Do you support the death penalty?

[surritter]

I’m sure I want to use the Church as the guide and it is the Church that points to Gen 9:6, not me. With all the focus given to CCC 2267 it seems that most people are unaware of CCC 2260. I am curious to know how you would satisfy both of those sections. (Nor is 2260 the only reference to Gen 9:6. That is the passage the Church has always referred to as the basis for her position on capital punishment - along with Rm 13:1-4.) I am, though, struck by your implication that there is something wrong with using the Old Testament as a moral guide. The Church certainly has no such reservations.

This reply is also meant for DudleySharp…

Ah, but my implication is that we cannot merely use the Old Testament as a moral guide. To read 2260 and its footnote as a stand-alone statement fails to consider that it is meant to set up the historical presentation of this particular moral dilemma. The classic example is the “eye for an eye…” (yes, I know that does not prescribe an eye for an eye, but merely limits the penalty to not exceed the original damage). However, after quoting this, Jesus said, “But I tell you…”

Therefore, should we follow the Old Testament, or should we follow what Jesus said? (Certainly the state has the right and the duty to corral offenders and protect society from them, but the OT and its fulfillment in the NT would say that as a Christian society we are obligated to temper rehabilitation with mercy where possible.)

But back to paragraphs 2260 and 2267. It indeed makes a cross-reference to Gen. 9:6. But please read that in context: It is establishing the historical witness of the respect for human life. We must read on to see how the Church then guides that historical perspective into our application of God’s laws as Catholics. Suppose we read what 2267 actually says: “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 with the dignity of the human person…”

If retribution were the primary objective of punishment, surely the Catechism would not make that statement! Instead, it would instruct a society to fulfill the objective of retribution, and then treat the dignity of the offender as a secondary consideration.

So – as has been stated numerous times in this thread – the death penalty seems to have no place in our society today. If we wanted to, we could most assuredly provide a sufficient means to “defend and protect” people from the aggressor.

 

[Ahimsa]

The State does not execute murderers to “show that murder is wrong.” Rather, the State conducts the execution to prevent the murderer from doing more harm.

As if the State can predict such things, with divine omniscience.

 

[dudleysharp]

FOOTNOTES

1. Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
   homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
2. a) “Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European
countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

" . . . in October 2003, John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’ "

b) “Hell in the heart of paradise”
“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”
4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543

c) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims
UPDATE: “New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot”
foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/new-evidence-suggests-radical-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-overlooked-key-player-11/

d) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

e) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

f) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_tdQrE5B6tvgSYXBtfmfMOLEwwD9CACTHG0

g) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11/30/authorities-sex-offender-pulls-gun-on-texas-guards-during-prison-transfer-search-ongoing-17934/

h) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
policeone.com/corrections/articles/120563-Officials-embarrassed-by-Texas-death-row-inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

i) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if it cared to look. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in factual contradiction to that within EV and 2267.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m for it, if a case comes up where an obvious sociopath who has killed many times before, and will obviously kill again, whether incarcerated or not (prison doesn’t stop him murdering other inmates) and society has no way to protect society from harm of that person, then they have forfeited there right to life.

The Church is actually for the death penalty :

Please forgive me as I have not had time to read this entire thread.

I just want to point out that the statement “The Church is actually *for *the death penalty” (italics added for emphasis) is not true. The Church agrees that the death penalty *may *be appropriate and necessary in certain cases (and that is when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way). That does not mean the Church is in favor of the death penalty. I believe you have quoted the entire section of the CCC regarding this (thank you!). A careful reading of the part you have quoted which appears past the part regarding having recourse to the death penalty will show that although the Church does not teach that the death penalty is *never *appropriate, she does teach that the death penalty should be used only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way.

We have the means to keep people in prison for the rest of their lives. The innocent can be protected (at least in “modern” society) without use of the death penalty.

When a person is executed her chances for redemption may be ended. I use the phrase “may be” because the Church teaches that we do not know what happens at the point of death. However, It is possible that there are people in prison, on death row, who would bring thousands of people to the true faith if they were allowed to continue living. There is no telling what good a person who is executed could have done if she had been allowed to live.

I also submit that it is not our place to decide when a person should die. We don’t have the right to slaughter the unborn. We don’t have the right to commit suicide. We don’t have the right to participate in euthenasia.

And we don’t have the right to kill people even if they have been found guilty of a crime by a jury of their supposed peers. Add in the mistakes that go on during trials and the advances in DNA analysis and we find out that innocent people have been sitting on death row for years, sometimes decades.

