Do you support the death penalty?

[pnewton]

No there are more humane alternatives to prison… Please see the earlier parts of the discussion for my reasoning…

Catholic social teaching has always upheld that civil authorities have the responsibility to protect the innocent. Prison isn’t a cruelty. It is a kindness to the innocent, both past and future victims. Even in schools it has been learned that the worst bullies can’t just be allowed to terrorize others. What may be tough on the bully is charity to one bullied. This is why those who support the death penalty, might have a pro-life motivation.

 

[Ender]

Please, let there be peace between us.

LS - There is. I’m sorry it ended this way.

Ender

 

[Ian_Ward]

Jesus did not kill anyone for any of their crimes who am I to kill anyone for their crimes?

God is the judge of who deserves to live and die not I.

 

[surritter]

Ian, no one said you as an individual have to kill anyone for a crime committed. But society has an obligation to uphold justice and protect us from criminals. Read some of the previous pages in this discussion … you’ll see that some of us emphasize the justice aspect and some of us emphasize the protection aspect, but as Catholics we can’t completely nullify the concept of capital punishment.

 

[Ian_Ward]

Ideally there should be no death penalty, thats never going to happen so you can pray that you don’t have to be the one to execute God’s justice. If we were all as good as Jesus we’d need no death penalty, but reality is that we are stuck with it because we are human.

 

[surritter]

Ideally there should be no death penalty, thats never going to happen so you can pray that you don’t have to be the one to execute God’s justice. If we were all as good as Jesus we’d need no death penalty, but reality is that we are stuck with it because we are human.

Agreed. Because of Adam’s fall, we aren’t perfect. Thus, punishment of some sort is necessary, and a death penalty may be needed at times.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What surprises me more is this. With so much techology, cant they find a way to recuperate a man?

Psychopaths are essentially unrehabilitatable

 

[d97c]

Of course I support the death penalty! If we had caught Hitler, you mean to tell me that it would have been justice and a proportional response to killing 6 million Jews to keep the slug alive and therefore allow the people to pay for his imprisonment so he could be interviewed, allowed to write, teach…come on !!!
And…the Pope, even though he says that he doesnlt like the death penalty, says, clearly that there is a difference, in moral requirements, in the death penalty and, lets say, abortion !! Read the following. I’ll never figure out how a person can’t see the difference between a murderer like Hitler …and an unborn child !! One is guilty and has been given due process and a trial…one is INNOCENT and has been given NO due process before death. The Pope says I can be for the death penalty…and I AM !!

“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Psychopaths are essentially unrehabilitatable

Seriously? That’s interesting. Do you have any source material I can read up some time on this? I’m genuinely curious.

 

[catholictiger]

the question I always ask when it comes to the death penalty is. Is it necessary to execute a criminal for the sake of protecting those in society. If it is not necessary then life without parrol if as long as he is breathing someone is at risk from this person then execute the guy.

In the united states there doesn’t exist a situation where you must kill the person to protect others. Our jail should be able to hold him.

 

[bac_haywood]

I do not support the death penalty. Thankfully I live in Europe where it is banned. However I feel that I am not on this earth to judge others I am here to answer to my conscience nobody else’s.

On another angle is that there have been many mistakes in the past so how do you dig up a grave to say sorry?

Lie detectors are not perfect DNA evidence is not always reliable Witnesses have been wrong Evidence has been concocted people have admitted to crimes they haven’t done so how can anyone be sure that the person executed actually did it? I am not here to take another’s life.

Apologies for the rant but I feel very strongly about this and I don’t think I can be swayed.

I am encouraged by the man whose daughter was killed during the"troubles" in Eneniskillen His daughter held his hand and her last words were “I love you Daddy” When he was faced with her killers he turned and forgave them A true Christian!

 

[Ender]

the question I always ask when it comes to the death penalty is. Is it necessary to execute a criminal for the sake of protecting those in society. If it is not necessary then life without parrol if as long as he is breathing someone is at risk from this person then execute the guy.

What is the primary objective of punishment? The real question in deciding what punishment to apply is whether the punishment satisfies the requirement of the primary objective, not whether it is needed for a secondary objective like protection.

In the united states there doesn’t exist a situation where you must kill the person to protect others. Our jail should be able to hold him.

Historically this hasn’t been the case as numerous examples attest.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

What is the primary objective of punishment? The real question in deciding what punishment to apply is whether the punishment satisfies the requirement of the primary objective, not whether it is needed for a secondary objective like protection.
Historically this hasn’t been the case as numerous examples attest.

Ender

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

I’m sure this has been brought up but from what I have seen in this country the death penalty shouldn’t be used. Atleast that’s the way I view what the Cathecism has to say on it.

 

[Ender]

I’m sure this has been brought up but from what I have seen in this country the death penalty shouldn’t be used. At least that’s the way I view what the Catechism has to say on it.

The position expressed in the new catechism is a prudential opinion that using capital punishment causes more problems than it solves. It is a practical judgment about the advisability of using capital punishment; it is not a doctrinal statement about the morality of applying it.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Does the Church teach that mercy is appropriate in every situation for every person? No, that is not what she believes.

You said mercy should be offered unconditionally. As I pointed out, this is incorrect.

