Do you support the death penalty?

[4gsd]

Sorry, but this doesn’t quite square with Catholic teaching. There is indeed a consistent ethic of life, but the Church clearly teaches that abortion and capital punishment are eons apart, though on the same spectrum. I’d be glad to quote official Church documents to this effect, if needed.

To one and all who clarified my earlier post, thank you. I do appreciate The Church’s consitent ethic of life teaching. Evidently, I carried it too far and stand corrected as to The official Church position on this issue.

 

[4gsd]

I love your point about believing you are sinning when you deny those opportunities to people. I think that’s true although although I hadn’t thought of it before. I agree. Certainly we are all called to follow Jesus and His teachings and one of those teachings is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I don’t see the death penalty as an act of love. I agree with the Church that it should be restricted to when there is no other way to protect the public - after all, allowing a murderer to go around and kill innocent people isn’t very loving to those innocent people. But executing - taking away the life (at least on earth) of a human being is not loving toward him.

For me, on a personal level, I can’t support the death penalty for the simple reason that it is administered by human beings who are not incapable of making mistakes. Also, in high profile cases, which death penalty cases usually are, those persons (prosecutors, investigators) are not above taking liberties for their own personal gain. Similarly, while its true that in the US we have a “Public Defender” system, I’m not confident that that always works. It seems to me that often there are economic issues at play that could/do affect the poor disproportionately. I’m not willing to take the chance that even one innocent person wrongly be put to death.

 

[LittleSoldier]

To one and all who clarified my earlier post, thank you. I do appreciate The Church’s consitent ethic of life teaching. Evidently, I carried it too far and stand corrected as to The official Church position on this issue.

You are very welcome and you are also very gracious. It’s rare to find someone who appreciates being told about true Church teaching. I always want to be told if I’m wrong and I’ve made some huge mistakes.

 

[Hadrianus]

First I would like to wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

Second, I read the following article this morning, liked it and would like to share it:

Catholics and Capital Punishment

"Catholic opponents of the death penalty sometimes seem to lose sight of the primary purpose of punishment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, ‘Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.’ If I commit a serious offense against society, I bring about a disorder, and the point of punishment is to reestablish the lost order. If I willingly accept my punishment, ‘it assumes the value of expiation.’ And it can protect you from future crimes I might commit. The Catechism thus gives three purposes of punishment: defending public order, protecting people, and moral change in the criminal.

"Paragraph 2267 reminds us that ‘the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty’ but then adds, ‘if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.’ This appears to make a secondary purpose of punishment override the primary. That appearance has led to some fuzzy thinking. The correct meaning must be that the primary aim of punishment can be achieved short of exacting the death penalty. A single means-say, life imprisonment-restores the order lost by the crime, protects society against future crimes of the incarcerated, and gives the prisoner a chance to repent.

"The paragraph should not be read as making the protection of society trump everything else. Why? Because imprisonment protects society against future possible crimes. But the criminal cannot be punished for what he might do; he is in prison because of what he has already done. If life imprisonment is to serve the primary purpose of punishment, it must, like the death penalty, be primarily justified as sufficiently ‘redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.’

"Paragraph 2267 is concerned exclusively with a secondary purpose of punishment: protecting society. Unless, as suggested, ‘protecting society’ be taken to comprehend ‘redressing the disorder.’ (Paragraph 2266 distinguishes ‘defending public order’ from “protecting people’s safety.”) One sometimes hears in the clamor to end the death penalty that retribution is no longer the aim of punishment. But if there is no cause for retribution, punishment is unjust: All that would excuse it is the fear that someone might in the future harm us and that solitude might better his soul.

"Enthusiasm sometimes obscures the fact that the Catechism ‘does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.’ However rare such recourse might be, even if it were only once in a millennium, it would have to be justified. The long and rich tradition of Catholic morality has made clear what that justification is. That doctrine is what would justify capital punishment, however rarely exacted. Which is why that doctrine must not be, however implicitly, trashed. We should not preen ourselves, as we join the somewhat motley parade of opponents of capital punishment, that we have advanced beyond our tradition to a higher plane of morality.