How many have already been executed? We already know that one innocent man was crucified - the most holy, perfect man ever to exist. God Himself.

 

[LittleSoldier]

FOOTNOTES

1. Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
   homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

i) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if it cared to look. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in factual contradiction to that within EV and 2267.

I had to delete most of your post due to space constraints. Thank you for the first link. I would like to quote a line from the beginning of the article:

“Pope John Paul II’s death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.”

Were they? Are we supposed to deny the authority of the Magisterium? I was and am still under the strong impression that we are to submit to the authority of the Magisterium.

As for the cases cited, I agree there is a problem. But what is the solution? To increase executions? Or to change laws so that there is no chance that a properly convicted murderer will ever be released from custody?

I believe the second solution is more appropriate and more in line with Church teaching.

If you wish I will research and post case histories of people who were found to be actually innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted; crimes such as murder and rape. And I would also like to quote Peter Kreeft:

“Thus the Church’s prudence judges that capital punishment, though it remains a public right if necessary, is not right under today’s conditions. These conditions also include unequal justice for rich and poor. It is obviously unjust to kill one man and not another because only one can afford a good lawyer or because of any kind of racial prejudice.”

[Kreeft, Peter J., *Catholic Christianity, Ignatius Press, 2001, p.230; Nihil obstat: Rev. Milton T. Walsh, S.T.D.; Imprimatur: Most Rev. William J. Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco]

 

[LittleSoldier]

This reply is also meant for DudleySharp…

Ah, but my implication is that we cannot merely use the Old Testament as a moral guide. To read 2260 and its footnote as a stand-alone statement fails to consider that it is meant to set up the historical presentation of this particular moral dilemma. The classic example is the “eye for an eye…” (yes, I know that does not prescribe an eye for an eye, but merely limits the penalty to not exceed the original damage). However, after quoting this, Jesus said, “But I tell you…”

Therefore, should we follow the Old Testament, or should we follow what Jesus said? (Certainly the state has the right and the duty to corral offenders and protect society from them, but the OT and its fulfillment in the NT would say that as a Christian society we are obligated to temper rehabilitation with mercy where possible.)

But back to paragraphs 2260 and 2267. It indeed makes a cross-reference to Gen. 9:6. But please read that in context: It is establishing the historical witness of the respect for human life. We must read on to see how the Church then guides that historical perspective into our application of God’s laws as Catholics. Suppose we read what 2267 actually says: “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 with the dignity of the human person…”

If retribution were the primary objective of punishment, surely the Catechism would not make that statement! Instead, it would instruct a society to fulfill the objective of retribution, and then treat the dignity of the offender as a secondary consideration.

So – as has been stated numerous times in this thread – the death penalty seems to have no place in our society today. If we wanted to, we could most assuredly provide a sufficient means to “defend and protect” people from the aggressor.

Well said!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I suspect it is true that Gaycie, unlike a lot of others, could be safely imprisoned without risk to other prisoners, guards, or society at large. He is also a serial killer who committed appalling crimes. Why are we so concerned about protecting ourselves and so indifferent about applying the punishment appropriate to his crimes? I doubt that most people even know how many people he killed. Worse, it doesn’t even matter. Five? Ten? Twenty? What difference does it make? We’ll just lock him up to protect ourselves from him and all be happy … all, perhaps, except for those like myself who believe that the punishment needs to be commensurate with the severity of the crime, and that prison alone does not rise to that level.

Ender

Human beings are not good judges. We don’t know the degree of culpability. We can’t see into a person’s soul. We don’t know every single bit of a person’s life. We don’t know if a murderer was horribly abused as a child or had a happy childhood. We don’t know if there is some sort of physical glitch in his brain. We don’t know so many things; millions, billions of the little actions and beliefs and absolutely everything that a person has experienced and been during his life. There is only one who does and that is God.

So why do we believe that we can appropriately decide that a person should be executed?

Justice and punishment will always be applied by God. God, by definition, is just, loving, and merciful. He is also omniscient. The punishment applied by God is always totally and perfectly commensurate with the severity of the crime. We all die and we all stand before God. There will be judgment for all of us. Nobody escapes God’s justice and that is how it should be.

You may be correct that prison does not “rise to that level.” But it really is the most we should do. It just is not our place to kill a human being who has been created with a soul by a loving God and is precious to Him. Killing that human being may result in his damnation for eternity and those who kill him will be judged for their actions just as he will be judged.