If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (Jn 20:23)

If we are to forgive everywhere, every time then where is the sense in the “if you do not forgive…” clause? In fact forgiveness is not unconditional and automatic as Aquinas shows when he presents - and then rejects - that argument…

OBJ 2: Further, Our Lord commanded Peter (Mt. 18:22) to forgive his offending brother “not” only “till seven times, but till seventy times seven times,” which Jerome expounds as meaning that “a man should be forgiven, as often as he has sinned.” Therefore he ought to be received by the Church as often as he has sinned by falling back into heresy.

• Reply OBJ 2: Our Lord was speaking to Peter of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. These words are not to be applied to sins committed against one’s neighbor or against God, for** it is not left to our discretion to forgive such offenses***, as Jerome says on Mt. 18:15, “If thy brother shall offend against thee.” Yet even in this matter the law prescribes limits according as God’s honor or our neighbor’s good demands. (ST I/I 11,4)
  I have said several times that there are always exceptions to the general rule that execution is the proper punishment for murder; the fact that Cain was such an exception hardly challenges this statement, and if you think this episode is significant then show where the Church references it when discussing capital punishment.

Ender

Well, I think you are wrong on this. I was listening to Protestant radio one day, and they were talking about forgiveness for heinous crimes, etc. The other person thought that perhaps we were only supposed to forgive if the sinner were repentant and asked forgiveness. (I also was somewhat unsure about conditions for forgiveness.) The pastor said, no, as Christians we must forgive no matter what the sinner has done and whether or not he/she is repentant. Somehow that rang very true. I would suggest we ask a priest (someone who really knows) about this, but it struck me as completely right.

For one thing, it is very healing if a person forgives (at least in their heart) someone who has done some very dastardly deed against him/her or his/her loved one. Didn’t JPII forgive his assailant, who, I believe, at the time was unrepentant?

There is also the Truth & Reconcilation Commission hearings that help U. of S. Africa heal after the end of apartheid. It perhaps seems totally unfair that someone who killed others in racist activities should be allowed to go free, but it seems to have been restorative and healing.

There there are Jesus’s words on the cross: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

So my thinking is, if the Bible and theology are not totally clear about this (and I think they are), then it is just a good Christian practice to forgive.

 

[catholictiger]

The position expressed in the new catechism is a prudential opinion that using capital punishment causes more problems than it solves. It is a practical judgment about the advisability of using capital punishment; it is not a doctrinal statement about the morality of applying it.

Ender

I know it isn’t a doctrinal statement, but it still should be taken into consideration in this discussion

plus if JPII thinks that the death penalty shouldn’t be used in today’s world then I would trust his word. It could be taken out of context yes, but I trust the church did put it in context on these matters.

you still could interpret in the other way.

but I know this isn’t doctrinal but it shouldn’t be ignored for that reason alone.

an unrelated example if the pope says that everyone should pray a rosary every day especially those in seminary, while its not a doctrinal statement and we aren’t bond by faith of follow it. I would do what the pope suggests.

again if the pope says almost no death penalty then I wouldn’t support it. That’s just me though.

 

[surritter]

This country certainly has the means to keep criminals in jail, thus the death penalty should not be of practical need. The fact that this country doesn’t properly use those means is a different angle to the discussion.

 

[d97c]

I have always though it interesting the discussion among the two robbers and Jesus while they were on the cross…
People always want to know what Jesus would have to say on the death penalty…most liberals make him out like a real pacifist…but here is what the Bible says about the two thieves:Luke Ch23
23:39 One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.” 43 And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
when Jesus had the chance to teach and disagree when the thief said he was getting “what we deserve”(meaning him and his fellow thief)…Our Lord said nothing about what the thief “deserved.”
This opinion that the exercise of capital punishment being determined by how secure the prison is…is new and shallow. The traditional teaching of the church…and one that was primary for centuries!!-----is that the death penalty is matter of proportional punishment and re-ordering society from a violation of the right of the INNOCENT VICTIM to be free of criminal acts from the perpetrator.
And by the way…assume you have a person in jail for murder and has the punishment of life without parole…and he murders a prison guard, and is convicted. What do you give the guy…another life without parole??? Come-onnnnnnn !!!

 

[Ender]

Well, I think you are wrong on this. I was listening to Protestant radio one day, and they were talking about forgiveness for heinous crimes, etc. The other person thought that perhaps we were only supposed to forgive if the sinner were repentant and asked forgiveness. (I also was somewhat unsure about conditions for forgiveness.) The pastor said, no, as Christians we must forgive no matter what the sinner has done and whether or not he/she is repentant. Somehow that rang very true. I would suggest we ask a priest (someone who really knows) about this, but it struck me as completely right.

The next time you go to confession ask if your repentance is necessary for absolution. If you admit to a sin but don’t repent of it do you believe your sin will be forgiven? It won’t happen because repentance is a requirement for forgiveness as is penance. If our sins were automatically forgiven we would have no need of confession, but that is not the case.

*In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness. *(JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

CCC 1847****"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

when Jesus had the chance to teach and disagree when the thief said he was getting “what we deserve”(meaning him and his fellow thief)…Our Lord said nothing about what the thief “deserved.”

Of course, because we ALL deserve hell. All of us. That’s the beauty of Christianity, that while we were still sinners totally deserving of hell, Jesus showered his love and mercy on us, and through his grace has opened up salvation and heaven to us.

I’m thinking all those who are killing through environmental pollution, and then on top of it vehemently denying it, perhaps are also headed for hell. But there is forgiveness in the blood of Jesus. We ALL need to repent for something or other. We ALL deserve hell, but have been gifted the opportunity to go to heaven despite ourselves.