Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[Sunflower15]

I guess the Catholic church thought it was acceptable during the dark ages, when it executed or had executed thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children because of their religious convictions. Or are the “experts” going to deny the fact of the Inquision in world history. Go ahead, and type in you “excuse”.

I sincerely doubt that the Church found it acceptable ever! More like, some ‘twisted’ individuals found a way to act without others’ knowledge for a while [things like that are usually not known until decades or centuries later…]

Personally, I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of those ‘individuals’ during their personal judgments with God…and that’s really what counts!!!

 

[Newbie2]

Do I hear the shuffling sound of a ‘no true Scotsman’ in the distance?

Five straight centuries of burning people alive for imaginary crimes, and for explicitly religious reasons, but no worries; these fine believers just read the Book wrong.

Here’s a doctrinal statement for you…straight from the mouth of our Lord: Thou shall not suffer a witch to live…

And the convoluted exegesis begins and all shall be well in the kingdom.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is that your ‘line’ during your ‘one-on-one’ with your Maker when asked what did you do to stop injustice for the innocent executed in your democratic nation? Good Luck!:

Before you consign me to hell, which you seem remarkably anxious to do, think through again what the proposition is. Your proposition assumes, without proving it, that the various states and federal system knowingly execute innocent people, known by them to be innocent. You then go on to compare that with abortion.

As the one proposing the comparison, you must first demonstrate the initial premise; that the state and federal criminal systems knowingly execute innocent people. You haven’t done that.

Just so you know, I do not favor capital punishment. But whether or not a Catholic supports it or not is within the prudential judgment of the individual. The Church does not say it is an intrinsic evil as it says abortion is. Now, if you can prove that the state and federal systems knowingly execute innocent people, you might have an argument that the Church should change its mind about it.

 

[estesbob]

Though I know about separation of Church and state, my question is how can a Catholic in good conscience be ProLife in terms of Abortion, but not ProLife in terms of the Death Penalty execution of someone known to be innocent of the crime for which he is being executed?
]

Nobody condones or justifes the execution of one who is innocent. Howver a Catholic can most certainly be opposed to abortion AND suport the death penalty . The former is an intrinsic evil and can never be allowed-the Church has allowed for the latter throughout its entire History

 

[estesbob]

I guess the Catholic church thought it was acceptable during the dark ages, when it executed or had executed thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children because of their religious convictions. Or are the “experts” going to deny the fact of the Inquision in world history. Go ahead, and type in you “excuse”.

I was not aware that the Church execture thousands and thousands of innocent men women and children during the so called :dark ages". In fact in the entire 400 year runs of the inquisition the total executed was aprox 4,000, all of whom we executed by the State

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Though I know about separation of Church and state, my question is how can a Catholic in good conscience be ProLife in terms of Abortion, but not ProLife in terms of the Death Penalty execution of someone known to be innocent of the crime for which he is being executed?

Clarence Thomas and Atonin Scalia are not the Lord, not the Pope, not even a priest. They are usually pro-life justices and I support them, but their support for this is not something I agree with, and a supreme court justice supporting something doesn’t make it right.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

People often confuse the terms of not guilty with innocent. The state has to prove a person guilty; he does not have to prove himself innocent. If the state cannot reach the amount of proof needed for a guilty verdict, no matter how likely it is the person committed the crime, he should be released. Many people who are the opposite of innocent walk because the burden of proof was not met.

If the writings are accurate, perhaps the justices were stating the law and not their personal beliefs. I would state that abortion is legal, but I most certainly do not believe it is moral.

There would be no greater miscarriage of justice than that of putting an innocent person to death. The system must be exacting in ensuring that a scenario such as that never happens.

I would think abortion is as great a miscarriage of justice. What crime has a baby even been accused of?

And consider the possibility that those reading from Satan’s teleprompter have misquoted or misrepresented the justices, even as those who claim all US bishops support the current regime’s ‘health care’ plan.

 

[Secret_Square]

“I guess the Catholic church thought it was acceptable during the dark ages, when it executed or had executed thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children because of their religious convictions. Or are the “experts” going to deny the fact of the Inquisition in world history. Go ahead, and type in you “excuse”.”

In order to understand why people were executed for heresy and witchcraft back in the Middle Ages, you have to realize that BOTH secular and religious law at the time regarded these as crimes that endangered not only the individual but the entire community – the same way we regard things like drug dealing, gang activity, and child sexual abuse today. In some ways, heresy was regarded as worse than murder because it had the potential to kill the soul as well as the body, and lead other innocent people into a state of sin.

