Do you support the death penalty?

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Um, I don’t think what I posted had anything to do with what you have written in response. But I don’t think the greatest violation of human dignity is to “not hold someone accountable for his actions.” The greatest violation of human dignity, IMO, is to not allow him to live in the first place.

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

Yes, the Church grants it - but has made it clear that it is to be used only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way. And you still seem to be intent on ignoring the fact that we, as fallible, non-omniscient human beings, cannot look into a person’s heart and soul, examine it with love and judge appropriately. Only God can do that. Of course we are responsible for our own sins and the responsibility for our sins cannot be transferred. But the Church speaks of culpability and mercy. There *are *factors which we cannot see no matter how hard and how long we look and those factors influence one’s culpability.

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

It certainly is one’s own actions that cause one to be damned but if someone sticks an IV into a person’s arm and sends him chemicals that will quickly take away his chance for atonement that now-dead person may find himself heading to an eternity of utter misery; what a shame to cut short someone’s life when it might have taken just another day for him to realize that what he did was so wrong and to ask God for forgiveness. This is one reason why capital punishment is so wrong.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Retribution is the demand of justice and justice does not oblige us to visit the criminal with the same crime he committed but to apply a punishment of commensurate severity. At least, that’s what the Church teaches.
No, the retribution must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, not the values of a particular society.

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Aquinas)
We execute people who murder because that is the only punishment with a severity commensurate with the crime … and because God said that we should.

Ender

Are you saying that every convicted murderer should be put to death? **How can you be so sure that a person who is convicted of murder is truly 100 percent guilty of that crime? **And actually your stated reason for why “we execute people who murder” is not always true. Murderers are executed for revenge, for political reasons, because they are poor, because they are of a particular ethnic background, and I’m sure the love of money gets in there, too.

I question why you say “God said that we should.” That’s not the impression I get when I read the words of Jesus, such as “turn the other cheek” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” The Church teaches that we “can.” That is not the same as we “should.”

 

[LittleSoldier]

The cruelty of the crime does not excuse cruelty in punishment. Mere revenge is not the objective.

The Law, even in correcting and punishing, aims at the good of men. (Clement of Alexandria)

• • For Gregory says (Moral. xx, 5): “Let there be love, but not that which enervates, let there be severity, but without fury, let there be zeal without unseemly savagery*, let there be piety without undue clemency.”

• Wherefore, properly speaking, brutality or savagery applies to those who in inflicting punishment have not in view a default of the person punished, but merely the pleasure they derive from a man’s torture.
• *Remission of punishment is not a vice, except it disregard the order of justice, which requires a man to be punished on account of his offense, and which cruelty exceeds. *(Aquinas)

“But penalties must be applied.” I don’t deny it, I don’t forbid it; only let it be done in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming. (Augustine)

Ender

For some reason I am feeling very ill right now, thinking of how human beings taking the life of another human being, based on a decision reached by fallible, sinning human beings in the form of a jury, during a trial which quite possibly included perjury, lack of decent legal counsel, bribery, statements made purposely to influence the jury (although unethical), racism, and a myriad of other factors, being “done in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of -]reforming/-]” (I think we can throw that last one out because it’s quite difficult for a dead person to reform.

 

[GaryTaylor]

All well spoken my brother.

You know maybe instead of posters quoting sola scriptura verse and relating it the DP from centurys past, how about appealing to LOGIC, RATIONAL and here’s a new concept …REASON:shrug:

I would just add one comment. I also believe as you, that conversion is possible “if” we don’t immediately destroy the human. Maybe the next day as you so stated, maybe the next year, maybe never. Yet it does leave the possibility for certain.

Also lets look at this from another angle since the “Ultimate Punishment” seems to be of such concern for those who scream “justice”.

Let me ask, which is the greater punishment of the most wicked. To kill them immediately or for them to sit alone in a cell for 20, 30, 40, 50 years??? Think before you answer.

Death is not difficult in fact its a short-cut for the weak and those with no-faith. Whats difficult is living, and facing your mistakes daily and confronting your guilt before God instead of suppressing it. Death is not difficult. Living is. So then what is it? The novelty of watching a man die, or knowing he was killed. I fail to see the logic, and “justice” is a horrrible defense of this logic. For under the word justice are many of the same feelings the killer acted off of. And those wouldn’t be Love, Compassion or Forgiveness.

