Death Penalty

[Erik1978]

I remember when JPII came out with his position on the death penalty years ago. It was explained to me as being outdated since modern society has the means to contain a person from commiting further acts of murder. (I admit I could be wrong on this.) I accepted the logic of this position until I became involved with prison inmates. Putting a person into a prison for the rest of their lives will not prevent them from killing again. It’s possible that they will commit more murders inside than on the outside. So my question is would it be justified in executing a person who continues to kill people after they have been incarcerated? I agree to the point that you can keep them in solitary confinement but to do that for the rest of their lives would be a violation of ones human rights. Not to mention very cruel over time. How do you keep a person from killing others who is determined to do so?

 

[Eternys]

Hi Erik,

It is the mind of the church that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment. There were times when people were even complaining that criminals got to have the last sacraments and know exactly when they would die so it was unfair that they had such an easy chance to reach heaven.
The logic behind the death penalty doesn’t have to do with stopping the person from killing again, but has to do with providing the person with an opportunity to satisfy personal and social justice and with providing the public with the biggest possible deterrent for committing murder.
Remember, that the committing of one mortal sin, such as murder, is much worse than someone being executed. One mortal sin is worse than 10,00 people dying in a tsunami, since if none of them had committed sin, they’d all be in heaven and what’s the point of being sad about 10,000 people enjoying heaven? If that one sin can be prevented through the use of a strong deterrent, then it is worth it, for what can be worse than offending the Almighty by sin? Let us repeat with the saints: “Death rather than sin!”

 

[BcuzISaidSo]

Hi Erik,

It is the mind of the church that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment. There were times when people were even complaining that criminals got to have the last sacraments and know exactly when they would die so it was unfair that they had such an easy chance to reach heaven.
The logic behind the death penalty doesn’t have to do with stopping the person from killing again, but has to do with providing the person with an opportunity to satisfy personal and social justice and with providing the public with the biggest possible deterrent for committing murder.
Remember, that the committing of one mortal sin, such as murder, is much worse than someone being executed. One mortal sin is worse than 10,00 people dying in a tsunami, since if none of them had committed sin, they’d all be in heaven and what’s the point of being sad about 10,000 people enjoying heaven? If that one sin can be prevented through the use of a strong deterrent, then it is worth it, for what can be worse than offending the Almighty by sin? Let us repeat with the saints: “Death rather than sin!”

Trouble is, it is not a deterrent.

 

[1ke]

I remember when JPII came out with his position on the death penalty years ago. It was explained to me as being outdated since modern society has the means to contain a person from commiting further acts of murder. (I admit I could be wrong on this.) I accepted the logic of this position until I became involved with prison inmates. Putting a person into a prison for the rest of their lives will not prevent them from killing again. It’s possible that they will commit more murders inside than on the outside. So my question is would it be justified in executing a person who continues to kill people after they have been incarcerated? I agree to the point that you can keep them in solitary confinement but to do that for the rest of their lives would be a violation of ones human rights. Not to mention very cruel over time. How do you keep a person from killing others who is determined to do so?

Yes, it is possible that the death penalty may be necessary if a person keeps on killing or committing other heinous acts and cannot be restrained. But, it should be a last resort. The death penalty is not utilized in that manner in our society today.

 

[tominrichmond]

It is a deterrent, to the individual offender who will offend no more.

The Church still, as it must, recognizes the moral legitimacy of the death penalty, it is a moral teaching strongly manifested in both Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. As such, the Church could never alter this reality.

The “new” wrinkle is the suggestion that somehow, some unidentified means possessed by modern man has rendered recourse to the death penalty almost entirely unnecessary.

Sadly, the proponents of this new idea have never, to my knowledge, identified in any formal way what these mysterious “means” we now have to render offenders harmless. It cannot mean incarceration, since prison demonstrably does not render offenders harmless, as they still kill, assault, and threaten fellow inmates and prison staff; can escape and kill; can be pardoned or otherwise released to re-offend.

