Death Penalty and Justice

[jsiyumbu]

Is the use of the death penalty in line with the concept of justice?

 

[Ender]

Is the use of the death penalty in line with the concept of justice?

The primary objective of all punishment is justice. It is the obligations of justice that determine whether or not any punishment is appropriate; the death penalty has to meet the same standards as any other penalty. The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment “must” be* “commensurate with the severity of the crime.”* If the death penalty is the only punishment that meets this standard then not only is it just to use it but it would be unjust not to.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Is the use of the death penalty in line with the concept of justice?

When Cain murdered Able god delivered the justice which was to mark and banish Cain. God marked Cain to prevent others from killing Cain. So god went above punishment to ensure he spared Cain’s life

 

[justicerandall]

The primary objective of all punishment is justice. It is the obligations of justice that determine whether or not any punishment is appropriate; the death penalty has to meet the same standards as any other penalty. The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment “must” be* “commensurate with the severity of the crime.”* If the death penalty is the only punishment that meets this standard then not only is it just to use it but it would be unjust not to.

Ender

Personally, my conviction is that death penalty is not justified by anything. Let God judge us, He’s the only one who knows the right and complete story.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Personally, my conviction is that death penalty is not justified by anything. Let God judge us, He’s the only one who knows the right and complete story.

This is not what the Church Teaches.

 

[Ender]

Personally, my conviction is that death penalty is not justified by anything. Let God judge us, He’s the only one who knows the right and complete story.

As ByzCath said, this is not what the Church teaches. In fact she has always taught that the death penalty is a just punishment and that the State has the right to employ it.

Nor do I believe you really want to leave all judgments to God. A society cannot function where judgments are not made, both by the legal system in judging whether a crime has been committed and within our own communities in judging whether a sin has been committed. Surely you are not so indifferent to what your family and neighbors do that you never judge any of their actions as sinful. We are in fact obligated to make those kinds of judgments as Augustine said: “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.”

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As ByzCath said, this is not what the Church teaches. In fact she has always taught that the death penalty is a just punishment and that the State has the right to employ it.

Nor do I believe you really want to leave all judgments to God. A society cannot function where judgments are not made, both by the legal system in judging whether a crime has been committed and within our own communities in judging whether a sin has been committed. Surely you are not so indifferent to what your family and neighbors do that you never judge any of their actions as sinful. We are in fact obligated to make those kinds of judgments as Augustine said: “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.”

Ender

This is a great reply Ender but I feel that I must add something.

While we are called to judge whether or not a sin has been committed, we are not to judge the state of mind of the individual involved.

 

[Ender]

While we are called to judge whether or not a sin has been committed, we are not to judge the state of mind of the individual involved.

No argument there. What concerned me about the earlier post was that it gave the perception that the act of judging itself was being challenged; a position usually linked to the warning that we should judge not lest we be judged. This represents a misunderstanding of what we are warned against doing, which is not judging but rash judging - that is, judging things we cannot know - which goes to the point of your post.

Ender

 

[portarica]

As ByzCath said, this is not what the Church teaches. In fact she has always taught that the death penalty is a just punishment and that the State has the right to employ it.

Nor do I believe you really want to leave all judgments to God. A society cannot function where judgments are not made, both by the legal system in judging whether a crime has been committed and within our own communities in judging whether a sin has been committed. Surely you are not so indifferent to what your family and neighbors do that you never judge any of their actions as sinful. We are in fact obligated to make those kinds of judgments as Augustine said: “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.”

Ender

Actually the church through the pope teaches us that the death penalty is not appropriate from a practical standpoint because other forms of punishment have made the requirements for death penalty essentially obsolete.

What you are referring to is that the church has not “officially” made the death penalty contrary to church doctrine or morals.

Now the death penalty is left to the individual and I guess that means we have to listen to Jesus and only throw the first stone, flip the switch, start the IV, pull the trigger or start the fire if we are without sin.

Peace

 

[BillP]

Ender, you and ByzCath are definitely a brazen, to say the least.