Our understanding of religious freedom and respect for the dignity of the individual conscience has improved a lot since then. We take it for granted that people have a right to believe whatever they want about God, and to practice any religion they want – but in the Middle Ages people did not see it that way.

Our understanding of things like mental illness has also improved, so people who might have been accused of being witches in the Middle Ages would probably just be sent to counselors or put on medication today. But if you didn’t know any better, and were sincerely convinced that someone in your community was invoking Satan and causing death, illness, and destruction to others, wouldn’t you want them stopped? And if the person were REALLY, genuinely, doing that, wouldn’t it be just as bad as, say, having a terrorist or a serial killer or rapist running around loose in the community?

 

[Ender]

How exactly do we ‘execute an innocent person without the intent to harm the innocent’?

Well, if someone is executed and later on proof is discovered that he was innocent, that would pretty well fit the criteria of unintentionally executing the innocent.

How is their innocence considered as ‘murder is to self-defense’ when comparing to abortion? I just don’t understand

I don’t either. What are you trying to say here?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Clarence Thomas and Atonin Scalia are not the Lord, not the Pope, not even a priest. They are usually pro-life justices and I support them, but their support for this is not something I agree with, and a supreme court justice supporting something doesn’t make it right.

You need to distinguish between what a justice personally prefers and how he arrives at a decision. This is not a situation where they “support” one position against another, it is a ruling they made on the basis of the law. If the law denies a prisoner the right to an appeal then no justice can arbitrarily decide that it is a bad law and he can ignore it. If you think Scalia and Thomas misinterpreted the law then present your case, but don’t pretend that this ruling was based on their personal preferences.

Ender

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

Our understanding of religious freedom and respect for the dignity of the individual conscience has improved a lot since then. We take it for granted that people have a right to believe whatever they want about God, and to practice any religion they want – but in the Middle Ages people did not see it that way.

Indeed, our understanding of religious freedom and respect for the individual has increased a lot.

The only detail omitted here by Secret Square is that this freedom was very hard-won.
We achieved it by an endless struggle against the Church ( and the Mullahs and the Rabbis and other Shaman) who, like anyone else who has enjoyed a position of power, were reluctant to lessen their hold over the minds of men.

Don’t make the error to think that our medieval ancestors misread the Bible or mistook its content.
They didn’t.

Yahweh really does hate homosexuals and witches and he orders us to kill them.

Chapter and verse on request.

I’d say that in the ages of faith when the fires of the inquisition burned so joyfully, people were just a little more honest about their religion.

 

[Newbie2]

Request for chapter and verse.

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

I sincerely doubt that the Church found it acceptable ever! More like, some ‘twisted’ individuals found a way to act without others’ knowledge for a while [things like that are usually not known until decades or centuries later…]

Personally, I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of those ‘individuals’ during their personal judgments with God…and that’s really what counts!!!

And there it is… a full frontal ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.

One doubts whether Sunflower has bothered to read any of our bloody and deplorable history at all.

Sitting on our comfortable perch of 21 Century privilege and with hindsight, it is easy to claim that our interpretation of scripture is right and that all who quoted it to let loose their most nauseating sadistic tendencies were flawed in their soteriology and not ‘true Christians’.

It should strike us as odd, however, that the two men most revered throughout Christian history; St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, couldn’t glimpse the truth that Sunflower claims is so obviously and readily available to all but a few wayward sociopaths.

Aquinas thought that heretics (that would be me, my entire family and almost everyone I love and value) should be killed outright. Augustine argued that they should be tortured.

I will bet a bottle of fine Bordeaux that these enlightened theologians had read and contemplated the NT (including the doctrine of Grace) more studiously than most of us typing here.

The doubts expressed by Sunflower do not seem to be based on any facts, although, perhaps, they are still forthcoming.

However, if one can’t produce any evidence why the torture and murder instigated by the church wasn’t a direct consequence of religious beliefs ( as the parsons themselves stated overtly), I’d suggest that people accept this as a historical fact and that they come to this discussion with accurate data lest they make themselves look foolish.

 

[Ender]

Aquinas thought that heretics (that would be me, my entire family and almost everyone I love and value) should be killed outright. Augustine argued that they should be tortured.

Although there are some interesting issues to debate here (are you really a heretic or are you an apostate, an atheist, …; where are your references to Aquinas and Augustine?) none of it is really relevant to the question posed by the OP. Did you have something to contribute to this discussion?

Ender

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

Request for chapter and verse.

