There is no question that death can be a just punishment; it if were not the Church would not have supported it all these years. Given that the Church recognizes even today the right of a state to apply capital punishment it seems undeniable that she considers the penalty just (when applied in the appropriate circumstances.)Whether the punishment of death can be just or not, the topic deserves much reflection and thought whenever life is being taken.
It is a mistake to assume that compassion and punishment are mutually exclusive.I’ll say it again; God has compassion on sinners.
Never quite as efficiently though. I admit that I haven’t actually done the research in this regard, but weren’t prison breaks more common in the past than today? I mean, today we have many more guards to ensure nobody breaks out, we have automated alarms, security cameras, etc. All they had in the old days were guards.It has always been possible to lock someone away forever.
Of course that’s true, but it is not an incorrect analogy. Once a person is executed, there is no purpose or need for appeals. Any and all appeals must be finished before the accused is executed. With life in prison, someone can quite easily be sentenced, and later released if an appeal finds him innocent.The idea that it is cheaper is really an incorrect analogy.
The expense is driven high by the endless appeals to insure we do not execute an innocent man.
Were they to run the same appeals process before life in prison, the cost for life in prison would be hideously high.
The Church tolerates, rather than supports, the death penalty. Support of the death penalty is something that has been put up with, but that does not mean its use is valid throughout the ages, regardless of changing times and circumstances. Just because it is sometimes acceptable, does not mean that alternatives may not make its use completely obsolete. This is not like abortion (something intrinsically evil) but rather a very debatable issue today.There is no question that death can be a just punishment; it if were not the Church would not have supported it all these years. Given that the Church recognizes even today the right of a state to apply capital punishment it seems undeniable that she considers the penalty just (when applied in the appropriate circumstances.)
Ender
Yes he did. That’s why we ourselves have no right to exact revenge on those who offend us. If a survivor were to kill the murderer of a loved one, he violates this precept and is himself subject to punishment.But didn’t Jesus teach against ‘eye for an eye’? And what of ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’?
It’s not a new point; it’s always been the Church’s teaching about punishment from the beginning. Again, the primary purpose of punishment is retribution, to redress the wrong done. Rehabilitation only comes second.You do bring up an interesting point though of the death penalty being justice simply for justices sake, and not being put up as a deterrent.
You speak as though the endless automated appeals process continues regardless of the sentence. That the only difference is timeframe.Of course that’s true, but it is not an incorrect analogy. Once a person is executed, there is no purpose or need for appeals. Any and all appeals must be finished before the accused is executed. With life in prison, someone can quite easily be sentenced, and later released if an appeal finds him innocent.
You would never see the same system of appeals prior to punishment with imprisonment, because the appeals can easily go on once the punishment has commenced.
I object to the wording here.The Church tolerates, rather than supports, the death penalty. Support of the death penalty is something that has been put up with, but that does not mean its use is valid throughout the ages, regardless of changing times and circumstances.
Quite right.Just because it is sometimes acceptable, does not mean that alternatives may not make its use completely obsolete. This is not like abortion (something intrinsically evil) but rather a very debatable issue today.
Yes, it does. If it was moral to use before, it is moral to use now given that morality does not change with the times. A punishment is just if its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. Since the Church accepts the right of a State to use capital punishment - and always has - it can only be because the severity of the punishment is appropriate. Given that the severity of the crime of murder cannot change, a punishment that was of acceptable severity before remains of acceptable severity today. It’s use is valid throughout the ages.Support of the death penalty is something that has been put up with, but that does not mean its use is valid throughout the ages, regardless of changing times and circumstances.
For a punishment to be just it must be neither too severe nor too lenient. There is no other punishment as severe as the loss of ones life so it’s not clear just what alternative would be appropriate.Just because it is sometimes acceptable, does not mean that alternatives may not make its use completely obsolete.
Is the death penalty acceptable for Catholics to support? I’ve been trying to look it up, but I get mixed answers, from the church does not support it, to the church does support it.
One explanation I heard is that the death penalty is acceptable only if there is no other method of keeping people safe. But wouldn’t that render the death penalty completely unacceptable in this age (with excpetion to war criminals, who’s followers actually have the resources to perform a jailbreak)? With modern technology, we’ve gotten pretty good at holding people in prison for the rest of their days, very very few ever break out anymore.
What of the argument that we should keep these people alive so they can repent? Say you have a man executed, but he died unrepent and went to hell. But what if there was a chance he would’ve repented had he lived long enough?