Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[wheels10]

The fact that God will eventually execute justice perfectly is no excuse for us not to make the attempt ourselves. Human justice is important as well and that’s what this debate is about inasmuch as retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment. The state has a positive obligation to levy punishments appropriate for the crimes committed; that’s not something that can be passed off with “God will take care of it so we don’t have to.”

Ender

I’m not saying that no punishment be administered. However given what is taught by Jesus, all human Life needs to be protected, and we need to show Mercy. There is even an example in the Old Testament where God was against a murderer being killed:

Genesis 4:10The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.” 13Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15But the Lord said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Bottom line is that you need to do what you think is God’s will. If everything that you know about Jesus and God tells you that a murderer should be executed, then this is what you need to support. For me there are just too many examples that tell me otherwise.

God Bless.

 

[Ender]

If everything that you know about Jesus and God tells you that a murderer should be executed, then this is what you need to support. For me there are just too many examples that tell me otherwise.

Fair enough, but it is the Church who explains the meaning of the examples you refer to and I don’t see any evidence that she interprets them as you do. What seems clear (to me at any rate) is that she takes seriously the command from Gen 9:6 that the penalty for murder is death. Other examples that you could cite - e.g. Cain and the woman caught in adultery - are not used by the Church to oppose capital punishment; she seems never to have interpreted those passages as relevant to her position on the death penalty.

Ender

 

[notredame_999]

The liberal american catholic bishops who oppose capital punishment for despicable crimes like child rape and serial murder are one of the main reasons why the church is loosing moral credibility. Just because John Paul II wanted it restricted doesnt mean he is right, in fact I believe tradition says he is wrong. Read up on Pat Buchanan.

 

[d97c]

Notre Dame is right. The current Pope even stated the following:
"3. 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."
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

What is clear is this–it is a real scam for any priest, local Bishop or the American Bishops (better known as the left wing of the Democrat Party) to teach that it is wrong for you individual Catholics to support the death penalty or any political candidate who does support it. There is no doubt that the recent Popes dont like the death penalty. What is clear is that these local parish “social justice” “teachers” …who are now the prime instructors of “religious education” who spout this anti death penalty mantra as if it were mortal sin to support it need to STOP teaching error. I can support the death penalty and I DO ! I cant support candidates who support abortion —so I DONT.

 

[Tig]

A long thread but a worthwhile one. I thank all of you presenting your points of view. I thank all for staying on topic -

Thank you so much. God bless

.

 

[wheels10]

Fair enough, but it is the Church who explains the meaning of the examples you refer to and I don’t see any evidence that she interprets them as you do. What seems clear (to me at any rate) is that she takes seriously the command from Gen 9:6 that the penalty for murder is death. Other examples that you could cite - e.g. Cain and the woman caught in adultery - are not used by the Church to oppose capital punishment; she seems never to have interpreted those passages as relevant to her position on the death penalty.

Ender

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Ender]

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

This is in the “respect for human life” section and is about (as it says) the proscription against murder, anger, hatred, and vengeance. What it is not about is punishment except to this extent: even in punishing we are not to do it out of anger.

“But penalties must be applied.” I don’t deny it, I don’t forbid it; only let it be done in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming" (Augustine)

There is nothing in the section you cited that applies to the question of capital punishment.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

This is in the “respect for human life” section and is about (as it says) the proscription against murder, anger, hatred, and vengeance. What it is not about is punishment except to this extent: even in punishing we are not to do it out of anger.

“But penalties must be applied.” I don’t deny it, I don’t forbid it; only let it be done in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming" (Augustine)

There is nothing in the section you cited that applies to the question of capital punishment.

Ender

Is capital punishment performed in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming? Given your understanding of Jesus, does He support capital punishment?

