Do you support the death penalty?

[dudleysharp]

No, I restated the well known teachings of the Church for 2000 years and wonder how the CCC could make such obvious error.

What I stated was clearly and obviously true.

If you know a Church teaching or a Bishop thst says God does not give us the opportunity to repent before we die, I think we would all like to hear about it.

 

[dudleysharp]

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

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same from the OT.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.

Some lesser New Testament scholars

Saint Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: “if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die.” Acts 25:11.

St. Augustine: “The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.” The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states,” The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that ” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

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.

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1. 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
   cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2. “Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
3. “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
4. This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
   “Death Penalty and Deterrence”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent–confirmed–seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

None of the above.

I think I cover most those cases you mentioned, with reviews, below. They weren’t innocent.

Did you fact check any of those cases or did you just download them from the DPIC site?

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are a legendary part of their strategy.

1. “The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
2. Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx
3. “At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx
4. “Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown”, A Collection of Articles
   homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

I never thought that, implied that or stated it. You simply and completely misread what I said.

I could not have been more clear.

 

[jwinch2]

The Church teaches that the death penalty is permissible in rare circumstances where there would otherwise be danger to society if the offender is left alive. I take this also to mean criminals who are in jail who are a legitimate danger to fellow inmates, prison guards, staff, etc. I think in situations such as those, the case for ending life would fall in line with Church position.

Having said all of that, I would like to see much stricter rules on use of the Death penalty. First would be what I mentioned above. Second would be standards of evidence which would require DNA or other physical forensic evidence of similar validity and reliability. Finally, I would like to see all death penalty cases be automatically reviewed by a three judge panel to ensure that they met the above criteria.

I believe that following these guidelines would probably lead to about a 65% decrease in district attorneys seeking the death penalty and another 65% reduction in juries/judges awarding that sentence for cases where the death penalty is sought. Following that, I believe a significant number of the ones who made it through both of those steps would be overturned by the panel of judicial review that I suggested above. Overall, if people would A - follow church teaching, B - use stricter standards of evidence, and C - have a standardized review process I believe that we would prevent about 95% of death penalty situations while still allowing for its use in rare or extreme circumstances.

Anyway, that is where I currently stand on the subject.

 

[Darran]

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.

It’s important to remember that Justice isn’t just if it falls short of persecuting people, the same way it isn’t just if it persecutes innocents. The scale has to be equal, otherwise it isn’t justice.

God is Just, he sends people to Hell where they deserve, the same way He sends to Purgatory and Heaven.

Anyone who murders, according to Justice, is liable to be put to death. The Catholic teaching as I said, is even more perfect than eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, it extends itself by having a love for the accused even if they’re unrepentant, but it can’t go any step softer as then it would fail to be just. That is why the Catechism says what it says.

 

[Zooey]

The direct taking of a human life – innocent or guilty – is wrong; there is no case for doing so to “teach” someone or to set an example. Only God, the author of all life, has the authority to take a life.
However, just as a person can defend himself from an unjust aggressor, even to the point of lethal force, the Church teaches that a society can sometimes use lethal force on an aggressor (the criminal) if there is no alternative such as secure incarceration.

I am against the death penalty because our society is perfectly capable of providing secure incarceration.

I agree with this.

My reason for opposing the death penalty is, that I am only too aware of what I myslef am capable of, in the depths of my heart, & I fear for anyone who is involved in the legal taking of a life, lest it should loose even more evil upon us, when that barrier is breached.
What if we make a killer of the executioner, & it is the last thing needed to make it possible for him to murder? Are we not then responsible for the crime/s he may commit??

 

[Birdpreacher]

Murdering murderers makes about as much sense as raping rapists

I have a hard time believing that the ones convicted of murder are incapable of being peacefully detained in light of our technology and prison system. That is of course, we are in fact attempting to detain an X-man, say Magento, then I can see the DP being justified under teaching if CC.

I just cant come to terms with the idea of killing a person who will not be a danger to society because that was pretty much what happened to Jesus. Our entire religion is built around a guy who was innocent being put to death in order to please the a mob of people who believed that Jesus had it coming.

 

[Ender]

The position expressed in the catechism is a prudential opinion; it is not doctrine and we have no obligation to assent to it. As Cardinal Ratzinger himself said, Catholics may have a legitimate difference of opinion about capital punishment.

the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty.