But all is well, since, as a matter of fact, America punishes murder by execution of the offender a mere .01-.02% of the time. So the new insistence that the death penalty be used only “rarely” is certainly met in our country.

 

[J_Peterson]

The death penalty should be non-existant or at the very least extremely rare in a country like the United States. We have means to keep people from commiting further offenses that are almost flawless. The Church teaches that the death penalty should be used as a last resort only. I believe that everybody deserves a chance at redemption and only God can decide when our time for redemption has run out. Fortunatly it is rare for most states but then there’s Texas which is a complete embarrasement.

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 to 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 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."68

 

[CatholicGeek1]

It is a deterrent, to the individual offender who will offend no more.

The Church still, as it must, recognizes the moral legitimacy of the death penalty, it is a moral teaching strongly manifested in both Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. As such, the Church could never alter this reality.

The “new” wrinkle is the suggestion that somehow, some unidentified means possessed by modern man has rendered recourse to the death penalty almost entirely unnecessary.

Sadly, the proponents of this new idea have never, to my knowledge, identified in any formal way what these mysterious “means” we now have to render offenders harmless. It cannot mean incarceration, since prison demonstrably does not render offenders harmless, as they still kill, assault, and threaten fellow inmates and prison staff; can escape and kill; can be pardoned or otherwise released to re-offend.

But all is well, since, as a matter of fact, America punishes murder by execution of the offender a mere .01-.02% of the time. So the new insistence that the death penalty be used only “rarely” is certainly met in our country.

The position of the Church is that the death penalty is legitimate and that the state does have a right to execute criminals. However, the Church teaches that this should only be used as a last resort, where there is no other means to protect society from the person being executed. It should not be used as a deterrent, a threat, revenge or for any means other than protecting society.

Just because something is allowed in certain circumstances does not mean that it should be a solution we reach for. Rather it is a solution that we should do everything in our power to avoid, and use only when absolutely necessary.

More directly to the OP’s point, I would think that if prison has not stopped the person from killing the death penalty may be justified, but it would have to be on a case by case basis. I do not think that something as serious as taking someone’s life can ever be covered by a blanket policy statement.

 

[Glomung]

“We have means to keep people from commiting further offenses that are almost flawless.”

Have you ever been to a prison? If you had you would not have made that statement.
The fact of the matter is that there are people who are the moral equivalent of rabid dogs.
They cannot and do not want to be cured, they need to be put down.

No amount of moralism and liberal handwringing will ever change the reality that there are some VERY EVIL people in the world. You allow them to live at your own peril.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

“We have means to keep people from commiting further offenses that are almost flawless.”

Have you ever been to a prison? If you had you would not have made that statement.
The fact of the matter is that there are people who are the moral equivalent of rabid dogs.
They cannot and do not want to be cured, they need to be put down.

No amount of moralism and liberal handwringing will ever change the reality that there are some VERY EVIL people in the world. You allow them to live at your own peril.

There are certainly some people that are very evil. There are also many that we will likely never be able to change. However, that does not mean that God cannot change them. We cannot limit what God is able to do. Therefore, while I concede that there could be circumstances where execution is required, it should be very far from the norm, and should only be done when there is no other way to protect society. Taking a life is always incredibly serious and should not be taken lightly. To say that people are evil so they deserve to die is not our place, only God can make the decision as to the state of a person’s soul.

 

[sw85]

The death penalty has always and everywhere been justified by reference to the common good, because this is the primary end which the state serves.

We can say that the death penalty can be used in principle, but positive moral precepts never bind absolutely; prudence always dictates the extent to which they apply. For instance, “you should give to charity” doesn’t mean I must give 100% of everything I own to charity, or that I must devote myself 100% to charity. These may be good things, but they may not be good things – for instance, if I badly impoverish and harm my family by giving away all our wealth, I’ve done a bad thing.

Just so with the death penalty. It may in principle be a good, but the real demands of the common good come first, and they may require that the death penalty be foregone.

