For Catholics who support the death penalty

[Love_God_Too]

The primary danger posed by imprisoned killers is parole.
Quite often murderers have been set free and have killed again.
The question is: Is allowing subsequent killings by paroled prisoners moral? Is it worse than the death penalty?
wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

How many innocent people are OK to die for you? Let me answer for you. You will say none, of course. Well it has been proven conclusively that we cannot insure that an innocent wouldn’t be killed in our justice system. Therefore, logically, you cannot support the death penalty. If you do, then you accept innocent death as a consequence of your belief. There have been too many released death row inmates, based on DNA evidence now to dispute that innocent people could die.

You cannot base law on what may happen. If that was the case everyone arrested for anything we would just throw them in and throw the key away.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I make a distinction between innocent life killed by an individual and non-innocent human life that is executed by the proper authority (the state). Evidently some people have difficulty figuring out the difference between a violent criminal and a baby still in the womb.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

You need to read your Catholic History Book.

Brendan is correct. Church teaching on morals does not change. Yes, there were occasions in which people within the Church went against those teachings, but it in no way means that the Church herself teaches that. If I slap someone across the face, someone may shout out “Catholics shouldn’t do that!” and they’d be correct. But they’d be incorrect (and downright silly) to state that because I (a Catholic) did something wrong that the Catholic Church teaches it’s okay to slap people (aside from Confirmation!).

What was immoral a thousand years is still immoral today. What was moral is still moral today. If anyone believes that moral law can change, then that person must also believe that God changes. And we Catholics should know that God cannot change.

 

[JimG]

How many innocent people are OK to die for you? Let me answer for you. You will say none, of course. Well it has been proven conclusively that we cannot insure that an innocent wouldn’t be killed in our justice system. Therefore, logically, you cannot support the death penalty. If you do, then you accept innocent death as a consequence of your belief. There have been too many released death row inmates, based on DNA evidence now to dispute that innocent people could die.

You cannot base law on what may happen. If that was the case everyone arrested for anything we would just throw them in and throw the key away.

Of course I will answer none. That is why I do oppose the death penalty. But I also oppose releasing killers to kill again. And I don’t base it upon what may happen but on what has happened. What do we say to the family of someone murdered by a paroled killer? It’s just an anomaly of the justice system?

Here’s the problem. Once someone is convicted, even for a life sentence, in most states the court no longer has jurisdicition over that person’s prison time. Whether or not the person is released early on parole is under the control of the correctional system, not the courts. And in most states, a murder conviction, even a life sentence, always has the possibility of parole. There are some laws which allow for a court to impose a sentence which allows for no parole, but it is uncommon. And it is no more moral to send a killer out to kill again than it is to put to death an innocent person.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan is correct. Church teaching on morals does not change. Yes, there were occasions in which people within the Church went against those teachings, but it in no way means that the Church herself teaches that. If I slap someone across the face, someone may shout out “Catholics shouldn’t do that!” and they’d be correct. But they’d be incorrect (and downright silly) to state that because I (a Catholic) did something wrong that the Catholic Church teaches it’s okay to slap people (aside from Confirmation!).

What was immoral a thousand years is still immoral today. What was moral is still moral today. If anyone believes that moral law can change, then that person must also believe that God changes. And we Catholics should know that God cannot change.

Exactly,

And the reason is quite simple. A violation of the moral law is an offense against God. What is offensive to God will always be offensive to God. What is pleasing to God will always be pleasing to God.

That is why the Church has never declared Capital Punishment to be an intrinsic evil, like abortion or contraception. Since God has ordained that Capital Punishment be used in certain circumstances, God cannot issue a command that is offensive to Him. Therefore, Capital Punishment is, on rare occasions, an act of Justice in accord with God’s Will.

 

[Brendan]

Why are are you spending so much time defending what you NOW claim to be against?.

What Corki, Curt Jester and I are defend is Church teaching, and Church teaching alone. What we are against are those who attempt to misrepresent Church teaching in an attempt to have it say what it does not.

 

[Brendan]

I also refer you to the US conference of Bishops campaign to end capital punishment.

old.usccb.org/deathpenalty/dpstatements.shtml

And, once again, nothing in that document stands against the quotes and links I have posted. If you believe so, please show me where.

 

[Rence]

I’ve always wondered how someone can claim to be pro-life yet support the death penalty.

Apparently, pro-life ideology only includes innocent, cute babies. And not people accused of crimes.

Yes, that’s correct, because there’s nothing more innocent and guilt-free than an unborn. But criminals are guilty of crimes, and the State has the right to execute those found to be a threat to society. As much as you don’t get it, others will not get what you don’t get.

 

[Rence]

My Church firmly opposes capital punishment! How dare you say I am going against God!

The nerve some people have on here!

Well, because, with all due respect, you are going against God. Look at the Catechism:

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

The death penalty would apply to those who are deemed still a threat to society, even behind bars, such as those still running cartels and managing crimes from within the walls of prison, those who pose a threat to guards and to other inmates because of their continued violence, etc.

 

[Love_God_Too]

And, once again, nothing in that document stands against the quotes and links I have posted. If you believe so, please show me where.

If you believe after reading those documents, after reading the letter of John Paul, that the Church supports Capital Punishment there is nothing I can do to change your mind. It is evident that your political views outweigh you faithful ones, respectfully in my opinion.

“The US Bishops campaign against capital punishment”, their chosen words not mine, the evidence is in the title.

 

[Brendan]

You need to read your Catholic History Book.