In all of the arguments the bishops presented opposing capital punishment, one comment is strikingly missing: they never claimed it was immoral or that Catholics must oppose it.

First articulated in 1974, the bishops’ position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment.

Given that the first comment expressed by the Church (as opposed to a group of bishops) indicating opposition to capital punishment didn’t appear until 1995 I think it isn’t much of a stretch to say the bishops’ position and Church doctrine are not the same thing.

Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

I am concerned about what the Church teaches. I am not all that concerned about the opinions of a random collection of bishops, especially when their opinions are not supported by Church doctrine.

In this context, the bishops enter the debate about deterrence and retribution. They acknowledge that capital punishment certainly prevents the criminal from committing more crimes, yet question whether it prevents others from doing so.

Why would we consider significant the opinion of the bishops on a question best answered by social scientists? This is not a moral question and the bishops have no particular expertise in this area.

Similarly, concerning retribution, the bishops support the arguments against death as an appropriate form of punishment.

Such as what? The Church has recognized the justness of capital punishment throughout her entire history; are the bishops repudiating that position?

And so they affirm: "We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.

“We believe” is not the way doctrinal statements begin.

Ender

 

[yosupman]

There is no question the church lays out the principles to be followed when applying the death penalty. If a governement is able to render a criminal unable to harm anyone else using bloodless means, then the government is to use those non-lethel means.

So many people on this forum think they can disregard this teaching. Per Lumen Gentium 25, paragraph 10 of professio fide, and the Catechism, you must obey a teaching of the authentic magisterium on faith and morals with religious assent of intellect and will. That means you must accept the teaching as true and obey it. Although religious assent is different from assent of faith, it flows from it.

If you are a Catholic leader and sentance someone to death, you better cover your butt and talk to a moral theologian and work out your arguments.

 

[Ender]

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.

The opinion expressed in the catechism is not “the Church’s” position inasmuch as it is not doctrine. That has been a great source of confusion. The Church’s position has not changed despite what is in 2267.

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

We are not free to disagree with doctrine. The reason we are free to disagree with section 2267 is that it is in fact not doctrine but prudential opinion. Cardinal Dulles was quite clear on this and explicitly called that teaching prudential.

Ender

 

[yosupman]

The opinion expressed in the catechism is not “the Church’s” position inasmuch as it is not doctrine. That has been a great source of confusion. The Church’s position has not changed despite what is in 2267.

We are not free to disagree with doctrine. The reason we are free to disagree with section 2267 is that it is in fact not doctrine but prudential opinion. Cardinal Dulles was quite clear on this and explicitly called that teaching prudential.

Ender

Ender, Professio Fide paragraph 10 explains what assent you are do give to a teaching on faith and morals that has not been infallibly set forth by the solemn or ordinary magisterium. The teaching is not merely prudential. It is an authentic teaching on faith and morals. The burden is on you to explain how we are not to obey this teaching. You just dismiss this teaching. The church would not teach this, and the popes would not keep repeating it, if it was not an authentic teaching that the church is setting forth.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Such as what? The Church has recognized the justness of capital punishment throughout her entire history; are the bishops repudiating that position?
Ender

THe Church recognized it as a necessity of the times. Today with MAx security Prisons we dont need the DP.

Heck, Pope Paul VI abolished DP in VAtican City in 1969. Obviously the Chruch has qualms about killing people, even if that person happens to kill the Pope.

I know some people may think, well if the DP was good enough for Jesus, then its good enough for me. But hey, Even JP II called for the worldwide abolition of the DP citing it as
“cruel and unnecessary” when he addressed the first ever world congress on the DP.

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html
But this is just an opinion of a guy currently being beatified, so take it as you will

 

[jwinch2]

I have a hard time believing that the ones convicted of murder are incapable of being peacefully detained in light of our technology and prison system.

You should spend some time in max security prisons or least watch Lock Up or similar documentary TV shows. There is no way to completely prevent violence. At some point, a staff member must come into contact with a prisoner and prisoners are likely to come into contact with each other. Prisoners repeatedly prove that they are capable of producing weapons despite major attempts to prevent this.

I have several friends what work as corrections officers in varying levels of prison and I have participated in the instruction of many others in knife defense and other combatives. The level of ingenuity and creativity that prisoners put into designing weapons and pulling off violence is incredible and scary.