"Actually, the Holy Father’s campaign against having recourse to capital punishment is a corollary to his evaluation of dominant trends in modern culture. Ours, he has said, is a culture of death. We live in a country where, as Russ Hittinger puts it, the state whose primary purpose is to protect the lives of its citizens has farmed out the right to take innocent life to abortionists. Such a state loses the moral authority to exact the death penalty. It is not because we are so nice but because we live in such a bloody society that we might oppose having recourse to capital punishment.

"Neither should we invoke human dignity as if our free actions do not specify us morally. A murderer and an innocent babe are poles apart morally. To talk about capital crimes as if they do not touch the moral essence of the agent is to trivialize human behavior and adopt the outlook of most others who oppose the death penalty. They are against punishment as such. They will go on from capital punishment to campaign against life imprisonment-it is already happening in Europe. In the all-too-familiar modern twist, it is the one who exacts just punishment, not the criminal, who is condemned.

“Catholics must never forget how countercultural they are, even when they oppose the death penalty. Of course the liberal establishment opposes it but for essentially different reasons. They do not believe in moral responsibility. They do not believe in a life beyond this one. We should not even have words in common with the Gentiles, someone advised. That would be hard to do, but surely our thoughts have little in common with theirs.”

123helpme.com/view.asp?id=11178

A well written and thoughtful article which I think accurately reflects the Catholic moral tradition. From a Catholic perspective the application or not of the death penalty is largely conditioned by context and circumstances.

A given individual may adopt an absolute stance against the death penalty, but that is a personal view and must not be presented as Catholic doctrine.

 

[Ender]

"Catholic opponents of the death penalty sometimes seem to lose sight of the primary purpose of punishment.

This was a good way to start …

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, ‘Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.’ If I commit a serious offense against society, I bring about a disorder, and the point of punishment is to reestablish the lost order. If I willingly accept my punishment, ‘it assumes the value of expiation.’ And it can protect you from future crimes I might commit. The Catechism thus gives three purposes of punishment: defending public order, protecting people, and moral change in the criminal.

… but this is not a good way to finish. The three purposes identified here are all secondary: the primary purpose does not lie in satisfying any of these three objectives. None of them “redresses the disorder.”

"Paragraph 2267 reminds us that ‘the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty’ but then adds, ‘if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.’ This appears to make a secondary purpose of punishment override the primary. That appearance has led to some fuzzy thinking. The correct meaning must be that the primary aim of punishment can be achieved short of exacting the death penalty.

This is a reasonable conclusion to draw but it cannot be a correct one since imprisonment existed before Christianity and the Church never once suggested that sentencing to prison satisfied the demands of justice.

If life imprisonment is to serve the primary purpose of punishment, it must, like the death penalty, be primarily justified as sufficiently ‘redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.’

This we agree on. What we disagree on is whether in fact imprisonment “redresses the disorder.” There is nothing in Church history to suggest she has ever taken that position.

One sometimes hears in the clamor to end the death penalty that retribution is no longer the aim of punishment. But if there is no cause for retribution, punishment is unjust:…

Agreed again. This is the central issue - and note that the author omitted this objective above as one of the purposes of punishment when he here recognizes that it is retribution that justifies punishment.

"Actually, the Holy Father’s campaign against having recourse to capital punishment is a corollary to his evaluation of dominant trends in modern culture. Ours, he has said, is a culture of death. … Such a state loses the moral authority to exact the death penalty. It is not because we are so nice but because we live in such a bloody society that we might oppose having recourse to capital punishment.

Exactly. The morality of using capital punishment has not changed; it is only the advisability of using it in our modern state that has been challenged.

Ender

 

[MarysGirls]

I voted ‘Other’. I am generally against the death penalty today, but I guess when our jails weren’t as good as they are today, it may have been necessary in order to protect the people.

