Do Catholics believe in the death sentence?

[white_sheep]

While the Church supports the death penalty, or doesn’t if that’s what you want to say, what it certainly doesn’t do is support the Hammurabi code of eye for an eye.

That is far too simplistic and vengeful. The Church supports justice. That doesn’t mean the punishment should be similar to the crime, merely that it be just.

 

[Della]

Whoa bro. Let’s check this out point by point. Firstly, no. The death penalty is sick. It’s evil. It makes a mockery of human life, which according to the Catholic Church is sacred. Please excuse me if I come off a little strong in this post, but the death penalty affects me on a very deep emotional level.

We cannot base moral decisions on our emotions. The Church certainly doesn’t, nor has it declared the death penalty “evil”, as you have. It is not intrinsically evil or the Church would say so. We ought never to go beyond what the Church tells us or we end up letting our feelings rather than sound reason guide us.

Of course it’s about a lack of forgiveness! We can’t be like “It’s cool bro, you’re sorry and we forgive you, now stand over there so we can shoot you.”

Societies cannot forgive anyone–that’s not the business of government. Government exists to ensure the rights of its citizens and to protect the innocent from the ravages of criminals. Therefore, it is up to governments to determine what will accomplish those goals. If it deems the death penalty will be applied in some cases, it has that right, but it ought to be tempered with mercy–if no one else can be harmed by the criminal. That’s the Church position.

Aight check it. If someone’s running an operation from behind bars, the answer isn’t to kill them, it’s a) to make prisons more secure and b) to show them that what they’re doing is wrong and help them turn their lives around. That way everyone can benefit once they are released.

If it were only possible! We live in a free society. Prisoners have certain rights that would be severely infringed if your ideal was implemented. There is no way to ensure criminals won’t/can’t have others outside doing their dirty work. But, this is not a determination made when the death penalty is imposed. No court/judge/jury hands down the death penalty based on any further harm the criminal might do. We have laws to ensure such things cannot be taken into consideration when passing judgment on the offender.

It’s incredibly naive to think that the government is totally without fault or corruption, and wouldn’t disproportionately target minorities in this Legalistic justice system of yours. Furthermore, you’re ignoring the possibility of innocent people being executed. The worst thing about the death penalty is no matter how much you “perfect” it (if indeed you can use such a word to describe something so repulsive) there will always, always be a chance that the person you’re killing is innocent.

This is why the Church specifies that there can be no doubt as to the offender’s guilt before the death penalty can be given. We live in an imperfect world, but we can do all we should to ensure the innocent don’t suffer the ultimate penalty.

Yeah, I do. Weed rocks bro. I have friends who sell weed, and they don’t make kids run for them. They don’t hurt anyone. The idea that someone should be put to death for selling it is preposterous. Again dude, it’s naive to think “OH POT DEELERS ARE BAD CUZ THEY DEAL DRUGZ AND THATZ WRONG CUZ NANCY REAGAN LOLOL”. You don’t know their circumstances.

It isn’t the drugs themselves that are so bad, in some cases, but the lengths to which criminals are willing to go to sell them. Gangs thrive on drug abuse and the culture of gangs is death. I live near Mpls and I can tell you that the gangs have destroyed whole neighborhoods, children are being gunned down in the streets (if you don’t believe me check the record), people live in fear and all because of drug abuse. If you think a particular drug ought to be legal, then vote for those who think like you, but let’s not pretend it’s an innocent business that harms no one. Drug dealers that kill people and destroy others’ safety and chance to legitimately prosper are a danger to society. They may turn from their evil ways, but society has the right to defend itself, and the Church clearly teaches that it does.

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

We cannot base moral decisions on our emotions. The Church certainly doesn’t, nor has it declared the death penalty “evil”, as you have. It is not intrinsically evil or the Church would say so. We ought never to go beyond what the Church tells us or we end up letting our feelings rather than sound reason guide us.

Implying church teachings=sound reason because they’re church teachings.

There are a lot of things that are intrinsically evil that the Church seems to have no problem with, for example the horrendous evils committed at the Church’s instigation during the Crusades.

We can, and should, go beyond the authority of the Church when her leadership has become so corrupt as to ignore such a blatant manifestation of the culture of death.