Geez, killers are actually volunteering for DP now. Why do you suppose this is so? Because they believe they deserve it? I think not.

There was another Death Row killer here in CT a few years back. Michael Ross, created a situation by insisting on being put to death. And they granted his wish. However the part that wasn’t told of the story is how he actually lived in prison. He was truly feeling the pain. For he was a serial rapist killer and with young girls/women at that. Well in prison they rolled him around in a actual cage surrounded by guards at all times. Why? Because even the criminals didn’t want him around. But he didn’t recieve the DP, shocking isn’t it. No he went back to court to have the DP imposed on him and won the case. Fact is he chose death over being treated as he was by his peers.

So what was the most severe punishment? To kill him immediatly and end his daily suffering? Or to allow him to survive the jungle for 10, 20, 30 years more?

So the “Ultimate Justice” falls on its face but again.

I fail to see how the DP can be defended by logic. Sola-Scrip. verse from Popes of past centurys is meaningless. If you are reduced to that, simply put. you have no arguement.

Anyway…

How is killing done in the spirit of Love? Since one chose St Augustines words then defend them. He was from the 4th century, and you assume the DP is what he was referring to? Certainly there is NO reform in death. So apparently this isn’t what he was talking about.

Peace

 

[Ender]

His position is that it certainly has to do with logic, but a logic demanded by retribution.

It is not my logic nor my argument. I have been citing what the Church has said on the subject.

Any deviation from this absolute requirement is deemed to be “prudential judgment.”

I’ve been pretty specific in my comments … and this doesn’t describe them.

This is based on portions of the Catechism and the Old Testament as well as Thomas Aquinas and others.

Actually it is based on portions of six catechisms, both Testaments, and the “others” include at least five popes, virtually all of the Early Fathers and the Church’s greatest thinkers including Augustine and Aquinas. In all, the Church had one position on capital punishment for nearly 2000 years and that’s what I’ve been citing.

(Although Aquinas is quoted as if he’s infallible, we are told that the Catechism is not an official teaching document that must be strictly agreed with… )

That you have to twist my comments so absurdly should indicate even to you that your comment is pretty wide of the mark. Of course the Catechism is an official teaching document. That, however, does not change the fact that section 2267 contains prudential opinion.

If I’m misrepresenting Ender, then his clarification will be forthcoming.

IF?!?!?

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is some further food for thought:

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

1. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”. Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”. Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”. The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”. The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

 

[lisahiku]

public opinon or not…I support the death penalty.

“sir, how can we bring your murdered son back by killing the perpretrator?”

reply…“you can’t, But you can be darn sure he won’t kill YOUR son!”

 

[Ender]

In other words “why” is outlawing the DP a problem? What do you propose would be the problem?

It is a question of justice. It seems that the entire focus on punishment has become practical: Does it protect us? Does it rehabilitate the felon? Does it deter others? That is: what good does it do; what benefit do we gain from its use? That’s the wrong way to view the problem and probably explains why the primary objective of punishment has been forgotten. No one sees any material benefit from retribution and the very concept has become questionable.

Justice obliges us to treat a person as he deserves, which includes reward for merit and punishment for crimes. That’s what retribution means: a person deserves the reward or punishment his actions have earned him. Outlawing capital punishment has two effects. First, it undermines the concept that punishment can be deserved. It starts with capital punishment being undeserved but it will inevitably lead to a distortion of our understanding of punishment itself, with our concept becoming ever more utilitarian.

Second, I believe it diminishes the value of life. The basis for the Church’s recognition of the validity of capital punishment has always been based on the value of human life and the recognition of the true heinousness of murder. To diminish the punishment for a crime is to diminish the perceived seriousness of that crime. If a murderer spends no more time in prison than a burglar, how much more serious could murder be? I think we see that attitude even here when a number of people speak of reserving capital punishment only for the worst of the worst, but surely not applying it to your run of the mill killer. They have already conceded that a typical murder is no big deal.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t think the greatest violation of human dignity is to “not hold someone accountable for his actions.” The greatest violation of human dignity, IMO, is to not allow him to live in the first place.

Yet the Church stated that not holding someone accountable for his actions is an affront to his dignity and has not claimed this is true of taking someone’s life.

Yes, the Church grants it - but has made it clear that it is to be used only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way.

I don’t concede this point.