 

[Domer1997]

im undecided cause on 1 hand im for it but on the other im against it

I hope I can shed some light. I was blessed enough to study St. Augustine’s *City of God *very extensively in a Theo class at Notre Dame my sophomore year. This particularly interested me since I was a military cadet at the university. *City of God *presents St. Augustine’s Just War Theory. Yes, the death penalty is wrong because it deprives a human being the time needed to make right his ways and find Christ. However, also the death penalty is aggregiously wrong and sinful in the United States because our nation has the ability to keep social predators away from society. Let me digress…when we fight in a war for the protection of human life (WWII is a FANTASTIC example), life can be taken for the protection and sustainment of more human life. i.e. the aggressors’ lives in wartime can be taken to protect the whole of society. …very similar to self defense in a way. That is “just war”. It is easy to use this idea in parallel to the death penalty. When a society takes the life of a prisoner when that society has the ways and means to keep that criminal from hurting other people, and his life is taken anyway, that aggressor was killed out of vengence and not for the protection and sustainment of human life. That act of killing is mortally sinful. The “Just War” theory is nowhere in that scenario. In this situation, the death penalty causes mere humans to “play God”, that is determine who has the right to live. Obviously, this is not our decision in the least and extremely dangerous and evil. Now, let’s take a society in the third world that does not have the ways and means to keep criminals from hurting other people, then the taking of that criminal’s life may possibly be justified. However, this is never the case in the United States and a reason why we have to constantly vote in politicians who will uphold the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Unfortunately, finding a politician who is against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, and understands the needs of the poor is HARD to come by! Maybe I should run for President Or just support SOMEONE who is a strong WHOLE Catholic and not just a cafeteria Catholic…like an anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty Catholic. It amazes me how many Catholics are ignorant of true life teachings. So sad. But, nonetheless, I hope my dissertation on the death penalty helps others! I’m really glad I took that particular theo class. It helped immensely! I would recommend any Augustine writings, in particular, City of God. Pax Christi!

 

[Hadrianus]

Could you please cite a passage from Augustine in which he opposes the death penalty as conferred by the State as punishment for an individual crime? This idea stretches my credulity to the limit, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Just War theory.In the first place it would have required him to explain away a fair bit of Scripture and would have put him at odds with the Roman Civil Code at a time when the Empire was officially Christian.

There are many silly and dishonest charges which those who dissent from catholic teachings like to throw at the Church, but the death penalty is an example of something the Popes and theologians never in principle opposed. Indeed Popes and bishops when exercising temporal power signed death warrants. The Blessed Pius IX was the last to do so.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This was a good way to start …
… but this is not a good way to finish. The three purposes identified here are all secondary: the primary purpose does not lie in satisfying any of these three objectives. None of them “redresses the disorder.”

I’m just thinking out loud here but what about all three of the purposes joined together?

This is a reasonable conclusion to draw but it cannot be a correct one since imprisonment existed before Christianity and the Church never once suggested that sentencing to prison satisfied the demands of justice.

I’m not so sure about this. None of us are experts on Church history and I wonder if anyone quoted really is such an expert as to make this claim - again, just thinking out loud.

This we agree on. What we disagree on is whether in fact imprisonment “redresses the disorder.” There is nothing in Church history to suggest she has ever taken that position.

As above. Also, if a moral change in the prisoner is one of the purposes I find that executing said prisoner somewhat troubling as it may actually cut short the possibility of that happening.

Agreed again. This is the central issue - and note that the author omitted this objective above as one of the purposes of punishment when he here recognizes that it is retribution that justifies punishment.

In one case the word “aim” is used and in three cases the word used is “purpose.” To me the words are very similar. But I wonder if there is a difference in those words that I am not seeing…

Exactly. The morality of using capital punishment has not changed; it is only the advisability of using it in our modern state that has been challenged.

Ender

I do agree with the last statement made.

