Death penalty

[Ender]

Second, even if there was a clear, unmistakable causal relationship, that still wouldn’t be moral justification for using the death penalty. The Church’s moral teaching is pretty clear that the ends never justifies the means. Reducing crime (particularly violent crime) is a good and noble end. But we are not allowed to use evil means to reach that end. The death penalty is allowed in Catholic moral teaching when it is necessary to protect society from aggressors. It is not to be used as a teaching tool to scare off would-be criminals.

Actually, according to 2267, a causal relationship is the sole reason it permits capital punishment under any circumstance. It specifically allows it (as you yourself noted) “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” I agree with your argument about means and ends, but 2267 allows executions when they protect society, and deterrence, as a valid objective of punishment, would meet that requirement.

The bishops do not need to be experts in criminology.

Very true, which is why their opinions about the capabilities of our criminal justice system are not very compelling.

The dignity of the human person is their purview, and that is what this issue is fundamentally about.

I am aware of the assertion that capital punishment is not in conformity with human dignity but I’m not aware of any argument that actually supports it.

Ender

 

[Lui]

Actually, no, Christ’s death and resurrection are salvation, and his death was an execution.

It just goes to show how even innocent people can get executed with the death penalty.
With this argumentation you can also justify torture because the torturing of Jesus was also part of our salvation.

Use of the death penalty is not a sin because the Church says it isn’t - and has consistently said so for 2000 years.

Pope John Paul II said:
“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”

 

[Ender]

Pope John Paul II said:
“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”

Yes, he said cases where execution was an absolute necessity were rare. What he did not say was that executions were immoral, nor in fact could he say such a thing as the Church has always said otherwise.

*Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

Ender

 

[Lui]

Yes, he said cases where execution was an absolute necessity were rare. What he did not say was that executions were immoral, nor in fact could he say such a thing as the Church has always said otherwise.

*Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

Ender

I’m pretty sure that it means more or less that it is immoral but I guess there will always be loopholes to justify certain actions, especially for political reasons…

 

[Ender]

I’m pretty sure that it means more or less that it is immoral but I guess there will always be loopholes to justify certain actions, especially for political reasons…

No, that is not at all what it means. There are issues that are intrinsically immoral, that is, they are immoral in all circumstances without exception. This includes things like abortion and euthanasia but it assuredly does not include capital punishment. Nor has the Church *ever *said that the just use of capital punishment was immoral.

*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *(Innocent III, 1210)

Ender

 

[Lui]

No, that is not at all what it means. There are issues that are intrinsically immoral, that is, they are immoral in all circumstances without exception. This includes things like abortion and euthanasia but it assuredly does not include capital punishment. Nor has the Church *ever *said that the just use of capital punishment was immoral.

I don’t think the Church considers Capital Punishment as something that should be embraced by Catholics. I personally find it disturbing if certain Catholics are actually pro Capital Punishment. Don’t get me wrong, I can understand it in many situations like in the case of that right wing maniac in Norway who murdered about 90 people recently and showed no feeling of regret after that.
But there are also cases where a person might have killed someone when he was 18. He sits on death row for 30 years, regrets and repents his crime, is basically a different person but still gets executed. It also includes the many people who are executed and are actually innocent.

 

[Hastrman]

…sits on death row for 30 years, regrets and repents his crime, is basically a different person but still gets executed. It also includes the many people who are executed and are actually innocent.

So it is your theory that people should only be executed when they’re sure to go to hell? Since that is what is implied by “he repents and yet is still executed”.

Wow, and people say the pro-capital punishment side is heartless.

Actual human beings tried to make as sure as possible that the condemned did repent his crime—and then they executed him anyway, because God’s mercy and man’s justice are too different things. In fact, historically, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the priest didn’t bother to give a penance when hearing a condemned man’s confession: that’s what the noose or sword or guillotine was.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think the Church considers Capital Punishment as something that should be embraced by Catholics.

The Church considers capital punishment an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, especially murder. The perspective expressed in CCC 2267 is an opinion that it would be better, in current societies, not to use it unless it is absolutely necessary to do so as a means of protection. That is not a moral condemnation of the practice but a prudential belief that its use today causes more harm than good. In any event, Catholics may choose to support or oppose it as they see fit.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

Ender

 

[Lui]

So it is your theory that people should only be executed when they’re sure to go to hell? Since that is what is implied by “he repents and yet is still executed”.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. You as a Christian think that if a person who murdered, turns to Catholicism and then truly repents his sin, should still be executed, …interesting.
No, my opinion as a Christian and a human being is that Capital Punishment is always morally wrong.