As ByzCath said, this is not what the Church teaches. In fact she has always taught that the death penalty is a just punishment and that the State has the right to employ it.

Here is what the church actually teaches:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. **
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’

For you to characterize the Church as "in favor of the death penalty: based on this chapter is like claiming that the Church is in favor of theft, because it recognizes that sometimes it is justified as here:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.[190]

Both quotes from here: christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/part3_2.html

In both cases, the Church says something is wrong except in the most exigent of circumstances, she doesn’t say, oh, sometimes the Death Penalty and Theft are okay.

 

[BillP]

While we are called to judge whether or not a sin has been committed, we are not to judge the state of mind of the individual involved.

That will be fairly difficult given that the essential fact of whether or not a sin has been committed is entirely contingent on the sinner “state of mind” wouldn’t you say?

1859 Mortal sin **requires full knowledge and complete consent.** It    presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its    opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate    to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart[133] do    not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. 
1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability    of a grave offense.** But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles    of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The    promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and    free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological    disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is    the gravest.

So if you’re going to go around judging peoples sinfulness, you’d better be darned sure you have certain knowledge of their degree of consent and information, in short their “state of mind” or you find yourself failing in charity…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ender, you and ByzCath are definitely a brazen, to say the least.

Here is what the church actually teaches:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. **

You have mischaractarized what I said. I did not say that the Church “favors the death penalty”. What I said is that the Church does not teach against it in every case as the poster I was replying to said he felt.

As for the Catechism, it leaves a lot open for disagreement. I do not agree that prision is a “bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons”.

People in prison prey on other prisoners, even killing them, they also prey on the guards and injure and kill them.

So first I away your apology for saying that I said something I did not say.

Second may I suggest that when you use quotes from the catechism or other such you do not enter them in a quote block becuase when we quote our post they do not show up and require us to do extra work to include them in your quote. This is why I stopped using them and now either use a different color for them or indent them.

Third, what I said stands, the Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong.

 

[BillP]

So first I away your apology for saying that I said something I did not say.

My post was addressed to Ender, you are simply a co-conspirator so to speak.

Perhaps I should have said “permits” or “is okay with” instead of “approves”, but I stand by my characterization. Ender was trying to misrepresent, either willfully or through ignorance, the Churches teaching on the death penalty and you were assisting him.

Third, what I said stands, the Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong.

That is, while technically true, very far from “accurate” in fact, it is a textbook example of sophistry.

You say “The Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong”

The catechism says:

2267 …"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself,** cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’**

(sorry I don’t know how to do “text blocks”)

If you think your characterization is accurate, thats fine, I honestly don’t care what you and Ender think, nor am I arguing with you. I just don’t want innocent people coming to this board to read your stuff, without giving them access to authentic Church teaching and letting them judge for themselves.

What about theft? Would you characterize the Church’s position on theft as “not always wrong?”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

My post was addressed to Ender, you are simply a co-conspirator so to speak.

Perhaps I should have said “permits” or “is okay with” instead of “approves”, but I stand by my characterization. Ender was trying to misrepresent, either willfully or through ignorance, the Churches teaching on the death penalty and you were assisting him.

Never the less you lumped me in with this and is a mischaracterization of what I was saying.

That is, while technically true, very far from “accurate” in fact, it is a textbook example of sophistry.

You say “The Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong”

The catechism says:

2267 …"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself,** cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’**

The bolded part is where we can disagree. Putting the offender away in prison does not necessarily mean that he can not commit crimes (including murder) any more, it does not mean that society is protected unless you do not consder those in prison (both prisoners and those who work there) part of society and worthy of protection. There are many cases where those in prison commit crimes (including murder) against other prisoners and those who work there (especially prison guards).

You are also doing a selective reading of the paragraph, you must read it in whole.

Here is what you have chosen to ignore over the last part

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 more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
This plays into my argument that locking a person away in prison does not always protect people’s saftey from the aggressor. It just limits his agression to a smaller population.

