Do you support the death penalty?

[rmiller]

Hi miller,

You have taken the Church’s teachings out of context, and this is incorrect. The Church only permits it when there is no other means possible. Today, we have the means to incarcerate criminals, therefore, the Church teaches it is morally evil to use Capital punishment.

Capital Punishment

2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ’today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]

Murder rates in Canada have been declining since capital punishment was abolished, whereas in those parts of USA where it is ongoing, have increased, and I will post below:

Murder Rates in Canada

The removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s. In 2006, the national murder rate in Canada was 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population, compared to the mid-1970s when it was around 3.0.

The total number of murders in Canada in 2006 was 605, 58 fewer than in 2005.
Murder rates in Canada are generally about a third of those in the United States

U.S. stats illustrate that those States that implement capital punishment have a higher rate of police deaths and crime has escalated instead of declining.

The deterrence argument

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: “. . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)

cuadp.org/news/BN-20051110.htm

The case for any state exercising its awesome power to kill ought to be airtight. It is not.
The most damning argument against capital punishment as a deterrent is that states with the death penalty generally have higher rates of murder than states without the death penalty. In 2003, for example, the murder rate in the 12 states without the death penalty was 4.1 for every 100,000 people. In the 38 states with the death penalty, the murder rate was 5.91 - 44 percent higher.

Even among death penalty states, those that carry out executions the most tend to have the highest murder rates.

Texas, with the nation’s busiest death chamber, had a murder rate in 2004 of 6.1 per 100,000 people, according to FBI statistics. Alabama, with the nation’s sixth-highest death penalty rate, recorded a murder rate of 5.6 in 2004. California, which has the nation’s largest Death Row, had an even higher murder rate of 6.7 in 2004. And Louisiana, which has carried out the 10th-highest number of executions since 1976, had the nation’s highest murder rate among all states last year at 12.7 per 100,000 people.

Conversely, Massachusetts, a state without the death penalty, had a 2004 murder rate of just 2.6. Oregon, a death penalty state that rarely uses it - only twice since 1976 - had a murder rate of only 2.5, tied for eighth lowest.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I just covered this point in a response to surriter. This is why the Catechism of Trent said that the “just use” of capital punishment was an act of “paramount obedience”. No one has suggested that capital punishment cannot be used unjustly or that the Church would accept such acts as valid. You claimed that many innocent people have been executed in the United States. I asked you to document a claim I consider to be outlandish. I’ve looked at some of the anti-death penalty web sites and it is clear from what they themselves post that your claim is wildly inaccurate.

Ender

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you are writing about here.

 

[rmiller]

I never said that the Church does not allow the death penalty. I said the Church seems to be against it. I based this on what I have read and heard coming from theVatican. In fact it was that reason I was confused about being on a jury in a capital case. This discussion has cleared a lot for me but I still believe we should follow our laws as long as they don’t conflict with our Church laws.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It’s Numbers 35:31

Exactly.
It is part of the Jewish Covenant.
Our Lord gave us a New Covenant.
He taught LOVE, FORGIVENESS, and MERCY.
Those who set the OLD Covenant above the NEW Covenant, are, like Jews, the Rejectors of Christ, hence antiChrist.

While you think of the killing of murderers as “PUNISHMENT”, you are crying VENGEANCE.
Even the Jews say: " ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE’, SAITH THE LORD".

Punishment is only valid as correction.
The ‘punishment’ of DEATH cannot correct, as there is no living being to come out of it.

On the other hand, if the killer is judged to be beyond correction, then, as that one can no longer be trusted to freedom, the suffering of permanent incarceration may be judged to be a greater offence that a meriful end.

You do not punish a rabid dog. You hate the disease, but understand the dog, too is suffering, and it is mercy to stop the suffering.

 

[LittleSoldier]

What is certain is that some small (~ 3) percent of killers will kill again. What is uncertain is that an innocent person will be executed. If we are concerned solely with saving innocent lives then it is clear that opposing capital punishment is the wrong position.

