Death Penalty and Justice

[lynx]

articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/25/nation/la-na-dna-florida25-2010mar25

This man was convicted of rape and murder in 1983. He is currently being exonerated of his crimes due to DNA evidence. I’m glad they didn’t decide to kill him. Also, check out the end of this link deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent#also for more exonerations.

We as a society are not fit to pass such an ultimate judgment. Assuming we are wrong it is only the innocent who suffer. Life in prison is a more justified measure.

 

[Ender]

I made the assumption , perhaps mistakenly , that the most frequent posters probably have a wide ranging knowledge of church history and conduct.

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote in this post but won’t address any of it because even if it was true it would still be irrelevant to the issue of capital punishment. Your argument is that the Church was wrong in the past and has reversed her position on other issues therefore it is appropriate to reject what she teaches on capital punishment in the expectation that she will come around to seeing it your way. I don’t suppose it occurs to you that if that argument was valid it would justify rejecting quite literally everything she teaches in favor of our own personal interpretations. If your argument is true then the Church is false and we’d be better off without her. Fortunately that’s not likely.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

We will have to agree to disagree. As imperfect sinners, we have no right to exact the judgment of God upon other sinners.

But God told us that we should do that for certain crimes.

So we are simply following God’s instructions. So it is not just a right of the State ( which the Church has always acknowledged), but at times, it is a Duty.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

As to it being doctrine or not, that doesn’t matter, the church is better because it doesn’t support slavery any longer.

Peace

The problem wasn’t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen. …What is clear is that the common assertion that the Catholic Church generally favored slavery is not true.

christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

 

[CWBetts]

But God told us that we should do that for certain crimes.

So we are simply following God’s instructions. So it is not just a right of the State ( which the Church has always acknowledged), but at times, it is a Duty.

It is NEVER a duty.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Our concept of justice is limited as it is but a human virtue. Charity, on the other hand, is a theological virture – a gift from God. In as much as charity, not justice, is the basis of the greatest commandment, ought we as Christians ask whether the death penalty is consonant with the virture of charity? In matters of charity, our thinking is guided by the Holy Spirit; in matters of justice we are still somewhat in the dark. In God, both virtures are consonant and demand the same reponse. In man, often the virtues seem to demand different actions. Perhaps that is why Christ emphasized love of neighbor rather than justice to one’s neighbor realizing we lack the wheelbase to understand God’s justice.

If you allow the change to measure the standard by charity rather than justice, then I think the answer is yes if, and only if, the state’s taking the life of another limits the evil he or she may do if allowed to continue life. If prudence does not allow such judgement beyond a reasonable doubt, then the state ought not to take the life of one of its members.

 

[portarica]

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote in this post but won’t address any of it because even if it was true it would still be irrelevant to the issue of capital punishment. Your argument is that the Church was wrong in the past and has reversed her position on other issues therefore it is appropriate to reject what she teaches on capital punishment in the expectation that she will come around to seeing it your way. I don’t suppose it occurs to you that if that argument was valid it would justify rejecting quite literally everything she teaches in favor of our own personal interpretations. If your argument is true then the Church is false and we’d be better off without her. Fortunately that’s not likely.

Ender

You draw false conclusions, especially the part about change indicates the church being false.

As to my own personal interpretation, I never said they should be church law. As to the specifics of capital punishment, you don’t seem to think that the church teaches that it is not the best solution to crimes of a capital nature.

So you deny what the church actually teaches about capital punishment by saying that because the church allows capital punishment is some circumstances that are not reasonable at the present time, they are in favor of capital punishment.

You ignore what the popes have taught lately when they clarified the church’s position about capital punishment, but turn around and say that my argument means the church is not true , go figure.

Peace

 

[Ender]

Our concept of justice is limited as it is but a human virtue. Charity, on the other hand, is a theological virtue – a gift from God. In as much as charity, not justice, is the basis of the greatest commandment, ought we as Christians ask whether the death penalty is consonant with the virtue of charity?

I think the approach you take here pits one virtue against another when it seems that what is required is to satisfy them all. As the Baltimore Catechism states regarding justice and mercy: “God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all.”

In matters of charity, our thinking is guided by the Holy Spirit; in matters of justice we are still somewhat in the dark. In God, both virtues are consonant and demand the same response. In man, often the virtues seem to demand different actions. Perhaps that is why Christ emphasized love of neighbor rather than justice to one’s neighbor realizing we lack the wheelbase to understand God’s justice.

You cannot demean our ability to dispense justice without demeaning our ability to dispense any of the other human virtues and while charity may be the greatest of the theological virtues, justice is the greatest of the human ones and if we are incapable of acting justly we are equally incapable of satisfying any of the other virtues.

If you allow the change to measure the standard by charity rather than justice, then I think the answer is yes if, and only if, the state’s taking the life of another limits the evil he or she may do if allowed to continue life. If prudence does not allow such judgment beyond a reasonable doubt, then the state ought not to take the life of one of its members.

