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

[Ender]

This sounds like an eye for an eye, not Christ’s message.

Actually it is both. A distinction must be made between the obligation of the individual, which is forgiveness, and the obligation of the state, which is punishment.*… when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13)

We can certainly have a lively discussion about the theological stance and the Church’s history. But I think you would be hard-pressed to find support for most actual cases of the death penalty within the Vatican today.

I don’t argue that most of the clergy opposes capital punishment. What I am arguing is about what constitutes valid reasons to oppose its use, reasons that I believe are entirely prudential. The distinction is important for Catholics who may well be called to sit on juries in capital cases.

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

Actually it is both. A distinction must be made between the obligation of the individual, which is forgiveness, and the obligation of the state, which is punishment.

I don’t recall Jesus saying that the collective “state” had different moral standards than “private citizens.”

[/INDENT]I don’t argue that most of the clergy opposes capital punishment. What I am arguing is about what constitutes valid reasons to oppose its use, reasons that I believe are entirely prudential. The distinction is important for Catholics who may well be called to sit on juries in capital cases.

I have yet to hear a good reason for executing someone that the Church would of approve of today. It’s like the “Just War Theory”. Yes, in theory there could be reasons to wage war. But in practice, there are exceedingly few.

 

[Ender]

I don’t recall Jesus saying that the collective “state” had different moral standards than “private citizens.”

These are not different moral standards, they are different obligations, and there are a lot of things Jesus is not recorded as having said. Fortunately we have 2000 years of commentary from the Church on this subject.*- Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *CCC 2266

- He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas ST II-II 108,1)

I have yet to hear a good reason for executing someone that the Church would of approve of today.

The general reason for executing someone today is the same as it has always been: it is a just punishment for the crime.

It’s like the “Just War Theory”. Yes, in theory there could be reasons to wage war. But in practice, there are exceedingly few.

There may be particular circumstances that make it unwise to use capital punishment, but these are cultural and temporary. The precept is unchanged.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

The general reason for executing someone today is the same as it has always been: it is a just punishment for the crime

This article illustrates my point well, including the following quote by JPII:
Pope John Paul II:

It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and [the state] 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. —Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56, emphasis in the original.

article:

John Paul reasons that if the death penalty is like amputation of a diseased limb or individual self-defense, then it should only be used a last resort—only if society cannot otherwise be defended. After all, if medication will work, it’s better than amputation. If you can defend yourself against an attacker by knocking him out, then you shouldn’t kill him.

article:

In defending innocent life, all means short of killing should be used before killing becomes necessary. Just as violence in self-defense can be justified but should be avoided if possible, so also the death penalty may only be used if there is no other way to defend society. But there are other ways to defend society from dangerous criminals, such as imprisoning them for life, so these means should be used.

So yes, the death penalty is “okay” by the church, at least in theory, but in practice the Church is much less supportive of it, considering that there are other, less drastic options.

 

[Ender]

This article illustrates my point well, including the following quote by JPII:
“[the state] 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.”

I’m familiar with this. The problem is with the interpretation that “defend society” means solely its physical protection, because this is not accurate, a point made by one of JPII’s predecessors.*"…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself." *(Pius XII)
Punishment has never been about merely the prevention of new crimes. Its primary function is (and has always been) “to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (CCC 2266). Protecting society includes creating the proper understanding of the nature of crimes in general and of murder in particular.The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood, He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (Catechism of Trent)
How do we demonstrate the enormity of the crime by acting as if our sole concern is with protecting ourselves?

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

How do we demonstrate the enormity of the crime by acting as if our sole concern is with protecting ourselves?

Sounds odd coming from a Catholic, who is only a confession away from forgiveness, no matter what he does. I believe we are called to supernatural mercy above the need to make a “demonstration” of the enormity of a crime. I’ll stick to JPII’s view.

As Catholics we have latitude on what we choose to believe here, within the Church teaching, but as I said, I think we would be hard-pressed to find support for most actual cases of the death penalty within the Church today. And I personally do not stand for it.

 

[Ender]

Sounds odd coming from a Catholic, who is only a confession away from forgiveness, no matter what he does.

Repentance and forgiveness do not cancel out the debt owed for the commission of a crime. It is retribution alone that restores the order disturbed by the sin.Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven: and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed. (Aquinas ST I-II 87, 6)

I believe we are called to supernatural mercy above the need to make a “demonstration” of the enormity of a crime.

Mercy does not trump justice.*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. *(JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

I’ll stick to JPII’s view.

So will I.Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime. (JPII, Evangelium Vitae)
Ender

 

[Jerbear]

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?)

They acted with the knowledge put in front of them to make the decision they felt was best. They tried to do the right thing. If evidence later surfaced that the man was innocent then it’s only natural for the jurors to feel guilty about their verdict but due to their intentions I wouldn’t think they did anything wrong.

 

[mikekle]

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?)

In my opinion, absolutely YES, they would be responsible, but Id say the person held most responsible would be the police in charge of investigating it, or the prosecutor trying to make the case that he is guilty, when he is truly not.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Ender, clearly we disagree on this subject, but we are both within our rights to believe what we do as Catholics. I believe that the death penalty shouldn’t be used in practice (it would have to be some extraordinary situation). You seem to believe that its appropriate to be used as normal punishment the way it is today.

