R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
No, I said what I intended to say. I can’t help how you interpret it.
- Status
M
markomalley
Guest
FWIW, I agree completely with the teachings of the Church on the subject. Note: these teachings have evolved considerably over time.
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67
2267 **The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. **
This, even though the Scripture says: *Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Rom 12:9)
*
St Thomas Aquinas wrote, 800 years ago Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil. (Summa II-II-108-3). He also identifies the virtuous use of vengeance as medicinal. That, too, is crucial. In II-II-108-1, the Angelic Doctor identifies the state of mind of the avenger as the critical component as to whether vengeance is licit or not. If the avenger seeks to do evil for evil (i.e., you killed my daughter, now I will kill you), then it is not licit. If the avenger seeks to do some good out of his act (e.g., to protect society from a dangerous killer), then it is licit.
Unfortunately, the motives behind capital punishment rarely look at the protection of society or the salvation of the murderer as the motivation; rather, society looks at it as a form of retribution: an eye for an eye.
Consider this:[bibledrb]Matt 13:24-30[/bibledrb]
The one area that I would take issue with the above teachings is the assertion by JPII in Evangelium Vitae, 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.
Maybe that’s the way it is in European prisons, but that is clearly not the way it is in our prisons. Prison gangs, the demonstrated ability of some prisoners to run criminal operations from behind bars, no matter what the authorities do to try to prevent it, and so on, mean that a true threat can still exist even if a person is locked up for life without parole.
The only way that a person could truly be prevented would be through a super-supermax prison where all contact with any human being, with the exception of guards, would be eliminated. And even then, guards would have to be under a two-person control rule with random rotations of the shifts…to prevent the possibility of a corrupt guard communicating with a prisoner. Under such a super-supermax regime, both lawyers and family members would be prohibited and mail would be strictly unallowed, as would any other circulating reading material (any reading material would need to come sealed directly from the publisher’s warehouse). Obviously such a regime would be deemed unconstitutional by the courts and would be roundly condemned by the Church as a violation of the prisoner’s fundamental human rights. But that is the only way that a truly connected and determined prisoner could be prevented from the possibility of controlling crime outside the bars.
I could support the death penalty for the above kind of prisoner. I could support the death penalty for members of prison gangs. I could support the death penalty for others who pose a risk to society (even if the society being protected is the prison population) if they could not be neutralized through the use of humane imprisonment methods.
BTW, the OP article was not referring to a government passing a death penalty, it was talking about members of the society promising to take matters into their own hands if the government did not execute the woman in question.
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67
2267 **The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. **
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
One of the biggest problems with the application of the death penalty or any other penalty out there is that they look back to things that are past, rather than looking forward to figure out what is necessary to protect society from future disorders."Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
This, even though the Scripture says: *Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Rom 12:9)
*
St Thomas Aquinas wrote, 800 years ago Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil. (Summa II-II-108-3). He also identifies the virtuous use of vengeance as medicinal. That, too, is crucial. In II-II-108-1, the Angelic Doctor identifies the state of mind of the avenger as the critical component as to whether vengeance is licit or not. If the avenger seeks to do evil for evil (i.e., you killed my daughter, now I will kill you), then it is not licit. If the avenger seeks to do some good out of his act (e.g., to protect society from a dangerous killer), then it is licit.
Unfortunately, the motives behind capital punishment rarely look at the protection of society or the salvation of the murderer as the motivation; rather, society looks at it as a form of retribution: an eye for an eye.
Consider this:[bibledrb]Matt 13:24-30[/bibledrb]
The one area that I would take issue with the above teachings is the assertion by JPII in Evangelium Vitae, 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.
Maybe that’s the way it is in European prisons, but that is clearly not the way it is in our prisons. Prison gangs, the demonstrated ability of some prisoners to run criminal operations from behind bars, no matter what the authorities do to try to prevent it, and so on, mean that a true threat can still exist even if a person is locked up for life without parole.
