Do you support the death penalty?

[Speedypizza]

I will say I am against it in 99% of cases that we use it for. If it was saved ONLY for the worst of the worst and those who are a great danger of escaping, I would be fine with it. However it is used in all kinds of cases where it is not just. A person who in a fit of rage kills their wives lover is not the same as Ted Bundy.

Ted Bundy is a good question for the anti-death people. He escaped from jail 2 times and almost made it out of his cell on death row. The last time he escaped, he killed 3 girls, including 12 year old Kimberly Leach. If he was not put to death, I think he would have escaped again and there is no question that he would have killed again. What do you think should be done with him?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why is executing a murderer to show that murder is wrong, illogical?

If showing that murder is wrong were the only consequence of executing someone then the death penalty would be perfectly fine. That is a good and worthy goal. But instruction on the wrongness of murder is not the only thing that happens. The loss of a life that is precious to God also happens. God values that life. Why shouldn’t we?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Ted Bundy is a good question for the anti-death people. He escaped from jail 2 times and almost made it out of his cell on death row. The last time he escaped, he killed 3 girls, including 12 year old Kimberly Leach. If he was not put to death, I think he would have escaped again and there is no question that he would have killed again. What do you think should be done with him?

Trouble is, whatever you decide about Ted Bundy is also going to be applied to Karla Faye Tucker and hundreds of others.

 

[St_Francis]

Here is an artcle by J budsiszewski which outlines the various issues from a Catholic standpoint.

I’m going to post more, including a couple of quotes, in another post.

 

[St_Francis]

Budzisziewski write (in the article linked above): Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. What he discusses just before he makes this statement is that the government is supposed to be just, and he asks if justice is served when mercy is granted, esp when there is no reason (such as repentance) for the mercy to be given

He goes to explain: Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good. In revenge the spur is the passion of resentment, which answers malice with malice for private satisfaction. We are not concerned here with revenge.

The issue of retribution is an interesting one. Dr Budzisziewski (if my spelling of his name differs from place to place, I am sorry; it’s one of the harder words to spell that I’ve run across. It’s pronounced boo dzi shev’ skee, iirc) is very interested in natural law, so I suspect that the topic of the DP and retribution, etc, are related to that.

I think the article is very interesting as it brings things I hadn’t thought of: justice and proportionality in meting out punishment, and also brings some questiins to me mind.

But I have always felt that there were some crimes for which the DP ought to be given as punishment, notably crimes against children and serial or mass murder. And this article explains my intuitive notion, which remains despite my understanding of the principle involved in the current way of thinking.

I would also like to add something I heard somewhere in reference to this: Nothing so wonderfully concentrated our minds on our eternal destiny than the certain knowledge of immenent death.

All too often, what it takes to get someone to repent is knowing they are soon to die for their crimes. Some murderers have made last-minute confessions to crimes other than the ones for which they were convicted, others have told poloce officers where to find unrecovered bodies, bringing somempeace to the victims’ families.

OTOH, I am concerned about wrongful convictions, some of which were uncovered when DNA evidence came in, causing one of more governors of (US) states to declare a moratorium. ( someone mentioned there is no proof anyone was sent to his death wrongfully (in the US), and I would say that is because we do not open cases after the person whom we believe to be guilty is convicted.)

Poor people cannot afford lawyers and the defense attorneys are often stretched to their limits.

 

[Andrew1980]

Definitely do NOT support the death penalty. Many of those on death row need all the time they can get for conversion. There have been many conversions of those incarcerated and heaven rejoices at each one.

About the only time I believe you can willing take a life is if you are confronted with an immenant danger to a greater population. This would be akin to shooting a suicide bomber before he is allowed to blow up in a crowded subway etc. Even then, if there is a likely to succeed alternative that would be preferable.

 

[Ender]

I’m sure you also know something about the recidivism rate among killers, and that while it is low we know for a fact that some killers will be released from prison only to kill again. You must also be aware that even in prison the killings continue, both of other prisoners and even of civilians outside. There are no choices that spare everyone but the number of innocents wrongfully executed by the state is (even if perhaps not zero) extremely small. The number of innocents dieing at the hands of recidivist killers is around 40-60 a year. If your concern is for the lives of the innocent then you shoud support capital punishment.

Only God has the right to give and take life because only God is infallible.

Clearly this is not how the Church sees it.

Ender

 

[VivienneJ]

I was against the death penalty until the day someone murdered my husband in front of my 13-year old daughter.

 

[Cristiano]

Well do you?

One one hand, it’s a way different case then abortion, because killing a serial killer is different from killing an unborn baby.

But on the other day, isn’t it illogical to kill people who kill people to show people who kill people than killing people is wrong?

I am completely aligned with the Church in saying that under the present conditions death penalty is not justified in the majority of the countries and in the majority of the cases. Taking of a life could be justified only to prevent further imminent and real danger and not to teach people that murder is wrong. It is immoral to use death penalty in order to teach a moral behavior, it can only be used as the last resort to prevent a guilty person from further harming people.

