Is there any situation in which it is morally correct to use the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PMV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PMV

Guest
Does the Church have any position which accepts the use of the death penalty as morally correct?
 
Yes, when through all efforts, the person is still a threat to the community.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Yes, when through all efforts, the person is still a threat to the community.
Click to expand...
Clarification: When through all moral efforts, the person is still a threat to the community.

I’ve read any number of posts on this site by people who oppose the death penalty as immoral, and yet seem to have no problem proposing a lifetime of solitary confinement devoid of very nearly all human contact for those convicted of capital crimes.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Does the Church have any position which accepts the use of the death penalty as morally correct?
Click to expand...
From the Catechism:
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.

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 to 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 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 nonexistent."68
Click to expand...
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
 
40.png
PMV:
Does the Church have any position which accepts the use of the death penalty as morally correct?
Click to expand...
When it comes to collective/individual self-defense.

P.S. It’s not right so refer to an evil -any evil- as “morally correct”; the proper terms are: ‘morally justified’
 
40.png
mlchance:
Clarification: When through all moral efforts, the person is still a threat to the community.

I’ve read any number of posts on this site by people who oppose the death penalty as immoral, and yet seem to have no problem proposing a lifetime of solitary confinement devoid of very nearly all human contact for those convicted of capital crimes.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
If the person cannot play well with others, put them by themselves.

Why is that a problem?
 
Since JPII was against it, along with most bishops, you would think they would have changed the catechism, given the advances in prisons today.

Wonder why they didn’t.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
If the person cannot play well with others, put them by themselves.
Click to expand...
Long term solitary confinement can be a form of psychological torture. It causes/worsens psychoses, and ultimately leads to self-destructive behaviors. For example, check out Dr. Stuart Grassian’s testimony.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Since JPII was against it, along with most bishops, you would think they would have changed the catechism, given the advances in prisons today.

Wonder why they didn’t.
Click to expand...
As you will note in the works on the subject by Cardinal Dullas it is not within the competance of the Church to make immoral what is moral. Capital punnishment is one of the natural rights of a state and can therefore not be revoked save by the choice of the state itself. An annalogy is that a person as a natural right to defend themselves against a grave threat. A state must have the freedom to do the same as it is considered a juridical person.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Long term solitary confinement can be a form of psychological torture. It causes/worsens psychoses, and ultimately leads to self-destructive behaviors. For example, check out Dr. Stuart Grassian’s testimony.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I agree that it does those things you say. But if there is no other way to control the person, to prevent him from causing harm to others, then so be it.

It’s his fault he is there to begin with.
 
40.png
mosher:
As you will note in the works on the subject by Cardinal Dullas it is not within the competance of the Church to make immoral what is moral. Capital punnishment is one of the natural rights of a state and can therefore not be revoked save by the choice of the state itself. An annalogy is that a person as a natural right to defend themselves against a grave threat. A state must have the freedom to do the same as it is considered a juridical person.
Click to expand...
Para. 2267 from the Catechism all but says executions should never happen. Name someone who was executed in the US in the last 10 years based on a crime he/she committed while in prison. If you can’t, that means all those executions were performed as acts of vengence.

I am in favor of the death penalty, but it has been used inappropriately in this country for decades.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Since JPII was against it, along with most bishops, you would think they would have changed the catechism, given the advances in prisons today.

Wonder why they didn’t.
Click to expand...
Because TRUTH is eternal. The Church has allowed for the Death Penalty for its entire existence. It would not be right to change this teaching just becuase AT THIS TIME and in OUR country and most western country it would seem the conditions for its implementation do not exist.

I am an adamant opponent of the Death Penalty but accept the Church’s teachings on it. The Teachings of the Church are for ALL time-not just for todays circumstnaces
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
I agree that it does those things you say. But if there is no other way to control the person, to prevent him from causing harm to others, then so be it.
Click to expand...
If there’s no other way to prevent him from causing harm to others, then execute him. This is, after all, precisely in line with Church teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Para. 2267 from the Catechism all but says executions should never happen. Name someone who was executed in the US in the last 10 years based on a crime he/she committed while in prison. If you can’t, that means all those executions were performed as acts of vengence.

I am in favor of the death penalty, but it has been used inappropriately in this country for decades.
Click to expand...
True, but I can name at least one that should have because he continued to be a danger to society while in max security prison - John Gotti.

Apart from the Catechism, St Thomas teaches that capital punnishment can be used for pure punative punnishment. It is well worth the read if you have the time.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
If the person cannot play well with others, put them by themselves.

Why is that a problem?
Click to expand...
It often becomes a problem in that nearly every sentence of “life imprisonment” carries a legally mandated potential for parole.

I recently read of a prisoner in my own state who had been sentenced to four consecutive life terms (for four murders) who was coming up for a parole hearing for the fourth time! Parole has so far been denied, but it is not impossible that he will eventually be paroled. My understanding is that this is under the control of the board of corrections, not the court which convicted him.

Also, many “lifers” have been known to continue to head up their illegal organizations and activities, including murders, from within prison.
 
40.png
mlchance:
If there’s no other way to prevent him from causing harm to others, then execute him. This is, after all, precisely in line with Church teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
So you would rather execute him, than let him live in solitary confinement, where, he might end up repenting.

And of course just happen to buy the winning lottery ticket. 😉
 
40.png
JimG:
It often becomes a problem in that nearly every sentence of “life imprisonment” carries a legally mandated potential for parole.
Click to expand...
the problem addressed was that the person should end up in solitary confinement if there were no other way to prevent him from committing crimes. I agree that every life sentence should be with out possibility of parole. If you’ve done something bad enough for a life sentence, you shouldn’t be coming out of prison.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
So you would rather execute him, than let him live in solitary confinement, where, he might end up repenting.
Click to expand...
You yourself have admitted that prolonged solitary confinement is a form of torture. Therefore, it is not an acceptable option. We all know the Church permits execution of a criminal when other morally licit means of protecting others from him cannot succeed. Therefore, the execution would be proper and just.

Issues of repentance are irrelevant. We all must repent before we die, however it is we may die. The criminal on death row at least has the luxury of knowing when it is he is scheduled to die.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top