Death penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbwall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kbwall

Guest
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?
 
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
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

This is what the Church teaches:
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.
Click to expand...
If, however, nonlethal 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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Click to expand...
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.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2267​
Click to expand...
 
kbwall said:
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.
Click to expand...
**Yes, I think that you pretty much have it right. The death penalty in and of itself can be a necessary thing, but in our time, I believe it is completely unacceptable. Pro-life doesn’t just mean pro-innocent life, it means respecting all life. **
kbwall said:
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?
Click to expand...
**This, too, is a wonderful point. I actually brought this up to a Catholic who had never considered the death penalty from a Christian standpoint, and she was very impressed by the point. It’s easy to think of simply protecting society from a criminal, but many don’t consider that they are sending a soul to judgment. Very insightful, I agree with you completely.
**
 
The use of the death penalty against persons convicted of serious crimes is not intrinsically evil, and so it is not always immoral. Whether or not the death penalty should be used depends on intention and circumstances.

Christ did not treat the death penalty as a type of act that is always immoral:
[Luke]
{19:12} Therefore, he said: “A certain man of nobility traveled to a far away region, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

{19:14} But his citizens hated him. And so they sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this one to reign over us.’

{19:27} ‘Yet truly, as for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and put them to death before me.’ ”

In this parable, the man of nobility is a figure for Christ.

In Acts, Paul does not object to receiving the death penalty himself, if he were guilty of serious crime.

{25:11} For if I have harmed them, or if I have done anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying. But if there is nothing to these things about which they accuse me, no one is able to deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

And in the OT, God orders the Israelites to administer the death penalty.
 
I am personally against the death penalty. I prefer the idea if rehabilitation than punishment. This is one thing I like that the Eastern Christians stress. Sin isn’t a crime that needs to be punished. Rather it’s an illness or disease that needs to be cured. Thinking about whether or not the death penalty should be used brings to mind, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
 
All rapists and murderers need to be shot…if they are going to act like an animal then they need to be treated like one!!!
 
Ok wait, the church doesn’t support the death penalty, yet burned hundreds of heretics on the stake and tortured them to repent back in the middle ages…

Ironic :\
 
Battle_Warrior said:
All rapists and murderers need to be shot…if they are going to act like an animal then they need to be treated like one!!!
Click to expand...
That’s how one would initially feel. But emotions aside, why stoop to their level?
 
Also, putting morals aside on the subject, it costs far more to execute someone than it does to house them for life. This is a proven fact. I don’t think the use of the death penalty is a smart solution period. In terms of morality or finances.
 
PiousTemplar said:
Ok wait, the church doesn’t support the death penalty, yet burned hundreds of heretics on the stake and tortured them to repent back in the middle ages…

Ironic :\
Click to expand...
Your speaking as if Christ sanctioned these things. Humans did these things. As far as many churches a concerned, there is a lot of blood and blame to go around. The Catholic Church isn’t the only church to execute someone.
 
Battle_Warrior said:
All rapists and murderers need to be shot…if they are going to act like an animal then they need to be treated like one!!!
Click to expand...
St. Paul was a murderer. The mercy of God goes beyond our feelings toward evil. Nothing is unforgivable. And regardless of how one chooses to act, however evil, they have an immortal soul, and so are NEVER to be treated like animals. This is completely unacceptable, and is not a Catholic view. Even when the death penalty is administered and is thought to be acceptable, it is an unfortunate but perhaps necessary act to protect innocent people, not to treat a sinner as an animal.

In Christ and Mary,
Frank
 
PiousTemplar said:
Ok wait, the church doesn’t support the death penalty, yet burned hundreds of heretics on the stake and tortured them to repent back in the middle ages…

Ironic :\
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church did not execute these people, it was the State. At that time, the boundaries between Church and State were much more fuzzy than they are now, which leads to this assumption.
 
kbwall said:
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)?
Click to expand...
Just because a jail cannot be escaped from does not mean the public can no longer be harmed by the individual.

What of the system that allows for release of prisoners before their sentence is up?
What of those prisoners whose cult of personality extends beyond prison walls?
What of those prisoners that can be a rally point for terror cells?

