Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[bbentrup]

Life for life is just, but taking life is God’s domain, and unless we have an immediate crisis where the defense of life in general necessitates the taking of one life, we as a society must look to ensure the original murderer is incapable of causing further harm to others. We simply do not have the authority to take the murderer’s life if that can be prevented, which modern means of incarceration have allowed.

I traditionally believed there was only one instance where taking life was necessary, and this was before reading JPII’s Evangelium Vitae. That would be some kind of jungle scenario where someone was out trying to kill you and your companions. Then, if you were to somehow able to temporarily detain the would be murderer, if you had no way to permanently do so, and thought that, once released, he would resume his plans, then you would have to, of sad necessity, take his life to defend others. Reading the pope confirmed my thoughts. What JPII taught me was that it doesn’t even matter if you have no companions, that defense of your own life is enough that it becomes slightly sinful not to take the necessary steps to defend your life.

Anyways, back to modern incarceration. Terrorism being what it is, my father-in-law and I were theorizing that Saddam Hussein’s case might be the first in modern society where the death penalty might be the correct choice. This has nothing to do with the heinousness of his crimes, but rather that his person was so polarizing that if he were not executed, and even if he were moved to, say, the USA for incarceration, that he would be a magnet for terrorists all over to come and rescue him. In other words, it would be very dangerous to let him live because the political characteristics of the case would constantly put all the prison officials and fellow inmates in very heightened danger to their lives. This may or may not be true, but it would be for the legitimate competent authorities to decide, and if they decided for execution, then no moral blame could be assigned to them (if their intentions were pure). Any thoughts on that case-study?

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Any thoughts on that case-study?

Yes. I think you overestimate the influence Saddam had with terrorist groups.

 

[pnewton]

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

Yes, perfect justice and perfect mercy are characteristic of God. The question of the death penalty is not how a Christian should act individually, but what is the moral role of society. A society must not neglect justice, or evil will have reign. The Bible tells us that kings hold power for the punishment of the wicked.

Yet mercy must also weigh. Thus, the position of the Catholic Church is changing this last generation. My biggest disagreement with the late John Paul the Great is not whether we should show mercy, but whether practically the most wicked and hardcore among us can really be safely incarcerated. I have never found any documentation for this conclusion in any official Catholic document, Vatican or USCCB.

I have known a few murderers that I know will continue to harm others and can not be safely incarcerated. Thus my disagreement.

 

[bbentrup]

Yes. I think you overestimate the influence Saddam had with terrorist groups.

No, I don’t I only hypothesize that it could be such. I think that the possibility for danger of incarceration can be framed better for him than anyone else since modern standards of incarceration. Would you like to name a captured criminal that you think has been more risky to incarcerate?

The actual question, as I said, once the moral issues have been studied, should be left to legitimate competent authority as to whether or not they think they can safely incarcerate him. I can imagine if I were the warden of a prison, I would rather that Saddam Hussein not be in one of my cells for fear of terrorist attacks. If the people in charge prayed about it and came to the conclusion that he would always draw significant terrorist attention due to ideology or politics, then I think his execution can be defended on moral grounds.

 

[Ender]

Life for life is just …

The Church has always taught that this is true but it is nice to see it acknowledged, especially as justice is the primary objective of punishment.

… but taking life is God’s domain

People keep saying this but never back it up with quotes from Church documents. Here are some comments for you to deal with:

Rm 13:1 - *“The authorities that exist have been established by God. …(13:4) For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

"Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.”* (Augustine, City of God)

*“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.” *(Innocent I, 405 AD)

I traditionally believed there was only one instance where taking life was necessary, and this was before reading JPII’s Evangelium Vitae. That would be some kind of jungle scenario where someone was out trying to kill you and your companions.

As I understand this, you accept the appropriateness of killing in self defense, correct? Here’s an application of that principle: should we not execute the prisoners in Guantanamo since we know many of the ones there will kill again if we release them? Quite a number (20? 30?) have already done so so this is not idle speculation. How would you argue against this proposal?

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

The Church has always taught that this is true but it is nice to see it acknowledged, especially as justice is the primary objective of punishment.

Actually, with regards to the Catechisms and Doctors of the Church you have quoted, the preservation and promotion of human life is the expressed purpose of the law. True justice requires judgement, which is the provence of God in Christian tradition.

What all keeps getting missed in all this, uh, ‘theology’ is Catholicism. If you are going to act as Catholic Theologians, you need to responsibly follow the Church’s guidance with regards to that vocation, DONUM VARITATIS:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

In particular, see section IV, “THE MAGISTERIUM AND THEOLOGY”, both parts A (“Collaborative Relations”) and B (“The problem of dissent”).