(sorry I don’t know how to do “text blocks”)

To use text blocks look at the tool bar at the top of the text window, it is the tenth one from the left. High light the text you want to indent and press that button.

Or you can use the color option, which instead of quote in the ] you put the word color=blue (for example) the ending is just /color.

So if I did that it would look like this.

Hope that helps you out.

If you think your characterization is accurate, thats fine, I honestly don’t care what you and Ender think, nor am I arguing with you. I just don’t want innocent people coming to this board to read your stuff, without giving them access to authentic Church teaching and letting them judge for themselves.

When you stress one part of a paragraph of the CCC over the rest of it you are not giving the “authentic Chruch teaching”, you must give it all.

The Death Penalty is not an intrinsic evil, like abortion, that some people wish to protray it as.

What about theft? Would you characterize the Church’s position on theft as “not always wrong?”

No. Theft is always wrong, it is a sin and an intrinic evil, yet there are mitigating circumstances, as spelled out in the CCC that can lessen the severity of the sin incured.

Or do you disagree with that?

 

[Ender]

Actually the church through the pope teaches us that the death penalty is not appropriate from a practical standpoint because other forms of punishment have made the requirements for death penalty essentially obsolete.

You need to read what I say very carefully as I am careful about what I say, and what I said was that the Church has always taught, and teaches today, that the death penalty is just. Given that this is the topic of the thread I worded my response to address that point.

What you are referring to is that the church has not “officially” made the death penalty contrary to church doctrine or morals.

Not at all, nor is the Church any more likely to declare capital punishment an intrinsic evil than she is to allow women priests.

Now the death penalty is left to the individual and I guess that means we have to listen to Jesus and only throw the first stone, flip the switch, start the IV, pull the trigger or start the fire if we are without sin.

Are we just now, 2000 years after Christ said that, to apply those words? The Church never understood that passage to mean capital punishment was wrong. Are you suggesting she misinterpreted it all those years?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Here is what the church actually teaches: [2267 …]

The thing I really like about this particular thread is that it addresses specifically the relation between capital punishment and justice … and this is the thing: there is nothing whatever in 2267 that addresses justice, so what it says is not relevant to this discussion.

For you to characterize the Church as "in favor of the death penalty: based on this chapter is like claiming that the Church is in favor of theft

And for you to characterize this as my position is unwarranted. You should see that yourself as you put quotation remarks around a statement I did not make. Calm yourself and read my comments more slowly. And more charitably.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Pope Benedict XVI said:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia…
   Here’s the link folks :
   priestsforlife.org/magist…erommunion.htm

So…it is NOT morally unjustifiable, because if it were, the Pope wouldnt have said that we can disagree on the APPLICATION of the death penalty or vote for those people who do. There can be no “legitimate diversity of opinion” on an action that, is “immoral.”
So thats the teaching…and so Catholics can support politicians who support the death penalty, and if Osama were caught…Id push the button on him !!

 

[Ender]

Ender was trying to misrepresent, either willfully or through ignorance, the Churches teaching on the death penalty

Go back to my comment, quote the part of it that you feel is inaccurate, and explain what I got wrong. You will find it much more difficult to demonstrate error when you limit yourself to what I actually said as opposed to how you (willfully or through ignorance, mis)interpreted it.

Ender

 

[portarica]

You need to read what I say very carefully as I am careful about what I say, and what I said was that the Church has always taught, and teaches today, that the death penalty is just. Given that this is the topic of the thread I worded my response to address that point.

Not at all, nor is the Church any more likely to declare capital punishment an intrinsic evil than she is to allow women priests.

Are we just now, 2000 years after Christ said that, to apply those words? The Church never understood that passage to mean capital punishment was wrong. Are you suggesting she misinterpreted it all those years?

Ender

Paul thought slavery was OK too, Pope Innocent thought cats were the devil incarnate interpretations of the church continue to develop, just as the interpretations of the OT have developed so as not to change.

Peace

 

[Califman831]

Is the use of the death penalty in line with the concept of justice?

Am in favor of saying yes and pointing to the great flood of a Just God wiping out a sinful world.