Overall, JPII supports my view more than yours, though perhaps Pope Pius or others lean more towards your position. I cannot say that you are any more “wrong” than I am, with respect to Catholic teaching. But you cannot claim that you are any more “right” than I am, in the same respect. So I fail to see what you are trying to prove.

 

[Ender]

Overall, JPII supports my view more than yours, though perhaps Pope Pius or others lean more towards your position. I cannot say that you are any more “wrong” than I am, with respect to Catholic teaching. But you cannot claim that you are any more “right” than I am, in the same respect. So I fail to see what you are trying to prove.

What I am trying to do is clarify the arguments. For example, you and I have taken opposite positions on the issue yet you believe each of our positions is one we may validly hold. You also recognize that JPII and Pius XII seem to have different positions on the issue as well, so you have to ask: what kind of doctrine allows even popes to disagree?

The answer clearly has to be that no doctrine could allow this. Where the disagreement lies is not in respect to the doctrines involved but in the prudential judgments about the application of the doctrines in specific circumstances.

Since the actual debate is over the wisdom of using capital punishment in current societies, and not about the validity of the doctrines, arguments that attack the doctrines are invalid. Such an argument is the claim that capital punishment is an offense against man’s inherent dignity.

Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

What I am trying to do is clarify the arguments. For example, you and I have taken opposite positions on the issue yet you believe each of our positions is one we may validly hold. You also recognize that JPII and Pius XII seem to have different positions on the issue as well, so you have to ask: what kind of doctrine allows even popes to disagree?

The answer clearly has to be that no doctrine could allow this. Where the disagreement lies is not in respect to the doctrines involved but in the prudential judgments about the application of the doctrines in specific circumstances.

I don’t believe I’ve said anything otherwise. The Church does not condemn eating meat. But it is not opposed to vegetarianism. There is no conflict in that. My own personal belief leans much more heavily on the value of life, yours on the value of justice.

Since the actual debate is over the wisdom of using capital punishment in current societies, and not about the validity of the doctrines, arguments that attack the doctrines are invalid. Such an argument is the claim that capital punishment is an offense against man’s inherent dignity.

Honestly, the allowance of capital punishment does not sit well with me. I don’t agree with the burning of heretics or the execution of prisoners, generally speaking. But I am not attacking the doctrine. I think in most cases, it is indeed an evil. There may be some cases where its morally acceptable or necessary, however. That’s not contrary to JPII’s view, nor explicitly against doctrine. I am not embracing or advocating subjective truth here. We can sit on opposite ends of a table while still sitting at the same table.

 

[Ender]

I don’t believe I’ve said anything otherwise.

It is not your opposition to capital punishment that I have object to but the comments you have made in expressing that opposition. These, for example:
*- This sounds like an eye for an eye, not Christ’s message. (#21)

• I think capital “punishment” is contrary to being pro-life. (#21)
• It is barbarous… (#18)
• I consider it to be a great evil…* (#7)
  These sentiments represent a misunderstanding of punishment in general and of capital punishment in particular. It is important to remember that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were virtually unanimous in their support of the right to use capital punishment. You should recognize that the opinions you expressed implicitly condemn what those great saints believed and taught, and what the church herself accepted.

My own personal belief leans much more heavily on the value of life, yours on the value of justice.

Or not.Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress,* it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith.** The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.*(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[SecretCatholic]

These sentiments represent a misunderstanding of punishment in general and of capital punishment in particular. It is important to remember that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church were virtually unanimous in their support of the right to use capital punishment. You should recognize that the opinions you expressed implicitly condemn what those great saints believed and taught, and what the church herself accepted.

I have no obligation to agree with everything the Doctors of even the Fathers of the Church believed. Some of the Doctors even disagreed with each other on important theological issues.

Or not.

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress,* it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith.*** The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.(Cardinal Dulles)

Sometimes the right things are done for the wrong reasons. I don’t really appreciate the insinuation. I believe that sin exists and that we are responsible for paying our dues back to society. So I certainly do believe in retributive justice.

But I object to the death penalty on the same grounds that JPII did. I think that execution is an “extreme” act and should not be done unless there is no other way to defend society. Sure, the Church doesn’t come out and say that the death penalty is a barbarous act. That’s my own stance. But it’s not the incompatible anti-Catholic stance you make it out to be.

When retribution means ending a life it takes on a different significance. And I can certainly be Catholic and believe that the Church has made mistakes in how she has handled past situations. The Church has made public apologies for her actions before. It’s not post-modern liberal thinking. I have tried to be charitable and explain that we both have legit Catholic views, but that doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

You are a good debater, Ender. But you lack charity in your responses and interpretations.

 

[santiagoamr]

It does not matter if he is innocent or not.

Killing or conspiring to kill is a grave sin unless it is in self defense or defense of others. Most executions are for retribution and not safety, and revenge is only of God, no one else.

It is your duty to abstain when you know that the sentence is to be execution.

Keep it simple, don’t let politics get in the way even if it is Church politics.

