Death penalty - abortion comparison

[MC_taters]

I cannot believe that those who support abortion are adamantly against the death penalty!

There is plenty of hypocrisy in that as well. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though…

 

[Ender]

Our Lord and God is forgiving. Why can’t we be? Aren’t we called to be more like Jesus?

The responsibility of the individual is to forgive; the responsibility of the State is to punish crimes.

Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict* penalties** commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(2266)

There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas)

More significantly, forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive.

At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness (JPII)

Beside the morally wrong aspect of it

There is nothing morally wrong with capital punishment and the Church has recognized this at least since 405 when Innocent I pronounced it "a practice that all hold to be permitted by God".

The death of one innocent person in my view should be reason enough to abolish the death penalty.

That presents a problem as more innocent people die because murderers who were not executed for their first killing repeat the offense than will ever be executed for crimes they did not commit.

Ender

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

Do you have a source for this claim?
Tell that to this guy.

(“Langley says Texas death penalty affected his actions during escape”, by Stephen Martin, The Daily Democrat (Ft. Madison, Iowa), 1/8/97, pg 1.)

prisonactivist.org/archive/death-penalty/dpstudy.html

I’m sure it instills fear in some people, however, many criminals are ruthless and could careless about the consequences. The increase in murders during the period of an execution is called the Brutalization effect. Look it up. It’s a common topic in Criminal Justice degree classes.

 

[Ender]

Whether or not traditional teaching of the Church included that limitation is not even relevant to the issue at hand.

You asked what part of 2267 was erroneous; I was responding to your question.

So then, since we’re now on the subject of the traditional teaching of the Church on the death penalty… What IS the “traditional” teaching of the Church on the death penalty? If the Catechism is wrong, then where is the correct answer to that question? Where have YOU found your answer?

There are at least five previous catechisms that address capital punishment as well as a half dozen popes prior to JPII, not to mention Church councils, the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. They all held pretty much the same position:

*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *(Innocent III, 1210)

Of those earlier sources, there is not a single one that supports the idea expressed in 2267. This is not entirely surprising for, as starshiptrooper has alleged, 2267 is not doctrine but a prudential suggestion that, in current societies, the use of capital punishment causes more problems that it resolves.

Ender

 

[RosaryFan]

There is plenty of hypocrisy in that as well. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though…

No. I beg to differ. There certainly is not plenty of hypocrisy when you turn it the other way.

Advocating the killing of innocent human life, while fervently protecting the lives of those who murder others is hypocritical.

While on the other hand…
Fervently defending the innocent unborn from the atrocity of abortion, while accepting the death penalty as being necessary in extreme cases and when all other measures are unproductive, is not hypocritical.

Since Jesus did not enjoy hypocrites and the Catholic Church is the Bride of Jesus, and founded by Jesus, and recognizes the necessity of the death penalty in extreme cases, then this position cannot be hypocrtical. I truly do not believe the Bride of Christ can be hypocritical.

 

[SteveGC]

prisonactivist.org/archive/death-penalty/dpstudy.html

I’m sure it instills fear in some people, however, many criminals are ruthless and could careless about the consequences. The increase in murders during the period of an execution is called the Brutalization effect. Look it up. It’s a common topic in Criminal Justice degree classes.

Read my post (#30) above, LaFleur. And click the links to read some articles that will illumine much of the Church’s historical position. It was an education for me. The long and the short of it is that we are free to support or oppose the death penalty - Church teaching is that it is not mandatory, but proper and responsible for the State to impose appropriate means of punishment (including execution) in order to protect society. As I read more documents, and as I read posts in here from those more aware of the issue than I, I am beginning to understand and somewhat appreciate the teaching. Let me know what you think after reading those articles.

 

[SteveGC]

Whether or not traditional teaching of the Church included that limitation is not even relevant to the issue at hand. I thought the issue at hand was the Church’s teaching on the death penalty vs. her teaching on abortion.

So then, since we’re now on the subject of the traditional teaching of the Church on the death penalty… What IS the “traditional” teaching of the Church on the death penalty? If the Catechism is wrong, then where is the correct answer to that question? Where have YOU found your answer?

Read my post (#30) above. And click the links to read some articles that will illumine much of the Church’s historical position. It was an education for me. The long and the short of it is that we are free to support or oppose the death penalty - Church teaching is that it is not mandatory, but proper and responsible for the State to impose appropriate means of punishment (including execution) in order to protect society. As I read more documents, and as I read posts in here from those more aware of the issue than I, I am beginning to understand and somewhat appreciate the teaching. Let me know what you think after reading those articles.