And you still seem to be intent on ignoring the fact that we, as fallible, non-omniscient human beings, cannot look into a person’s heart and soul, examine it with love and judge appropriately.

We don’t need to judge the state of his soul; we only need to judge the nature of his act and decide if he should be held accountable for it.

But the Church speaks of culpability and mercy. There *are *factors which we cannot see no matter how hard and how long we look and those factors influence one’s culpability.

This is an argument against the State levying any punishment whatever as all judgment would suffer from the same restrictions. Unless you are calling for abolishing the court system, your argument in no way applies solely to capital punishment.

It certainly is one’s own actions that cause one to be damned but if someone sticks an IV into a person’s arm and sends him chemicals that will quickly take away his chance for atonement that now-dead person may find himself heading to an eternity of utter misery; what a shame to cut short someone’s life when it might have taken just another day for him to realize that what he did was so wrong and to ask God for forgiveness. This is one reason why capital punishment is so wrong.

So you disagree with Romano Amerio who explicitly rejected this argument? He served at Vatican II as one of the theological experts so I’m thinking his opinion is a significant one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that every convicted murderer should be put to death?

No, I am saying that while execution should be the rule but there are always exceptions to the rule.

**How can you be so sure that a person who is convicted of murder is truly 100 percent guilty of that crime? **And actually your stated reason for why “we execute people who murder” is not always true. Murderers are executed for revenge, for political reasons, because they are poor, because they are of a particular ethnic background, and I’m sure the love of money gets in there, too.

I generally avoid the practical arguments against capital punishment and stay with the moral aspects of its use. I don’t avoid them because I think they are too strong to refute but simply because I’m not that interested in that aspect and haven’t researched it much.

I question why you say “God said that we should.” That’s not the impression I get when I read the words of Jesus, such as “turn the other cheek” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” The Church teaches that we “can.” That is not the same as we “should.”

I say it because the Church said it, and nowhere have I ever found any comment connecting the admonition to turn the other cheek with capital punishment. This may be your perception but it is not one the Church shares.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I fail to see how the DP can be defended by logic. Sola-Scrip. verse from Popes of past centurys is meaningless. If you are reduced to that, simply put. you have no arguement.

I agree to this extent: if I cannot refer to the teaching of the Church I have no argument … but it requires you to throw out everything the Church has said on the subject for nearly the first 2000 years of her existence. On the other hand, what is the sense of believing in a Church where it is somehow justifiable to ignore everything she has said?

How is killing done in the spirit of Love?

This question is asked without a trace of irony despite coming right after the argument that we shouldn’t execute criminals because it’s too easy on them and we need to let them suffer for decades before they die.

Since one chose St Augustines words then defend them. He was from the 4th century, and you assume the DP is what he was referring to? Certainly there is NO reform in death. So apparently this isn’t what he was talking about.

If morality changed with time and place we might well disregard St. Augustine … but since it doesn’t, we can’t. Rather, we shouldn’t.

Ender

 

[yosupman]

Ender a magisterium unto himself. Ender quotes Cardinal Ratzinger, missusing what Ratzinger said to support his erroneous view. Ratzinger said we could have differing opinions on how to apply the death penalty. Ratzinger did not say we can reject church teaching on the death penalty, which is exactly what Ender does. Ender first says the teaching is an opinion, then rejects it. Ender does not understand the assent of intellect and will is due to church teaching on faith and morals even when the magisterium is not infallibly teaching said teaching. Ender is either confused, or truly oposing the church on a matter of authentic teaching.

Gary - dude it sounds like you think humanity is evolving. Our nature is not evolving. We are what we are. Humanity as a whole and especially the church and those truly part of the believing church are understanding the deposit of faith more and more each generation.

But we aint evolving any more (if it ever happened).

 

[surritter]

Ender, you obviously must think that Latin is the ONLY language allowed at Holy Mass. This is because the Church taught this for hundreds of years. In fact, Pope Pius V decreed in 1570: “We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it.” However, subsequent popes violated this official statement by allowing languages other than Latin.

Since you are ultra-legalistic in your interpretations of Church writings, and seem to deny that the Church can develop teachings, this example of Latin must certainly parallel the Church writings which mandated the death penalty.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yet the Church stated that not holding someone accountable for his actions is an affront to his dignity and has not claimed this is true of taking someone’s life.