 

[Darran]

The death penalty is just. Just as the Catechism says. Also including (which I dont think has been mentioned):

1. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Murdering 2-3 people here will get you a 13-20 year MAX sentance, and they will get out of jail long before that. Anyone who has murdered 2-3 times will definately murder again. It’s carelessness of the law. It’s just that people should be sent to the galleys or work in a mine all their life, or in the worst case, be sent to death. But to be locked in a hotel for a max 13 year life sentance for ending someone elses life is ridiculous.

 

[VeilOfVeronica9]

The Church is actually for the death penalty :

You are partially correct in that the Church doesn’t *exclude * the death penalty IF it is absolutely necessary to defend human lives. However, as you can see in paragraph two of 2267 in the CCC, if there are non-lethal means which are sufficient to protect people’s safety, that is preferable. Third paragraph also mentions they are concerned with keeping the possibility of redeeming them intact if possible.

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 are 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 non-existent.”

Pope John Paul II: The Gospel of Life (1995) wrote:

“…the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought nopt go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.”

 

[estesbob]

No. Not under any circumstances

 

[StevenFrancis]

In all honesty some of it is i failed to communicate properly what the Church teaches, the Church is FOR capital punishment, in certain circumstances, however she states that these circumstances are extremely rare in the western world in the 21st century, to the point that it’s almost never justified, however in certain under developed countries, the death penalty would be warranted and just, as they would not have the prison systems that the west do, so less stopping criminals escaping and wreaking more havok.

Ah, okay. I guess I take away the same thing, (pretty much). I still don’t get the sense of being “for” it, ever. Just acknowledging it’s legitimacy in rare circumstances with a trace of regret and sadness in it’s tone.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Ender]

Wait a minute… No one – not even the State – can ever directly kill a human for the purpose of killing a human (that’s what I meant by “direct” in bold text).

But this is exactly what capital punishment is all about: the direct, intended death of the criminal - and the Church recognizes the right of States to do this.

The cases that you mention are for defensive purposes, and the loss of human life (even an agressor’s) can be seen what as the Church calls a “double effect.”

Capital punishment does not satisfy the criteria for the principle of double effect to apply. One of the (four) criterion is that the harmful effect not be intended, but in the case of an execution the death of the criminal is not only intended but is the entire purpose of the punishment.

This all goes back to the idea that if there is any other method possible to defend oneself or a society, that method should be used, and the lethal options always saved until last, and even then, the lethality is not the desired result.

Protection is a valid objective of punishment but it is only a secondary objective. The primary objective, which is the only one that must be satisfied in all circumstances, is retributive justice. We have become uncomfortable with the idea of retribution even being a valid objective, let alone with it being the primary one, yet this is what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[Rascalking]

So Israel was wrong for hanging Eichmann. Iraq was wrong for doing the same to Saddam. The Nurermberg trials were wrong in their outcome. America was wrong for McVeigh, and it will be wrong for Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

No way.

The death penalty is essential for our saftey.

 

[dudleysharp]

Well do you?

Yes.

In some cases it is just and also saves additonal lives.

The Chuch’s current position is a prudential judgement based upon prison security, with which the Church finds it is rarely if ever necessary to execute to defend society.

Any good Catholic is free to disgaree with the Chuch’s position.

 

[Darran]

Any good Catholic is free to disgaree with the Chuch’s position.

Are you still a Catholic if you openly disagree with the Catechism?

It seems to me that the topic preys on certain weeknesses in people. If there is no other way to keep a person from killing other people (for instance) then death penalty is a valid and just option. The law has to be eye for an eye, really, the goodness in Catholicism is that it wants to give the criminal time (excess time) in order than they may convert. That is perfected law, that is, law with aditional love and seems to be widely interpreted as “the law is not allowed to kill because killing is wrong”.

Prison sentances could be argued the same way the death penalty is. For instance, it would be wrong to take someone out of their will and lock them in a cage for life. Which it is, but not with criminals.

 

[dudleysharp]

Someone brought up a very good point to me. The church is against it because it takes away the chance for that convict to turn away from evil and embrace Jesus. God wants to give his gift to everyone and if we kill that person before they have a chance to get right with God so to speak, we mess with their possible salvation.

It is not a good point, just as it is a very poor one in the CCC, as with

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a very poorly written section.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in any context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does death by car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (7)

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

 

[dudleysharp]

1. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI ): " . . if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004, www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
2. Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).
3. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000: “No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.” "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9).

“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.” "The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. "

"The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.

"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. "

When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41).

“The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3

1. Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52
2. Pope Innocent I" "It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Romans 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495

 

[Andrew1980]

I believe the Death Penalty is clearly wrong. I’m not sure how people can justify it.

Its clearly not a deterrant, its not economical, what good comes from it??? It seems to me that it is merely bent on revenge under the name of justice. God will ensure justice, but we need to pray for mercy for us and for the worst of sinners.

Lets take the example of our great saints.

St Stephen, who was martyr #1, prayed for his killers and thank God his prayers were answered as God converted Saul!

Mary, Our Mother, who watched her only son aka God get crucified for our sins.

Additional Examples: St Jude and Simon, St Goretti, pretty much all the martyrs pray for their killers. They don’t wish them dead. St Therese (not a martyr)

Many, many more saints have shown us the example of Christ! Mercy and Forgiveness. I can’t imagine what I would be in for come judgment day if I had some of our posters as my judge… I’m worried enough and I have Christ who has an ocean of mercy waiting for me.