Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[RachelsAlumni]

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

IMO, as followers of Christ, we are to seek mercy before justice. Perfect Justice is in the hands of God.

 

[Dale_M]

How do you propose we resolve the dilemma?

I guess I don’t see a dilemma. Punishment does not require eye-for-eye retribution in order to redress the crime.

I am a little worried, though, at the ease at which you dismiss part of the Catechism which you disagree with. Are you sure you want to do that?

 

[teachccd]

How do you propose we resolve the dilemma?

Ender

By joining with the crowd and yell, “crucify him!!”

 

[teachccd]

Ender you seem to gloss over the CCC’s references to the dignity of human life. Yes, if in self defense a life is taken then it is just because the attacker has no regard for life and the ONLY way to stop him/her is with equal force and the secondary result is death. The death certificate states the cause of death as “homicide” in a capital punishment death. In the death penalty we, as a society, take on the role of God and execute the external without realizing the possible conversion of the internal.

You can continue with your contortion of the CCC to suit your claim as many Protestants do with Scripture. The fact is that we cannot take a human life unless that life poses an imminent danger to another life. Yes, the punishment must fit the crime up to the point of taking a life which is reserved only for God and not for our own personal revenge.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

So your attitude is that people should be murdered by the state and its citizenry until such time that life means life? So there is no place whatsoever for forgiveness, reformation, rehabilitiation. People made a terrible mistake at age 18, their lives are forever forfeit? No matter what they do afterward? Interesting take on charity and Christian love and foregiveness. I think I’ll opt for the wonderful Arab I saw the other night on NBC news who was working as hard as he could for the release of the kid who murdered his son. Working to help other kids learn not to use violence as a means of solving problems. I think he’s the kind of role model I’ll follow Sir.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes, if in self defense a life is taken then it is just because the attacker has no regard for life and the ONLY way to stop him/her is with equal force and the secondary result is death.

That is true – a very good summary of the classical approach to the morality of self-defense and the principle of double effect upon which it is based.

The fact is that we cannot take a human life unless that life poses an imminent danger to another life.

That is not true. The state, through the use of capital punishment (and others with proper authority such as a soldier in a just war) may take human life directly and intentionally, and not under threat of imminent harm. The Church has taught, and has acted on, that principle.

I think there sometimes can be confusion between the principle of double effect, which justifies self-defense, and the principles which make the death penalty and killing in a just war possible. The latter two scenarios are not principally justified by an appeal to self-defense or defense of others (i.e. the principle of double effect).

It is crucial that we keep the distinction in mind when discussing (and teaching about!) the death penalty.

VC

 

[warriorofpeace]

keep in mind in scripture it suggests one day we will be in charge of angels and also that our religious peers in society one day will be the ones that judge us in a court of law i cant wait to see those days when true christians are the only judges in our courts but with the bibles being taken out of court were going down hill real fast

 

[Ender]

Punishment does not require eye-for-eye retribution in order to redress the crime.

Justice requires that the punishment be proportionate to the crime. The Church has always taught that execution of the guilty for egregious crimes was a just punishment. JPII did not address this point so as far as I know this part of Church teaching has not changed. What we ignore here is that penance, whether accepted or forced, is required to make satisfaction to God for the sins one has committed and that cannot happen unless the punishment is commensurate to the sin.

I am a little worried, though, at the ease at which you dismiss part of the Catechism which you disagree with. Are you sure you want to do that?

Let’s be a bit more precise here. Section 2267 of the Catechism expresses the prudential judgment of JPII. Contrary to what SoCalRC stated, our obligations regarding assent to prudential opinions are not addressed in the documents he cites nor are they discussed in the Catechism. I believe I am on very firm ground in claiming that Catholics are not obligated to assent to prudential opinions.

The points I have been making, however, are not my own: I am quoting other (earlier) Church documents. What I don’t see is any response to the issues I have raised. Instead the comments have been rolled eyes and heavy sighs about my being a cafeteria Catholic with a thirst for vengeance.

Ender

 

[Ender]

IMO, as followers of Christ, we are to seek mercy before justice.

Let’s follow this point a little. Do we agree that a merciful punishment would be one that is less severe than what simple justice requires? That is, if a just punishment is two years in prison then a merciful one would be, say, one year instead.

If, then, the merciful punishment for a mass murderer is life without parole … what is the just punishment? It cannot be the same otherwise where is the mercy? If you want to argue that the merciful punishment is life in prison then you first have to admit that the just punishment is execution. Are you willing to concede that? If not, then don’t pretend that you have shown the killer any mercy at all if you consider life in prison the just punishment.

Perfect Justice is in the hands of God.

What are you arguing here - that we should be indifferent to earthly justice? Representatives of the state are God’s ministers on earth and a just state will surely attempt to achieve as much justice as it can. Your comment argues against all punishments, not just the death penalty.

Ender

 

[Caesar517]

Justice requires that the punishment be proportionate to the crime. The Church has always taught that execution of the guilty for egregious crimes was a just punishment. JPII did not address this point so as far as I know this part of Church teaching has not changed. What we ignore here is that penance, whether accepted or forced, is required to make satisfaction to God for the sins one has committed and that cannot happen unless the punishment is commensurate to the sin.