Leviticus 20:13 - “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Levitics 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-27 - “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Tim 1:8-10 - “We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,”

Jude 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 There shall not be found with thee any one…that useth divination, one that practiseth augury, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, | or a charmer, or a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

While some of these verses are direct orders to murder our fellow (wo)men) others are a preview of what our loving Father is going to do to our brothers and sisters once they leave this vale of tears.
And as we all know, the religious do take their queue from the deity, as has been demonstrated ( and still is, in some parts of the world) ad nauseum.

 

[Brendan]

Does anyone believe that executing someone convicted of a crime that he did not commit is similar, morally speaking, to executing an abortion?

Should the same Sanctity of Life principle hold for both equally or not? And, why?

The Sanctity of Life does apply, but one of the factors that enters into the equation is knowledge of guilt.

For the execution of an innocent man to be morally equivalent to abortion, the State must have knowledge that the person is, in fact, innocent. That is true in abortion, the child is, without doubt, guilt of no crime.

If a person went through a fair and just trial, then the culpability of the State in the execution is substantially less than an abortion.

In an abortion, the one executed recieves no trial, no legal assistance in defending their life and no appeals.

The Holocaust would be an example of where State executions were morally equivalent to abortion.

 

[estesbob]

Leviticus 20:13 - “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Levitics 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-27 - “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Tim 1:8-10 - “We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,”

Jude 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 There shall not be found with thee any one…that useth divination, one that practiseth augury, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, | or a charmer, or a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

While some of these verses are direct orders to murder our fellow (wo)men) others are a preview of what our loving Father is going to do to our brothers and sisters once they leave this vale of tears.
And as we all know, the religious do take their queue from the deity, as has been demonstrated ( and still is, in some parts of the world) ad nauseum.

I think it is time for the rest of to refer to another book-that is Tolkiens “The Hobbit” Recall the creatures that turned to stone when the sun came up and recall the inadvisibily of feeding these creatures.

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

Although there are some interesting issues to debate here (are you really a heretic or are you an apostate, an atheist, …; where are your references to Aquinas and Augustine?) none of it is really relevant to the question posed by the OP. Did you have something to contribute to this discussion?

Ender

How is this not relevant?
This is a Catholic forum and this thread discusses the acceptability of putting people to death.
To include the thoughts of the great lights of the church seems almost a prerequisite.

From Summa Theologica.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

For Augustine’s argument for torture: City of God, book nineteen.

Happy reading.

Regarding my own beliefs, or lack thereof; I believe that we are apes with fine Italians shoes and I also believe that I shall have a glass of Petit Syrah this evening.
Other than that I adhere to no beliefs about invisible friends and foes.

 

[KindredSoul]

I certainly agree with the OP that it is not okay to shrug off possible evidence that someone on Death Row may be innocent by saying “Hey, you’ve had your fair trial.” Such at attitude says, “Whether we were right or wrong, you’ve already had your chance, so even if this new evidence could call your guilt into question, we’ve already decided to kill you…so there’s nothing wrong with that.” After all, the OP isn’t talking (and I think this needs to be clarified) about people who already went through with executions and then found out the accused was innocent; the OP is talking about cases where the accused wants to bring up evidence that may or may not call the conviction into question and thus save a possibly innocent person from being executed, but in which cases where the Justices equivalently shrug and say “Too late, you’ve had your chance. Your innocence or guilt only mattered at the trial. Not anymore.” Assuming the person is proven innocent afterward, it would mean that the Justices’ carelessness foreseeably (not as a total accident) led to the death of an innocent man, since they were unwilling to give such evidence a chance in time to save him.

I cannot help but agree with the OP that such is a travesty, and as a Catholic I cannot in good conscience say that this is not a grave and profoundly mortal sin; killing someone via deliberate and obvious carelessness with their lives in which case you knew such carelessness was going to lead to the victim’s death seems to me to be a form of murder in itself. And that’s what this appears to be, if it is happening as the OP has stated.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Leviticus 20:13 - “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Levitics 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-27 - “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Tim 1:8-10 - “We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,”

Jude 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Deuteronomy 18:10-11 There shall not be found with thee any one…that useth divination, one that practiseth augury, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, | or a charmer, or a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Of these only 2 or 3 talk about the death penalty. The death penalty for sins was abolished because Christ took our sins. Furthermore, I think “Homosexual” in that case applied to someone commiting certain acts, not those who might merely struggle with the temptation.

5"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"

6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.

7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.

10Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”

11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."]

The only detail omitted here by Secret Square is that this freedom was very hard-won.
We achieved it by an endless struggle against the Church

Yes, the great struggle, where a band of freedom fighters overthrew the pope. Seriously though, got a source?