I’m not sure what the circumstances supposedly are that make the death penalty incompatible with the common good today, but I suppose an argument has been made convincingly about it somewhere.

 

[Debora123]

I remember when JPII came out with his position on the death penalty years ago. It was explained to me as being outdated since modern society has the means to contain a person from commiting further acts of murder. (I admit I could be wrong on this.) I accepted the logic of this position until I became involved with prison inmates. Putting a person into a prison for the rest of their lives will not prevent them from killing again. It’s possible that they will commit more murders inside than on the outside. So my question is would it be justified in executing a person who continues to kill people after they have been incarcerated? I agree to the point that you can keep them in solitary confinement but to do that for the rest of their lives would be a violation of ones human rights. Not to mention very cruel over time. How do you keep a person from killing others who is determined to do so?

I still think solitary confinement is a better option than execution. I agree with JPII’s views on the death penalty 100%. The USCCB holds the same position as well.

But as a Catholic I think you are technically still free to either support or condemn the death penalty.

 

[J_Peterson]

I’m not sure what the circumstances supposedly are that make the death penalty incompatible with the common good today, but I suppose an argument has been made convincingly about it somewhere.

Are you willing to accept the occasional inocent person being excecuted for the common good? You can never prove 100% someone is guilty so there is always a chance you are killing the wrong person.

 

[dudleysharp]

Trouble is, it is not a deterrent.

It is odd that anyone would think the death penalty was not a deterrent.

1. All prospects of a negative consequence deter some. It is a truism.
2. 99.7% of those murderers, subject to the death penalty, do everything in their power to stay alive.

What about those more reasoned folks, those potential murderers who chose not to murder?

Do they not also, greatly prefer life over death and fear death more than life? Of course, just like all of us, save the determined suicidal.

1. All criminal sanctions, regardless of crime rates, deter some.
2. Even anti death penalty scholars find that the death penalty is a deterrent. They just don’t think it deters more than a life sentence, even though the anecdotal evidence says otherwise.
3. No death penalty deterrence study says the death penalty deters none. They cannot. No one would be so foolish.
4. The burden of proof is on those who say the death penalty deters none. We all know they cannot prove such.
5. The question is not “Does the death penalty deter?”. Of course it does, just as all negative consequences do.
6. The only valid questions is, “How much does the death penalty deter?”. There will never be a concensus answer to that questiomn.

Even the 28 studies that have found for deterrence since 2000, have widely different findings, that from 1-28 murderers are deterrend per execution.

– LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us “Give me life, not execution”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

– Of course the Death Penalty Deters
See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

– “DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html

– DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

– Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

– “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

 

[Debora123]

Are you willing to accept the occasional inocent person being excecuted for the common good? You can never prove 100% someone is guilty so there is always a chance you are killing the wrong person.

This is a very valid point, and something we need to keep in mind when deciding what we think of the death penalty.

I watch a lot of reality crime shows and a lot of crime documentaries. It is NOT as uncommon as you think for an innocent person to be convicted of murder.

Some prisoners have redeemed themselves and found innocent of the crime after having been in jail for that crime for 20 years! Imagine if that person had received the death penalty as their sentence? It has happened, and continues to happen.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Are there any statistics on the numbers of murders committed by people who are already doing life in prison for murder? I say an upper bound because prisoners could conceivably still commit murders while on death row, unless we go back to executing people the day after they’re convicted. I would not include murders committed by people in for offenses that would not have been eligible for the death penalty, because that’s not relevant to the question of prison murders prevented by the death penalty.

Personally the circumstance I would envision where the death penalty serves a public good was more along the lines of a terrorist or gang leader that continues to plot and direct criminal activities from within prison. Don’t know how common that is, except for anecdotes.

But in general - I have grave doubts about a system that preferentially executes the poor.

 

[Spider42]

But as a Catholic I think you are technically still free to either support or condemn the death penalty.

