execution, stopping the execution – do you have a source?). That’s why there was so much news coverage about that guy who swore up to his execution that he was innocent (can’t remember his name, can anyone else?). There was DNA and a big post-execution court battle over whether or not it should be tested. It was finally tested and it proved him guilty.

Also, there is a train of thought that says that knowing when one is going to die sharpens that person’s thoughts on the afterlife and the need for repentence in a way that not knowing when death will occur does not do. I’ve no clue if that’s true, but it’s an interesting theory.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually, I think you are mistaken here. It is my understanding that, to date, DNA has not yet exonerated even one executed person. (Maybe you are talking about people exonerated before execution, stopping the execution – do you have a source?). That’s why there was so much news coverage about that guy who swore up to his execution that he was innocent (can’t remember his name, can anyone else?). There was DNA and a big post-execution court battle over whether or not it should be tested. It was finally tested and it proved him guilty.

Also, there is a train of thought that says that knowing when one is going to die sharpens that person’s thoughts on the afterlife and the need for repentence in a way that not knowing when death will occur does not do. I’ve no clue if that’s true, but it’s an interesting theory.

Attached is an overall graph, more than 120 people, the site lists 14 from DNA
View attachment 554
FYI
*Only 14 of these exonerations have been due to DNA testing. It is true that more states now allow this kind of new evidence to be tested and admitted on appeal, despite time limitations on appeals. However, the DNA exonerations represent only 12% of the total list of 116 cases. In 88% of the cases, attorneys and courts had to rely on other forms of evidence, such as a confession by the actual killer, witnesses who now admit that they were pressured into lying at trial, or the refinement of other kinds of forensic testing such as fingerprint or bite mark analysis. - *deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149

Here is a list for those freed by DNA (various crimes)
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Attached is an overall graph, more than 120 people, the site lists 14 from DNA
View attachment 554
FYI
*Only 14 of these exonerations have been due to DNA testing. It is true that more states now allow this kind of new evidence to be tested and admitted on appeal, despite time limitations on appeals. However, the DNA exonerations represent only 12% of the total list of 116 cases. In 88% of the cases, attorneys and courts had to rely on other forms of evidence, such as a confession by the actual killer, witnesses who now admit that they were pressured into lying at trial, or the refinement of other kinds of forensic testing such as fingerprint or bite mark analysis. - *deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149

Here is a list for those freed by DNA (various crimes)
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293

Great stats! Yes, this is what I thought – pre-execution proof, not post-execution. Of course, just because there is, to date, no DNA proof that someone was wrongly executed, it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Even with a DP fulfilling all the Church’s requirements, it could happen – just as in a Just War, there can be innocent casualities.

I will say that I do not understand why anyone would be against using DNA for an appeal. I mean, it’s truth we all want, isn’t it?

 

[dudleysharp]

I am not sure what is “nuanced”, which I interpret as unclear about the last last two paragraphs. It is saying quite clearly, don’t employ the death penalty if you have any other means.

Kendy

That is the problem with the teaching, it is penological and contradicts the Church’s biblical, theological and traditional teachings on the topic.

Furthermore, penologically, the death penalty is more a defense of life than are lesser sentneces.

We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.

Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.