I think you conflate charity with mercy when what you really mean is clemency.

- the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas ST I/II 87, 6)
- unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment of his past sin, or bear patiently the punishment which God inflicts on him; and in both ways punishment avails for satisfaction. (Ibid)
*- And since man’s good is manifold, viz. good of the soul, good of the body, and external goods, of the it happens sometimes that man suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater good *(Ibid 87,7)
- charity has for its object the last end of human life, viz. everlasting happiness (Ibid II/II 23, 4 ad 2)

When a man sins he violates divine justice and incurs a debt that can only be paid by punishment. As the final end of charity is mans everlasting happiness, how can it be charitable to give a person a lesser good - exemption from just punishment - if it costs him eternal salvation? Retribution - the restoration of justice - is the primary objective of punishment, without it there can be no salvation and it is not charitable to request less than justice demands.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

I think the approach you take here pits one virtue against another when it seems that what is required is to satisfy them all. As the Baltimore Catechism states regarding justice and mercy: “God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all.”

To the contrary, I posted that all virtues are consonant in God. The Baltimore Catechism confirms.
It is only man whose fallen reason cannot always bring the virtues of justice and charity into harmony. In God, simple in nature, the two virtues are identities.

You cannot demean our ability to dispense justice without demeaning our ability to dispense any of the other human virtues ….

I agree … and your point is?

… and while charity may be the greatest of the theological virtues, justice is the greatest of the human ones …

Where is it taught that justice is the greatest human virtue?

… and if we are incapable of acting justly we are equally incapable of satisfying any of the other virtues.

I disagree. It does not follow that are inability to fully satisfy the demands of human virtue render us incapable of satisfying all virtues. The human virtues are not merely different in degree than the theological virtues, they are different in kind. With God’s grace (and only with His grace), we can fully satisfy the demands of the theological virtues.

I think you conflate charity with mercy when what you really mean is clemency.

I think not. Clemency is a human invention to attempt to bridge the rational gap that often exists between our misunderstanding of justice and charity: a misunderstanding that exists only because our fallen reason is unable to harmonize these virutes. Charity and mercy are identities. Justice and charity are identities. Truth and justice are identites. God and charity are identities. Do the math.

- the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas ST I/II 87, 6)
- unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment of his past sin, or bear patiently the punishment which God inflicts on him; and in both ways punishment avails for satisfaction. (Ibid)
*- And since man’s good is manifold, viz. good of the soul, good of the body, and external goods, of the it happens sometimes that man suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater good *(Ibid 87,7)
- charity has for its object the last end of human life, viz. everlasting happiness (Ibid II/II 23, 4 ad 2)
When a man sins he violates divine justice and incurs a debt that can only be paid by punishment. As the final end of charity is mans everlasting happiness, how can it be charitable to give a person a lesser good - exemption from just punishment - if it costs him eternal salvation? Retribution - the restoration of justice - is the primary objective of punishment, without it there can be no salvation and it is not charitable to request less than justice demands. Ender

Notice that Aquinas in all cases requires the will of the pentient to be in comfomance with the penance for it to have value. But what of punishment that is inflicted? Does it satisfy justice? Aquinas is silent on this point.
I suggest a re-reading of “Job” rather than Aquinas regarding man’s attempts to understand God’s justice.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

. WWJD? Probably not kill the guy.

Who?

 

[ChristineMac]

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

Thank you for the excellent answer. You worded so eloquently what I have struggled to convey for some time.

 

[Ender]

It is only man whose fallen reason cannot always bring the virtues of justice and charity into harmony.

Cite something the Church has written that suggests man is capable of applying charity properly because it is a theological virtue but incapable of properly applying justice because it is only a human virtue.

Where is it taught that justice is the greatest human virtue?

“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.” (Aquinas ST II/II 58,12)

I disagree. It does not follow that are inability to fully satisfy the demands of human virtue render us incapable of satisfying all virtues. The human virtues are not merely different in degree than the theological virtues, they are different in kind. With God’s grace (and only with His grace), we can fully satisfy the demands of the theological virtues.

Where is this taught?

Charity and mercy are identities. Justice and charity are identities. Truth and justice are identites. God and charity are identities.

I have no idea what you mean here. When you call a virtue an identity what do you mean (and where is it taught)?

Notice that Aquinas in all cases requires the will of the pentient to be in comfomance with the penance for it to have value. But what of punishment that is inflicted? Does it satisfy justice? Aquinas is silent on this point.

Punishment satisfies the need for justice whether or not the sinner willingly accepts it. It may not satisfy for penance but it does for justice.

   *"A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium." *(Pius XII)

I suggest a re-reading of “Job” rather than Aquinas regarding man’s attempts to understand God’s justice.