 

[Joe_5859]

But fine. We’ll concede the death penalty is not necessary. So why aren’t you actively campaigning for harsher non-capital sentences, for more police, for less leeway in plea-bargaining, for every aspect of victims’ rights other than the death penalty?

Because you don’t mean it.

I’m not sure why you’re making it personal. You don’t know me, nor do you know anything about what I do or do not do with regards to campaigning for social justice issues. But I don’t really see how that has any relevance whatsoever in the present discussion.

In present day, first world countries, we have been able to construct prisons which severely minimize the possibility that a criminal can escape and strike again. That is why the CCC states “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”

I don’t discount entirely the possibility that Ender raised about deterrence being a legitimate reason towards “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” that the CCC gives as a prerequistite for utilizing the death penalty. It seems to me there is room in moral theology to make that argument (and if anyone writes/has written such a piece, I would be interested in reading it).

But I haven’t seen any bishop make that argument yet, let alone the bishops together in union with the Pope. Until then, I have serious reservations about using deterrence against potential future crimes as a reason to end someone’s life.

 

[Lui]

In present day, first world countries, we have been able to construct prisons which severely minimize the possibility that a criminal can escape and strike again. That is why the CCC states “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”

That’s how I see it.

 

[Hastrman]

In present day, first world countries, we have been able to construct prisons which severely minimize the possibility that a criminal can escape and strike again. That is why the CCC states “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”

I don’t discount entirely the possibility that Ender raised about deterrence being a legitimate reason towards “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” that the CCC gives as a prerequistite for utilizing the death penalty. It seems to me there is room in moral theology to make that argument (and if anyone writes/has written such a piece, I would be interested in reading it).

But I haven’t seen any bishop make that argument yet, let alone the bishops together in union with the Pope. Until then, I have serious reservations about using deterrence against potential future crimes as a reason to end someone’s life.

If someone’s done something that legitimately warrants death, hey guess what? Make an example of them. That’s only wrong if they aren’t actually guilty (or if what they’re guilty of isn’t proportional to the punishment).

Then again I favor public execution by guillotine, since it’s not as creepily antiseptic as lethal injection or gas chamber: it’s completely painless, but it’s messy, so the community really feels their responsibility in the death. Plus there is the deterrent effect.

But also, our prisons are a joke. Understand, the guards don’t run those, the inmates do. Do you know what the murder and rape rate in our prisons is? What do you do when someone already serving a life sentence does something like that? The only alternative to death that I can think of is “life in prison, sans arms or legs”, but that would almost certainly count as cruel and unusual.

Also, we do in fact have a whole bunch of idiots in positions of authority over prisons. There is an infamous case where one of them let convicted murderers, doing life without parole, into furlough programs. Furloughs are only for non-lifers, to let them get a feel for society before they go back to it. And hey guess what? One of those lifers escaped, broke into a couple’s house, nearly murdered the man, and repeatedly raped the woman.

But no, I guess our current prison system is completely adequate.

Oh yeah, PS. You were right about causation and correlation, but that applies to everything. Did you know we don’t actually know, strictly speaking, that electricity is what makes lightbulbs light up? It seems pretty likely, but it’s not logically certain. And all American crime statistics do in fact indicate my view, not yours.

 

[Ender]

In present day, first world countries, we have been able to construct prisons which severely minimize the possibility that a criminal can escape and strike again.

This statement is an analysis of certain facts to arrive at a conclusion. It is not a fact itself; it is an opinion about which one may validly disagree. What it clearly is not is a matter of moral doctrine.

I don’t discount entirely the possibility that Ender raised about deterrence being a legitimate reason towards “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” that the CCC gives as a prerequistite for utilizing the death penalty. It seems to me there is room in moral theology to make that argument (and if anyone writes/has written such a piece, I would be interested in reading it).

The determination of whether capital punishment deters other murders is a question for social scientists but the question of whether capital punishment could be used if it was found to be an effective deterrent is, as you suggested, a theological one. However, given how 2267 is phrased, I don’t think much of a case could be made that executions should not be used even if they were effective deterrents. The criterion was what is needed to protect society. It’s not a good criterion but it was the only one given.

Until then, I have serious reservations about using deterrence against potential future crimes as a reason to end someone’s life.

Given that we can execute someone to end his threat to public safety I don’t see any rational argument that we can’t execute him to eliminate someone else’s threat. After all, the concern is “to protect the safety of persons.” There is nothing there to imply that a threat from one person is worse than an equally serious threat from another.

Ender

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I noticed that the United States is the only western country that stills has the death penalty.

Why? For me both are against the fifth Commandment ‘You shall not kill’, or am I missing something here?

I read a lot about USA life. and i think it is a trap people pose to Catholics as the Church is not opposed to death penalty but to abortion.