 

[d97c]

You must be aware that there are some people who cannot be reformed BY THE STATE. Any reform might come from inside their heart and with God. That availability is SEPARATE from the duty of the state to act proportionally to an act of murder. The state, as the church has taught for CENTURIES, has the duty to right the injustice of an innocent person being killed , and has a duty to execute the murderer. I see the love going to the innocent and to society, the caring to the victim, and loving in righting the wrongs of an innocent life being taken by a murderer. All the “love” and “care” should equally go to the victim and family, who without the state, would act in revenge…the state acts in place of the family…

 

[Ender]

Is capital punishment performed in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming?

In every case? No. In some cases? Yes. Nor is there any reason to believe that capital punishment - as distinct from every other form of punishment - can only be levied from hatred.

*Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy. *(Augustine)

Given your understanding of Jesus, does He support capital punishment?

Yes, absolutely. Are we really supposed to believe that Christianity can be reduced to “All you need is love?” For that we don’t need Jesus, we could make do with Rodney King (“Can’t we all just get along?”) If one accepts that the Church actually understands Jesus then, given that the Church has always supported capital punishment, why would I believe that Jesus would not?

Ender

 

[wheels10]

You must be aware that there are some people who cannot be reformed BY THE STATE. Any reform might come from inside their heart and with God. That availability is SEPARATE from the duty of the state to act proportionally to an act of murder. The state, as the church has taught for CENTURIES, has the duty to right the injustice of an innocent person being killed , and has a duty to execute the murderer. I see the love going to the innocent and to society, the caring to the victim, and loving in righting the wrongs of an innocent life being taken by a murderer. All the “love” and “care” should equally go to the victim and family, who without the state, would act in revenge…the state acts in place of the family…

If I look at this only from a physical human point of view, the only way to right the injustice of an innocent person being killed would be to bring the murdered person back to Life. Killing the murderer does not bring the murdered person back. At most it may temporarily satisfy the desire to seek revenge.

 

[wheels10]

In every case? No. In some cases? Yes. Nor is there any reason to believe that capital punishment - as distinct from every other form of punishment - can only be levied from hatred.

Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy. (Augustine)

Yes, absolutely. Are we really supposed to believe that Christianity can be reduced to “All you need is love?” For that we don’t need Jesus, we could make do with Rodney King (“Can’t we all just get along?”) If one accepts that the Church actually understands Jesus then, given that the Church has always supported capital punishment, why would I believe that Jesus would not?

Ender

Love IS the heart of Christianity. And I never said that the murderer should not be punished. However, the punishment should be one to help the murderer repent and change their way, not destroy the person. And what about the innocent victims of this crime? They are given the opportunity to do something that is humanly impossible. Love a sinner that has deeply hurt them. Loving the sinner is not the same as loving the sin. We are always to hate sin, and never to regard it as something that is acceptable!

Jesus is Mercy. Jesus hates sin, but Loves the sinner. We are asked to do the same.

 

[Ender]

If I look at this only from a physical human point of view, the only way to right the injustice of an innocent person being killed would be to bring the murdered person back to Life. Killing the murderer does not bring the murdered person back. At most it may temporarily satisfy the desire to seek revenge.

By this logic murderers should not be punished at all since no punishment brings the dead back to life. In fact the primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the crime and that can only be accomplished by the punishment of the guilty.

the punishment should be one to help the murderer repent and change their way, not destroy the person.

Rehabilitation is a proper objective of punishment but it is a secondary one; the primary one is retributive justice.

And what about the innocent victims of this crime? They are given the opportunity to do something that is humanly impossible. Love a sinner that has deeply hurt them.

You confuse the obligation of the individual - which is to forgive - with the obligation of the State - which is to punish. The individual is forbidden to punish but the State is morally required to.

Jesus is Mercy. Jesus hates sin, but Loves the sinner. We are asked to do the same.

