Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[Simon_X]

On the way home today, I was discussing with my 14 year old son how I believed there are times when the Death Penalty is acceptable. I believe they were discussing this on Catholic Answers and it was said that the Catholic Church is not totally against it in some circumstances.

By some weird coincidence, a non profit group against the death penalty just called, but I didn’t really want to talk to them.

Is it wrong for me to believe there are times when the Death Penalty should be allowed? For instance, sadistic killers who prey upon innocent children and women. (I am a big fan of John Douglas by the way).

I do not believe in the Death Penalty where a person snaps and kills someone in a one time event and then is remorseful, ect…

Your thoughts please…

 

[kage_ar]

From the Catechism:

**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.”

 

[teachccd]

Like the above post which quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I have to agree that in today’s prisons criminals would not have an easy possibility of escaping. The only reason that one might favor the death penalty is to keep a dangerous criminal from harming or killing others and for no other reason. So, if that criminal is confined and cannot do further harm then that result is fully accomplished.

One final note: on the death certificate of the person who was executed it states the cause of death as “homicide”. And we must remember that it is nothing less than that…teachccd

 

[Genesis315]

Is it necessary to protect the common good? In school I did a cost benefit analysis of the death penalty and my conclusion was that from a purely utilitarian standpoint, the death penalty’s benefits are outweighed by its costs (unless a person a pure “retribitionist” and values retribution very, very much). The actual extra-cost per death of prosecuting a death penalty case (remember, even if the death penalty is sought, it is usually not granted) is very great; using that money to instead put more cops on the beat, for example, has shown to reduce violent crimes more than having the death penalty.

Also, from more of a moral standpoint, in a society where people already have little respect for life and who put little value on right and wrong, doing away with the death penalty may have the effect of helping the common good by increasing a greater respect for life.

 

[gmags2003]

Rehabilitation > Death Penalty…99.9% of the time

 

[Ender]

Is it wrong for me to believe there are times when the Death Penalty should be allowed?

You are not mistaken; this is what the Church has always taught.

In 1995 JPII stated that the death penalty should only be used where necessary to protect society and, if society was adequately protected by secure prisons, then capital punishment should not be used. This puts us in the bizarre situation of being able to execute someone for what he might do in the future but bars us from executing him for what he has actually done in the past.

Unfortunately this restriction does not address your question as to whether a particularly brutal murderer deserves execution as a just punishment for his crime. The Church teaches that the state has not just the right but the duty to punish criminals and that the severity of the punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime. It seems pretty clear to me that, for some crimes, the death penalty is the only proportionate punishment.

Ender

 

[buffalo]

Legitimate defense
[2263](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2263.htm’) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
[2264](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2264.htm’) Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 [2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
[2266](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) 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 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 nonexistent."68

 

[Ruthie]

My personal interpretation of the Catechism is that the death penalty is appropriate for prisoners who murder while in prison - i.e. being in prison did not keep them from murdering.

It may also be appropriate for an unrepentant serial killer, in a state where there’s no real “life without parole.”

I repeat, that is my *personal *interpretation.

Ruthie

 

[teachccd]

Unfortunately this restriction does not address your question as to whether a particularly brutal murderer deserves execution as a just punishment for his crime. The Church teaches that the state has not just the right but the duty to punish criminals and that the severity of the punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime. It seems pretty clear to me that, for some crimes, the death penalty is the only proportionate punishment.

Ender

This is not what the Church teaches…

 

[Ender]

This is not what the Church teaches…

The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime. She also taught - from Saint Paul until 1995 - that the execution of criminals for particularly heinous crimes was just. In fact, JPII did not address the retributive aspect of punishment at all; he simply ignored it. That’s not the same as rejecting it.

Ender

 

[Caesar517]

The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime. She also taught - from Saint Paul until 1995 - that the execution of criminals for particularly heinous crimes was just. In fact, JPII did not address the retributive aspect of punishment at all; he simply ignored it. That’s not the same as rejecting it.

Ender

Did you read the Catechism quotes?

 

[Ender]

Did you read the Catechism quotes?

Yes, did you? I am quite familiar with that particular section, in fact a number of my comments are taken directly from it:

*“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” *(2266) This is just what I said in my previous post.

*“Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” *(2266)
As I pointed out, this is the aspect of punishment that JPII did not address. Punishment has four objectives with retribution (justice) being primary. The protection of society, on which JPII based his prudential opposition, is one of the secondary concerns.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is only suitable in cases where society has no other means to protect itself. The Pope and Bishops (teaching in communion with the Pope) are, of course the best authority on moral applications of Church doctrine.

According to the Local Catechism (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults), the death penalty, particularly the increased use of the death penalty, in the United States, is a causal factor in a culture of death and, like abortion, should be opposed.

The matter became pretty crystal clear when the Holy Father publicly called for its abolition in St. Louis. This teaching is not held to be infallible, but it is included in the local and universal catechism, declared in papal encyclical, and been forcefully taught, so the Dogmatic Constitution would seem to apply:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constiution of the Church)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Some folks will try to contend that the Pope is ‘changing’ Dogma, hence it is not binding. But this is both poor theology, and a moral problem in of itself:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ

Anathema is beyond excommunication. One is not just seperate from the body of the faithful, but from Christ.