 

[Birdpreacher]

You should spend some time in max security prisons or least watch Lock Up or similar documentary TV shows. There is no way to completely prevent violence. At some point, a staff member must come into contact with a prisoner and prisoners are likely to come into contact with each other. Prisoners repeatedly prove that they are capable of producing weapons despite major attempts to prevent this.

I have several friends what work as corrections officers in varying levels of prison and I have participated in the instruction of many others in knife defense and other combatives. The level of ingenuity and creativity that prisoners put into designing weapons and pulling off violence is incredible and scary.

YOu should see how much money states are willing to spend on prisons. Just because Peaceful Detention is hard, doenst mean we dont have a duty to do it.

 

[Ender]

There is no question the church lays out the principles to be followed when applying the death penalty. If a governement is able to render a criminal unable to harm anyone else using bloodless means, then the government is to use those non-lethel means.

The great flaw with this position is that it bases the use of capital punishment on a secondary objective of punishment and ignores the primary objective. We are not justified in executing someone simply to obtain security. We are, however, justified in executing a person if it is a just punishment for his crime, and the Church has always recognized that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder.

So many people on this forum think they can disregard this teaching. Per Lumen Gentium 25, paragraph 10 of professio fide, and the Catechism, you must obey a teaching of the authentic magisterium on faith and morals with religious assent of intellect and will. That means you must accept the teaching as true and obey it.

This is true of doctrine. It is not true of opinions, even those of bishops.

If you are a Catholic leader and sentance someone to death, you better cover your butt and talk to a moral theologian and work out your arguments.

I would start with Cardinal Ratzinger, go to Cardinal Dulles, and then (believe it or not) call on the USCCB. Dulles called 2267 prudential, Ratzinger said we may legitimately disagree, and the USCCB has said nothing stronger than “we offer neither judgment nor condemnation” for those who disagree on this subject. I’m really not all that concerned.

Ender

 

[Birdpreacher]

We are, however, justified in executing a person if it is a just punishment for his crime, and the Church has always recognized that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder.
Ender

HMMM…That must have slipped by JP II’s mind when he called for worldwide abolition of the DP.
vatican.va/roman_curia/se…enalty_en.html

Also must have slipped by Pope Paul VI when he abolished the DP in Vatican City.

Why wouldnt these guys want to use it?

 

[jwinch2]

YOu should see how much money states are willing to spend on prisons. Just because Peaceful Detention is hard, doenst mean we dont have a duty to do it.

I know how much money is spent on detention. I agree completely that peaceful detention is the proper and preferred way to go. I disagree however with the false premise that it is completely possible to eliminate violence against innocents in prisons. It isn’t. All one needs to do is look at the number of violent assaults and murders on staff or fellow prisoners in SuperMax prisons. At some point, and there is no avoiding this, a staff member will have to come into close proximity and/or physical contact with a prisoner. Those situations will always be opportunities for violence.

US Government Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 31st Edition - US Department of Justice

-33,000 inmate on staff assaults per year
-90 assaults per day, 3.7 per hour
-A Correctional Officer will be seriously assaulted at least twice in a 20 year career

As for the rest, my views on the death penalty are perfectly in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I outlined earlier in my original post in this thread. I am entirely in support of peaceful detention. However, there will always be some people who cannot be contained peacefully within the law. The law does not allow the treatment of violent offenders in such a way that one can totally eliminate contact between them and staff members, and/or with other prisoners. Those violent offenders who wish to, will continue to represent a legitimate danger to innocent people.

 

[yosupman]

I would assume you could justify putting someone like Osama Bind Laden to death, because there is no where you could safely keep him without a towel head comming for him.

 

[surritter]

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.

What!? The Church teaches that the primary objective of capital punishment is retribution? Where did our Founder preach that? If you’re gonna say “the Church teaches…” be prepared to give a source from the Catechisim or other authoritative document.

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.

I guess you’re right about this one. The definition of the death penalty is to directly end a human life.
This creates an interesting situation… The Church says that we can never directly do something intrinsically wrong, even if it is to bring about a good end. And yet the Church teaches that sometimes it is permissible to directly kill a human being, even when there is no immediate threat from him or her (the convict is securely locked up and under the watchful eye of the warden, executioner, witness, and even TV cameras). Therefore, we must conclude that it is not intrinsically wrong to end a human life, even when self-defense is not an issue.