Not quite. You can be in dissent with the Magisterium’s teaching regarding the death penalty and still be eligible for Holy Communion. But it’s still dissent and should be handled as such.

That is, you must obey the certainty of your moral conscience (CCC 1790), but you, as the Catechism notes, must also be mindful that your individual conscience, no matter how certain, can be in error. The Magisterium consists of “authentic teachers”, when we profess “one Holy catholic and apostolic church” we are proclaiming that they teach with the authority of Christ.

Here at Catholic Answers you find a lot of claims about a difference between dogma and judgement, but that’s not how the Church teaches it. Adhering only to dogma is a form of ‘dissent’:

“Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not.” - Donum Veritatis #33

Even when the Magisterium does not intend to teach “definitively”, we are supposed to strive towards a true submission of religious will and intellect. That is, we are supposed to try to bring our conscience in align with the Church, which is presumed to have higher moral authority than ourselves:

“When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.* This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” - Donum Veritatis #23, citing Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church) #25

Although it is addressed to theologians, Donum Veritatus is well worth reading in its entirety:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

My point is not that Catholics can’t disagree with the Mother Church on the specific issue of the death penalty. My point is that when that disagreement starts getting treated as a simple matter of choice with the Magisterium carrying no significant extra moral authority than our individual selves, then more doctrine besides the death penalty is being undermined.

Pax Christi

 

[J_Peterson]

This is a very valid point, and something we need to keep in mind when deciding what we think of the death penalty.

I watch a lot of reality crime shows and a lot of crime documentaries. It is NOT as uncommon as you think for an innocent person to be convicted of murder.

Some prisoners have redeemed themselves and found innocent of the crime after having been in jail for that crime for 20 years! Imagine if that person had received the death penalty as their sentence? It has happened, and continues to happen.

The other thing about it to keep in mind is that you won’t get the death penalty if you plead guilty, only if you plead innocent and are found guilty. There’s probably exceptions to this but I don’t think it’s typical.

Also, we need to remember that even the guilty need compassion and mercy.

 

[Debora123]

Not quite. You can be in dissent with the Magisterium’s teaching regarding the death penalty and still be eligible for Holy Communion. But it’s still dissent and should be handled as such.

That is, you must obey the certainty of your moral conscience (CCC 1790), but you, as the Catechism notes, must also be mindful that your individual conscience, no matter how certain, can be in error. The Magisterium consists of “authentic teachers”, when we profess “one Holy catholic and apostolic church” we are proclaiming that they teach with the authority of Christ.

Here at Catholic Answers you find a lot of claims about a difference between dogma and judgement, but that’s not how the Church teaches it. Adhering only to dogma is a form of ‘dissent’:

Even when the Magisterium does not intend to teach “definitively”, we are supposed to strive towards a true submission of religious will and intellect. That is, we are supposed to try to bring our conscience in align with the Church, which is presumed to have higher moral authority than ourselves:

Although it is addressed to theologians, Donum Veritatus is well worth reading in its entirety:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

My point is not that Catholics can’t disagree with the Mother Church on the specific issue of the death penalty. My point is that when that disagreement starts getting treated as a simple matter of choice with the Magisterium carrying no significant extra moral authority than our individual selves, then more doctrine besides the death penalty is being undermined.

Pax Christi

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. A Catholic can either be in support of the death penalty or not. That’s all I was saying, and that’s all I meant. I wasn’t talking about other issues.

 

[Spider42]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. A Catholic can either be in support of the death penalty or not. That’s all I was saying, and that’s all I meant. I wasn’t talking about other issues.

Forgive me, I tend to write as a Canonist. Let me explain it this way:

An individual can either be in support of the death penalty or not.

A Catholic can either be communion, or agreement, with the Church on the death penalty or in ‘dissent’.