Prove that "some small percentage…will kill again. You won’t be able to prove it. It is not certain that any percentage of killers will kill again. Although you don’t provide a source (not really a good habit in a debate), if you are using research you should be aware that all scientific research depends on a level of probability, which changes from study to study but is always present. In every scientific study there is a possibility that the obtained results are due to chance. Always. It is never certain that killers will kill again. Yet you claim that it is uncertain that an innocent person will be executed. We already know that one has been and you claimed that it has never happened (sorry, but you did, regardless of how you have justified your statement to another poster). Your statement was and is absolutely wrong and I hope you know it. There is no way your statement can be correct unless you also claim that Jesus was guilty. And you know He was innocent, as we all know. The martyrs were also all innocent. If this is not a misuse of the God-given power to the State, I don’t know what is. So I’m going to repeat that because God has given power to the State to execute (for whatever reason) it has been shown historically that this power has been abused. Church teaching may very well be taking the ideal into consideration but the ideal may never have been reached in any trial in history. Ever.

I’d also like to point out that making statements that claim future events will definitely happen is not appropriate. Are you claiming to be psychic or a soothsayer or a prophet or omniscient? If not, how do you really know what will happen tomorrow?

It is not certain that an innocent person will be executed. It is not certain that killers will kill again. To claim that it is certain is to misuse statistics and experimental methodology and to ignore scientific method. I can claim things using statistics, too. But I will only do so properly. I believe that your belief that errors occur in a very small (I think it is less than 1 percent?) is astronomically wrong. I am requesting that you back this up by documentation. I’'m not saying you can’t believe this. But I don’t understand how you have come to this belief and so I am asking for the documentation. Thank you.

There are between 40 and 60 murders committed each year in the US by recidivist killers. Even accepting the worst case scenario presented by anti-death penalty groups there would be about one innocent person executed every five years. That’s a ratio of about 250:1. That is, to save the life of one innocent person from being wrongfully executed we have to sacrifice the lives of 250 others to murderers given a second bite at the apple. If protection of the public was really all that important we would be executing more killers, not fewer.

First of all I am again requesting backup documentation to support your assertions, in the form of a link or other citation. Thank you. And I cover this in my next response, just below.

We have a choice to make. Option A results in the death of one innocent person. Option B results in the death of 250. Option A is not ideal but it is surely preferable to Option B.
We don’t have a right to knowingly execute an innocent person and no one has claimed otherwise but it is unclear why action that results in one innocent death is preferable to inaction that results in 250.

I believe it is Church teaching that we may never commit an evil act, even if the ends are good. I’ll try to find it in the CCC. The ends do not justify evil means. Every action we take must be good. We are not allowed to sin, especially a sin as grave as murder, even if it were being done to save the lives of more people. Option A is NOT preferable. I think you’d better think about this one for awhile. You are trying to justify murder here.

Her doctrines are timeless. Her prudential recommendations on the application of those teachings may very well reflect the times and I think that is exactly the case here. Her prudential recommendation with regard to capital punishment is that it should not be used. Her doctrine, however, is that it may be used as a form of retributive justice

.

Aren’t you the person who said that doctrine changes and I said it doesn’t and you disagreed with me? Now you’re saying doctrine doesn’t change? Why are you changing your argument?

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

I don’t think you appreciate the irony in that statement. It is *because *we are created in God’s image that the life of a murderer is forfeit. What you cite as the reason to oppose capital punishment is the reason God gave for commanding it.

I thought you said the reason was retributive justice. Are you now claiming that its because we are created in God’s image? In that case absolutely every murderer is to be executed, even if he is profoundly mentally retarded or a child or is psychotic and does not understand that what he did was wrong. There can be no exceptions. Even you claim there are factors, although you refuse to discuss or even define them or even list them. We’ve been over this before. We’ve been over Peter’s vision which gave him authority to eat foods which were previously denied to him. We’ve been over what Jesus said about “an eye for an eye.” Jesus CHANGED something - not the law as He stated He was fulfilling it. Doesn’t the OT state that an eye must be forfeit if an eye is taken and a tooth must be forfeit if a tooth is taken? Why is this no longer true? Because Jesus changed it. He did not change Truth. He changed discipline. Truth remains truth, doctrine is unchanging, but something obviously changed and it was God that sent that vision to Peter. Our understanding of God’s law, natural law, and doctrine develops over time and that is why (IMHO) the Catechism of Trent does not even mention stem cell research (or if it does I can’t find it). Does that mean that stem cell research based on adult stem cells was accepted by the Church for about 2,000 years? I don’t think it was.

