If an innocent man is wrongly convicted and executed, are the jurors culpable for his death in the eyes of The Lord?

[Ender]

You can not redress any type of damage by killing another human being, no matter what your exegesis is, it is just satisfaction, which is the reason for revenge, which is the same reason that the murder happened in the first place.

Your argument applies equally well to all punishment. If your position is valid then murderers should not be punished at all since no punishment can redress (by which it appears you mean “undo”) the damage.

Doctors of the Church were ok with abortion as well.

This is false. You have been misled about this.

Your view is the same view of most americans, and the view of Kings, that they are placed by God and thus to certain extent infallible…

It is the church’s view that ministers of the State are in fact God’s ministers.Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that* the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God**, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture.** Paul holds that the ruler is God’s minister** in executing God’s wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4).* (Cardinal Dulles)

…and quoting scripture out of context like a protestant just makes you look like someone that loves debate, but has no idea what he is saying.

Actually, I cited a pope citing scripture. Are you suggesting he had no idea what he was saying?

By your own views, Hussein was right, after all he was appointed by God to office because he held such office and no one is in office if not by appointment of God, even if it was by force, unless that only applies to Catholics, right?

Again, not “my” view.… let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad…(Augustine)

I believe that execution by the state is even worse than murder by our own hand…

You may believe what you will, This does conflict, however, with what the church teaches.

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

“An evil” in this case is vague. If killing was evil the church would not sanction it under any circumstances. You recognize that it is not intrinsically evil but you still want to consider it evil, but you can’t support both positions. Either it is evil or it isn’t.

I’m sorry that you are confused and cannot see that both views are possible, depending on circumstance. The very fact that the death penalty is permitted, but not murder illustrates this point rather well. Both are killing. Anything you say is a further elaboration of this principle, yet the principle still holds. I think the death penalty is barbarous in most situations. In some few cases, I understand why it might be necessary. But this is the difference between murder and self-defense.

“I’m” not telling you this, I am simply repeating what the church holds to be true. Did you not read the response I just made to santiagoamr? How many more citations shall I provide?

You can provide all the citations in the world. It still does not change the underlying issue here.

If you want to respond to my position please cite my actual words.

If my words are not an accurate description of your position, feel free to correct me. But I am certainly not obligated to cite your actual words. Surely your claim can be stated in different words.

Retribution is only one objective. It is, however, the primary one, the one which determines the justness of the punishment, and the one to be considered first in the application of any penalty.
This is not accurate. Prior to 1995 the church had never suggested such a thing even though she recognized the protection that capital punishment provided.

Of course it determines “the justness of the punishment”. That’s what retribution means. But that doesn’t mean that its more important than “thou shalt not kill”. They are different principles, and some take precedent over others. In this case, the latter takes precedence over the former, because once life is removed, all other earthly possibilities are as well. Isn’t life in prison just as “retributive” as the death penalty? A life of imprisonment might even be more “retributive” than the death penalty, actually.

The current opposition is prudential, not moral. It is also quite recent and does not contradict the doctrines the church has taught for two millennia.*Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. *(Bishop Wilton Gregory)

You say it is prudential. It sounds to me that it is also a moral position, because circumstances have changed and with it the necessity of capital punishment.

The church’s teaching has always been based on revelation. Are you suggesting that there has been new revelation in the last 20 years?
Retribution is the primary justification for all punishment.*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)

Come on now. You know that doctrine develops with new scientific and theological insights. No, it does not contradict, but it develops.

Your interpretation that “defend society” means solely physical protection against future crime conflicts with the church’s Traditional teaching. As I see it there are only two possibilities: either JPII has repudiated 2000 years of church teaching, or your interpretation is too narrow.

How does killing a man defend society in ANY WAY more than keeping him locked up in a cell for life, unable to even significantly influence larger society? Perhaps it is your interpretation that is too narrow.

Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that* the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God***, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture.** Paul holds that the ruler is God’s minister** in executing God’s wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4). (Cardinal Dulles)
​

Wow. I wasn’t going to get involved in this argument because I do not agree with the previous poster. But this is ludicrous. Neither Reagen nor Obama nor Putin or Castro are any more an “agent of God” than I am. In fact, we are all “agents of God” if we act according to his laws. That doesn’t give the state any more right to violate God’s law than it give me. I guess Rome was doing God’s will and acting morally when it persecuted Christians.

I’m not sure there is any reason to continue this conversation much longer.​

 

[otjm]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder). Even though he is innocent, the circumstances make him look guilty and the jury vote to convict. He is sentenced to death and executed.

Is the jury culpable for his execution? (Important note: the jury in this scenario does not know he is innocent. But would it make a difference they did?)

Maybe you should sit on a jury or two. It has been said (possibly by someone who did sit on a jury) that we have a lousy system of justice; but it happens to be a whole lot better than anything else out there.

Jury’s don’t “know” that someone is innocent; if the case has shown that the individual is innocent, then the case would not go to the jury. There is a procedure for that.

And as to the rest - the jury only deals with what is presented to it; if the evidence points to the defendant and they convict, it depends on the state as to whether the jury considers more; and even then, it is the judge who sentences, not the jury.

The jury is charged to determine “beyond a reasonable doubt” That is not the same as “beyond all doubt”. If you are trying to impute moral guilt to the jury because the individual will be executed, you are barking up the wrong tree.

