R
rsagebrush
Guest
Depends on the situation. The categories listed are not acceptable in my opinion to vote on.
- Status
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
I am against the death penalty basically for two reasons:
1.) the American legal system is not infallible and will execute the wrong man;
2.) powerful politicians will misuse the death penalty as ‘legal assassination’ by framing an opponent for a capital offense (such as treason) and have him permanently removed.
1.) the American legal system is not infallible and will execute the wrong man;
2.) powerful politicians will misuse the death penalty as ‘legal assassination’ by framing an opponent for a capital offense (such as treason) and have him permanently removed.
T
Toni
Guest
If you stand for life stand for all life.
Even our beloved Pope John Paul the Great" said that he had never in his life time saw a case that justified the death penalty.
Even our beloved Pope John Paul the Great" said that he had never in his life time saw a case that justified the death penalty.
P
pnewton
Guest
The death penalty is not murder. If it is, then this statement is one its very face wrong since God at one time ordered the death penalty. Therefore, the “NEVER” can not apply, unless you accept that God is evil.
I do not like to see the death penalty and abortion continually related. This comparison cheapens the horror that is abortion and is always wrong, at all times, in all ages and int every circumstance. The Catholic Church does not teach the same about Capital punishment.
I said what I did because the justice system does not determine absolute and final moral culpablility, only what punishment fits a particular crime. If one says it is not our place to judge, then how are we to determine that some people should be deprived of freedom and others not? Is not even prison time a judgement?
A
A.Pelliccio
Guest
All of the above. People who are threats to society, who risk daily the lives of our children and our innocents. We tolerate this misguided “compassion” in an attempt to satisfy this need that criminals aren’t really bad, or evil, just out casts of society who have been pushed into this life by poverty, and unfair culture set up by the man, etc.
Its an effective way for the state to properly protect its citizenry and until the day where life in prison (with hard labor), is a fact for all murders, and child molesters, and rapists, I will be supporting the protection of my family.
So terrorists shouldn’t be executed? If UBL was found tomorrow we shouldn’t put him on trial and then execute him. We should not be pursuing this modern crusade to defend ourselves, western civilization, and the Holy Faith?
Its an effective way for the state to properly protect its citizenry and until the day where life in prison (with hard labor), is a fact for all murders, and child molesters, and rapists, I will be supporting the protection of my family.
So terrorists shouldn’t be executed? If UBL was found tomorrow we shouldn’t put him on trial and then execute him. We should not be pursuing this modern crusade to defend ourselves, western civilization, and the Holy Faith?
I
IsaiahStar
Guest
I should have clarified…I was making statements, but they just were my opinions, after all. I know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the death penalty is as evil as abortion, however I believe this issue needs to be reconsidered. Why SHOULDN’T capital punishment be always wrong, in all cases and in every circumstance? Just thinking.
I am curious to know more about when/where/why God “at one time ordered the death penalty”? Also, have you read Genesis Chapter 4 and what do you make of that?
Nicole
P
pnewton
Guest
He ordered everyone, men, women and children put to death in the city of Ai (and several others) during the occupation of the Holy Land. He also gave Moses the Mosaic Law which incorporated the death penalty. The problem with these situations is we can not interpret them with our 20th century sensibilities and use them as a case for capital punishment today. My only point is that taking life does not always equate to murder.
I agree with you that it is necessary to reconsider whether we still need capital punishment in this day and age, although I am not convinced it is no longer needed. I am also not convinced we still need it, though.
H
Hospitaller
Guest
Didn’t vote. Would have had there been an “All of the above” option.
I
Isidore_AK
Guest
All the Guilty ones.
V
vegpotter
Guest
Murder is murder, whether it’s an abortionist, a terrorist, etc., or the State. No one has the right to take a life.
H
Hospitaller
Guest
Murder and the taking of a life are not one and the same.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
In our modern society, we have the ability and technology to put a person behind bars and ensure they never do anything again. I also recognize that prison should be a place to reflect and repent. None of this country club stuff…
Also, regardless of how perfect we try to make our judicial systems, we still have personal biases that affect the outcomes of trials, whether it be through biased jurors, biased judges, or biased law enforcement. There are WAY too many death row cases that have been thrown out because of this.
Now, what we really should be looking at is our culture and ask ourselves why people are committing such heinous crimes in the first place. You can’t heal a culture of death by killing some more.
Also, regardless of how perfect we try to make our judicial systems, we still have personal biases that affect the outcomes of trials, whether it be through biased jurors, biased judges, or biased law enforcement. There are WAY too many death row cases that have been thrown out because of this.
Now, what we really should be looking at is our culture and ask ourselves why people are committing such heinous crimes in the first place. You can’t heal a culture of death by killing some more.
V
vegpotter
Guest
I guess I should have said “killing is killing” but the point’s the same. We shouldn’t get to dictate who lives and who dies, and neither should the government.
J
jlw
Guest
The Catechism says otherwise.