 

[PeterGStanley]

No - its against our faith to take another’s life regardless of the circumstances in this case.

 

[JerrySeibert]

Exactly, if the threat of capital punishment gives someone the reason to believe, great. Take for instance involuntary manslaughter, killing by accident. Or even murder in cold blood. I refuse to believe that person has no hope of salvation. If not, why do we have confession? Yes even some of the worst murderers are given the hope of repentance. Sadam Hussein…YES…if he repented and felt remorse for his sins. Why would he not be allowed into Heaven? He did horrible crimes but if he repented…did not Jesus teach us the joy in Heaven when one sinner repents…
Maybe I am being foolish but I have seen so many people turn from sin and have seen the joy in them. The joy in one turning from sin is a sight to behold. So I cannot believe one cannot repent even if on their death bed or death row.
Peace

 

[PeterGStanley]

Exactly, if the threat of capital punishment gives someone the reason to believe, great. Take for instance involuntary manslaughter, killing by accident. Or even murder in cold blood. I refuse to believe that person has no hope of salvation. If not, why do we have confession? Yes even some of the worst murderers are given the hope of repentance. Sadam Hussein…YES…if he repented and felt remorse for his sins. Why would he not be allowed into Heaven? He did horrible crimes but if he repented…did not Jesus teach us the joy in Heaven when one sinner repents…
Maybe I am being foolish but I have seen so many people turn from sin and have seen the joy in them. The joy in one turning from sin is a sight to behold. So I cannot believe one cannot repent even if on their death bed or death row.
Peace

Hmmm to think that all Clifford Olson the Canadian Child Killer who is dying just has to repent and hes forgiven really bothers me!

 

[surritter]

Hmmm to think that all Clifford Olson the Canadian Child Killer who is dying just has to repent and hes forgiven really bothers me!

Sure, it also bothered the laborers in the vineyard from last Sunday’s Gospel reading! But our God is a merciful and generous God. See Matthew 20:1-16.

 

[Ender]

To read 2260 and its footnote as a stand-alone statement fails to consider that it is meant to set up the historical presentation of this particular moral dilemma.

If there is anything being read as a stand-alone statement it is 2267 as there is absolutely nothing in the entire 2000 year history of Church teaching to support it (other than Evangelium Vitae - the two were written at the same time). On the other hand, 2260 simply cites the same passage the Church has referred to before, notably in the Catechism of Trent which was the Church’s primary catechism for over 400 years.

Therefore, should we follow the Old Testament, or should we follow what Jesus said?

We should follow the Church’s interpretation of scripture and not provide our own … and the Church does not share your interpretation.

But back to paragraphs 2260 and 2267. It indeed makes a cross-reference to Gen. 9:6. But please read that in context: It is establishing the historical witness of the respect for human life.

The “context” here is that the phrase identifying the source of the sanctity of life - man is made in the image of God - is given as the reason why the life of the murderer is forfeit.

Suppose we read what 2267 actually says: “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 with the dignity of the human person…” If retribution were the primary objective of punishment, surely the Catechism would not make that statement!

That’s a problem you’ll find difficult to deal with, since the primary objective really is retribution. What else could it be? *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *Protection and deterrence are directed at preventing new crimes but don’t address the effects of past crimes. Rehabilitation could conceivably be interpreted to mean the redress of the personal disorder of the individual but again it can have no impact whatever on redressing the disorder done to society. The criminal incurs a debt by his crimes and that is a debt that can only be paid by his punishment, that is, retribution.

Instead, it would instruct a society to fulfill the objective of retribution, and then treat the dignity of the offender as a secondary consideration.

Other than saying that the dignity of the crimnal is diminished, how would one actually argue that point? The Church always has supported the right of states to use capital punishment - are we saying now that, even though it is an affront to human dignity, we may still execute someone to keep ourselves safe? This is a very thin argument.

So – as has been stated numerous times in this thread – the death penalty seems to have no place in our society today. If we wanted to, we could most assuredly provide a sufficient means to “defend and protect” people from the aggressor.

As to whether protection is better afforded with more or fewer executions is not a moral question for theologians to answer but is a question of fact which we would turn to researchers to answer and it can hardly be considered a question of doctrine.

Ender

 

[surritter]

If there is anything being read as a stand-alone statement it is 2267 as there is absolutely nothing in the entire 2000 year history of Church teaching to support it (other than Evangelium Vitae - the two were written at the same time). On the other hand, 2260 simply cites the same passage the Church has referred to before, notably in the Catechism of Trent which was the Church’s primary catechism for over 400 years.