As to the issue of any guilt attached to a death sentence, where they jury actually makes any determination. the Church does not have an absolute law on the matter, never mind how some people try to plead that issue. Whether they are morally guilty would have to go to the issues of whether or not the individual could be held in a manner that society would be safe from any future murder on his part. What seems to be forgotten in that discussion is that prison guards (including my son-in-law) and prisoners are part of society. And there isn’t a prison around which has such perfect security that someone is not endangered by some murderers. Since your scenario indicates the evidence points to guilt, other facts would be in the balance.

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry that you are confused and cannot see that both views are possible, depending on circumstance.

Circumstances can make it improper to use capital punishment in particular cases, but the exception does not invalidate the rule.

You can provide all the citations in the world. It still does not change the underlying issue here.

I thought the issue was what the church taught, which is why I quote from church sources.

Of course it determines “the justness of the punishment”. That’s what retribution means. But that doesn’t mean that its more important than “thou shalt not kill”. They are different principles, and some take precedent over others. In this case, the latter takes precedence over the former, because once life is removed, all other earthly possibilities are as well.

If this was true the church would not support capital punishment. That she has always recognized the state’s right to use it pretty much shows the fifth commandment does not trump justice.

It sounds to me that it is also a moral position, because circumstances have changed and with it the necessity of capital punishment.

Capital punishment is only appropriate if it is a just punishment for the crime. There are no circumstances that can change the nature of (e.g.) the crime of murder, therefore the justness of the death penalty as punishment cannot change. If it was ever just it is always just, even if it is not always wise.

How does killing a man defend society in ANY WAY more than keeping him locked up in a cell for life, unable to even significantly influence larger society?

*"…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself." *(Pius XII)
It is the “very law itself” that must be protected, not merely “what is protected by the law.” Yours is the narrow concern that Pius rejected.

Neither Reagen nor Obama nor Putin or Castro are any more an “agent of God” than I am. In fact, we are all “agents of God” if we act according to his laws. That doesn’t give the state any more right to violate God’s law than it give me.

We have free will but that doesn’t mean that every choice we make is moral. The same is true with governments. God is the source of their authority, but that certainly doesn’t mean that every exercise of that authority is acceptable.*8. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures… *
*14. And in agreement with this is the celebrated declaration of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, on the same subject: “Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God’s sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors, as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good, for so is the will of God.” *

• 1. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated.* (Leo XIII, The Origin of Civil Power)
     Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

Ender, I don’t think there’s any reason to continue this. I am sorry if you actually believe these things. Stick with the letter of the law and your narrow interpretations. I will pay more heed to the spirit of the law and pray for Christians like you.

 

[Ender]

I am sorry if you actually believe these things.

If, as the citations I provided show, “these things” are what the church teaches, what is the argument for not believing them?

Stick with the letter of the law and your narrow interpretations.

The reason I provide so many references is to demonstrate that the positions I take are not simply mine but are what the church in fact teaches. An assertion without a reference is merely a personal opinion, and mostly irrelevant. I try to support every assertion I make with a quotation from a valid source.

I will pay more heed to the spirit of the law and pray for Christians like you.

I mistrust the “spirit of the law”. It seems to become little more than “I know the church doesn’t say this, but this is what she means.” But I thank you for your prayers; that’s always welcome.

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

The official Church position is crystal clear:

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. (2306)

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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.”68

No, retributive justice is not more important than life. Any Catholic who believes this is misguided. Nothing that has been said is more authoritative than this.

 

[Ender]

The official Church position is crystal clear:…

Is this not crystal clear as well, and is it not equally official?
CCC 2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.
​

No, retributive justice is not more important than life. Any Catholic who believes this is misguided.

Any Catholic who believes otherwise is misinformed. If the church thought this way she would never have supported, let alone used, capital punishment.*“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)

Nothing that has been said is more authoritative than this.

The words are authoritative. Your interpretation of what they mean…not so much.

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

The words are authoritative. Your interpretation of what they mean…not so much.

This is why I cannot continue this conversation. You seek solely to argue your point of view, convinced of its infallibility, not to seek truth, and extend no charity to the individual arguing the opposing view. My charity is gone as a result of your complete lack of charity, so I cannot continue in good conscience.

 

[DMC12]

as for the firs question, we are men certainly not perfect, and we are asked to do nothing more than our best, remember that no one is bound to the impossible.

 

[Buckeyeboy]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder)

RAPE is not a capital crime in any state anymore.

 

[haljoseph]

God is the only judge of His creation.

 

[djames99]

Here is the scenario.

An innocent man is being tried for a crime he didn’t commit, and it is a crime warranting execution (like rape or child-murder). Even though he is innocent, the circumstances make him look guilty and the jury vote to convict. He is sentenced to death and executed.

Is the jury culpable for his execution? (Important note: the jury in this scenario does not know he is innocent. But would it make a difference they did?)

Where the threat exists as a sentence, the juror should plead conscientious objection and opt out. The common good only finds sanction as long as it conforms to the will of God.

Yes, it is a communal sin. This covers the “…what I have failed to do” of the Nova Ordo mass. We are to show our disapproval in any way that is open to us.

 

[Ender]

God is the only judge of His creation.

• 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. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
  Ender