By presenting your opinions as inarguable consclusions, by debating the mater in the court of public opinion, and by expressing a position of Doctrinal error on the part of the Holy See, you appear to be disregarding the principles of “unity of truth” (unitas veritatis) and “unity of charity” (unitas caritatis).

It is a free country, and as such you are welcome to all the thoughts in your head. But it is not a democractic faith, there is one natural law, and one Church created by God whose heirarchy carries legitmate apostolic authority. If you are going to argue theology in good faith, then no matter how strongly you are convinced of your own ideas and interpretations:

“There should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith”.

To do otherwise, one risks promoting “dangerous opinions which could lead to error.” And, of course, the document reiterates the fundemental Dogma of the Church which I have repeatedly quoted to you:

“When the Magisterium proposes <> truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.”

In this instance, the text of the Profession of faith (“Firmiter etiam amplector et retineo. …”) is being quoted.

This is a question that all Catholics eventually must answer. Is the faith something that is held and followed, even at some personal expense, or is it merely something that is fitted, at convenience, to the other beliefs one wishes to hold. The Church has always been clear, we are called to obey. Rather or not we answer is up to the individual.

 

[bbentrup]

The Church has always taught that this is true but it is nice to see it acknowledged, especially as justice is the primary objective of punishment. People keep saying this but never back it up with quotes from Church documents. Here are some comments for you to deal with:…

I appreciate the time that you took to reference some biblical quotes, however I am not going to give you the same courtesy at this time. I think it is very self-evident that God is the author of life and we should let God take that life on his own terms whenever possible. I strongly advise you to find out what you can with this assumption that basically every poster on this thread has claimed. By the way, I do not equate a just act with punishment, the intentions are very, very different.

As I understand this, you accept the appropriateness of killing in self defense, correct? Here’s an application of that principle: should we not execute the prisoners in Guantanamo since we know many of the ones there will kill again if we release them? Quite a number (20? 30?) have already done so so this is not idle speculation. How would you argue against this proposal?

Ender

Ender, I am not in charge of the Guantanamo detainees - I do not know them personally, nor their positions, nor their history. That said, I bet people who are familiar with their situation could make a good case that each one of the detainees is very dangerous. IF that is indeed true, then they should not be released but held in custody in order to defend life until old age or other condition has rendered them harmless.

Sometimes, what should be done, does not happen. IF they were incorrectly released against defense for life causes and you met one with reasonable suspicion that they intended immediate, serious, and irreparable harm to you or others, then you would be justified morally in taking their life, if no other way of safely detaining them existed. The law may or may not agree with the circumstances of such a hypothetical killing, so I cannot comment on what secular authorities would do to you.

 

[SoCalRC]

As I understand this, you accept the appropriateness of killing in self defense, correct? Here’s an application of that principle: should we not execute the prisoners in Guantanamo since we know many of the ones there will kill again if we release them? Quite a number (20? 30?) have already done so so this is not idle speculation. How would you argue against this proposal?

But we also know that significant numbers of detainees committed no crime, have no evidence against them, and are held for no other reason than we don’t know what to do with them.

Regarding others, we don’t really “know” much at all, since they have no meaningful legal recourse and have made confessions under torture, something that has been rejected in the rule of law for 5 centuries.

The whole thing is a red herring anyway. We are not talking about social cowardice, but responding to God’s natural law. And, we have no evidence to suggest that our use of the death penalty makes our society any safer than the vast majority of modern nations which have abolished it. In fact, our violence rates our higher and the Church believes our expanded use of the death penalty is a causal factor (see the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

It is not wrong the Church is very clear when the proper criteria are met this is an option. The church is also clear there are almost always better options. The USCCB has called for a voluntary end to the death penalty in the US because several serious issues exist in its application and the US can afford to use the better options.

Hope that helps

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

So you are saying that if a state has a parole statute then you view it as an exception that the state cannot properly protect its citizenry from the murderer? That’s a most interesting personal opinion justifying state ordered murder.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So you are saying that if a state has a parole statute then you view it as an exception that the state cannot properly protect its citizenry from the murderer? That’s a most interesting personal opinion justifying state ordered murder.

The data seems to indicate the incarcerations are too short. It is certainly a money issue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

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

Well it’s good to know that I am not the only one who can be accused of holding a opinion contrary to the CCC the USCCB and the pope. Apparently you feel in the face of some very strong arguments by half a dozen or so posters, that your personal interepretation is still better. I just wonder why you would fight so hard to uphold such a vile doctrine of vengence?

 

[pnewton]

That’s a most interesting personal opinion justifying state ordered murder.

FYI - Thomas Aquinas, as well as the Mosaic law, holds that executions are not murder.