And if you are going to argue that your belief is based on doctrine because it is in the Catechism of Trent, I should be able to claim the same about the current CCC. Both the Catechism of Trent and the current CCC have a *Nihil Obstat *and an *Imprimatur. *Nothing either of them states goes against Church teaching. Does what they teach change? I don’t think so. I believe that what they teach meshes and if we have a problem understanding what is going on it is our responsibility to find out why we don’t understand. We still MUST accept the teachings of the Magisterium.

What are you implying here? What effect does our forgiveness have on determining the just punishment for a crime? Take the case Elvis Guy just cited and assume that the victim’s family forgave the perpetrator. How should the state have punished him for his crime? Does the family’s forgiveness lessen his debt?

Ender

I’m not implying anything. I am saying that we are supposed to forgive people. Jesus said to do so. It is in the bible in numerous places. It is in the Lord’s Prayer (and I’d like to add that the prayer specifically states: “Forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us”). If we do not forgive we will not be forgiven. Forgiveness is such an integral and important part of the Catholic faith and I think we will agree that the Catholic Church is the church founded by God. I can’t make it any more clear than that. If you don’t understand this I can’t help you.

Did you see my response to Elvis Guy’s post? Please read it, especially the last part. I stand by what I posted there and I will not change my mind even if I am pressured to do so. Thank you.

 

[surritter]

What is certain is that some small (~ 3) percent of killers will kill again. What is uncertain is that an innocent person will be executed. If we are concerned solely with saving innocent lives then it is clear that opposing capital punishment is the wrong position.

This seems pretty flimsy. We should be talking about the objective moral theology of capital punishment. Now you are basing your reasoning on a wager of what percentage of people may be impacted? Plus, where does this 3% come from? Is it not possible that 3% of death row inmates are innocent?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Exactly.
It is part of the Jewish Covenant.
Our Lord gave us a New Covenant.
He taught LOVE, FORGIVENESS, and MERCY.
Those who set the OLD Covenant above the NEW Covenant, are, like Jews, the Rejectors of Christ, hence antiChrist.

While you think of the killing of murderers as “PUNISHMENT”, you are crying VENGEANCE.
Even the Jews say: " ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE’, SAITH THE LORD".

Punishment is only valid as correction.
The ‘punishment’ of DEATH cannot correct, as there is no living being to come out of it.

On the other hand, if the killer is judged to be beyond correction, then, as that one can no longer be trusted to freedom, the suffering of permanent incarceration may be judged to be a greater offence that a meriful end.

You do not punish a rabid dog. You hate the disease, but understand the dog, too is suffering, and it is mercy to stop the suffering.

I don’t always agree with everything you write but I want you to know that your posts are great. They make me think. What you write is simple and provocative at the same time. I greatly appreciate your contributions to this thread and I think I’m learning to be more charitable because of the way you write.

Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Quote by CEM5:
“If there was no other bloodless means to protect society, then the death penalty can be used. However, since we have the sufficient bloodless means to protect society by incarceration for life, then the State does not have the “right” to utilize this.”

There is a society within a prison that needs to be protected. My husband while working in a maximum security prison was attacked. We worried for a year that he had contracted HIV.

Recently in a maximum security prison where we live, a female guard was killed.

How many fellow prisoners are the victims of murder from the hands of other inmates.

There are some individuals who are so violent that even the society within a prison cannot be adequately protected.

I agree, although I think and hope that in the future technology will have developed that will ensure that the innocent who work in prisons are protected.

In cases where the innocent cannot be protected (as in your husband’s experience and I’m really sorry that happened) the death penalty is justified. That is the Church’s position. She does not teach that the death penalty can never be used.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Addendum to post #504:

Here is the CCC teaching I was referring to:

A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
[CCC 1753]

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
[CCC 1754]

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
[CCC 1755]

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
[CCC 1756]

 

[LittleSoldier]

Amen Bro, you rock.

I take my example from the Little FLower, St. Therese. Her first miracle was an answer to the prayer for the conversion of a convicted murder. He converted by kissing a crucifix right before he was hung. She didn’t waste her time praying for an end to the death penalty in France.