Societies cannot forgive anyone–that’s not the business of government. Government exists to ensure the rights of its citizens and to protect the innocent from the ravages of criminals. Therefore, it is up to governments to determine what will accomplish those goals. If it deems the death penalty will be applied in some cases, it has that right, but it ought to be tempered with mercy–if no one else can be harmed by the criminal. That’s the Church position.

Governments are made up of people. People should be forgiving and merciful. So, governments should be forgiving and merciful too, provided the criminal sincerely repents.

If it were only possible! We live in a free society. Prisoners have certain rights that would be severely infringed if your ideal was implemented.

Wait, by helping criminals rehabilitate themselves instead of making them rot in prison, we’re infringing on their rights?

There is no way to ensure criminals won’t/can’t have others outside doing their dirty work. But, this is not a determination made when the death penalty is imposed. No court/judge/jury hands down the death penalty based on any further harm the criminal might do. We have laws to ensure such things cannot be taken into consideration when passing judgment on the offender. This is why the Church specifies that there can be no doubt as to the offender’s guilt before the death penalty can be given. We live in an imperfect world, but we can do all we should to ensure the innocent don’t suffer the ultimate penalty.

But by the very nature of reality itself there will always be doubt. We can never be sure, we can just be very, very close to being sure. Even if the crimes of the person in question were witnessed by many people, there’s always the possibility of mass hysteria or something of the like. Going by the track record of countries with the death penalty, there will always be some innocent victims thereof, even if it’s one in thousands. And you know what? One is too many. Don’t forget what happened to Christ.

Furthermore, let’s say the condemned genuinely repented while on death row. If we went by your model, the person would be killed anyway. I ask you, is that Christian? Is that what Christ would want?

It isn’t the drugs themselves that are so bad, in some cases, but the lengths to which criminals are willing to go to sell them. Gangs thrive on drug abuse and the culture of gangs is death. I live near Mpls and I can tell you that the gangs have destroyed whole neighborhoods, children are being gunned down in the streets (if you don’t believe me check the record), people live in fear and all because of drug abuse. If you think a particular drug ought to be legal, then vote for those who think like you, but let’s not pretend it’s an innocent business that harms no one. Drug dealers that kill people and destroy others’ safety and chance to legitimately prosper are a danger to society. They may turn from their evil ways, but society has the right to defend itself, and the Church clearly teaches that it does.

Your argument:

Some drug dealers kill people. People who kill others deserve the death penalty. Therefore, all drug dealers deserve the death penalty.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/d7/LOL_WUT_PEAR.jpg

 

[thistle]

While the Church supports the death penalty, or doesn’t if that’s what you want to say, what it certainly doesn’t do is support the Hammurabi code of eye for an eye.

That is far too simplistic and vengeful. The Church supports justice. That doesn’t mean the punishment should be similar to the crime, merely that it be just.

The Church does not support the death penalty. It accepts it might be necessary “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent”. That is not the same as supporting it. In fact every time a country abolishes capital punishment the Church publicly rejoices.

Catholics are free to support the death penalty or not.

 

[Della]

Implying church teachings=sound reason because they’re church teachings.

Hold on. This is totally wrong. Not only do you need to learn some real history, but you are saying the Church’s teachings cannot be trusted. The Church teaches what Christ taught, and yes, Christ supported the rights of the government as I described in my last post.

Governments are made up of people. People should be forgiving and merciful. So, governments should be forgiving and merciful too, provided the criminal sincerely repents.

No. Governments are not just people, governments are ruled by laws not by the whims of society. Any judge can give leniency in sentencing. S/he need not give the maximum sentence, so this provision already exists. The DP is usually, and should only be passed, for the most heinous crimes in which the guilty showed no mercy to his/her victims. The recent salon murders is a case in point. That man went into that salon and randomly murdered 6 innocent people and all because his wife had decided to divorce him–no doubt for good reason as it turned out. If the state passes the DP for him, it would most certainly be justified.

Wait, by helping criminals rehabilitate themselves instead of making them rot in prison, we’re infringing on their rights?

That was not the topic, and you know it. If you want to put words into people’s mouths you will convince no one but yourself.