 

[pnewton]

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 know if I have commented on your post yet, but St. Thomas would have agreed with you, at least during the time he was alive. Now things are different, or at least so we have been led to believe. If revenge is sought, that is nor for us to seek. However, for the protection of society, the Church teaches that it is still allowed. The USCCB and JPII do not believe that it is necessary for the protection of society. This idea is unique to the last few decades of Catholicism and since this approach relies on an opinion of society, it is subject to being reversed, based on the understanding of our society and peneology.

I think as long as you realize the importance of mercy as well as justice, and prefer the preservation of life to the taking of life, it is an acceptable position.

 

[JimG]

So you are saying that if a state has a parole statute then you view it as an exception that the state cannot properly protect its citizenry from the murderer? That’s a most interesting personal opinion justifying state ordered murder.

The CCC says that the state ought to be able to render a murderer incapable of doing further harm, without use of the death penalty. I agree. But for that moral principle to be of any use to society, the state’s ability to protect it must be more than theoretical.

If the facts on the ground suggest that society is not being so protected, then the claim that society has other means to protect itself is rendered meaningless.

And by referring to ‘state ordered murder’ you seem to make the claim that the death penalty can never be justified, whereas the CCC indicates that the Church does not exclude recourse to it.

 

[Ender]

True justice requires judgement, which is the provence of God in Christian tradition.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here but either man is to be concerned with justice or he is not and neither position is specific to capital punishment.

If you are going to act as Catholic Theologians, you need to responsibly follow the Church’s guidance with regards to that vocation, DONUM VARITATIS:

OK, this document at least (briefly) addresses the issue of prudential statements.

By presenting your opinions as inarguable consclusions …

I have not so presented them. I have in fact been trying to foster a discussion of the points I make. A debate that you have done your best to keep from happening.

… by debating the mater in the court of public opinion …

A Catholic debate forum is not the same as a letter to my local paper. If debate on this topic is forbidden here then what of all the other topics being debated: abortion, homosexuality, contraception … If your charge is valid then the forum should be shut down.

… and by expressing a position of Doctrinal error on the part of the Holy See

*“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.” *(Donum veritatis) Given that the Church acknowledges that prudential opinions may have deficiencies it doesn’t seem inappropriate for me to suggest that this topic is one of them.

The Church has always been clear, we are called to obey. Rather or not we answer is up to the individual.

As I have pointed out several times, our obligations for assent on prudential matters are not the same as our obligations for assent on teachings that are ordinary or infallible. I am willing to have this discussion with you - but in another thread. Your continual objections re assent whenever the topic of capital punishment arises don’t seem meant to clarify either issue so much as to terminate the debate and keep my objections from being discussed.

Ender

 

[teachccd]

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.

VC

Please back that up with official Church documents…thank you…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

FYI - Thomas Aquinas, as well as the Mosaic law, holds that executions are not murder.

In the state of California when one is executed, the cause of death stated on the death certificate is rendered as “homicide”. Funny little fact…teachccd

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Please back that up with official Church documents…thank you…teachccd

Hi teachccd,

It follows as a deduction from the premises that: 1)The state may have recourse to the death penalty (see, for example CCC 2267); 2) Execution of the death penalty does not take place (usually) in the context of imminent threat; 3) The state obtains protection by means of putting a criminal to death.

If the death penalty is allowed, than it is allowing the state to directly (as a means) kill a person who is not imminently threatening harm.

I’m not sure if I have explained myself sufficiently. Please follow up if I can better refine my assertion for you.

God Bless,
VC

(P.S. The above shows why the death penalty cannot be justified by using the principle of double effect or the principle of self-defense/defense of another (which itself relies on the principle of double effect).)

 

[teachccd]

Hi teachccd,

It follows as a deduction from the premises that: 1)The state may have recourse to the death penalty (see, for example CCC 2267); 2) Execution of the death penalty does not take place (usually) in the context of imminent threat; 3) The state obtains protection by means of putting a criminal to death.

If the death penalty is allowed, than it is allowing the state to directly (as a means) kill a person who is not imminently threatening harm.

I’m not sure if I have explained myself sufficiently. Please follow up if I can better refine my assertion for you.

God Bless,
VC

(P.S. The above shows why the death penalty cannot be justified by using the principle of double effect or the principle of self-defense/defense of another (which itself relies on the principle of double effect).)

Okay, I see your reasoning here and I also seem to see that you are against the death penalty. Am I correct? It seems that you are utilizing my acknowledgements as to when a life may be taken but making sure that those reasons do not apply to the death penalty. Am I understanding your viewpoint correctly??

Your first paragraph confuses me as to your stance on the death penalty since you state reasons for its use and then your last paragraph (the P.S.) states that these reasons do not justify its use…God Bless you and thank you for the clarifications…teachccd