How do you know that St. Therese did not pray for an end to the death penalty in France? How would you come across this information? With all due respect, I’m sure you are not privy to her entire life, including her thoughts and prayers. You might think it would be a waste of her time to pray for the end to the death penalty in France. She might have thought it was a moral, good use of her time and for all you know she spent an hour praying for it every single night.

The last time our state had an execution, our priest asked the congregation to pray for a commuting of his sentence. I did not. But I did offer up a prayer for his conversion. He had been on death row for nearly 20 years after kidnapping, torturing and raping for 3 days, and finally stabbing to death a young woman. It wasn’t a heartfelt prayer , but I made myself do it because I knew it was the right thing.

Again, with all due respect, a prayer that is not heartfelt is not a prayer. If you really knew it was the right thing why didn’t you put your heart into it? I find your attitude as described here very, very sad.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It certainly does not take away the chance to turn to Christ. The average time on death row is over 10 years. They also get the opportunity to repent at the very hour of their death. If they are going to have a conversion, it will have happened. There is no surpise death, they know they’re going to be facing God in the next moment.

Does the Church teach that if someone has not turned to God within ten years (or so) then there is no chance it will ever happen? If so, there are a lot of people who may spend eternity in hell because they missed that ten-year (or so) deadline by a day. Perhaps the Church should make this “teaching” known to everyone: You have ten years (or so) to turn to God; if you don’t turn to God within ten years (or so) you never will. If you’re ever going to turn to God ten years (or so) is enough time to do it in."

 

[surritter]

How do you know that St. Therese did not pray for an end to the death penalty in France? How would you come across this information? With all due respect, I’m sure you are not privy to her entire life, including her thoughts and prayers. You might think it would be a waste of her time to pray for the end to the death penalty in France. She might have thought it was a moral, good use of her time and for all you know she spent an hour praying for it every single night.

I thought the same thing, LS. It’s pretty laughable to picture St. Therese pumping her fist saying, “Yeah, the death penalty! Retribution!”
So in her defense: To pray for the conversion of someone whose fate is beyond our control is not the same as endorsing said fate.

 

[Ender]

This seems pretty flimsy. We should be talking about the objective moral theology of capital punishment. Now you are basing your reasoning on a wager of what percentage of people may be impacted?

No. I was commenting on one specific point and that was the claim that we should not execute anyone because of the possibility that one person may be innocent. Keep my comments in the context in which they are made.

Plus, where does this 3% come from?

That was a rough estimate; those figures are not easy to find. This 2004 report from the state of Washington shows a 4% recidivism rate for released murderers who are rearrested on the same charge.

sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf

This 1994 BJS study showed a 1.2% recidivism rate.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

There are of course other factors that I cannot determine such as whether 1st degree murderers are released or only 2cd and 3rd degree felons. In any event, the point was to show that there is no alternative that provides perfect security therefore if the claim is made that we shouldn’t execute anyone because we might execute one innocent person then it is appropriate to point out that more innocents will die because murderers are not executed.

Is it not possible that 3% of death row inmates are innocent?

No, not even close. In 2003, 144 people were sentenced to death.

trib.com/news/national/article_6b72c30e-7d2a-55bf-9fcb-02256a624abd.html

A 3% wrongful guilt rate would mean about 5 innocent people a year are sentenced to death. Since there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system has significantly changed over the last few decades one could reasonably assume that since 1976 when capital punishment was again declared legal in the US. Over that 35 year period we would have seen dozens and dozens of people wrongfully executed … but we haven’t.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

A 3% wrongful guilt rate would mean about 5 innocent people a year are sentenced to death. Since there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system has significantly changed over the last few decades one could reasonably assume that since 1976 when capital punishment was again declared legal in the US. Over that 35 year period we would have seen dozens and dozens of people wrongfully executed … but we haven’t.

Ender

You and I don’t know if dozens and dozens of people were wrongfully executed. You and I have no way of determining if anyone has been wrongfully executed (with the exception of Jesus and the martyrs). Just because “we” (whatever that means) do not have proof that people have been wrongfully executed does not mean that people have not been wrongfully executed. Are you claiming to have some sort of special knowledge here?

 

[Ender]

While you think of the killing of murderers as “PUNISHMENT”, you are crying VENGEANCE.