The only way that a person could truly be prevented would be through a super-supermax prison where all contact with any human being, with the exception of guards, would be eliminated. And even then, guards would have to be under a two-person control rule with random rotations of the shifts…to prevent the possibility of a corrupt guard communicating with a prisoner. Under such a super-supermax regime, both lawyers and family members would be prohibited and mail would be strictly unallowed, as would any other circulating reading material (any reading material would need to come sealed directly from the publisher’s warehouse). Obviously such a regime would be deemed unconstitutional by the courts and would be roundly condemned by the Church as a violation of the prisoner’s fundamental human rights. But that is the only way that a truly connected and determined prisoner could be prevented from the possibility of controlling crime outside the bars.
I could support the death penalty for the above kind of prisoner. I could support the death penalty for members of prison gangs. I could support the death penalty for others who pose a risk to society (even if the society being protected is the prison population) if they could not be neutralized through the use of humane imprisonment methods.
BTW, the OP article was not referring to a government passing a death penalty, it was talking about members of the society promising to take matters into their own hands if the government did not execute the woman in question.
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
Did we all forget the meaning of love and forgiveness? Instead of voicing a lack of love to another one of God’s precious children we should take the time to meet an actual prisoner. No one deserves to be killed by another human being so how could anyone support the death penalty? Every person has an ample opportunity to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. There won’t be any change in this world if we don’t respect the sanctity of the human person.
…Did we forget what it means to be human??? Hope this helps
God Bless!
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
@hxcCatholic413
Are you saying that punishment involves hate?
Forgiveness and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive. Think of Jesus and the Good Thief.
By executing murderers, we show the greatest respect for human life. After all, an execution was called an act of obedience to the fifth commandment by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
As for the sanctity of life, remember Genesis 9:6? “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
In other words, it is because human life is so sacred that we must execute murderers.
Are you saying that punishment involves hate?
Forgiveness and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive. Think of Jesus and the Good Thief.
By executing murderers, we show the greatest respect for human life. After all, an execution was called an act of obedience to the fifth commandment by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
As for the sanctity of life, remember Genesis 9:6? “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
In other words, it is because human life is so sacred that we must execute murderers.
M
markomalley
Guest
It would help if you read CCC paragraph 2267 again…make sure that you fully comprehend it…and then read my remarks.Did we all forget the meaning of love and forgiveness? Instead of voicing a lack of love to another one of God’s precious children we should take the time to meet an actual prisoner. No one deserves to be killed by another human being so how could anyone support the death penalty? Every person has an ample opportunity to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. There won’t be any change in this world if we don’t respect the sanctity of the human person.
…Did we forget what it means to be human??? Hope this helps
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
I see a lot of contradiction in the sentence that I bolded above^. Remember in John 7:53-8:11 where a woman accused of adultery was about to be stoned by her peers…Jesus said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”(John 8:7) by this he was essentially telling them in a subtle, but direct way that just because she has sinned doesn’t give you the RIGHT to inflict harm upon her.
I see Genesis 9:6 as being said in the internal sense and not in the literal sense which you believe it is. It means that whoever lacks charity among another person is subject to God.
“Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.” (Douay-Rheims)
If taken literally it would mean killing, but internally it means hatred against one’s own neighbor. Blood isn’t meant to be taken literally, but in fact it means “charity”. If you look in Genesis 4:10 “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth.” The “crying of blood” equates to violence against charity. Hope this helps
I’m willing to be corrected if one disagrees with my translation. God Bless!
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
How about you read Matthew 5:7
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
[emphasis added]Did we all forget the meaning of love and forgiveness? Instead of voicing a lack of love to another one of God’s precious children we should take the time to meet an actual prisoner. No one deserves to be killed by another human being so how could anyone support the death penalty? Every person has an ample opportunity to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. There won’t be any change in this world if we don’t respect the sanctity of the human person.