But by the very nature of reality itself there will always be doubt. We can never be sure, we can just be very, very close to being sure. Even if the crimes of the person in question were witnessed by many people, there’s always the possibility of mass hysteria or something of the like. Going by the track record of countries with the death penalty, there will always be some innocent victims thereof, even if it’s one in thousands. And you know what? One is too many. Don’t forget what happened to Christ.

Governments should protect the rights of individuals but it must also balance what is best for the greater good. We cannot hesitate to do what is best for society merely because there is a one in a million chance we may be wrong in what we do. We couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning or dare cross the street by that logic.

Furthermore, let’s say the condemned genuinely repented while on death row. If we went by your model, the person would be killed anyway. I ask you, is that Christian? Is that what Christ would want?

The person’s repentence has nothing to do with the crime committed. Even Christ knew that. It is why we do penance for our sins–because God may forgive us, but the damage must be righted. That is what justice means.

Your argument:

Some drug dealers kill people. People who kill others deserve the death penalty. Therefore, all drug dealers deserve the death penalty.

That is not what I wrote/“my” argument. Again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. That is not a good way to debate an issue because others can see that is what you are doing, therefore you only hurt your own cause by overstating what I wrote.

You wrote that you know people who sell weed and you see nothing wrong with doing so. It’s pretty obvious your opinons are colored by this idea. The DP has nothing to do with you defying authority and the law. If you don’t like the law, work to change it, but don’t defend rank criminals of the worst sort just so you can feel good about breaking the law yourself.

 

[Blossoming]

The Church does not support the death penalty. It accepts it might be necessary “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent”. That is not the same as supporting it. In fact every time a country abolishes capital punishment the Church publicly rejoices.

Catholics are free to support the death penalty or not.

That is certainly what we were taught.

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

Hold on. This is totally wrong. Not only do you need to learn some real history, but you are saying the Church’s teachings cannot be trusted. The Church teaches what Christ taught, and yes, Christ supported the rights of the government as I described in my last post.

Real history: my ears are certainly open. From what I understand the Church has yet to give a specific apology for what happened during this time. I realize that the Crusades were primarily defensive, but that does not change the fact that Pope Urban II called for a war, i.e. the killing of other human beings. This, however, is only my understanding, and if I am in error please correct me.

As for saying the Church’s teachings can’t be trusted, I am not sure I would go that far. I am saying that new teachings with shaky arguments should be taken with a grain of salt, and in any case we have a responsibility to closely examine whatever claims are made–by the Church, by our governments, or by our friends–and decide for ourselves. “Just following orders” is no excuse!

No. Governments are not just people, governments are ruled by laws not by the whims of society. Any judge can give leniency in sentencing. S/he need not give the maximum sentence, so this provision already exists. The DP is usually, and should only be passed, for the most heinous crimes in which the guilty showed no mercy to his/her victims. The recent salon murders is a case in point. That man went into that salon and randomly murdered 6 innocent people and all because his wife had decided to divorce him–no doubt for good reason as it turned out. If the state passes the DP for him, it would most certainly be justified.

In a democratic system, laws are determined by popular consent–or, as you say, the whims of society. Government, or at least free government, is an extension of the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The state has no right at all to kill this man; he is obviously quite ill, as no clear-thinking person would do that. It is the job of society to treat his illness and put him somewhere where he won’t be a danger to himself or others. I’m certainly not saying he shouldn’t be put away for life, but to kill him seems…well, dehumanizing. It’s what we would do to a dog that attacked people. Human life is too precious for that.

That was not the topic, and you know it. If you want to put words into people’s mouths you will convince no one but yourself.

I’m afraid I don’t know it, I’m sorry if I offended you. You said that if we implemented my ideal (rehabilitative penal system) the rights of prisoners would be infringed. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

Governments should protect the rights of individuals but it must also balance what is best for the greater good. We cannot hesitate to do what is best for society merely because there is a one in a million chance we may be wrong in what we do. We couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning or dare cross the street by that logic.

With regard to your first point, there is little for the greater good that would be accomplished by keeping the death penalty, as the sheer cost of the institution shows. As far as risks go, you’re right, it is risky to get out of bed in the morning and cross the street, but the difference here is that we are not deliberately killing a human being who may, even by the slightest chance, be innocent. That’s…sick.

