Is The Catholic Church against the death penalty?

[TMC]

The OP’s question boils down to this: May I ignore the teaching of the Church and its current leadership and instead pick and choose through 2000 years of history to try and find any support for my views, regardless of whether they are in accord with the teaching of the Church? The answer is obvious.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The OP’s question boils down to this: May I ignore the teaching of the Church and its current leadership and instead pick and choose through 2000 years of history to try and find any support for my views, regardless of whether they are in accord with the teaching of the Church? The answer is obvious.

I agree with you. But if you take a look at past posts you will see that this is a long going trend with this user.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

The OP’s question boils down to this: May I ignore the teaching of the Church and its current leadership and instead pick and choose through 2000 years of history to try and find any support for my views, regardless of whether they are in accord with the teaching of the Church? The answer is obvious.

Beating up any strawmen lately?

 

[Warrenton]

No, it isn’t, as I have posted previously. But were the US to “abolish” capital punishment, the number of legally sanctioned killings would not change much. Police will still shoot people, people still kill people for different reasons, with varying degrees of state complicity (for example, killing of prisoners by other prisoners) the government still deprives people of life in different circumstances. Capital punishment at least recognizes the fact and attemtps to moderate it.

The biggest problem in the US is the lack of proportionality in the penalty. It is nearly impossible to predict who will actually be sentenced to death, even looking at defendants charged with identical crimes. The second biggest problem is the quality of evidence: some people are sentenced on circumstantial evidence alone, or on the testimony of fellow inmates, and others are given lesser sentences when the evidence is overwhelming.

It’s just a bad system (though we justify it by saying its better than flipping a coin) whether or not the penalty is death, but this thread is only dealing with capital punishment.

We have made some progress in the US recently in the area of capital punishment. It is now impermissible to execute the mentally retarded and juveniles. But systemic overhaul has not occurred. But then, we have had a hard time significantly changing anything here recently. We elected a president who campaigned vocally on a “stop the war” platform. We’re still fighting and no end in sight. So, incremental improvement is the best we can hope for. But, as I said before, incremental improvement toward restriction is better than incremental expansion of the penalty.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Beating up any strawmen lately?

I think you need to take TMC’s post in the context of all the OP’s posting history here and I think you will see a trend that prompted TMC’s post.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I think you need to take TMC’s post in the context of all the OP’s posting history here and I think you will see a trend that prompted TMC’s post.

I see. I do believe you have a point.

 

[Warrenton]

What is acceptable is open for some debate, as many posts have already shown.

The statement regarding the “murderous compulsion” defense is not correct. It is not a very successful defense. Most “psychopathic” killers get convicted, “Silence of the Lambs” notwithstanding. The case of Jeff Dahmer makes my point.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Abortion is murder. Fact! Those who take up the death penalty cause should think about rounding up all those health care professionals who procure abortions and execute them, they’re murderers. We should execute the executioners too, they’re murders as well. One human being killing another is murder, whether the state sanctions it or not and no Christian should ever support this.

I agree with you on all of that, that was the point I was making within my post

 

[GEddie]

What is acceptable is open for some debate, as many posts have already shown.

The statement regarding the “murderous compulsion” defense is not correct. It is not a very successful defense. Most “psychopathic” killers get convicted, “Silence of the Lambs” notwithstanding. The case of Jeff Dahmer makes my point.

Convicted, yes. But seldom executed. JD was not subjected to state execution.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I didn’t take anything out of context. I’m describing prison conditions and prison gangs that flourish and contrasting reality to some strange assumptions you have about who some of these people are.

You didn’t read the FBI’s report on exactly what prison gangs like the Mexican Mafia are, and how their leaders order murders, rapes, traffic in narcotics, commit extortions, assaults, etc., even though they are behind bars. You understand that men serving life sentences can and do continue to commit capital offenses, right? Cuz I’m not seeing anything to refute this.

There is numerous amounts of gangs that operate in/out of prison here’s a link to one of the stories: newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=11453921
When I used the word “monster” I was referring to the perception people think of when they hear “death row inmates” for example: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314418/Steven-Hayes-Chilling-confession-Connecticut-massacre-killer.html
This man is being sentenced as of right now regarding whether he will get life or death penalty.

 

[Warrenton]

Convicted, yes. But seldom executed. JD was not subjected to state execution.

I agree with you, but only because as a percentage of convicts, those receiving a death sentence is relatively small. There are less than a hundred executions in a typical year in the US, out of thousands of murder convictions.

And given the circumstances of Dahmer’s death, which occurred while he was incarcerated, I cannot agree entirely that he was not in effect subjected to execution.

The point I have argued is that since captial punishment is a reality, it is preferable to surround it with as many legal protections as possible to ensure its consistent and equal application. As a practical matter, this will have the effect of reducing the number of capital sentences.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…since captial punishment is a reality, it is preferable to surround it with as many legal protections as possible to ensure its consistent and equal application. As a practical matter, this will have the effect of reducing the number of capital sentences.