The death penalty is just as valid today as it ever has been.
 
vz71 said:
What of the system that allows for release of prisoners before their sentence is up?

Very good point, this needs to be addressed. But I believe the answer to this lies not in the death penalty, but in changing the appeals process so that life means life, period.

What of those prisoners whose cult of personality extends beyond prison walls?

Does killing a prisoner stop this cult of personality any better than life in prison? Sure, they can write letters and have some influence from jail (maybe this should be addressed in extreme cases as well) but wouldn’t the death penalty just make a martyr out of a cultish criminal leader?

What of those prisoners that can be a rally point for terror cells?

Valid point as well. In the opinion of many Catholics, capital punishment involving terrorism and war crime would be a different situation than the US criminal court.

The death penalty is just as valid today as it ever has been.
Click to expand...
My responses are just food for thought. But I don’t think any of these objections hold up. Someone who causes harm and violence to others needs to be dealt with. The fact is that they can be adequately separated from those they may harm, without killing them. This is not to say that the current US justice system does that. Appeals, early prison releases, and violence within prisons are issues to be dealt with. But the death penalty process is ridiculously expensive, is shown to cause grief and not closure to the family of victims, and in my opinion does not deal with the problem of serious, violent crime. To keep society safe from violent criminals is one thing, to take a life when other measures are possible today is another. Do we really believe that in the United States, in 2010, capital punishment is consistent with Catholic pro-life teaching of respect for all life? Not me.

In Christ and Mary,
Frank
 
Cominghome89 said:
My responses are just food for thought. But I don’t think any of these objections hold up. Someone who causes harm and violence to others needs to be dealt with. The fact is that they can be adequately separated from those they may harm, without killing them.
Click to expand...
Has it not always been the case that someone could be seperated from society forever?
The technology is not that difficult. It is more a difficulty of resources then anything else.

Yet this teaching was in place. Clearly there is more involved in the teaching then simply having the ability to lock away someone forever.
 
Battle_Warrior said:
All rapists and murderers need to be shot…if they are going to act like an animal then they need to be treated like one!!!
Click to expand...
I think you bring up an interesting point here. From what I’ve seen, murderers are much more likely to repent and change their ways than rapists and molesters. (Not in all cases, of course.) In some cases, rapists are released back into society only to re-offend, because the sentence for rape is much less than the sentence for murder. But rape can be just as damaging to victims as murder can be. We should all have a chance to repent, but if the criminal is proving that they will continue to threaten society, they should be rendered incapable of doing so again.
 
There comes a point when one SHOULD NOT put up with any ****!! HUNDREDS of women and kids go missing every year…many are raped and killed. The death penalty is to be seen as JUSTICE not revenge. and YES…all rapists need to be put to death!!
 
Battle_Warrior said:
There comes a point when one SHOULD NOT put up with any ****!! HUNDREDS of women and kids go missing every year…many are raped and killed. The death penalty is to be seen as JUSTICE not revenge. and YES…all rapists need to be put to death!!
Click to expand...
Trust me, I understand your anger with these kind of cases! To say rape is disgusting doesn’t begin to explain it. The idea that murderers are more likely to repent than rapists makes sense psychologically.

You are entitled to your opinion. But be very careful speaking like that. As I said, all these rapists who you believe should be killed are human beings with immortal souls, no matter how you feel about them. I believe that by passing this judgment (that all rapists deserve to die) severely oversteps your boundaries as a mortal human being. To condemn their actions is one thing (an obvious thing), to be anger and distressed about such a horrendous crime is understandable. To speak like that is to condemn thousands of people based on your feelings.

If you express this opinion to other people, please be sure to make clear that this sweeping condemnation is simply your opinion, and is not by any means a Church-endorsed thought.

In Christ and Mary,
Frank
 
If a rapist was sentenced to death and at the last moment, begged for mercy…I (if I were the judge) would reconsidered the matter and would not go through with the death penalty. I am not above compassion!!! He would however still go to jail for life!!! But he has to repent and be truly sorry for his crime…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top