Death penalty

[kbwall]

What does the death penalty actually accomplish though? It’s been shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against violent crimes. It might make some people satisfied to see such a horrible person put to death, but getting pleasure from somebody else’s death is never good, no matter what that person has done.

 

[Cominghome89]

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…

Life in jail, no exceptions and short sentences. I completely agree. But once you add “has to repent and be truly sorry,” well, I think that’s when we go beyond what a mortal can decide. Who knows a person’s heart but God? Even your consideration of mercy (which is a good thing) shows that its not just black and white. To say all rapists should be killed is very bold. That’s all I was trying to point out. Rape is one of the most disturbing crimes there is, and is always very serious, but we must not let our anger toward the sin cause us to treat people so mercilessly.

I don’t intend to argue with you for the sake of arguing. I understand how you feel, believe me. Rape and child abuse are absolutely inexcusable. But we have to deal with sinners of all kinds, even ones that we cannot understand. May God bless us all with the understanding, love and forgiveness we need to live as His disciples in this sinful world.

In Christ and Mary,
Frank

 

[Battle_Warrior]

once a person has committed a crime like murder or rape, the person no longer has the right to live…

Next you might ask: “who are you to decide?”

My answer: If one is threat to anther’s safely or life, then the person should be put to death. Many criminals only go to jail for a few years then, when released, commit the SAME crimes over again.

 

[Battle_Warrior]

A crime like rape does not put a person in jail for life…that is the problem…when released, many do the same crimes over again.

 

[vz71]

What does the death penalty actually accomplish though? It’s been shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against violent crimes. It might make some people satisfied to see such a horrible person put to death, but getting pleasure from somebody else’s death is never good, no matter what that person has done.

It also has the benefit of making sure that particular criminal does not ever commit another crime.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

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?

It may be better to say that right now the Church ‘permits’ its use - not support. That would be the proper understanding of Paras. No. 2267 - scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

I’d also point you to a recent statement by the California Bishop’s Conference against the use of the Death Penalty: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

If you get a chance you might consider this article I wrote - giving three reasons why the death penalty is always wrong. davidlgray.info/a3capitalpunishment.html

God Bless!

 

[kbwall]

once a person has committed a crime like murder or rape, the person no longer has the right to live…

Next you might ask: “who are you to decide?”

My answer: If one is threat to anther’s safely or life, then the person should be put to death. Many criminals only go to jail for a few years then, when released, commit the SAME crimes over again.

That is a flaw on the system. If a person is truly dangerous, they should be given life with no possibility of parole. If they aren’t, then that needs to be changed.

Aparently rapists are allowed back on the streets. I agree completely with you that this is horrible, and should be changed. But what advantage is to changing the rule to death instead of life imprisonment, with no possibility of parole?

I’m not saying that rape isn’t a horrible, terrible crime. It is. However, I’m not sure the answer is to kill them, but to lock them away forever until they die. And dehumanizing people, even rapists, is a slippery slope, and can be very dangerous.

Which can be done by locking them away until they die.

 

[Battle_Warrior]

If a pit bull attacked your child and your kid ended up in the hospital… then the dog would be put to sleep (death). Why is a rapist an exception? The criminal gets free food and board in jail while the victim and family suffers.

 

[kbwall]

There is a huge difference between an animal such as a pit bull, and a human being. To suggest otherwise is dangerous. Bringing up animals when arguing for the death penalty doesn’t help.

A pit bull is too stupid to know right from wrong, and once it is viscious enough to attack a child then there is little that can be done with the pit bull other than to kill it. Prison wouldn’t mean anything to a pit bull, and it’s too stupid to realize it’s in there for the death of a child. A human being, even a rapist, knows right from wrong, and knows what a prison is. There are advantages to keeping them locked away, but none in killing them.

And putting the rapist to death does not make the victim’s suffering go away. The person will always have the horrific memory of being beaten and raped. Killing the rapist will not solve that anymore than killing a murderer will bring his victim back to life.

 

[Cominghome89]

kbwall, your last two posts are very well said.

This is where we are having a problem, the point where a rapist is being compared to a pit bull or another animal. I don’t need to ask you why you have the right to decide why this person should die, you simply do not. Capital punishment is not the sole preventative means against violent criminals. Regardless of the crime committed, you are still speaking as if at a certain point, a human being loses his right to live, loses his identity as a human being. And this is wrong, period.

In Christ and Mary,
Frank

 

[braumeister]

once a person has committed a crime like murder or rape, the person no longer has the right to live…

Next you might ask: “who are you to decide?”

My answer: If one is threat to anther’s safely or life, then the person should be put to death. Many criminals only go to jail for a few years then, when released, commit the SAME crimes over again.

Everyone has a right to live. A criminal doesn’t give up his rights. He gives up his freedoms. There are certain things that you can’t take away from a person.

 

[braumeister]

What does the death penalty actually accomplish though? It’s been shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against violent crimes. It might make some people satisfied to see such a horrible person put to death, but getting pleasure from somebody else’s death is never good, no matter what that person has done.

Exactly. I agree with you.

 

[braumeister]

We have covered the moral issues surrounding the death penalty. Now let’s talk money. It has been proven that it’s generally more expensive to use the death penalty than life in prison.

 

[porthos11]

What does the death penalty actually accomplish though? It’s been shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against violent crimes. It might make some people satisfied to see such a horrible person put to death, but getting pleasure from somebody else’s death is never good, no matter what that person has done.

I noticed that in today’s arguments about the death penalty, people talk past each other with stuff like economics and deterrence; nobody really mentions its primary purpose anymore, as put forth by the Church’s moral theology and St. Thomas Aquinas.