We should follow the Church’s interpretation of scripture and not provide our own … and the Church does not share your interpretation.

The “context” here is that the phrase identifying the source of the sanctity of life - man is made in the image of dGod - is given as the reason why the life of the murderer is forfeit.

Well, we’re officially going in circles now. I questioned your use of Genesis 9:6 as the basis for how we should enact punishment, and you agree that Genesis 9:6 is the basis and history for the sanctity of life, but that we should place greater emphasis in 2267… which is what I wrote!
You claim that the Church does not share my interpretation. How so? I was merely reading 2267, which IS the Church’s interpretation of the matter at hand. Here are the words again: The state shall “limit itself to such means [non-lethal means of containment, if they are adequate for others’ safety], as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”
Retribution is to be an element of punishment, but frankly it seems that the Church doesn’t agree with your interpretation that retribution comes first, and the perpetrator’s intrinsic human dignity comes second. The only variable in the doctrinal statement I quoted is the degree to which the criminal can be contained by non-lethal means.

That’s a problem you’ll find difficult to deal with, since the primary objective really is retribution. What else could it be? *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *Protection and deterrence are directed at preventing new crimes but don’t address the effects of past crimes. Rehabilitation could conceivably be interpreted to mean the redress of the personal disorder of the individual but again it can have no impact whatever on redressing the disorder done to society. The criminal incurs a debt by his crimes and that is a debt that can only be paid by his punishment, that is, retribution.

As for retribution being the primary objective, I have answered that in several posts, yet you keep asking what else it could be. The Catechism tells us that the primary objective of punishment is to redress of the disorder caused by the crime. You see it as only retribution. You lump all other responses into “protection” and “deterrence.” However, read post #85. There is a reparative aspect of punishment that is still a redress of a past event, but a little different from retribution… unless you wish to broaden your use of the word retribution to mean “redress” in all its forms. (I know you were on the road, so feel free to keep this point going if you need to refer to notes.)

Other than saying that the dignity of the crimnal is diminished, how would one actually argue that point? The Church always has supported the right of states to use capital punishment - are we saying now that, even though it is an affront to human dignity, we may still execute someone to keep ourselves safe? This is a very thin argument.

Why is it thin to say that the Church supports the right of a state to use capital punishment… under certain conditions? Look at personal self-defense in the midst of a crime such as attempted murder; a person has the right to impart lethal force on the perpetrator. This is certainly an affront to the perp’s intrinsic human dignity, yet the lethal force is moral, according to our Church, because of the necessity of self-defense. Why does it bother you to extrapolate this personal scenario to a wider scope of a society?

So yes, the Church has always said that states have the right to use capital punishment, but it would have acknowledged all along that the criminal still has dignity simply by being a person. Do you claim that the Church in the past thought that the criminal lost all human dignity by performing a crime?

As to whether protection is better afforded with more or fewer executions is not a moral question for theologians to answer but is a question of fact which we would turn to researchers to answer and it can hardly be considered a question of doctrine.

I agree on this one. We are discussing the doctrinal points, and the capability of a state to protect its citizens is the actual variable that determines whether the death penalty gets used.

 

[whitecrayon]

also relevant to this thread is the fact that by supporting the death penalty, catholics may come under attack by those of the political far left (of which i am a member, although i do not attack anyone for their beliefs). i once heard a liberal in america say: “the christians: they love all life, until it’s born!”

 

[Hadrianus]

As #2267 of the CCC demonstrates the Catholic position is nuanced. The fact that the Church does not exclude the death penalty, is itself a demonstration that the Church considers it to be a just penalty at least in certain cases. Furthermore a glance at 2000 years worth of catholic theologians will show that the unanimous consensus is that the death penalty is just in principle. This is because the legitimate authority of the state derives from God,

On the other hand, such an extreme penalty must be used with great prudence, and when other proportionate means are available, as they are in most modern western countries, they are generally to be preferred. The latter part of #2267 is prudential and as such not imposing an absolute; but the general trend in Catholic thought over the past 50 years has been towards a reduction in the employment of the death penalty when other methods may suffice.