I would recommend that you read Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor. That is his encyclical on the Natural Moral Law.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

He makes a very convincing case that the moral law is unchanging.

In fact, he wrote the encyclical to challenge those who believe that morality depends on time and place. That is an error called ‘moral relativism’ and both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have spoken out against it.

Read it and see if you disagree with his assesment. I agree wholeheartily.

 

[grasscutter]

Of course I will answer none. That is why I do oppose the death penalty. But I also oppose releasing killers to kill again. And I don’t base it upon what may happen but on what has happened. What do we say to the family of someone murdered by a paroled killer? It’s just an anomaly of the justice system?

Here’s the problem. Once someone is convicted, even for a life sentence, in most states the court no longer has jurisdicition over that person’s prison time. Whether or not the person is released early on parole is under the control of the correctional system, not the courts. And in most states, a murder conviction, even a life sentence, always has the possibility of parole. There are some laws which allow for a court to impose a sentence which allows for no parole, but it is uncommon. And it is no more moral to send a killer out to kill again than it is to put to death an innocent person.

With respect, therein lies the true problem. Criminal justice reform - with effort from all of us - would serve to prevent these atrocities. I still think that we do not have the right to take human life just because our judicial system hasn’t, in every circumstance, demonstrated itself to be capable of containing dangerous criminals adequately.

Again, it has been documented many times that innocent human beings have been murdered by the state. Are they not, by their very humanity, just as deserving of life as the unborn? Where is our outrage?!?

Oops, JimG, I wasn’t specifically targeting you!

 

[Love_God_Too]

Quite frankly this is just a weakly veiled attempt to protect a political philosophy at the expense of their faith. A way to gel them together in some strange perversion of politics and faith.

To say that someone may be paroled, ergo kill them instead, is the position of the church is laughable on it’s face. What Pope John Paul said is we’re beyond that and don’t need it in today’s world.

But one must justify their party even if it is at the expense of the teachings of the Church.

It is really very sad that we have devolved to such a low point. The end time are truly at hand. God save us from us.

 

[Rence]

Quite frankly this is just a weakly veiled attempt to protect a political philosophy at the expense of their faith. A way to gel them together in some strange perversion of politics and faith.

To say that someone may be paroled, ergo kill them instead, is the position of the church is laughable on it’s face. What Pope John Paul said is we’re beyond that and don’t need it in today’s world.

But one must justify their party even if it is at the expense of the teachings of the Church.

It is really very sad that we have devolved to such a low point. The end time are truly at hand. God save us from us.

If we’re beyond that and don’t need it in today’s world, then criminals wouldn’t be able to continue commiting crimes even from within the walls of prison. But they do. They still run cartels, they still rape and beat other prisoners, they are a physical threat to guards, they run mob operations from within the walls of prison, etc. Obviously, in today’s world there is still a need or these things wouldn’t continue to happen.

 

[Love_God_Too]

If we’re beyond that and don’t need it in today’s world, then criminals wouldn’t be able to continue commiting crimes even from within the walls of prison. But they do. They still run cartels, they still rape and beat other prisoners, they are a physical threat to guards, they run mob operations from within the walls of prison, etc. Obviously, in today’s world there is still a need or these things wouldn’t continue to happen.

Many people that are not already convicted criminals commit crimes too. Should we kill them on the chance that they may one day commit a crime? Perhaps we should kill the children of criminals because we know statistically they are more apt to be criminals. Just sadly absurd.

 

[Rence]

Many people that are not already criminals commit crimes too. Should we kill them on the chance that they may one day? Just sadly absurd.

If they haven’t been caught then they can’t be brought to trial. There is no way to give them the dealth penalty on the chance that they may one day commit a crime. When they get caught, then they will face the consequences, which may include the death penalty. What is absurd is the ‘defense’ to kill criminals before they get caught to support being anti-capital punishment because there is no way to do that. But one can’t deny that the death penalty was imposed on someone who went through the court system already.

 

[Love_God_Too]

If they haven’t been caught then they can’t be brought to trial. There is no way to give them the dealth penalty on the chance that they may one day commit a crime. When they get caught, then they will face the consequences, which may include the death penalty. What is absurd is the ‘defense’ to kill criminals before they get caught to support being anti-capital punishment because there is no way to do that. But one can’t deny that the death penalty was imposed on someone who went through the court system already.

So much for forgiveness as preached by Jesus himself. That doesn’t fit into the new republican orthodoxy.

 

[Rence]

So much for forgiveness as preached by Jesus himself. That doesn’t fit into the new republican orthodoxy.

Forgiveness doesn’t negate the reponsibility the State has to protect its citizens – from the children down the street, to the adults living in society, to the guards managing the prisons, and even the inmates being targeted by those who continue to commit crimes from within the walls of prison. Obviously those who circumvent the system and manage to dictate criminal orders from prison (or who continue to rape and murder) are still a threat to society, and it’s the responsibility of the State to ensure citizens’ protection and welfare. That doesn’t mean they aren’t forgiven. That means they are prevented from doing so again and creating more victims of crime.

 

[Brendan]

Quite frankly this is just a weakly veiled attempt to protect a political philosophy at the expense of their faith. A way to gel them together in some strange perversion of politics and faith…

The same could be said for any attempts to claim what the Church itself does not claim in order to fit in a political philosophy.

That would include claiming that the Church does not recognize the right of the State recourse to the use of the Death Penalty in rare circumstances.

 

[Love_God_Too]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.