I think you misunderstand the nature of vengeance.*

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 (Rm 13:1-4).* (Pope Saint Innocent I)

Even the Jews say: " ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE’, SAITH THE LORD".

Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which* is the legitimate avenger of crime** …* (Catechism of Trent)

And thus* that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers** when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment.*(Thomas Aquinas)

Punishment is only valid as correction.

I don’t know what you mean by “correction” but the Church teaches that punishment has four objectives and the primary one is redressing the disorder caused by the sin; that is, retributive justice.

The ‘punishment’ of DEATH cannot correct, as there is no living being to come out of it.

*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)

You have some strongly held opinions on capital punishment but they aren’t based on anything the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You and I don’t know if dozens and dozens of people were wrongfully executed. You and I have no way of determining if anyone has been wrongfully executed. Just because “we” (whatever that means) do not have proof that people have been wrongfully executed does not mean that people have not been wrongfully executed. Are you claiming to have some sort of special knowledge here?

I claim to be able to look things up on the Internet and make logical assumptions. Go to the web sites for the major anti-death penalty groups and see what they claim. If they aren’t claiming that dozens and dozens of people have been wrongfully executed then I think we can be reasonably sure that it hasn’t happened.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

You have some strongly held opinions on capital punishment but they aren’t based on anything the Church teaches.

Ender

Perhaps that is because the poster is not Catholic?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I claim to be able to look things up on the Internet and make logical assumptions. Go to the web sites for the major anti-death penalty groups and see what they claim. If they aren’t claiming that dozens and dozens of people have been wrongfully executed then I think we can be reasonably sure that it hasn’t happened.

Ender

So you are then claiming that because anti-death penalty groups (at least the major ones) don’t make the claim that you must be correct? Or actually that hard to pin down “we” must be correct? Or at least reasonably sure?

Do you believe everything that the anti-death penalty groups (the major ones) claim? Do you believe the members are trustworthy? Even though you disagree with what they want? Do you believe that the members are proficient in genetic research and DNA evidence to the point that they must be credible? I don’t.

I don’t care if every anti-death penalty group in the entire world can’t prove that one person (with the exception of Jesus and the martyrs) has been executed wrongly. They don’t know, I don’t know, and you don’t know unless you can read the minds of the dead or are omniscient. You don’t know. You don’t know. With all respect and charity, you can claim to know until the cows come home but honestly you really don’t know. And until science, technology, and the economy improve nobody will really know, with the exception of the executed and God and perhaps those in heaven. When there is enough money available to hone DNA evidence procedures so that they can be used as legal proof (and even then there is a small chance that the obtained results are due to chance), then we (those of us living on earth) will know, or at least be reasonably certain. Not until then. Until then we can guess and you can say that your claim is reasonable but it really isn’t - not when it is about people’s lives and all that those lives entails.

If you accept that Jesus was innocent then you know that at least one person in history has been executed wrongly, even though the State had that God-given authority you have mentioned. If you accept that the martyrs were murdered then you accept that they were executed wrongly, even though the State had the God-given authority you have mentioned.

One person is one person too many. I didn’t even bring up the fact that the person executed was God. The fact that he was a man is enough to prove that my claim that at least one innocent person has been executed is true. The fact that he was and is God makes His execution even more horrible although also glorious and an absolutely amazing act of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

 

[CEM5]

This is incorrect. The Church does not teach that capital punishment is morally evil unless it is needed for protection. She has always taught that capital punishment could be justly used as a matter of retributive justice. She may prefer that it not be used today but that is not the same as condemning its use as evil.

Ender

Hi Ender,

No, I have posted what the Church and the Pope has taught. I will highlight some portions:

Evangelium Vitae
Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life

His Holiness Pope John Paul II
March 25, 1995

*To the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, Lay Faithful, and All People of Good Will *

CHAPTER III
“YOU SHALL NOT KILL”
(GOD’S HOLY LAW)

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter** there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.** The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.[46] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.[47]

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not 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 non-existent**.

Here is the catechism on the death penalty:

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.

This Magisterial statement does not say that authority “may” limit itself on the death penalty when non-lethal means are available, it says that authority WILL LIMIT ITSELF.

Blessings,
CEM