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

The responsibility of the individual is to forgive; the responsibility of the State is to punish crimes.

Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict** penalties** commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (2266)

*There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the *Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas)

More significantly, forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive.

At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness (JPII)
There is nothing morally wrong with capital punishment and the Church has recognized this at least since 405 when Innocent I pronounced it *“a practice that all hold to be *permitted by God”.
That presents a problem as more innocent people die because murderers who were not executed for their first killing repeat the offense than will ever be executed for crimes they did not commit.

Ender

I’m not saying to let them roam free. Obviously they should be locked up for life. Left to think about what they did and endure the torment of being in a small cell for 23 hours a day. I think they punishment of life in prison is better than a quick death. Not only will they suffer in this life while in prison, but they will ultimately suffer in hell unless they find and accept God.

 

[RosaryFan]

You asked what part of 2267 was erroneous; I was responding to your question.
There are at least five previous catechisms that address capital punishment as well as a half dozen popes prior to JPII, not to mention Church councils, the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. They all held pretty much the same position:

*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *(Innocent III, 1210)

Of those earlier sources, there is not a single one that supports the idea expressed in 2267. This is not entirely surprising for, as starshiptrooper has alleged, 2267 is not doctrine but a prudential suggestion that, in current societies, the use of capital punishment causes more problems that it resolves.

Ender

You may have been just answering my question, but your initial mentioning of the error was not because I asked you about it. So you were referring to an error in the Catechism that didn’t even have anything to do with the issue. It’s like finding a typographical error and claiming the Catechism is “wrong”. The GIST of the statement in #2267 is not erroneous. In other words, the point the Church is trying to make gets across, regardless. It just seems a little like a red herring to mention errors when that is the error to which you were referring.

 

[starshiptrooper]

prisonactivist.org/archive/death-penalty/dpstudy.html

I’m sure it instills fear in some people, however, many criminals are ruthless and could careless about the consequences. The increase in murders during the period of an execution is called the Brutalization effect. Look it up. It’s a common topic in Criminal Justice degree classes.

Frankly, I my not-so-humble opinion, this is ridiculous! Does sending more people to prison increase the kidnapping rate? Do government welfare programs encourage more people to voluntarily give money for charitable purposes? The answer is NO!, that does not happen.

I strongly suggest you look at these studies. wesleylowe.com/deter.html

 

[MC_taters]

No. I beg to differ. There certainly is not plenty of hypocrisy when you turn it the other way.

Advocating the killing of innocent human life, while fervently protecting the lives of those who murder others is hypocritical.

While on the other hand…
Fervently defending the innocent unborn from the atrocity of abortion, while accepting the death penalty as being necessary in extreme cases and when all other measures are unproductive, is not hypocritical.

Since Jesus did not enjoy hypocrites and the Catholic Church is the Bride of Jesus, and founded by Jesus, and recognizes the necessity of the death penalty in extreme cases, then this position cannot be hypocrtical. I truly do not believe the Bride of Christ can be hypocritical.

I would think that Jesus’ message of “Turn the other cheek” would apply to the death penalty. It is not our right to decide if someone must die, but God’s.

 

[RosaryFan]

I would think that Jesus’ message of “Turn the other cheek” would apply to the death penalty. It is not our right to decide if someone must die, but God’s.

You can’t be serious??

I’m sorry, but I don’t think “turn the other cheek” applies to people who murder. That wouldn’t make any sense. If someone kills you, you’re not even alive to present your other cheek. And if someone kills a neighbor, I’m certainly not going to hang around and offer my cheeks to them.

I think “turn the other cheek” is meant for when you are mistreated. Not murdered.

 

[RosaryFan]

Read my post (#30) above. And click the links to read some articles that will illumine much of the Church’s historical position. It was an education for me. The long and the short of it is that we are free to support or oppose the death penalty - Church teaching is that it is not mandatory, but proper and responsible for the State to impose appropriate means of punishment (including execution) in order to protect society. As I read more documents, and as I read posts in here from those more aware of the issue than I, I am beginning to understand and somewhat appreciate the teaching. Let me know what you think after reading those articles.

Yes. I happen to agree with that 100%. It has been my contention all along that the Church does not advocate or “push” for the death penalty, but recognizes its necessity in certain cases (extreme cases). That is not contradictory to what you state in your previous post or post #30. I believe it is in line with what you are stating.