It is not expected that you will agree with the Vicar of Christ in all things, but by accepting the Holy and Apostolic nature of the Church, you are compelled to both strive to obey and to understand. Remember, Dissent is considered morally problematic by the Church and the overwhelming presumption is that the Mother Church is correct and it is the individual’s moral conscience which is not properly formed or in error.

Peace

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is only suitable in cases where society has no other means to protect itself.

The Church teaches a number of things on this subject, as I have pointed out, and your comment does not address the points I raised earlier.

the increased use of the death penalty, in the United States, is a causal factor in a culture of death and, like abortion, should be opposed.

The death penalty is not like abortion. It was JPII’s opinion that we should oppose the former but it is doctrine that we must oppose the latter. As Cardinal Ratzinger said: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”.

Dissent is considered morally problematic by the Church

We are bound to assent to both the infallible and the ordinary teachings of the Church; we are not bound to assent to prudential opinions, even of popes.

This topic would really be a lot more interesting if you could ever get beyond simply repeating “the pope said so … the pope said so …”

Ender

 

[Dale_M]

Yes, did you? I am quite familiar with that particular section, in fact a number of my comments are taken directly from it:

*“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” *(2266) This is just what I said in my previous post.

Yes, but Ender, that merely says that punishment should be proportional to the crime e.g. someone shouldn’t get six years in prison for jaywalking.

The Catechism specifically says on the matter of capital punishment (which has already been quoted) that capital punishment is not an acceptable punishment. It is only to be used as a last recourse to protect society.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Did you read the Catechism quotes?

You see this has all been done before. The Catechism, JPII’s statements, and the USCCB are all in exact agreement. Yet some folks refuse ot accept the CLEAR tenor of the statements because for whatever reason they wish to support the death penalty. So much for life issues being all treated the same. LOL. It’s too sad, and but another case of personal interpretation.

 

[SoCalRC]

Yes, but Ender, that merely says that punishment should be proportional to the crime e.g. someone shouldn’t get six years in prison for jaywalking.

The Catechism specifically says on the matter of capital punishment (which has already been quoted) that capital punishment is not an acceptable punishment. It is only to be used as a last recourse to protect society.

It all comes down to “following” vs. “fitting”. When folks quote CCC 2266, they ignore that CCC 2267 specifically puts CP in a seperate catagory. In the printed Universal Catechism, CCC 2267 is even cross referenced again in regards to torture and abuse of the rights of the human person.

Then folks quote the Catechism from Trent, but they ignore that if you read just a sentence further, it argues that the justification is that the penalty serves the purpose of the law, to protect and foster life.

Then they’ll quote a nice article from First Things, again ignoring that the Cardinal who wrote it both argues that the Pope is not changing doctrine, but expressing a prudential judgement in proper application and that the Cardinal agrees.

Finally they’ll argue that prudential means optional, which we can see from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church and the Catechism, is utterly false. We are not Protestants who decide for ourselves, we acknowledge that we are part of a Holy Catholic and apostolic Church which infallibly picks a successor to St Peter, who then directs and teaches with the authority given by Christ.

We are almost alone among industrialized nations in having the death penalty, so there is plenty of evidence that the Church is right, but for whatever reason these folks feel a need to cling to a personal believe and then strive to alter Church teaching to match.

 

[JimG]

Certainly society has other means to protect itself other than by use of the death penalty. That problem that arises, at least in the U.S., is that it does not use these means. There are many instances of murderers being paroled and going out to murder again.

I know of a couple from our parish who routinely has to make arrangements to attend parole hearings of the murderer of their daughter (and three other women) in order to try to prevent him being released on parole. Even murderers who receive life sentences come up for parole.

Until I can be assured that life means life, the death penalty has to remain on the table. Because when a life sentence is not a life sentence, then society is not being protected.

 

[Ender]

Yes, but Ender, that merely says that punishment should be proportional to the crime e.g. someone shouldn’t get six years in prison for jaywalking.

Proportionate means neither too much nor too little. My argument is that life in prison for some crimes is too little, a position, by the way, that JPII did not address although all of the prior popes and doctors of the Church who wrote on this subject accepted this point.

The Catechism specifically says on the matter of capital punishment (which has already been quoted) that capital punishment is not an acceptable punishment. It is only to be used as a last recourse to protect society.

I understand what the Catechism says; section 2267 was pretty much lifted from JPII’s Evangelium vitae (#56). My response is that this restriction is the prudential opinion of JPII, which therefore does not require our assent.

The primary objective of punishment is to “redress the disorder caused by the offense.” JPII opposed the death penalty on the basis that it was not needed for the protection of society - which may or may not be true - but even if it is, protection is a secondary concern. It is the primary objective that must be satisfied and JPII said nothing whatever about that. What we have then are mutually exclusive obligations: on the one hand we are not to employ capital punishment but on the other we require of a just state that punishments fit the crimes and for some crimes the only just punishment is the life of the criminal.

How do you propose we resolve the dilemma?

Ender

 

[Caesar517]

…for some crimes the only just punishment is the life of the criminal.

Where do you het that crazy idea from?