God demands the life of the criminal! Cut out his heart and put his head on a pike! Let his blood feed the forest and his body be dragged around the town from the back of a chariot!

Mercy is more important than justice, my friend.

 

[Caesar517]

If, then, the merciful punishment for a mass murderer is life without parole … what is the just punishment? It cannot be the same otherwise where is the mercy? If you want to argue that the merciful punishment is life in prison then you first have to admit that the just punishment is execution. Are you willing to concede that? If not, then don’t pretend that you have shown the killer any mercy at all if you consider life in prison the just punishment.

Mercy is more important than justice, but that doesn’t mean that we abandon justice. Both are important.

 

[JimG]

So your attitude is that people should be murdered by the state and its citizenry until such time that life means life? So there is no place whatsoever for forgiveness, reformation, rehabilitiation. People made a terrible mistake at age 18, their lives are forever forfeit? No matter what they do afterward? Interesting take on charity and Christian love and foregiveness. I think I’ll opt for the wonderful Arab I saw the other night on NBC news who was working as hard as he could for the release of the kid who murdered his son. Working to help other kids learn not to use violence as a means of solving problems. I think he’s the kind of role model I’ll follow Sir.

There is always a place for forgiveness; and rehabilitation and reformation ought to be the goal. I’m not against parole when rehabilitation is evident. I was addressing the protection of society. Society is not protected when a convict sentenced to four consecutive life terms keeps coming up for parole with no evidence of rehabilitation.

If recidivism were rare, I’d want short and rehabilitative prison terms. No sense spending money on incarceration of inmates who are not a threat. Likewise there’s no protection for society in releasing inmates who are a threat.

And if the state gives a life term in lieu of a death penalty, how is society protected if the inmate–unrehabilitated–is simply going to be released in a few years?

 

[Ender]

God demands the life of the criminal! Cut out his heart and put his head on a pike! Let his blood feed the forest and his body be dragged around the town from the back of a chariot!

You should realize that when you direct that unpleasant characterization to me you equally apply it to everyone from St. Paul to Paul VI, including Augustine and Aquinas, since they are the people I have been quoting.

Mercy is more important than justice, my friend.

I didn’t know that. Apparently Aquinas got it wrong:

“If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person.” (ST II/II 58,12)

How about answering my question on this topic: if the merciful punishment is life without parole, what is the just punishment? More documentation and fewer slogans would be helpful.

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There is always a place for forgiveness; and rehabilitation and reformation ought to be the goal. I’m not against parole when rehabilitation is evident. I was addressing the protection of society. Society is not protected when a convict sentenced to four consecutive life terms keeps coming up for parole with no evidence of rehabilitation.

If recidivism were rare, I’d want short and rehabilitative prison terms. No sense spending money on incarceration of inmates who are not a threat. Likewise there’s no protection for society in releasing inmates who are a threat.

And if the state gives a life term in lieu of a death penalty, how is society protected if the inmate–unrehabilitated–is simply going to be released in a few years?

Whether someone comes up for parole on a regular basis is really not the issue. That is something written in the various state statutes. The fact is that those who have not been rehabilitated are not released. This does not mean that systems are fallible, they are, but there is no way to prevent this from occuring here and there. It is most horrendous when it does, but it fairly does not justify IMO killing off large numbers of people because one or two might attain parole and kill again.

The fact of the matter is that I don’t think most murders are released unless their crimes are such that the facts alone suggest there is little chance of recitivism. Murders that are family related as most are, are not likely to be repeated. they are crimes of passion although not rising to the legal defense of one of the lesser degrees of murder.

I think sociey is protected just fine when parole boards deny parole to severe cases where there is no evidence of rehabilitation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You should realize that when you direct that unpleasant characterization to me you equally apply it to everyone from St. Paul to Paul VI, including Augustine and Aquinas, since they are the people I have been quoting.

I didn’t know that. Apparently Aquinas got it wrong:

“If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person.” (ST II/II 58,12)

How about answering my question on this topic: if the merciful punishment is life without parole, what is the just punishment? More documentation and fewer slogans would be helpful.

Ender

You know a lot of things that a number of saints have admitted to, are considered horrendous today. A good deal of the self-inflicted pain and torture that saints indured is simply disgusting to us today. We pity them for thinking that God would require such behavior from them to be found acceptable. We no longer scourge the body and deny it basic pleasures of food, warmth and bedding to be pious.

Similarly, our understanding of what is consider human decency have evolved. Death was thought of a good deal differently in the time of Aquinas, Augustine and others you speak of. People died hard and they died young. Most families saw the loss of several children who did not attain adulthood. Jails and rehabilitation were not available in large measure. It is not difficult to see why they said some of the things they said.

Don’t you think that there is such a thing as evolving senses of decency and human conduct? We build on all our other knowledge. Do you suggest that in regarding this issue, we should remain stagnant and gain no compassion and understanding from anything we have learned from history?