The person’s repentence has nothing to do with the crime committed. Even Christ knew that. It is why we do penance for our sins–because God may forgive us, but the damage must be righted. That is what justice means.

Hm…I see your point but I’m not buying it. Penance is meant to be reconstructive and helpful for the penitent, not damaging. Which one of these is the death penalty?

That is not what I wrote/“my” argument. Again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. That is not a good way to debate an issue because others can see that is what you are doing, therefore you only hurt your own cause by overstating what I wrote.

You wrote that you know people who sell weed and you see nothing wrong with doing so. It’s pretty obvious your opinons are colored by this idea. The DP has nothing to do with you defying authority and the law. If you don’t like the law, work to change it, but don’t defend rank criminals of the worst sort just so you can feel good about breaking the law yourself.

Wait a minute, what makes you think that I break the laws myself? Just because I keep some strange company doesn’t mean that I myself am a criminal… That’s an unfair accusation. I just happen to have a buddy who grows pot.

I will admit, however, that you are right when you say I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dope, as long as it’s not used to excess.

 

[Don_Machiavelli]

That’s obviously and painfully not true: drug lords still operate from behind bars. Crime bosses still operate from behind bars. Inmates continue to physically and sexually assault their fellow inmates and pose a risk to the guards. The point is, they do continue to commit crimes, again.

This is true. Oftentimes people who are in the prison system (as an inmate) make a career out of it. They have tattoos all over their body telling stories of where they’ve been, who they’re with, who they killed… etc…

Prison teaches people to be better gangsters.

 

[Ender]

I realize that the Crusades were primarily defensive, but that does not change the fact that Pope Urban II called for a war, i.e. the killing of other human beings.

War and killing is not always immoral so no apology is required.

The state has no right at all to kill this man…

The Church has always taught that the state does have the right to use capital punishment.

… he is obviously quite ill, as no clear-thinking person would do that.

If he is deranged he should not be executed, but if he is not then there is no reason he should not be held accountable for his actions by the forfeiture of his own life.

With regard to your first point, there is little for the greater good that would be accomplished by keeping the death penalty

The good obtained is not material but comes from satisfying the obligations of justice.

deliberately killing a human being who may, even by the slightest chance, be innocent. That’s…sick.

Apparently the Church disagrees as she has always recognized the death penalty as an appropriate punishment.

Penance is meant to be reconstructive and helpful for the penitent, not damaging. Which one of these is the death penalty?

This is certainly one objective of punishment but it is only a secondary one. The primary one is retribution - retributive justice.

Ender

 

[the_7th_one]

This is true. Oftentimes people who are in the prison system (as an inmate) make a career out of it. They have tattoos all over their body telling stories of where they’ve been, who they’re with, who they killed… etc…

Prison teaches people to be better gangsters.

This may be true, but is more a point for life with out parole, not the death penalty. The saction the Church teaches is that it is ok, if there is no other means for society to defend itself from evil.

 

[Ender]

The sanction the Church teaches is that it is ok, if there is no other means for society to defend itself from evil.

DJ Pius X made a similar comment about rehabilitation but the teaching remains: both defense and rehabilitation (as well as deterrence) are secondary objectives of punishment. The primary objective keeps getting lost in these discussions. It is the need to satisfy the obligations of retributive justice that determines the appropriate severity of the punishment, not rehabilitation, not defense, and not deterrence.

Ender

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

War and killing is not always immoral so no apology is required.
The Church has always taught that the state does have the right to use capital punishment.

I’m sorry to sound like your mother, but if the Church told you to jump off a bridge, would you do that too? War and killing is always immoral. It can be the lesser of two terrible evils, but it is never to be used if it can be possibly helped–i.e. virtually never. Even people attacking innocents can be immobilized by nonlethal means. Every human being has the right to life. Every.

If he is deranged he should not be executed, but if he is not then there is no reason he should not be held accountable for his actions by the forfeiture of his own life.

In response I propose that any person who is so devoid of conscience that he would kill another person is sufficiently sick to merit treatment and rehabilitation. Do you disagree?