 

[billsnaer]

ABOUT ST. AUGUSTINE:
In “The City of God,” he wrote that it Ais in no way contrary to the commandment >thou shalt not kill= to put criminals to death according to law or the rule of rational justice.@

ABOUT PARAGRAPH 2267 IN THE 2nd EDITION OF THE “CATECHISM”:
It quotes and references Paragraph 56 of “Evangelium Vitae”:
“56. 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.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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.(48)”
The first two footnotes (shown in parentheses) refer to Paragraph 2266 of The Catholic Catechism, the third footnote refers to Paragraph 2267. Because Evangelium Vitae was published in March 1995, just one year after the first edition of the Catechism and two years before the second edition, it is the first edition that the encyclical quotes, the very same paragraph 2266 that accepts the death penalty for offenses of Aextreme gravity@.Two years later, the editors of the second edition of the Catechism quote Evangelium Vitae to support a more restrictive view of capital punishment.
The problem has enlarged one step further because of the interpretation many have placed on the concept of “bloodless means [being] sufficient to defend human lives against the aggressor…” This is being interpreted as defining only the threat posed by a specific convicted killer. If he is in a high security prison, he cannot kill anyone else, and human lives are adequately protected. Ergo, the death penalty is unjustified.
The alternative argument is that, in the absence of the death penalty, a rapist or kidnapper will face approximately the same penalty whether he kills the victim or not, but his chance of escaping capture and conviction increases if the victim is killed. This will not protect every victim from death, but for some it will be “sufficient to defend human lives against the aggressor.”
In the end, the question is whose life should pay for a vicious murder. Should it be that of the murderer in a present case, or that of a future innocent crime victim whose life would have been spared if the threat of the death penalty had been present.

 

[Ender]

Yes, the death penalty is wrong because it deprives a human being the time needed to make right his ways and find Christ.

If you are going to make a moral statement like this it would be more convincing if you could cite something the Church has said to support your position. In fact, your claim convicts the Church of supporting immorality for 2000 years because she has always acknowledged a State’s right to execute criminals. The point you raise here has been addressed by Aquinas, among others, and they reached the opposite conclusion:

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *(Summa Contra Gentiles)

However, also the death penalty is eggregiously wrong and sinful in the United States because our nation has the ability to keep social predators away from society.

I disagree with this assertion and since it is a matter of opinion it cannot possibly be a matter of doctrine.

It amazes me how many Catholics are ignorant of true life teachings.

Until you can demonstrate that you understand them it would be better not to judge the understanding others have.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

I hope I can shed some light. I was blessed enough to study St. Augustine’s *City of God *very extensively in a Theo class at Notre Dame my sophomore year. This particularly interested me since I was a military cadet at the university. *City of God *presents St. Augustine’s Just War Theory. Yes, the death penalty is wrong because it deprives a human being the time needed to make right his ways and find Christ. However, also the death penalty is aggregiously wrong and sinful in the United States because our nation has the ability to keep social predators away from society. Let me digress…when we fight in a war for the protection of human life (WWII is a FANTASTIC example), life can be taken for the protection and sustainment of more human life. i.e. the aggressors’ lives in wartime can be taken to protect the whole of society. …very similar to self defense in a way. That is “just war”. It is easy to use this idea in parallel to the death penalty. When a society takes the life of a prisoner when that society has the ways and means to keep that criminal from hurting other people, and his life is taken anyway, that aggressor was killed out of vengence and not for the protection and sustainment of human life. That act of killing is mortally sinful. The “Just War” theory is nowhere in that scenario. In this situation, the death penalty causes mere humans to “play God”, that is determine who has the right to live. Obviously, this is not our decision in the least and extremely dangerous and evil. Now, let’s take a society in the third world that does not have the ways and means to keep criminals from hurting other people, then the taking of that criminal’s life may possibly be justified. However, this is never the case in the United States and a reason why we have to constantly vote in politicians who will uphold the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Unfortunately, finding a politician who is against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, and understands the needs of the poor is HARD to come by! Maybe I should run for President Or just support SOMEONE who is a strong WHOLE Catholic and not just a cafeteria Catholic…like an anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty Catholic. It amazes me how many Catholics are ignorant of true life teachings. So sad. But, nonetheless, I hope my dissertation on the death penalty helps others! I’m really glad I took that particular theo class. It helped immensely! I would recommend any Augustine writings, in particular, City of God. Pax Christi!

With all due respect, St. Augustine is not the Magisterium. We are required to follow Church teaching and it is clear that the Church teaches that the death penalty can be appropriate when necessary to protect the innocent.

A Catholic who is anti-abortion CAN believe that the death penalty can be appropriately used. That does not make that Catholic a Cafeteria Catholic.