H
Hospitaller
Guest
Why not? There are quite plainly instances where it becomes neccessary to kill.
T
teresas1979
Guest
I had to vote “none” although this is a bone of contention for me. I am pro life to an extreme where I believe we do not have the right to take any life. However this gets me in trouble with my Catholic father who says there are specific circumstances where Catholic teaching would support the death penalty and I am wrong. But I will not change my view. I think once you back down (however slightly) you lose your case so I feel I must be pro life in every situation. My boyfriend thinks abortion is a necessary evil in rape cases and other bad situations - I do not. But he respects my unwavering stance on the life issue. If I said the death penalty was ok, he would want to know why I expect a raped woman to carry the child to term but support the execution of a criminal…
BTW another poster made a good point about how can we educate society on the wrongs of killing if we advocate such measures ourselves
BTW another poster made a good point about how can we educate society on the wrongs of killing if we advocate such measures ourselves
F
FightingFat
Guest
I voted none- I think the death penalty in today’s society goes against Church teaching.
L
LoneRanger
Guest
John Paul II was and is against it…
Good enough for me!
Good enough for me!
T
Tietjen
Guest
I have been in law enforcement and corrections all of my adult life. I have seen first hand the attitudes of most murders, rapists, ect. By enlarge little changes after one commits such a despicable act and I have little doubt that if given the situation and the opportunity again they would recommit the act. One incident that I was involved with in Wisconsin, saw a group of three young males driving down a street. They saw another young male (who they knew) walking on the sidewalk. They stopped the car and proceeded to beat this boy to death because they claimed that he never returned a CD that he had borrowed. The one assailant who actually did the beating was given 6 months. The others were incarcerated only for the time it took for the trial to be completed and then they were given probation. The primary assailant, who got out after 6 months then had to serve several years on paper (probation). Less than 6 months after he got out, he critically wounded another man by shooting him 3 times. Fortunately, the man survived. Having said all that, I recognize why many people do not support the death penalty. Many in society want to see a possibility of the “good” in a person, regardless of what they have done. However, those people have to realize that some people out there are simply evil. They (the criminals) will never begin to realize the scope of their crimes or conclude that they were wrong for committing the acts. On the other hand, is the death penalty truly a punishment? Usually, a punishment is a form of discipline applied to “teach” an offender not to recommit a crime. If the punishment is death, the offender has been taught nothing and cannot possibly learn from the experience. On the other hand, governments have the obligation to protect its citizens as well as the obligation of punishing its criminals. Therefore, the death penalty should be viewed as a means of protection rather than a punishment. Now, if the government can guarantee an alternative means to protect its citizens I believe that means should be used instead of the death penalty. I need to say here that I am writing this in the United States and as of this posting, we have no guarantees that a murderer will be incarcerated for life and we absolutely have no guarantee that a child molester or rapist will be prevented from reentering society and recommitting their monstrous crimes. Therefore, I have to vote in favor of a death penalty not as a form of punishment but as a way in which to protect the society. As soon as the government ceases probation in the capital offenses of murder, rape, etc., I may rethink my position.
Just so everyone understands the Churches teaching on this matter I’ll quote from the CCC para 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)"
With all do respect to our Holy Father, I have to ask, what if the government (though having in its power to protect its citizens from the offenders) refuses to provide that protection (in a non-lethal way) in lieu of the criminal’s right to parole? As I said, I don’t want the death penalty however, if the government refuses to protect it’s citizens by allowing murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc to go free, then at least I know that those whom receive the death penalty will not again be given the opportunity to recommit.
God bless.
Just so everyone understands the Churches teaching on this matter I’ll quote from the CCC para 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)"
With all do respect to our Holy Father, I have to ask, what if the government (though having in its power to protect its citizens from the offenders) refuses to provide that protection (in a non-lethal way) in lieu of the criminal’s right to parole? As I said, I don’t want the death penalty however, if the government refuses to protect it’s citizens by allowing murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc to go free, then at least I know that those whom receive the death penalty will not again be given the opportunity to recommit.
God bless.
E
Ecce_Homo
Guest
I do not have the authority to order the death of a guilty person. But the state does have this authority, and the Church has verified this. When the state rightly exercises that authority, murder is NOT committed.
In the same way that the just war doctrine provides for the killing of enemy combatants in defined circumstances, so does Church teaching provide for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment.
I share in the Pope’s sentiment that capital punishment should be rare, but I think it would be imprudent to abolish it altogether. There are clearly cases where society cannot be protected from dangerous criminals. The breakout of the “Texas Seven” and subsequent murder of a police officer is a prime example.
In the same way that the just war doctrine provides for the killing of enemy combatants in defined circumstances, so does Church teaching provide for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment.
I share in the Pope’s sentiment that capital punishment should be rare, but I think it would be imprudent to abolish it altogether. There are clearly cases where society cannot be protected from dangerous criminals. The breakout of the “Texas Seven” and subsequent murder of a police officer is a prime example.
- Status