The good obtained is not material but comes from satisfying the obligations of justice.
Apparently the Church disagrees as she has always recognized the death penalty as an appropriate punishment.

1. There’s no justice in the death penalty. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
2. Let her disagree. I cannot, and will not, abandon my conscience for what the Church says. We’ll see what the Lord–who was, let me add, falsely executed–has to say about it. Sorry brah, but God is the only one who has the right to take away life.

This is certainly one objective of punishment but it is only a secondary one. The primary one is retribution - retributive justice.

Oh, you mean revenge? I never thought of that as a particularly Christian value.

In any case, I am of the opinion that whatever arguments you might bring, there is simply no excuse for having a system in which an innocent person could be killed by the state, especially when reparations are not paid to families once innocence is confirmed. You might argue that it has a higher benefit for a higher number of people, but utilitarianism is absolutely not a philosophy by which it is sustainable to live a Christian life.

Absolutely repulsive, and funding it with my tax money makes me guilty by association.

 

[Ender]

I cannot, and will not, abandon my conscience for what the Church says.

Well this pretty much reduces the conversation to a discussion of personal preferences, like arguing about whether chocolate is better than vanilla. If what the Church teaches doesn’t matter to you then your morality is whatever you decide to make it, something you could hardly expect anyone else to agree with.

Oh, you mean revenge? I never thought of that as a particularly Christian value.

No, I meant what I said: retribution, and it is the most Christian of virtues inasmuch as it an obligation of justice.

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas, ST I-II 21,3)

Ender

 

[tominrichmond]

Sadly, what DJ is falling into is a heresy of Waldensianism, which basically is pacifism, an error that is not Christian and not Catholic.

All people have a basic natural right to self-defense, up to and including use of deadly force. It is also moral and sometimes obligatory, to come to the defense of others. Society too has a right to defend itself, by force when necessary, up to and including deadly force, from individuals who want to harm citizens.

Moreover, God Himself has insisted that “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,…” not out of vengeance or bloodlust, or because life imprisonment was impractical for these early people, but rather for the greatest possible reason:

	“…for in the image of God made He man.”

God teaches the morality of capital punishment on the basis that murder is the destruction of a person who possesses a share of God’s nature, having been made in His image. The wrongful termination of that life, according to Scripture, merits that the wrongdoer should forfeit his own life.
During Our Lord’s passion came this utterance from Dismas the good thief in rebuking the other thief for taunting Our Lord: “Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil.” Our Lord does not contradict Dismas’ assertion that the thieves are being justly executed, but rather guarantees him salvation that same day.

Sorry for the length, but suffice to say, from Scripture, the Church herself has maintained consistently and firmly that recourse to capital punishment is moral, not just because society needs to protect itself sometimes, but because society vindicates the value of life by punishing in the most severe manner those who violate the sanctity of life by commiting murder.

 

[Ender]

the Church herself has maintained consistently and firmly that recourse to capital punishment is moral, not just because society needs to protect itself sometimes, but because society vindicates the value of life by punishing in the most severe manner those who violate the sanctity of life by committing murder.

Well said. This is the point that is typically lost on those who oppose capital punishment: it is used because it is the just punishment for the crime (at least of murder), not because it is necessary for protection.

Ender

 

[Old_Medic]

Some do, others do not.

Personally, I can not condemn it, because had there been no death penalty, Jesus could not have been sacrificed for our sins.

BUT, it has become so expensive to execute anyone, the appeals drag on for so many years, and there have been several cases where people were condemned that were not guilty, and were found to be not guilty before execution, that i do not believe it can ne justified any longer in this country.

I would support execution, so long as the sentence is based on DNA, or other infallible evidence, and ONLY if all levels of appeals can be completed within one year following trial. No second chances, nor repeated attempts to get the sentence changed ALL issues raised at the first appeal, the appeal must be heard withing one month at the State appeals court level, if appealed from there must be heard ad decided within 2 months by the State Supreme Court (or equivalent), and any Federal Appeals heard and decided within 2 months of being filed. One shot only, no repeat appeals to any level of court.

Eyewitness testimony should NEVER be allowed in a death penalty, it is far too unreliable.

Other than that, I do not support the death penalty.