Thus individual catholics remain free to decide for themselves, but in the present order of Western society the Church has a preference for other nonlethal forms of punishment.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I suspect it is true that Gaycie, unlike a lot of others, could be safely imprisoned without risk to other prisoners, guards, or society at large. He is also a serial killer who committed appalling crimes. Why are we so concerned about protecting ourselves and so indifferent about applying the punishment appropriate to his crimes? I doubt that most people even know how many people he killed. Worse, it doesn’t even matter. Five? Ten? Twenty? What difference does it make? We’ll just lock him up to protect ourselves from him and all be happy … all, perhaps, except for those like myself who believe that the punishment needs to be commensurate with the severity of the crime, and that prison alone does not rise to that level.

Ender

Please forgive me for responding to this post twice but I have been thinking and there is something I would like to add to my previous response.

Protecting ourselves from a convicted murderer does not mean that “all will be happy” (with the exception of those who feel as you do). The murder victims’ loved ones will probably not ever be happy about what has happened. They won’t be happy if the murderer is executed. They won’t be happy if the murderer is kept in prison, even the starkest prison, for the rest of his life. Neither of those actions will accomplish what they believe will make them happy - their loved one will still be dead and will not be coming home.

The best that execution may do is provide some means of closure (which may also be provided by the knowledge that the murderer is locked away for life with no chance of parole) and slake a person’s thirst for vengeance. Closure is good. Wanting vengeance is not.

We all need to follow Jesus’ teaching. We are supposed to forgive. Always. Forgiveness is the only way (IMHO) to provide permanent closure and regain happiness after the brutal loss of a loved one through murder.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’ve asked myself this quite a few times and it’s really because there will always be a possibility that a prison can’t contain such a person. There’s also the possibility of corruption within the justice system as well as the bad mix it makes when it tries to find legal loopholes.

I would change “possibility of corruption” to “probability of corruption” (actually I have no doubt that such corruption exists although I admit I have nothing to back me up except for my father who used to say “It’s the nature of the beast.”)

However, don’t you think that corruption works both ways? There are so many abuses. I’ve read about many trials and often one of the jurors will say “If I had known about I wouldn’t have found him guilty! (or not guilty!)” My sister was a member of a jury in a gang-rape case. One juror didn’t like the (alleged) victim. The alleged rape took place in a bar. This juror didn’t think that any decent woman should be in a bar for any reason and therefore she voted for acquittal on the grounds that “if she was in a bar she deserved what she got.” She would not back down. That trial ended with a hung jury - 11 votes for guilty and 1 for acquittal.

With all the appeals, deals being drawn, potential jurors being dismissed because they don’t believe in the death penalty or for other reasons which result in a jury which is not a “jury of one’s peers,” statements made by attorneys with an objection raised by the opposing attorney and with that objection sustained by the judge (and the jurors are told to disregard the statement - it is highly improbable that such statements can be disregarded; they are going to be there in the jurors’ minds, even if just at an unconscious level), poor people being unable to afford a decent attorney, rich people buying a “dream team,” the loopholes you mentioned, the list goes on and on.

With such a corrupted system I have the feeling that true justice is rarely achieved in any US trial. Our justice system, including our penal system, is a mess.

 

[Ender]

On the other hand, such an extreme penalty must be used with great prudence, and when other proportionate means are available, as they are in most modern western countries, they are generally to be preferred.

Overall I agree with your post, but I do question the comment you made above. I contend that other proportionate means are not available and that the only proportionate punishment for some crimes (viz. murder) is death. That really is a point that is not even addressed. If, as you rightly point out, execution is a just punishment, how can a lesser punishment also be just? Either the lesser punishment is too lenient or the greater one too harsh, but since you recognize the greater one to be just, what does that make the lesser one?

Ender

 

[Ender]

We don’t know the degree of culpability. We can’t see into a person’s soul. We don’t know every single bit of a person’s life. We don’t know if a murderer was horribly abused as a child or had a happy childhood. …So why do we believe that we can appropriately decide that a person should be executed?

It is ironic that capital punishment is opposed on the grounds that it is not in keeping with human dignity when the greatest violation of human dignity is to not hold someone accountable for his actions.

16 … In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.

You may be correct that prison does not “rise to that level.” But it really is the most we should do. It just is not our place to kill a human being who has been created with a soul by a loving God and is precious to Him.

It is our place if the Church grants it - and she has always acknowledged the right of States to execute criminals.

Killing that human being may result in his damnation for eternity …

No. No one is damned because of the actions of others.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Hmmm to think that all Clifford Olson the Canadian Child Killer who is dying just has to repent and hes forgiven really bothers me!

That Olson may repent and be forgiven does not mean that his sin has been expiated or that he will escape punishment.

At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (JPII, General Audience, 1999)

Ender