That is why I do not consider it hypocricy to be pro-life and agree with the Church’s view of the death penalty, as some here seem to think.

 

[MC_taters]

You can’t be serious??

I’m sorry, but I don’t think “turn the other cheek” applies to people who murder. That wouldn’t make any sense. If someone kills you, you’re not even alive to present your other cheek. And if someone kills a neighbor, I’m certainly not going to hang around and offer my cheeks to them.

I think “turn the other cheek” is meant for when you are mistreated. Not murdered.

It is not meant to be interpreted literally of course. Also, a thing to remember is that capital punishment does not only apply to murder. For instance in Florida, capital punishment is acceptable in the cases of first-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery. The last two would certainly involve mistreatment of individuals, but not necessarily murder. Still, in the circumstance of murder, I believe Jesus’ direct teachings, not interpretations, do not condone it. Perhaps a better example would be this:

“Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (NRSV, John 8:7-11)

Although this woman did not commit murder, Jesus’ message clearly states that those living in sin do not have the right to mortally judge another sinner.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It is not meant to be interpreted literally of course. Also, a thing to remember is that capital punishment does not only apply to murder. For instance in Florida, capital punishment is acceptable in the cases of first-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery. The last two would certainly involve mistreatment of individuals, but not necessarily murder. Still, in the circumstance of murder, I believe Jesus’ direct teachings, not interpretations, do not condone it. Perhaps a better example would be this:

“Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” (NRSV, John 8:7-11)

Although this woman did not commit murder, Jesus’ message clearly states that those living in sin do not have the right to mortally judge another sinner.

Actually Jesus does say that at all. In this passage, when Jesus says, “Let anyone among you who is without sin cast the first stone,” the word He uses for sin is ‘Αναμαρτητος’. This is a Greek word which means, the same kind of sin. So what Jesus actually said was, “Let anyone among you who hasn’t committed adultery cast the first stone.” Therefore, Jesus was not prohibiting the death penalty but escaping a trap by pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. (bible.cc/john/8-7.htm)

 

[LaFleurDeLis]

Frankly, I my not-so-humble opinion, this is ridiculous! Does sending more people to prison increase the kidnapping rate? Do government welfare programs encourage more people to voluntarily give money for charitable purposes? The answer is NO!, that does not happen.

I strongly suggest you look at these studies. wesleylowe.com/deter.html

Well, that’s your opinion, but what I have stated was fact.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Well, that’s your opinion, but what I have stated was fact.

The facts are on my side. I gave you a link to several studies and provided an actual example of deterrence. I can provide several more examples too. Can you give me an example of a individual who was actually influenced by this most likely nonexistent brutalization effect?

Another thing that just came to mind. I not sure your study is credible. It talks about the California homicide rate rising after the executions. However, the California homicide rate is something very different from the California murder rate. The legal definition of a homicide is not limited to murder but also includes accidents and killing in self-defense. For all we know, the number of fatal car accidents could have risen after those executions by the California State Government.

 

[mexilad]

I agree with most of your response, but the CCC says that the death penalty should be only used if there is no other way to keep the convicted murderer from killing again, which would be in very rare cases. I would have also put in their statistics…how many of the guilty are put to death each year (murderers) versus how many of the most innocent (abortions) were put to death each year.

Convicted murderers kill other prisoners while in prison. They are murderers. That’s what they do.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, I have. Interestingly enough, it was through reading JP2’s statements on the death penalty that I decided the death penalty was moral. I had his writings quoted at me all the time. JP2 obviously believed that the only valid reason to use the death penalty was protection. However, he also believed it was unnecessary. This struck me as odd, the death penalty effectively protects society through deterrence and incapacitation. Why should society refuse to use such an efficacious means of protection?

I started doing some research and then came to the conclusion that JP2’s statments were not binding.

How about “guiding” instead of “binding”? If JPII taught that Capital punishment was for the most part unnecessary, was he wrong? Is he in conflict with what the “Church teaches”?

 

[Ender]

How about “guiding” instead of “binding”? If JPII taught that Capital punishment was for the most part unnecessary, was he wrong? Is he in conflict with what the “Church teaches”?

The Church teaches that there are valid reasons for not executing someone, even if that is the appropriate punishment, so from that perspective there is nothing wrong with JPII’s assertion that such reasons exist in modern society. Given as guidance his position is understandable - even though I disagree with it, especially with the part that finds it unnecessary. It may well be unnecessary for protection (although that appears quite doubtful) but it is necessary to satisfy the obligation of justice which requires the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

Ender