I noticed that you didn’t write “how many Catholics are ignorant of Church teaching” but “how many Catholics are ignorant of true-life teachings.” Do you believe “Church teaching” and “true-life teaching” are correlated 100 percent? Do you believe that the Magisterium clearly states that the death penalty cannot ever be used? If so, I hope you read the appropriate parts of the CCC.

As far as taking a person’s life being wrong “because it deprives a human being the time needed to make right his ways and find Christ” - certainly it may be true that executing a prisoner may take away his chance for making needed change, finding Christ, and atoning for his actions. But it may also be true that a prisoner who is executed has already made needed change, found Christ, and has made a full and truthful Confession to a priest and completed his penance. None of us knows the time we will be taken; not even those on death row. A person sentenced to die may drop dead of a heart attack five minutes after entering his cell on death row for the first time.

However, I believe that it is not our place, if the innocent can be protected, to take away any possible chance of a person making right his ways, finding Christ, perhaps becoming Catholic, and Confessing to a priest. I don’t believe the argument some people have put forward that those who are to be executed actually have a better chance of finding Christ and atoning because they know when they are going to die.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’ve been re-reading this thread and ran across this post. Thanks for the info and the links; I will certainly be reading about these people.

I also wonder how many people have been wrongfully executed before DNA analysis was available. It hasn’t been available or widely used for very long. I’m afraid that many innocent people have been executed, even with the supposed safeguards used during capital trials.

 

[billsnaer]

Is it not obvious that, without the death penalty, more rape victims and abducted children would be killed to improve the perpetrators’ chances of avoiding arrest?

The abolitionists have one good argument – the remote possibility that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because he was found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This problem could be resolved by changing the standard to “beyond any doubt.” Some murderers would then escape execution, but the lifesaving deterrence of the death penalty would be retained, and the fear of its unjust application would be removed.

In the end, it’s a trade-off. Whose life should pay for a vicious murder, the murderer’s, or that of an innocent victim like Jitka Vesel who would have been spared if the death penalty had not been abolished?

Vesel’s killer researched the status of the Illinois death penalty, to be sure he was not risking his own life, before he killed her. The story is at nbcchicago.com/news/local/119835589.html

 

[LittleSoldier]

Is it not obvious that, without the death penalty, more rape victims and abducted children would be killed to improve the perpetrators’ chances of avoiding arrest?

The abolitionists have one good argument – the remote possibility that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because he was found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This problem could be resolved by changing the standard to “beyond any doubt.” Some murderers would then escape execution, but the lifesaving deterrence of the death penalty would be retained, and the fear of its unjust application would be removed.

In the end, it’s a trade-off. Whose life should pay for a vicious murder, the murderer’s, or that of an innocent victim like Jitka Vesel who would have been spared if the death penalty had not been abolished?

Vesel’s killer researched the status of the Illinois death penalty, to be sure he was not risking his own life, before he killed her. The story is at nbcchicago.com/news/local/119835589.html

It’s customary in most modern societies to not hold people responsible for crimes they have not yet committed. It’s not a trade-off and nobody knows if Jitka Vesel would have been spared if the death penalty had not been abolished. To know so would require omniscience.

Also, there is absolutely no way for human beings to determine if a person is guilty “beyond any doubt.” How do you suggest juries determine this? There is always doubt because human beings are, once again, not omniscient. “Beyond any doubt” implies God-like knowledge. We don’t have that. And that is why the only perfect judge is God.

Church teaching, as reflected in the CCC, states that the death penalty is appropriate when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way. We have the means to keep the innocent protected and this is what we should be doing. We should also be working to eliminate the inequities apparent in trials (racism, poverty, unethical behavior by judges, attorneys, the press, and others).

 

[Ender]

It’s customary in most modern societies to not hold people responsible for crimes they have not yet committed.

This is of course true - which doesn’t change the fact that the Catechism supports the use of capital punishment if it is believed necessary to protect the public … from crimes not yet committed.

Church teaching, as reflected in the CCC, states that the death penalty is appropriate when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way.

Bingo. This means executing people not to punish them for crimes committed but to prevent crimes not yet committed. This is surely a perverse result of the reasoning in 2267.