So if the Church doesn’t specifically state something to be truth it’s perfectly acceptable to deny the possibility of it actually being truth?

I don’t concede this point.

I’m not surprised in the least. I’d be surprised if you conceded any points brought up by any person who is against the death penalty, even if he/she accepts its necessity when it is the only way to protect the innocent.

We don’t need to judge the state of his soul; we only need to judge the nature of his act and decide if he should be held accountable for it.

First of all we need to know if he actually committed the act. And that is where the problem starts. How do we know he really murdered someone? I’ve already mentioned several factors which can influence juries (which, if the defendant is wealthy and can hire a “dream team” will be oh, so carefully selected but if the defendant is poor and must rely on a publicly-appointed attorney will many times likely be a collection of hastily chosen people who either do not or cannot reach a verdict which is just). And deciding whether he should be accountable for it implies that we do look for factors influencing culpability.

This is an argument against the State levying any punishment whatever as all judgment would suffer from the same restrictions. Unless you are calling for abolishing the court system, your argument in no way applies solely to capital punishment.

My point is that the State is a poor substitute for God. Only God can administer perfect justice, show perfect mercy, and this is simply because He is perfect. What I am calling for is to improve the justice system as currently it is not fair to the accused or the alleged victim(s). But when it comes to ending a human being’s life it becomes even more important - once those chemicals enter the bloodstream or that lever is pulled it is too late.

I’m not saying that the State has no right to administer what it sees as justice. But we need to acknowledge that the State’s method of meting justice should keep improving as times change and as we come to understand Truth with greater clarity. The Church has stated that the death penalty can be used but she has added a condition: it must be the only way to protect the innocent. This addition shows a greater understanding of Truth; a more complete understanding of the sanctity of human life.

There are so many confounding factors that we, as human beings, cannot properly take into consideration. We can do the best we can. But I don’t think we do, especially when it comes to capital punishment. I think about O.J. Simpson and his “dream team.” I wonder how many people thought he was guilty of the murders for which he was indicted. And I wonder why he was acquitted. I wonder about the possibility that a person, poor, not a celebrity by any means, may be railroaded through a system which spits him out with the label “guilty of first-degree murder; death sentence.” Quick and very, very dirty.

And then I wonder why keeping a convicted murderer in prison for the rest of his life, with no possibility of parole, is not good enough for some.

So you disagree with Romano Amerio who explicitly rejected this argument? He served at Vatican II as one of the theological experts so I’m thinking his opinion is a significant one.

Ender

Yes, I guess I do. Is Romano Amerio infallible? Am I required to accept his opinion as official Church teaching? I follow the Magisterium’s teaching as stated in the CCC.

 

[lisahiku]

I support the death penalty. Main reason…these criminals can NOT function in society, They do NOT get rehabilitated. Heck, most of them are not even remorseful.

I keep thinking of the 4 cops that were gunned down in Lakewood Washington a couple years ago. MIke Huckabee had reduced the sentence of the gunman.

Look what happened.

Those 4 cops would not have lost their lives if the gunman had been executed back in Arkansas.

People should ask those cops’ remaining family if THEY support the death penalty.
I have a feeling which way they lean!

 

[RobbyS]

So if the Church doesn’t specifically state something to be truth it’s perfectly acceptable to deny the possibility of it actually being truth?

I’m not surprised in the least. I’d be surprised if you conceded any points brought up by any person who is against the death penalty, even if he/she accepts its necessity when it is the only way to protect the innocent.

First of all we need to know if he actually committed the act. And that is where the problem starts. How do we know he really murdered someone? I’ve already mentioned several factors which can influence juries (which, if the defendant is wealthy and can hire a “dream team” will be oh, so carefully selected but if the defendant is poor and must rely on a publicly-appointed attorney will many times likely be a collection of hastily chosen people who either do not or cannot reach a verdict which is just). And deciding whether he should be accountable for it implies that we do look for factors influencing culpability.

My point is that the State is a poor substitute for God. Only God can administer perfect justice, show perfect mercy, and this is simply because He is perfect. What I am calling for is to improve the justice system as currently it is not fair to the accused or the alleged victim(s). But when it comes to ending a human being’s life it becomes even more important - once those chemicals enter the bloodstream or that lever is pulled it is too late.