Many of us here are simply constrained to understand your position. As a Christian are we not called to abhor harm to another human being? Does this suggest that we are to search for any solution short of killing whenever possible? This seems the clear tenor of the CCC, the USCCB, and JPII. Attempts to limit is statements to something you need not follow seems to be from some inate desire to punish on some eye for eye, tooth for tooth basis. This is NOT at all what that passage means.

It strikes one as if vengence is the true motive. I hope it is not. Since nothing is gained by murdering the murderer except death, what is the point?

 

[JimG]

Whether someone comes up for parole on a regular basis is really not the issue. That is something written in the various state statutes. The fact is that those who have not been rehabilitated are not released.

Whether or not an inmate is paroled is certainly an issue, because protection of society is the issue. The CCC says that the death penalty should only be invoked where society has no other ways to protect itself. If society is not being protected by the means at hand, that is most definitely an issue. And the fact is that inmates who are not rehabilitated are released.

Here are a few links about recidivism:

recidivism rate chart

recidivism rates in california

70% of paroled young are arrested

Or just try Googling: paroled killer kills again

 

[JimG]

Well, at least I won’t have to worry about the BTK serial killer being released too early. He was sentenced to ten consecutive life terms, which numerically and allowing for the possibility of parole, amounts to 175 years minimum. (I’m just thankful he wasn’t convicted on only one count.) But, he at least remains upbeat:

BTK killer remains upbeat after ten life sentences

“I’ve tried to live my life in a positive manner and I’m not going to let this hold me back,” Rader said to reporters gathered outside his Wichita courtroom. “I really think this whole trial went pretty well. If nothing else, I feel like this gives me a chance to catch up on a lot of the hobbies I’ve overlooked while running from the law.”

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Ender.
You’re making an argument where there is none. You’re making an either/or comparison where it’s not an either/or situation. Mercy and Justice are not mutually exclusive.

The road to justice passes through mercy.

According to “JUSTICE, MERCY AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
By the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.

What Catholic teaching on the death penalty does involve is this: a call to set aside unnecessary violence, including violence by the state, in the name of human dignity and the building of a culture of life.

In the wake of the bloodiest century in history, the Church invites us to recover our own humanity, choosing God’s higher road of restraint and mercy instead of state-sanctioned killing that implicates all of us as citizens.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it in these words:

If “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor , authority [should] limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person”
(2267).

John Paul II, writing in The Gospel of Life, stressed that

“the nature and extent of the punishment [for capital crimes] must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity; in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements to the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (no. 56).

In modern industrialized states, killing convicted murderers adds nothing to anyone’s safety. It is an excess. It cannot be justified except in the most extraordinary conditions. Moreover, for John Paul II, the punishment of any crime should not only seek to redress wrong and protect society.

It should also encourage the possibility of repentance, restitution and rehabilitation on the part of the criminal. Execution removes that hope.

You’d have to read my comment “Perfect Justice is in the hands of God” in quite some distorted manner as if I had said “any & all” justice to think that such a statement argues against punishment and such a distorted misreading deserves no reply.

 

[Ender]

You know a lot of things that a number of saints have admitted to, are considered horrendous today.

This is an argument to simply dismiss everything written by the greatest people in the history of the Church.

2265 *"… those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge."*66

66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.

I’m just guessing here but if the Church still sees fit to quote Aquinas I think it’s OK for me to do it too.

Similarly, our understanding of what is consider human decency have evolved.

Morality is fixed and does not change with the times or from place to place. Our understanding may grow but if something was moral in Paul’s time then it remains moral today.

Jails and rehabilitation were not available in large measure.

“Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history.” (JPII - Jubilee in Prisons, 2000)

Do you suggest that in regarding this issue, we should remain stagnant and gain no compassion and understanding from anything we have learned from history?

Pretty much, yeah. The Church does not define the moral law based on what she has learned from history; she does it based on her understanding of scripture and sacred tradition.

“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.” (Fides et ratio)

As a Christian are we not called to abhor harm to another human being?

*“God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.” *(Aquinas, ST II/II 87, 3 ad 3)

It strikes one as if vengence is the true motive. I hope it is not. Since nothing is gained by murdering the murderer except death, …

The Church has always called murder a grave sin but, even today, allows executions at least in theory, therefore executions are not sinful and are therefore not murder. Don’t abuse the term.

…what is the point?

“it happens sometimes that man suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater good, as when he suffers loss of money for the sake of bodily health, or loss of both of these, for the sake of his soul’s health and the glory of God.**”(Aquinas, ST II/II 87,7)

Ender

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_02111999_death-penalty_en.html

From The Vatican’s own website. I imagine if anything had changed, this would have been updated.

Well what do you know?

ops.gov.ph/europevisit06/photos1.htm
Pope Benedict XVI shows a bound copy of Republic Act No. 9346 abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo presented to him during a private audience with the Pontiff Monday noon (June 26, 6:00 p.m. Manila time) at the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican. (Marcelino Pascua – OPS-NIB Photo)http://www.ops.gov.ph/europevisit06/ps7-062706.gif