We have the means to keep the innocent protected and this is what we should be doing.

This is quite debatable but it doesn’t change the fact that in theory a person can be executed to prevent him from committing a crime, which is precisely the concept you objected to.

Ender

 

[Holly3278]

No, I definitely do not support the death penalty. The only possible way that I can think of that the death penalty would be justified is if there is absolutely no other possible way of keeping society safe from the violent criminal. This is incredibly rare in today’s world.

 

[Ender]

No, I definitely do not support the death penalty. The only possible way that I can think of that the death penalty would be justified is if there is absolutely no other possible way of keeping society safe from the violent criminal. This is incredibly rare in today’s world.

So you too are in favor of executing a criminal based on the expectation that he might kill in the future rather than on the fact that he has killed in the past?

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is of course true - which doesn’t change the fact that the Catechism supports the use of capital punishment if it is believed necessary to protect the public … from crimes not yet committed.

I’m sorry but I don’t see your point here. I’m referring to punishment in the legal sense. We do not usually punish people for committing crimes they have not committed. Do we? I mean crimes that nobody has committed; crimes that don’t even exist. Do we put people in prison who have done nothing wrong? No, we don’t. Or - we shouldn’t. With what offenses would they be charged? And I do believe you added that little addendum to the CCC, did you not?

Bingo. This means executing people not to punish them for crimes committed but to prevent crimes not yet committed. This is surely a perverse result of the reasoning in 2267.

My position is not a perverse result and I do take great offense at your statement. It is an extremely rare occurrence when the public cannot be protected by keeping a person in prison for life. That has always been my position. I’m not concerned with punishment as I know that God is perfectly just. I’m not interested in debating the punishment of people who have committed crimes.

This is quite debatable but it doesn’t change the fact that in theory a person can be executed to prevent him from committing a crime, which is precisely the concept you objected to.

Ender

That is NOT the concept to which I have objected! The concept to which I object is charging, indicting, imprisoning and perhaps executing a person who has done nothing wrong (like Jesus?) AND executing a person when the public can be protected by keeping that person in prison for life without the possibility of parole. A person who has not committed a crime should not be subjected to punishment for that crime he never committed. However, if it is determined by a *fair *trial that a person *who has committed a crime *is a threat to the innocent (including those who work in the prison and his fellow inmates) he can be kept in prison without any possibility of parole (although he may be exonerated). If it is not possible to keep the innocent safe in any other way execution is appropriate. This has always been my position. I have absolutely no problem with the teachings of the Magisterium and if you read my posts you might see that I have consistently posted Church teaching - including the fact that execution may be appropriate. I am not a Cafeteria Catholic. I accept ALL the teachings of the Magisterium.

Right now it appears that you have introduced a straw man. Could we please get back on track?

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

Well do you?

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

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

I’m against the death penalty.

True, an innocent child is different than a serial killer; the child has no conscious crime, the serial killer does. Also, the serial killer is vastly different in his ability to repent and be reconciled for those crimes. Remember, in Romans 12:19, St. Paul reminds us to not take revenge, quoting: " ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ " What does that mean? That only God gets to kill people. So, where does it say that man gets to usurp God’s power and do as they please? Nowhere.

Not to mention, we, as people, are not perfect. We are prone to making mistakes, we have clouded judgement, emotions overcome us. That’s why life and death–judgement, in fact–is reserved for the Lord. Take the state of Illinois, for example: several years ago, the governor imposed a moratorium on executions. Why? Because it came to the attention of the state that numerous people had been put to death for crimes that they–later proven with DNA evidence–did not commit.

Let that sink in. They were put to death for crimes that they did not commit.

This underlines exactly why people shouldn’t be in the realm of choosing life or death at all: even if we accept that those who commit heinous crimes deserve to die–and I don’t accept that–we still run the risk of screwing up. And in the case of Illinois, and many other places in the US and around the world, we–that is, people–screwed it up to the tune of taking the lives of the innocent. How can we make up for that? We can’t.

How do we make sure it doesn’t happen in the future? We don’t execute people.

Yours in Christ,
Michael