…Did we forget what it means to be human??? Hope this helps
I’ve met, oh, scores of criminals, accused defendants, convicts and represented many of them, including DP eligible murderers. None of those were inspired by the HS and none of them respected the sanctity of anyone and many had committed even more crimes while in prison. I’ve refused all offers to play courier for inmates who wanted to contact associates on the outside. For one defendant accused of murder, we were ready to bargain for life instead of a DP trial, offering to divulge the location of the victim’s body which was (and still is) unknown – the govt caved in before we had to make that offer.
Those are “precious children”???
V
vera_dicere
Guest
Yes. They are.
I recently met an incredibly violent man, who did something very silly and ended up in hospital. Long and short of it, he was waiting to go to prison.
He was molested as a child. Abused. Raped. Tortured by those meant to love him. Is it any wonder he became such a violent adult?
Such men and women need our love and compassion and good mental health care.
There are those, I’m sure, who do evil things without any sorid life story of horror, but they are loved by God just like anyone of us law biding citizens.
Its 2010. Most of us are coming at this with a western perspective. If we can’t keep society safe from rapists and murderers without killing them, then we really are a nasty little species. This isn’t some post nuclear apocalyptic world where there are no jails and juries.
The death penalty isn’t about protecting society, it isn’t about justice, its about revenge, cold blooded and simple.
M
markomalley
Guest
[bibledrb]Matt 5:7[/bibledrb]How about you read Matthew 5:7
OK, and?
The Church says that you have a right to self-defense. Nothing I posted has indicated anything contrary to that, if you would actually bother to read my whole post.
Now, you might choose to be a martyr rather than to invoke your right to self defense. If you do so, that may be a very commendable act. But you may not offer another person to be a martyr. As JPII said in Evangelium Vitae:
Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). [EV 55]
But if you are responsible for others, you have other obligations that do not include offering that person for martyrdom:
Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.
If you have a problems with the teachings of the Church, then so be it.
Y
yosephdaviyd
Guest
Thank you hxcCatholic!!! We need more people like you who can see the face of Christ in everyone! To see the face of Christ on your neighbor is to love the Christ in your neighbor.Did we all forget the meaning of love and forgiveness? Instead of voicing a lack of love to another one of God’s precious children we should take the time to meet an actual prisoner. No one deserves to be killed by another human being so how could anyone support the death penalty? Every person has an ample opportunity to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. There won’t be any change in this world if we don’t respect the sanctity of the human person.
…Did we forget what it means to be human??? Hope this helps
David L. Gray
N
Newbie2
Guest
You have evidence that everyone on death row runs a drug ring? That’s what I interpret you as saying, and that’s what I’m questioning.
Seriously? Is that what you think?
M
markomalley
Guest
Yospehdaviyd & hxcCatholic413
Society has a right to defend itself. See the extract from Evangelium Vitae 55 in my previous post.
Showing mercy is admirable. Being willing to sacrifice oneself for the purpose of showing mercy to your own killer is even more admirable. But the willingness to sacrifice the lives of future victims is not mercy, even if those future victims are fellow prisoners. You may want to check with the family of Richard Wigley to see if John Blackwelder should have received mercy for a heinous crime he was serving time for when he murdered Wigley. Or you could check with the families of any of the other 356 homicide victims who were murdered inside of state prisons between 2001 and 2007. Or the families of the 171 homicide victims murdered inside of local jails in that same period. Or the families of the 72 federal prisoners who were murdered in prison since 2000.
Or perhaps you could see what the victims of the Sonora drug cartel, controlled by Miguel Caro Quintero even though he is behind bars, feel about him. Or leaders of the Bloods still controlling their gang from behind bars. Or other groups like Aryan Nations.
This is not to say that all people incarcerated are actively involved in gangs, nor is it to say that all people within prison will be involved in homicide. Nor am I attempting to say that prison is no deterrent to controlling criminal enterprises. But it does exist. Any illusion that it doesn’t is simply Pollyannish.