On some issues, the Church teaches that application must ultimately be determined by the individual or individuals involved. Refusal of medical treatment is a good example:

“Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.” - CCC 2278, emphasis added

But the death penalty is not such a teaching. That is, the Church does not teach ‘this is what we suggest, but you are free to disagree’. The Church teaches that the death penalty is only licit when guilt is truly ascertained and there is no other way to protect society as a whole and that, because of these requirements, licit applications are “exceedingly rare, if not practically non-existant” (CCC 2267). Further, the church teaches that specific applications, like the US, are not licit and contribute to a culture of death (see the US Catechism for Adults, Chapter 29, which relies on direct papal instructions to US Catholics from Blessed John Paul).

As it happens, I am in full communion with the Church with regards to the death penalty. Unless I am mistaken, you are as well. This in no way makes us better or worse Catholics than those who are in dissent. After all, we are all sinners and we all fail Christ, we admit as much at every Mass.

But it is a mistake to treat the teaching as simply ‘personal choice’, because life issues carry special weight. We use the term ‘dissent’, not to deride, but as a constant reminder that we are an apostolic church and disagreement with it is never a matter to be taken lightly, and certainly not lightly when the most fundamental, inalienable right of the human person (Christifideles Laici #38) is involved.

Again, I write like a Canonist, but when a dutiful Catholic is in dissent with the Church regarding a teaching, the situation is not neutral. The obligation is on the individual to try to work at understanding and agreement. That is, the presumption is that the Church is correct and the individual moral conscience is malformed.

I am sorry that I am not explaining this more clearly.

Pax Christi

Edit: Short version, instead of ‘as a Catholic you can support it or not’ we should say ‘as a Catholic, disagreeing with the Church on this does not automatically disqualify you from taking Holy Communion, but it is a life issue and you are obliged to continue to strive to bring your moral conscience in line with the apostles’.

 

[Debora123]

A Catholic can either be communion, or agreement, with the Church on the death penalty or in ‘dissent’.

On some issues, the Church teaches that application must ultimately be determined by the individual or individuals involved. Refusal of medical treatment is a good example:

But the death penalty is not such a teaching. That is, the Church does not teach ‘this is what we suggest, but you are free to disagree’. The Church teaches that the death penalty is only licit when guilt is truly ascertained and there is no other way to protect society as a whole and that, because of these requirements, licit applications are “exceedingly rare, if not practically non-existant” (CCC 2267). Further, the church teaches that specific applications, like the US, are not licit and contribute to a culture of death (see the US Catechism for Adults, Chapter 29, which relies on direct papal instructions to US Catholics from Blessed John Paul).

As it happens, I am in full communion with the Church with regards to the death penalty. Unless I am mistaken, you are as well. This in no way makes us better or worse Catholics than those who are in dissent. After all, we are all sinners and we all fail Christ, we admit as much at every Mass.

But it is a mistake to treat the teaching as simply ‘personal choice’, because life issues carry special weight. We use the term ‘dissent’, not to deride, but as a constant reminder that we are an apostolic church and disagreement with it is never a matter to be taken lightly, and certainly not lightly when the most fundamental, inalienable right of the human person (Christifideles Laici #38) is involved.

Again, I write like a Canonist, but when a dutiful Catholic is in dissent with the Church regarding a teaching, the situation is not neutral. The obligation is on the individual to try to work at understanding and agreement. That is, the presumption is that the Church is correct and the individual moral conscience is malformed.

I am sorry that I am not explaining this more clearly.

Pax Christi

Edit: Short version, instead of ‘as a Catholic you can support it or not’ we should say ‘as a Catholic, disagreeing with the Church on this does not automatically disqualify you from taking Holy Communion, but it is a life issue and you are obliged to continue to strive to bring your moral conscience in line with the apostles’.

Thanks, but I still don’t understand why you’re making this so complicated lol.

The Pope is against the Death Penalty, the USCCB is against the death penalty… and it is perfectly ok.

A Catholic can either share the Pope’s take on the Death Penalty, or they can still support it. Both will still be in communion with the Church. I agree with the Pope.

It really is that simple.