I think this tends to the exaggeration JPII refers to:

“For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin”

Besides, as he points out: *“Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it”

“In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.”*

As specified in the Catechism, the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and mercy and forgiveness do not reduce this obligation.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

By this logic murderers should not be punished at all since no punishment brings the dead back to life. In fact the primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the crime and that can only be accomplished by the punishment of the guilty.
Rehabilitation is a proper objective of punishment but it is a secondary one; the primary one is retributive justice.
You confuse the obligation of the individual - which is to forgive - with the obligation of the State - which is to punish. The individual is forbidden to punish but the State is morally required to.
I think this tends to the exaggeration JPII refers to:

"For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin"

Besides, as he points out: *“Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it”

“In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.”*

As specified in the Catechism, the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and mercy and forgiveness do not reduce this obligation.

Ender

The state is composed of a group of individuals. If the individuals place a higher value on the Life of a human being over revenge then the state will do the same. And yes, this is how I view Capital punishment, revenge. What else do people gain by killing? It does not bring the person murdered back.

The state must always do its best to provide a fair punishment, but in my mind it must always place the highest value on the Life of a human being. God has given this person Life, and God is the only one that is allowed to take it away.

 

[Ender]

The state is composed of a group of individuals.

The Church makes a clear distinction between the individual and the magistrate. I recognize that the distinction seems arbitrary to you but the Church doesn’t see it the way you do. The Church in fact sees the magistrate as literally exercising God-given power.

If the individuals place a higher value on the Life of a human being over revenge then the state will do the same. And yes, this is how I view Capital punishment, revenge.

Your view condemns the Church since she has always supported capital punishment

What else do people gain by killing? It does not bring the person murdered back.

What punishment will restore the murdered person? Why punish at all if nothing will bring someone back to life? From your perspective, no punishment is justifiable. From the Church’s perspective, however, inasmuch as the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice, punishment - including capital punishment - is justifiable.

The state must always do its best to provide a fair punishment, but in my mind it must always place the highest value on the Life of a human being.

It is ironic that the meaning of “Man is made in the image of God” has been completely reversed from* “the life of the murderer is forfeit because the person he killed was made in the image of God”* to “the life of the murderer is protected because he is made in the image of God.” The former is how the Church understands it; the latter appears to be your position.

God has given this person Life, and God is the only one that is allowed to take it away.

Again, this is not what the Church teaches.

*“as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable…God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.” *(Pius XII)

Does it concern you that your views are so much at odds with Church doctrine?

Ender

 

[wheels10]

The Church makes a clear distinction between the individual and the magistrate. I recognize that the distinction seems arbitrary to you but the Church doesn’t see it the way you do. The Church in fact sees the magistrate as literally exercising God-given power.

I agree that the State exercises God-given power. That doesn’t mean that the state always exercises God’s will using this God-given power.

What punishment will restore the murdered person? Why punish at all if nothing will bring someone back to life? From your perspective, no punishment is justifiable. From the Church’s perspective, however, inasmuch as the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice, punishment - including capital punishment - is justifiable.

I have always stated that punishment must be given. However, my view of justice is to attempt to correct the injustice that has been committed. Does killing the murderer correct this injustice? How? Please explain this to me. All I see is the fulfillment of revenge. Is this what the state should teach us individuals, ie. use the state to seek revenge?

It is ironic that the meaning of “Man is made in the image of God” has been completely reversed from “the life of the murderer is forfeit because the person he killed was made in the image of God” to “the life of the murderer is protected because he is made in the image of God.” The former is how the Church understands it; the latter appears to be your position.

All human Life is made in the image of God and must be protected.

Again, this is not what the Church teaches.
“as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable…God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.” (Pius XII)
Does it concern you that your views are so much at odds with Church doctrine?

Have we not all sinned? Each one of us is therefore guilty of a crime punishable by death. The payment for sin is death. And sooner or later we will all make this payment. This is the message that Jesus taught us with the woman caught in adultery. He didn’t say, whoever has not murdered or whoever has not committed adultery may kill this woman. He didn’t say take her to the state and have them kill her. He said whoever is without sin is allowed to kill her.

Actually I do not see myself at odds with Church doctrine. I just interpret it differently from you.