The only way to absolutely prevent such a thing is to keep each prisoner in utter isolation from all contact with other prisoners and contact to the outside world. Unfortunately, such methods, as I have also highlighted above, generally have the tendency to drive a prisoner to madness. Using incarceration techniques that would driver prisoners to madness is a violation of the prisoners’ human rights as they do not respect the basic human dignity of the prisoners in question.
So we have a conundrum. In the case of some, not hardly all, but some prisoners, to stop the continuing threat they pose to society even while behind bars, one would have to either utterly isolate them, which would utterly drive them mad within a period of months (and be a violation of their human rights) or execute them. Or you could simply allow them to be a danger to other prisoners and/or continue to control their criminal enterprises from behind bars. None of the alternatives is a satisfactory solution.
And, as is stated in CCC 2267:The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable [NB: it says practicable, not possible] way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor
While I fully agree with you two as far as the impropriety of using capital punishment for retribution, I do have a serious question that will hopefully generate a serious answer:
If capital punishment is grievously unacceptable, without exception, under all circumstances, then how does society protect itself against a prisoner who still poses a threat even though behind bars?
I’ve talked to a number of anti-death penalty advocates in my day. I hear “mercy” from them…and in many cases I agree. And they’ve caused my view to evolve from the Mosaic eye-for-an-eye view to more of a “vengeance is mine says the Lord I will repay” view. But I have yet to hear a practical solution for the above problem. So what would you two do?
Society has a right to defend itself. See the extract from Evangelium Vitae 55 in my previous post.
Showing mercy is admirable. Being willing to sacrifice oneself for the purpose of showing mercy to your own killer is even more admirable. But the willingness to sacrifice the lives of future victims is not mercy, even if those future victims are fellow prisoners. You may want to check with the family of Richard Wigley to see if John Blackwelder should have received mercy for a heinous crime he was serving time for when he murdered Wigley. Or you could check with the families of any of the other 356 homicide victims who were murdered inside of state prisons between 2001 and 2007. Or the families of the 171 homicide victims murdered inside of local jails in that same period. Or the families of the 72 federal prisoners who were murdered in prison since 2000.
Or perhaps you could see what the victims of the Sonora drug cartel, controlled by Miguel Caro Quintero even though he is behind bars, feel about him. Or leaders of the Bloods still controlling their gang from behind bars. Or other groups like Aryan Nations.
This is not to say that all people incarcerated are actively involved in gangs, nor is it to say that all people within prison will be involved in homicide. Nor am I attempting to say that prison is no deterrent to controlling criminal enterprises. But it does exist. Any illusion that it doesn’t is simply Pollyannish.
The only way to absolutely prevent such a thing is to keep each prisoner in utter isolation from all contact with other prisoners and contact to the outside world. Unfortunately, such methods, as I have also highlighted above, generally have the tendency to drive a prisoner to madness. Using incarceration techniques that would driver prisoners to madness is a violation of the prisoners’ human rights as they do not respect the basic human dignity of the prisoners in question.
So we have a conundrum. In the case of some, not hardly all, but some prisoners, to stop the continuing threat they pose to society even while behind bars, one would have to either utterly isolate them, which would utterly drive them mad within a period of months (and be a violation of their human rights) or execute them. Or you could simply allow them to be a danger to other prisoners and/or continue to control their criminal enterprises from behind bars. None of the alternatives is a satisfactory solution.
And, as is stated in CCC 2267:The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable [NB: it says practicable, not possible] way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor
While I fully agree with you two as far as the impropriety of using capital punishment for retribution, I do have a serious question that will hopefully generate a serious answer:
If capital punishment is grievously unacceptable, without exception, under all circumstances, then how does society protect itself against a prisoner who still poses a threat even though behind bars?