Of course, the Church is not opposed but in special cases. Suppose that after the 1st year of WW II you found Hitler walking alone in the forest. I mean, it would be a sin not to shoot him right away. Those are exceptional cases. Like Gaddafi, if you catch him he should be granted a fair trial but if he tried to escape, I think there should be no mercy for a butcher who could do much harm.

I think that in the USA you should not fall into that trap. abortion is abortion, death penalty is death penalty, genocide is another thing, serial killer another, crimes against the humanity are another. It is different to kill 1 person or kill 6 million Jews.

You know, politics have many tricks that do not follow the 10 commandments order.

 

[Hastrman]

I read a lot about USA life. and i think it is a trap people pose to Catholics as the Church is not opposed to death penalty but to abortion.

Of course, the Church is not opposed but in special cases. Suppose that after the 1st year of WW II you found Hitler walking alone in the forest. I mean, it would be a sin not to shoot him right away. Those are exceptional cases. Like Gaddafi, if you catch him he should be granted a fair trial but if he tried to escape, I think there should be no mercy for a butcher who could do much harm.

I think that in the USA you should not fall into that trap. abortion is abortion, death penalty is death penalty, genocide is another thing, serial killer another, crimes against the humanity are another. It is different to kill 1 person or kill 6 million Jews.

You know, politics have many tricks that do not follow the 10 commandments order.

It’s funny, I think the exact same thing about the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty: they’re pandering to European opinion. Again, are you familiar with how they prostituted themselves to the Catholic principalities of Europe, after the Reformation? Famously, when Napoleon said he’d ruin the Church in France, the papal nuncio simply replied, “If the bishops didn’t manage to ruin it, what chance do you have?”

Where do you get your childlike faith that they’re any better now?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

It’

Let me see whether I got it right…You are saying:

1. 
   *]That 200 or so USA Catholic Bishops are pandering to European opinion when they are against the death penalty!
   *]That European Opinion is Wrong and USA (which USA?) is right on the subject.
   *]That, generally, Bishops (USA?) are no good.
   *]That (thanks to God!!) my Faith is childish!
   
   Well, well, well, to say the least, I am surprised.
   So, you are pro-death penalty? The more the better? As I have never met any person who defended this theory, would you mind to tell me the reason? for vengeance? So that he Society may become safer?
   Why?

 

[Lui]

Well, well, well, to say the least, I am surprised.
So, you are pro-death penalty? The more the better? As I have never met any person who defended this theory, would you mind to tell me the reason? for vengeance? So that he Society may become safer?
Why?

That happens when people put politics above their faith and even justify certain politics with their faith.

I’m sure the Catholic Church and teachings are against the death penalty, except as you pointed out in rare extreme cases. I find it wrong and suspicious if a Catholic actually embraces and applauds the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

That happens when people put politics above their faith and even justify certain politics with their faith.

The issue here is which position is correct. The problem with claims like yours is not simply that they are uncharitable and insulting but that they are irrelevant. Arguments are either right or wrong and the reason they are made doesn’t matter. Let’s see if you can deal with the arguments.

I’m sure the Catholic Church and teachings are against the death penalty, except as you pointed out in rare extreme cases.

This is incorrect. I’ve pointed out several times what the Church’s position on the death penalty is and she clearly recognizes the right of States to employ it. The real question is whether or not CCC 2267 is doctrine or a prudential opinion about the use of the death penalty in modern society. If you cannot defend the claim that it is doctrine then you have no position to defend as the traditional teaching of the Church accepts its use as the just punishment for murder - and always has.

I find it wrong and suspicious if a Catholic actually embraces and applauds the death penalty.

That’s because you don’t understand why the Church has the position she has taken.

Ender

 

[Lui]

That’s because you don’t understand why the Church has the position she has taken.

Maybe but I understand why certain Catholics are pro-Capital Punishment: politics.

 

[Hastrman]

Maybe but I understand why certain Catholics are pro-Capital Punishment: politics.

Really?

Huh. Well that’s a fascinating theory—it’s also an ad hominem fallacy, try making a real argument please.

And how do you know the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty isn’t politics? You’ve got to know what sellouts they’ve been in the past, I doubt your Protestant neighbors would let you forget a single failing in that direction (while forgetting that the Lutheran clergy were every bit as bad, of course). The entire hierarchy is in Europe, and all European politics is anti-death penalty. So why do you assume the fault is with those who are in continuity with the 2000-year tradition of the Church, as well as the 6000-year tradition of mankind? The burden of proof always falls on the one who proposes an innovation, and that innovation is opposition to capital punishment, not support for it.