 

[Ender]

I have always stated that punishment must be given. However, my view of justice is to attempt to correct the injustice that has been committed. Does killing the murderer correct this injustice? How? Please explain this to me.

This is the central question the topic raises. First, the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime; the Church says this explicitly in CCC 2266. Second, we need to recognize that it is punishment alone that can serve as expiation for the crime, and third, and most significantly, we have been told what that punishment must be for the crime of murder. God himself specified it in Gen 9:6 and that the Church takes this command literally is shown in the Catechism of Trent and in 2260 of the current Catechism: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

All I see is the fulfillment of revenge. Is this what the state should teach us individuals, ie. use the state to seek revenge?

Is this what you think the Church is teaching when she supports the right of states to use capital punishment? Why do you consider executions acts of revenge but sentences of life without parole acts of justice? In both cases the state is punishing the criminal. Is too harsh a punishment an act of revenge or an act of brutality? In another sense, however, all punishments by the state are acts of vengeance; the point is that while the individual is prohibited from seeking vengeance, the state is obligated to.

"Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned … **He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that "he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Aquinas)

All human Life is made in the image of God and must be protected.

As a blanket statement this is not true. The Church does not teach that all life must be protected absolutely no matter the situation.

Have we not all sinned? Each one of us is therefore guilty of a crime punishable by death.

This has already been addressed.

*“The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners “according to the truth” (Rom. ii, 2). Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity.” *(Aquinas)

Actually I do not see myself at odds with Church doctrine. I just interpret it differently from you.

I’m not interpreting it; I’m just citing it.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

This is the central question the topic raises. First, the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime; the Church says this explicitly in CCC 2266. Second, we need to recognize that it is punishment alone that can serve as expiation for the crime, and third, and most significantly, we have been told what that punishment must be for the crime of murder. God himself specified it in Gen 9:6 and that the Church takes this command literally is shown in the Catechism of Trent and in 2260 of the current Catechism: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

The payment for any sin is death. And if you say that capital punishment should be only given for the crime of murder, then here you go:
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself. Have you ever hated your brother? If so, then you are a murderer and as a result of your support of the death penalty should also be killed by the state.

Is this what you think the Church is teaching when she supports the right of states to use capital punishment? Why do you consider executions acts of revenge but sentences of life without parole acts of justice? In both cases the state is punishing the criminal. Is too harsh a punishment an act of revenge or an act of brutality? In another sense, however, all punishments by the state are acts of vengeance; the point is that while the individual is prohibited from seeking vengeance, the state is obligated to.

The difference is that life without parole keeps the commandment of thou shall not kill, Love your enemy, and 2267:

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. 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.”

It appears that based on your comments you do not accept 2267. Does it concern you that your views are at odds with Church doctrine?

 

[d97c]

Here’s church doctrine…you disagree with this??

Pope Benedict in 2004…QUOTE …“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.”

So we can pick and choose because it is PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT whether we back the death penalty or not…We catch Osama bin Laden??..I’LL PULL THE SWITCH !!!

 

[Ender]

The payment for any sin is death. And if you say that capital punishment should be only given for the crime of murder, then here you go:
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself. Have you ever hated your brother? If so, then you are a murderer and as a result of your support of the death penalty should also be killed by the state.

Not at all.

The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners “according to the truth” (Rom. ii, 2). Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted,* not for every mortal sin**, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity.* (Aquinas, ST)

The difference is that life without parole keeps the commandment of thou shall not kill, Love your enemy, and 2267:

The Church teaches that there are exceptions to that commandment.

“The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. 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 appears that based on your comments you do not accept 2267. Does it concern you that your views are at odds with Church doctrine?

It is certainly true that I do not accept 2267. It is not true, however, that my position is at odds with Church doctrine as 2267 is not doctrine but prudential opinion. People make a lot out of my rejection of 2267 even as they ignore the fact that they in turn must reject 2260 as it is not logically possible to accept them both. It is in fact 2260 that is the expression of Church doctrine, not 2267.

Ender