What additional procedural safeguards do you suggest inserting into the appeal and writ process that aren’t already there?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Convicted, yes. But seldom executed. JD was not subjected to state execution.

Yet he was killed in prision by another inmate. So much for this part of the CCC paragraph 2267.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
It did not prevent the murder of JD or many other inmates.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What additional procedural safeguards do you suggest inserting into the appeal and writ process that aren’t already there?

I think the removal of the decision of going for a capital case from the hands of one individual. In many jurisdictions it is totally up to the DA whether or not the case will be a capital one or not. If he decides on it to be a capital case then there is judicial review but if he choses not to do so there is no review. Like cases are not always treated the same.

It seems that those with public defenders and low on the economic scale are disproportionately charged with capital cases.

There needs to be some sort of independent review panel set up, or some such thing.

 

[SisterSnowflake]

Actually, in grad school, our priest professor who was a scholar of languages and Biblical history informed us that, INDEED, ***the original and correct *** translation is thou shalt not “murder”.

You are correct!

 

[SisterSnowflake]

The innocent unborn have committed no crimes. .

AMEN! I support your position; I’m so tired of hearing Catholics compare innocent babies with people convicted of heinous crimes.

If your ship were about to sink and there was but one life raft (big enough for only one person) would you let your baby/young child die to save the convicted rapist/murderer?

 

[SisterSnowflake]

Lastly, I used to feel very guilty for supporting the death penalty. Then, I spoke with a very left leaning (you know, the type that usually seem to want to give convicts milk and cookies and story time each day while holding hands and blowing kisses) Episcopalian lawyer who had an excellent point formulated over many years in the court system. She said, “Sister, some people commit acts that are so horrible that they forfeit their own right to live”.

I no longer feel guilty for my position, even though many other Sisters feel that my position on capital punishment should qualify ME for capital punishment…Why is it that the so-called peace and love crowd can be so bitter, angry, mean, and nasty…when is the last time you felt any peace and love from them?

For those who try to guilt me into joinging there bandwagon, alas, I will continue to work among God’s people while they boycott bottled water, save mother earth, and stump to end capital punishment.

No hate mail, please…I am simply expressing my opinion, as you have also been allowed to do.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I think the removal of the decision of going for a capital case from the hands of one individual. In many jurisdictions it is totally up to the DA whether or not the case will be a capital one or not. If he decides on it to be a capital case then there is judicial review but if he choses not to do so there is no review. Like cases are not always treated the same.

It seems that those with public defenders and low on the economic scale are disproportionately charged with capital cases.

There needs to be some sort of independent review panel set up, or some such thing.

Judicial review of each prosecutor decision to ask for the DP as it comes up might veer too closely into separation of powers issues, but the decision making process used in all prosecutors offices might be subject to scrutiny to ensure that there is no overt institutional bias (which starts at street level).

Having a panel of DAs with some form of public representation to vote on DP might work too.

I believe in California, at least, public defenders or conflicts counsel have to be qualified to handle DP-eligible cases, meaning, they have to sit through trials as second seats before they may be the primary defense counsel.

But be careful of what you ask for. Even if the typical DP sentence concerns a black on white murder, government prosecutors might well decide to eliminate the discrepancy by asking juries for even more, racially fair, DP sentences.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The state is doing something about it - it’s encouraging it.

The problem with your approach is that you credit the state with too much power, and with a unity of interest within the state that does not exist.

The state is going different ways at the same time. Some within it are encouraging crime in various ways, others within it are tasked with stopping it. The death penalty is simply a method to ensure the safety of a greater number of people.

That is an interesting take on the current position in the US. I think the only response I can find is that I’m grateful I don’t live there.

Under your analysis, war would be impermissible, since it is also a kind of legalized homicide.

First that doesn’t compute. There is a significant difference between the situation of executing individuals in a prison of someone found guilty of a capital offence and war. Plus, you cannot make a bland statement that war is permissible. The Church’s own teaching isn’t simply that war is permitted. It teaches the concept of a just war. I think it would be difficult to find many wars in the world that meet the requirements of a just war.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hello Matt: Take a read of Acts 5:1 through about 11. It relates the story of St. Peter and a husband and wife who lie to the Church about a gift and are struck dead as a result.

It seems that your approach over emphasizes the mercy aspect of justice at the expense of retribution. We cannot reconcile perfect justice with mercy on earth. But you go too far when you state that God forgives everything - He forgives what is asked, and then if the request is sincere.

In capital cases, there are instances when the condemned has neither sought forgiveness nor feels guilt. Sometimes, the mental state of the condemned is such that he would kill again. In such cases, it is beside the point to base a call for universal clemency on divine precedent.

There is a problem with searching the scriptures to support the death penalty. There are quotes that can be found which support the death penalty. There are also quotations which could be used to support the counter argument.

I think there is some degree of misunderstanding about my phrase about God forgiving anything. I clearly did not explain it adequately. I mean that if God is asked for forgiveness and that the request is genuine and the requestor is genuinely contrite then there is nothing that God will not forgive.