I don’t offer my own interpretation of scripture; my comments are based on what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[ChristineMac]

Sigh. Yet another thread with the argument that “We must kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong”

But the death penalty issue goes further than that. What about the capital offenses in this country that are not for murder (treason comes to mind). What about the idea that many supporters of the death penalty would like to see the barbarity expanded to sex offenders? When does our thirst for vengeance stop?

sorry, I just can’t pass that one up. I find your post completely insensitive to victims of serious sexual assault, especially children.
As a person who has worked in the criminal justice system for many years closely with prosecutors of crimes against children, I have seen up close the “barbarity” of these offenders who, as more and more experts are in agreement on, CANNOT be rehabilitated. I cannot describe here the heinous ‘sexual’ violence that has been committed against children, even infants. No words could begin to portray the horror.
I believe the DP is the only applicable justice for said offenders.

 

[CWBetts]

sorry, I just can’t pass that one up. I find your post completely insensitive to victims of serious sexual assault, especially children.
As a person who has worked in the criminal justice system for many years closely with prosecutors of crimes against children, I have seen up close the “barbarity” of these offenders who, as more and more experts are in agreement on, CANNOT be rehabilitated. I cannot describe here the heinous ‘sexual’ violence that has been committed against children, even infants. No words could begin to portray the horror.
I believe the DP is the only applicable justice for said offenders.

You are wrong. Neither you nor I have the right to pass judgment or decree who is, or is not, worthy of death. Closure only comes through forgiveness. The unrepentant has thoer punishment coming.

 

[portarica]

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

Very eloquent and to the point, especially -“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.”

And that is where the church has placed its most recent emphasis, right on your “if”, because the way the popes have taught recently is that the circumstances for the “if” are for practical purposes nonexistent in these times.

Sort of like the concept of , let he who is without sin cast the first stone, after all that allows for capital punishment, one just needs to find somebody that hasn’t sinned to start it off. I’m sure that before He uttered those words, Jesus scanned the crowd to see if His Mom was present.

Peace

 

[ChristineMac]

You are wrong. Neither you nor I have the right to pass judgment or decree who is, or is not, worthy of death. Closure only comes through forgiveness. The unrepentant has thoer punishment coming.

Obviously you and I will never agree. However, as has been well established, the Church allows for governments to impose the DP to protect it’s citizens (very brief synopsis, of course).
If, as it has been proven, perpetrators of sexual violence against children cannot be rehabilitated, extreme measures, such as the DP, could be necessary to protect all children. That is justice.
Yes, forgiveness and repentance are moral truths that shoud be sought and desired. But we are required to protect ‘the least among us’, yes, sometimes at great cost.

 

[remjsmom76]

A lot of people may think so, esp if the accused was found guilty of murder. My point of view…no. The accused may have cause heartache for the murder of a loved one. He/She may have tortured our loved one. However we are not allowed to kill those who have killed. WE can detain them, keep them away from normal society or interaction with others…but kill them because they killed, no…never. We are not GOD, we can not take life away, thats his job.

 

[CWBetts]

Obviously you and I will never agree. However, as has been well established, the Church allows for governments to impose the DP to protect it’s citizens (very brief synopsis, of course).
If, as it has been proven, perpetrators of sexual violence against children cannot be rehabilitated, extreme measures, such as the DP, could be necessary to protect all children. That is justice.
Yes, forgiveness and repentance are moral truths that shoud be sought and desired. But we are required to protect ‘the least among us’, yes, sometimes at great cost.

I will pray for you. You seem to have a great thirst for vengeance. The unrepentant have a great punishment awaiting them, which is far greater than any we as mere mortals can employ. I also abjectly refuse to believe that any soul is beyond redemption.

 

[ChristineMac]

I will pray for you. You seem to have a great thirst for vengeance. The unrepentant have a great punishment awaiting them, which is far greater than any we as mere mortals can employ. I also abjectly refuse to believe that any soul is beyond redemption.

First of all, thank you for your prayers, as I always need prayer.
Secondly, you completely mistake a thirst for justice as a thirst for vengence. What I am talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with repentance or redemption, which I desire for all men. I agree that no soul is beyond redemption.
Justice on this earth is another story. My point was that there are just reasons for the DP for some “sex offenders” you referred to in your earlier post; specifically in regard to horrific, heinous ‘sexual’ crimes against children (again, for which there is no earthly rehabilitation- note I do not say no spiritual redemption).

 

[CWBetts]

First of all, thank you for your prayers, as I always need prayer.
Secondly, you completely mistake a thirst for justice as a thirst for vengence. What I am talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with repentance or redemption, which I desire for all men. I agree that no soul is beyond redemption.
Justice on this earth is another story. My point was that there are just reasons for the DP for some “sex offenders” you referred to in your earlier post; specifically in regard to horrific, heinous ‘sexual’ crimes against children (again, for which there is no earthly rehabilitation- note I do not say no spiritual redemption).

Yet you advocate their judicial murder…that is not consistent with Christ.