In answer to the question, the death penalty accomplishes, first and foremost, retribution. That is, its primary purpose is punishment, not deterrence, not rehabilitation. It does not bring the victim back, but that’s not its purpose. It does not even bring closure to the survivors, but that’s not its purpose either. The death penalty, just like any other sentence, has as its primary objective the application of justice, that is, for any crime, a proportionate punishment must always be inflicted on the offender.

Comparing a murder to a pit bull does no good because a pit bull is not being punished; it is put down to remove a danger. While the death penalty also removes a danger to society, this is merely secondary to the primary purpose. This comparison undermines the dignity of the offender, which is what allows him to pay for his crime (i.e. it is precisely because the offender has human dignity that he is capable of paying for his crime, even with his life).

This is why the Church has never objected to the death penalty as an instrinsic evil for she has always viewed it as a just punishment for certain crimes.

 

[braumeister]

I noticed that in today’s arguments about the death penalty, people talk past each other with stuff like economics and deterrence; nobody really mentions its primary purpose anymore, as put forth by the Church’s moral theology and St. Thomas Aquinas.

In answer to the question, the death penalty accomplishes, first and foremost, retribution. That is, its primary purpose is punishment, not deterrence, not rehabilitation. It does not bring the victim back, but that’s not its purpose. It does not even bring closure to the survivors, but that’s not its purpose either. The death penalty, just like any other sentence, has as its primary objective the application of justice, that is, for any crime, a proportionate punishment must always be inflicted on the offender.

Comparing a murder to a pit bull does no good because a pit bull is not being punished; it is put down to remove a danger. While the death penalty also removes a danger to society, this is merely secondary to the primary purpose. This comparison undermines the dignity of the offender, which is what allows him to pay for his crime (i.e. it is precisely because the offender has human dignity that he is capable of paying for his crime, even with his life).

This is why the Church has never objected to the death penalty as an instrinsic evil for she has always viewed it as a just punishment for certain crimes.

The primary motive should be rahablitation, not punishment. Punishment will not make a person sorry for his sins and crimes, nor will it change the way he looks at the world. Rehabilitation aims at fixing the issue. This is one reaon I love the East’s way in viewing sin. The see it as a sickness to heal. Not a crime to punish. God is merciful and does have mercy on his children. He would rather a person be rehabilitated and changed for the better.

 

[porthos11]

The primary motive should be rahablitation, not punishment. Punishment will not make a person sorry for his sins and crimes, nor will it change the way he looks at the world. Rehabilitation aims at fixing the issue. This is one reaon I love the East’s way in viewing sin. The see it as a sickness to heal. Not a crime to punish. God is merciful and does have mercy on his children. He would rather a person be rehabilitated and changed for the better.

We may think so, yet it is not. Retribution is the primary purpose of punishment, not rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, if it comes, is secondary.

Yes, sin is a sickness to heal, hence we have confession. Crime (not all sins are crimes) impacts society, however, still must be punished, and the death penalty is not excluded.

And a greater bonus is that often, the prospect of an execution is actually a blessing for the offender for if he is moved to repentance, he confesses and is restored to grace. His acceptance of death is then no longer merely punitive, but medicinal as well, and secures his everlasting salvation, for condemned criminals have the opportunity to prepare themselves and die in the state of grace. His death is a participation in the Death of the Lord, and his entry to heaven is assured.

 

[vz71]

Which can be done by locking them away until they die.

It has always been possible to lock someone away forever.
Since this is the case, then the church must have had something else in mind when it spoke of keeping the public from harm by the individual.

 

[Cominghome89]

Now the conversation has become very interesting, and there are new ideas to consider.

The primary purpose of capital punishment is just that: punishment. That sidesteps a lot of the weak arguments for the death penalty, since killing is NOT the only way to separate a violent criminal from society nor (in today’s criminal justice system) is it cheaper than life imprisonment.

The idea that the prospect of execution can bring somebody to repentance is very interesting, something I have not really considered before. I think the problem that I am having with the idea of death as “just punishment” is that, supposing the criminal does not repent of, say, a rape, there is a good chance he will go to hell. Now, an unrepentant sinner can go to hell no matter how he meets his end, but the idea that the judgment of man for a crime may lead to the death of a soul, not just a body, disturbs me. Maybe the criminal would never repent in prison. But I struggle with the thought of putting an unrepentant sinner to death in the name of “justice” when his soul may be saved, even from the depths of a solitary cell.

In terms of the death penalty being a just punishment, wouldn’t a very confined, limiting life imprisonment be at least as strong a punishment, without taking a life? I can’t say that there is any case where I can see that only the death penalty would be a just punishment, where simply “locking him up and throwing away the key” would somehow be letting him off easy.

Just some more thoughts, but an excellent conversation. Whichever side of the argument one ends up on, the issue is definitely worth a good deal of thought. Whether the punishment of death can be just or not, the topic deserves much reflection and thought whenever life is being taken.

In Christ and Mary,
Frank

 

[vz71]

The primary purpose of capital punishment is just that: punishment. That sidesteps a lot of the weak arguments for the death penalty, since killing is NOT the only way to separate a violent criminal from society nor (in today’s criminal justice system) is it cheaper than life imprisonment.

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.

 

[braumeister]

I’ll say it again; God has compassion on sinners. It was He who said that those who hadn’t sinned to cast the first stone. If sin was looked more as an illness that needed to be medicated and removed rather than a crime to be punished, I truly believe that Catholics would be less legalistic and more willing to go the extra mile to please God. Rehabilitation and getting a sinner back on track is MUCH more important than retribution.