I’m not saying that the State has no right to administer what it sees as justice. But we need to acknowledge that the State’s method of meting justice should keep improving as times change and as we come to understand Truth with greater clarity. The Church has stated that the death penalty can be used but she has added a condition: it must be the only way to protect the innocent. This addition shows a greater understanding of Truth; a more complete understanding of the sanctity of human life.

There are so many confounding factors that we, as human beings, cannot properly take into consideration. We can do the best we can. But I don’t think we do, especially when it comes to capital punishment. I think about O.J. Simpson and his “dream team.” I wonder how many people thought he was guilty of the murders for which he was indicted. And I wonder why he was acquitted. I wonder about the possibility that a person, poor, not a celebrity by any means, may be railroaded through a system which spits him out with the label “guilty of first-degree murder; death sentence.” Quick and very, very dirty.

And then I wonder why keeping a convicted murderer in prison for the rest of his life, with no possibility of parole, is not good enough for some.

Yes, I guess I do. Is Romano Amerio infallible? Am I required to accept his opinion as official Church teaching? I follow the Magisterium’s teaching as stated in the CCC.

Our law is so arbitrary that “lifers” may be set free if his friends can find the right judge. Germany can eliminate the death oenalty because its judges do not have such arbitrary powers as American judges do. To free a killer because of some technical mistake on the part of prosecution is as bad as killing the murderer, if only because it allows him to take revenge if he so desires.

 

[Ender]

Ender quotes Cardinal Ratzinger, missusing what Ratzinger said to support his erroneous view. Ratzinger said we could have differing opinions on how to apply the death penalty. Ratzinger did not say we can reject church teaching on the death penalty

Ratzinger’s comment is bit ambiguous. Dulles’ comment is not: the teaching is prudential. As I said before, even the USCCB appears to recognize its prudential nature.

Ender does not understand the assent of intellect and will is due to church teaching on faith and morals even when the magisterium is not infallibly teaching said teaching. Ender is either confused, or truly oposing the church on a matter of authentic teaching.

Obedience owed infallible teaching. Obedience owed teaching of ordinary Magisterium. Obedience not owed prudential opinions. 2267 is prudential opinion. Ender not assent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Since you are ultra-legalistic in your interpretations of Church writings, and seem to deny that the Church can develop teachings, this example of Latin must certainly parallel the Church writings which mandated the death penalty.

When did it become ultra-legalistic to cite Church teaching? Is that how you dismiss 2000 years of traditional thought? Clearly doctrines can develop but the changes have to be a natural growth from what has gone before. This “growth” did not happen in the case of capital punishment since what is proclaimed now is a repudiation of what was taught before. What did this new doctrine grow from? Where are the citations to other doctrines on which this new one is based? There aren’t any. This is not development, it is invention.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So if the Church doesn’t specifically state something to be truth it’s perfectly acceptable to deny the possibility of it actually being truth?

If the Church doesn’t claim it to be true then you should be a bit more reticent about claiming it in her name.

First of all we need to know if he actually committed the act.

There are cases where guilt is known with absolute certainty. Do you support capital punishment in those cases? If not then drop this objection since it’s not relevant.

The Church has stated that the death penalty can be used but she has added a condition: it must be the only way to protect the innocent. This addition shows a greater understanding of Truth; a more complete understanding of the sanctity of human life.

I don’t accept that this represents a greater understanding of Truth. What happened to the concept of justice?

Yes, I guess I do. Is Romano Amerio infallible? Am I required to accept his opinion as official Church teaching? I follow the Magisterium’s teaching as stated in the CCC.

What has the Magisterium said on this point? I don’t believe there is anything to follow. It does seem that Amerio’s position is the most reasonable one. Do we really believe that person A can frustrate God’s plan for person B? What of the murder victim? Is he damned because his life was cut off before he righted his own ship? If it is unfair for the State to execute a criminal (after a decade or so) is it not even more unfair for God to allow disasters to snuff out lives without warning or even the possibility of repentance? God has granted the State the right to employ the death penalty. It seems a bit strained to claim that the State isn’t justified in doing what God allows.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Our law is so arbitrary that “lifers” may be set free if his friends can find the right judge. Germany can eliminate the death oenalty because its judges do not have such arbitrary powers as American judges do. To free a killer because of some technical mistake on the part of prosecution is as bad as killing the murderer, if only because it allows him to take revenge if he so desires.

It is arbitrary; I agree. It needs to be improved, desperately.