I’ve talked to a number of anti-death penalty advocates in my day. I hear “mercy” from them…and in many cases I agree. And they’ve caused my view to evolve from the Mosaic eye-for-an-eye view to more of a “vengeance is mine says the Lord I will repay” view. But I have yet to hear a practical solution for the above problem. So what would you two do?
E
Ender
Guest
This point exposes one of the biggest problems with 2267: it does in fact look forward rather than back. The difficulty with this is that the primary objective of punishment is to “redress the disorder caused by the offense”, which must look to the crime committed in the past which caused the disorder. Retribution - just punishment - is the only objective of punishment which can justify the punishment itself. The severity of the punishment must be comparable to the severity of the crime to be just and if we don’t look back at the crime but only forward to the outcomes we would like to achieve in the future then we have completely separated the concepts of sin and punishment. Punishment would be linked to whatever is necessary to achieve safety, deterrence, or rehabilitation but the concept of deserving the penalty because of the nature of the crime would be lost. You have identified a serious problem but you have the solution backwards.
The individual is indeed obliged to forgive but the State is obliged to punish; it has been given not only that as a right but as a responsibility. Also, although punishment by the State may well be vengeance, that is its obligation and it does overstep its bound in applying it.
*"And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. *It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin." (Catechism of St. Thomas)
You didn’t quite capture the points he was making. The first question he asks regarding vengeance is Whether Vengeance is Lawful and his very first comment is:* “Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” *Also, you read too much into that one comment; Aquinas was very specific in what he wrote, addressing one point at a time. He does not say here that vengeance is lawful *only *as a prevention of evil, nor could he as the Church teaches that the primary objective of punishment (vengeance) is directed at redressing the disorder of crimes already committed, not preventing new ones.
"the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice." (ST I/II 87,6)
This is no argument; it is simply name calling. Whatever improper motives some people may have has nothing whatever to do with whether capital punishment is itself proper.
You have identified another significant problem with 2267: it is a prudential opinion and as such does not rise to the level of Church doctrine and does not require our assent.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, I think we have, because love and forgiveness do not mean that there should be no punishment.
God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (JPII, 1999)
Lawful executions are done by the State which has been granted by God with the authority to do so. This is what the Church has always taught and teaches today.
“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII)
Yes, apparently so. We are told that man’s life is sacred because he is made in the image of God, but that piece of information is given to us as the *reason *why murderers forfeit their own lives. This explanation has now been turned on its head so that, instead of being understood that the murderer is to die because the life of the victim was sacred, it now is interpreted to mean that the murderer is to live because his life is sacred. We have indeed forgotten the significance of the act of murder.
Ender
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Well two wrongs don’t make a right, and taking the perpetrator’s life won’t bring back the person he or she killed. God sees us all and will forgive us any sin. Right up to the end.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
You are correct, I do not have the right to punish someone. However, the state has both the right and duty to punish offenders. "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afrad, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer.
“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” (CCC #2266)
Your interpretation clearly contradicts Genesis 9:6. In the CCC paragraph #2260, Genesis 9:6 is quoted. Then the CCC continues the paragraph saying that the Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. So Genesis 9:6 really is talking about murder and its punishment, as it specifically mentions those who shed the sacred sign of life.If taken literally it would mean killing, but internally it means hatred against one’s own neighbor. Blood isn’t meant to be taken literally, but in fact it means “charity”. If you look in Genesis 4:10 “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth.” The “crying of blood” equates to violence against charity. Hope this helps
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Your problems with comprehension are beyond my ability to fix.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I guess we can’t imprison kidnappers or fine thieves then. This statement presumes that the death penalty is morally wrong though. So why is the death penalty morally wrong?
Imprisoning a murderer is also incapable of bringing about the same miracle.
What is your point?
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Especially the defendant who wanted to bargain for life by revealing the location of the victim he murdered. The government offered the plea on its own and the body is still “missing”. Is he filled with the HS and a Child of God?
You have some strange fantasy that’s contrary to what these monsters really are like.
- Status