 

[Ender]

I have no obligation to agree with everything the Doctors of even the Fathers of the Church believed.

What they taught are doctrines of the church. There is no difference in their position on this subject and what the church taught.

Sure, the Church doesn’t come out and say that the death penalty is a barbarous act. That’s my own stance. But it’s not the incompatible anti-Catholic stance you make it out to be.

CCC 1756 One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
If capital punishment is a barbarous act why does the church allow it at all, even theoretically? How does self-defense justify acting barbarously?

I can certainly be Catholic and believe that the Church has made mistakes in how she has handled past situations.

Individuals - popes, cardinals, the Doctors and Fathers - have all erred, but this is a very different thing than saying church doctrines have been wrong. Do you recognize the significance of asserting that the church taught error for 2000 years? Why would everyone who opposes other church doctrines such as those against contraception, divorce, and homosexual behavior not feel the church is equally mistaken on those subjects? Either the church is what she claims to be or she’s a fraud, and she cannot be what she claims if her major doctrines are wrong.

I have tried to be charitable and explain that we both have legit Catholic views, but that doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

I accept that “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger). What I oppose are certain arguments used to reject it.

You are a good debater, Ender. But you lack charity in your responses and interpretations.

You read too much into the citation from Cardinal Dulles. I have no reason to suspect you have no sense of sin or guilt, but I’m less sure about your acceptance of retributive justice. You said before that “An eye for and eye” is not Christ’s message, but this is incorrect. What Christ condemned was individual revenge, not the just retribution of the state.*… when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Killing or conspiring to kill is a grave sin unless it is in self defense or defense of others.

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)

Most executions are for retribution and not safety, and revenge is only of God, no one else.

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Pope St. Innocent I)

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.”[9] 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

 

[SecretCatholic]

Ender, the commandments say “Thou shalt not kill”. This means that killing is generally an evil. I am not getting this from my own arbitrary morality. I am getting this from Christian moral values. Please don’t tell me that states can kill but not individuals. Can states also push for homosexual relationships, while individuals are not allowed?

Your whole argument is that the death penalty can be appropriate for the purpose of retributive justice and retributive justice only. And yet, I do not see that stated anywhere by the Church. And I do not see ANY case of capital punishment in the last hundred years that has been justified by the Church on these grounds alone. Retributive justice is always only ONE of the reasons for capital punishment. It never seems to stand on its own. Instead, the Church has always justified the death penalty as a means of protecting society. When has the church supported the death penalty AT ALL in recent times?

Yes, the old law is to be upheld, but we are to see it in a new light with Christ’s revelation. If you mean to make a technical point- I get it. Yes, the Church is not against capital punishment in theory. Yes, the Church does not consider it an intrinsic evil. I am not disagreeing with you on this point. But in practice, the Church does not generally endorse it. And retributive justice never seems to be the primary nor sole justification for it.

Normally, a clear statement from a Saint Pope supporting the assertion that the death penalty should not be used unless it is the only possible way to defend society would be enough for a person to admit that that is at least a legitimate position for a Catholic, if not the only one. But you seem to have a problem with this. It’s quite amazing.

 

[santiagoamr]

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)
It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Pope St. Innocent I)

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.”[9] 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

Politics, and negotiation. 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. The Church has changed a lot of it’s doctrine, and it will change much more. Doctors of the Church were ok with abortion as well.
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, and that the law is infallible, but laws are made by men for they’re own reasons, 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. We should all be up for abortion, since modern laws not only permit it, but force people to commit it or loose their jobs if they are not willing to practise it, for example, Mexico.
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?. What you are also trying to explain is that we have no culpability, since everything happens by God’s will, but you seem to forget that God’s Will is also the respect for each individual’s will and there is where Personal Sin is made.
I believe that execution by the state is even worse than murder by our own hand, because the state holds all the power, it is much more abusive than an individual committing the worst atrocity imaginable. The modern western states do not have a will or wills, it is a collective of individual wills that can act against God’s desire for us.
Again keep it simple, God is Divinely simple, we make everything complicated because of politics.

 

[Ender]

Ender, the commandments say “Thou shalt not kill”. This means that killing is generally an evil. I am not getting this from my own arbitrary morality. I am getting this from Christian moral values.

“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.

Please don’t tell me that states can kill but not individuals.

“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?

Your whole argument is that the death penalty can be appropriate for the purpose of retributive justice and retributive justice only.

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

Retributive justice is always only ONE of the reasons for capital punishment. It never seems to stand on its own.

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.

Instead, the Church has always justified the death penalty as a means of protecting society.

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.

When has the church supported the death penalty AT ALL in recent times?

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)

Yes, the old law is to be upheld, but we are to see it in a new light with Christ’s revelation.

The church’s teaching has always been based on revelation. Are you suggesting that there has been new revelation in the last 20 years?

And retributive justice never seems to be the primary nor sole justification for it.

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)

Normally, a clear statement from a Saint Pope supporting the assertion that the death penalty should not be used unless it is the only possible way to defend society would be enough for a person to admit that that is at least a legitimate position for a Catholic, if not the only one. But you seem to have a problem with this. It’s quite amazing.

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.

Ender