Non-lethal means of punishment and capital punishment

[fish90]

Hello,

I am curious about whether non-lethal means were available throughout the history of the Church when capital punishment was issued. I could think of other ways to punish criminals that did involve non-lethal means, yet capital punishment was issued.

Also, are non-lethal methods a fundamental piece of the allowance of capital punishment?

Thanks,
fish90

 

[Church_Militant]

This is not really an apologetic question but actually belongs over in Moral Theology.

Even so…virtually every culture has executed lawbreakers, some were more humane about it than others.

I have question for you though.

Is life imprisonment really more humane than simple capital punishment?

IOW, would you want to live out the rest of your life in a prison environment?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is not really an apologetic question but actually belongs over in Moral Theology.

Even so…virtually every culture has executed lawbreakers, some were more humane about it than others.

I have question for you though.

Is life imprisonment really more humane than simple capital punishment?

IOW, would you want to live out the rest of your life in a prison environment?

check this out.

our legal system relies on the implied threat of sexual assault in prison to function. how humane is that? i think that is cruel and unusual. we should just go back to corporal punishment for most crimes. tie them to a post and cane them. its more cruel to separate the common criminal from his family for years, then it would be to give a 5 minute caning. and it would be a whole lot cheaper for us also. then we only have to keep the serious inmates in prison, rapists, murderers and such.

 

[fish90]

This is not really an apologetic question but actually belongs over in Moral Theology.

I placed this thread in the apologetic forum, because I am curious how the Church accepted capital punishment more in the past when I could think of non-lethal methods to use. These nonlethal methods would not follow the current Catechism’s teaching on capital punishment.

 

[pnewton]

Non-lethal means of punishment have always been around and used for various crimes. Perhaps I am missing your meaning?

 

[fish90]

Non-lethal means of punishment have always been around and used for various crimes. Perhaps I am missing your meaning?

So are nonlethal means of punishment a factor in implementing capital punishment as are gravity of the crime and confirmation of guilt?

 

[Mark77]

I placed this thread in the apologetic forum, because I am curious how the Church accepted capital punishment more in the past when I could think of non-lethal methods to use. These nonlethal methods would not follow the current Catechism’s teaching on capital punishment.

While God’s Truth is eternal & unchanging, our perception is often colored by the times we live in.

Over time, we have been Blessed to have the Holy Spirit guiding us to accept a more perfect understanding of God’s Truth.

While some “Church” officials used or tolerated capital punishment, it was often a political & social norm of the times. In the past, non-lethal punishment, like imprisonment, was often just as cruel, if not more, because of lack of resources, ie food & water & because of the horrific conditions prisoners were subject to, often resulting in a long, slow & excruciatingly painful death from starvation or disease.

In some strange way, it was perhaps more humane to execute a criminal, than to subject them to the horrors of life imprisonment in harsh conditions & eventual death.

i would argue that capital punishment was not necessarily used by the “Church”, but used in a majority of the cases for political or personal reasons, but the Church’s name was attached either correctly or incorrectly, to give it more credibility. While that does not justify it’s use, not all capital punishment attributed to the “Church” was actually used or condoned by the Church.

The bottom line is, despite mistakes & atrocities in the past, the current Church teaching is 100% correct. Capital punishment should almost never be used, unless there is absolutely no way to protect innocent people from harm.

The Catholic Church teaches us through her Catechism ; "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.” (CCC 2267)

Redemption is the key!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[JimG]

The church’s teaching that capital punishment should not be used unless there is no other way to protect the innocent, has a corollary, sometimes implied, sometimes stated. It is that modern society now possesses the means to protect itself without resorting to capital punishment.

I would argue that the church must also take into account the realities of the legal system as it exists, or recommend changes to it.

In most states, a life sentence does not mean life. One who murders, even multiple times, and receives a life sentence, must by statute, be eligible for parole after a certain number of years.

A prosecutor who wants a life sentence which actually means no parole ever, must usually charge the offender with a higher order of crime carrying a life sentence not subject to parole by the corrections system. (Such a higher level charge can also be used as a bargaining tool to obtain a plea to he lesser offense. And prosecutors offices could simply not work without plea bargains.)

It does not protect society to convict someone of murder and sentence them to life in prison, only to have them paroled in 20 years and kill again.

In Kansas, if a prosecutor wants to invoke the death penalty, he must charge not 1st degree murder, but a separate crime called capital murder. (That charge can also be used as a bargaining tool–taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea.)

 

[pnewton]

So are nonlethal means of punishment a factor in implementing capital punishment as are gravity of the crime and confirmation of guilt?

Again, I do not understand. One night in jail is non-lethal and might suffice for public intoxication, so gravity determines punishment. Speeding results in a fine. That too is non-lethal.

 

[fish90]

Again, I do not understand. One night in jail is non-lethal and might suffice for public intoxication, so gravity determines punishment. Speeding results in a fine. That too is non-lethal.

I will admit that I am not the best at asking questions in a clear matter.

Maybe if I explain my reasoning I will make my question clearer.

I find three major areas in which the killing of a human being is acceptable but not wanted nor wished: self-defense, just war, and capital punishment. The Church gives conditions to allow killing in these circumstances. With capital punishment, I find committing a grave crime and certain confirmation of guilt to be the conditions with permitting capital punishment. The Catechism recognizes that nonlethal methods are to be considered when determining the death penalty. I question whether this consideration is a mandatory condition for the death penalty to be allowed. Some people say the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into giving this new truth in sentencing the death penalty and I have no reason to go against the Church or to stop the Holy Spirit from granting humanity truth. This position is proved by understanding the pain involved with the penalty and the current penal system.

Further, the Catechism teaches that the death penalty has a legitimate use in very rare to nonexistent instances. This seems to be the result of the Catechism’s teaching about nonlethal methods. I question whether this condition is a matter of complete obedience as in the case of doctrine or a matter of prudential judgment as in the case of a just war.

I would think nonlethal methods were available throughout history before the current Catechism was issued. Reasons for this include that capital punishment was more merciful than life in prison, yet this seems contradictory, because the Church would advocate death over life in this instance.

I presented more of the understanding I find instead of a question. The question may be better asked with “how are nonlethal means more important today than yesterday and is there a contradiction?”

I wish I make sense.

Thanks,
fish90

 

[pnewton]

I would think nonlethal methods were available throughout history before the current Catechism was issued.

Thanks and got it. The key phrase that I think was missing is, “nonlethal means* that still protect society*”. In other words, you want to know about violent crimes, like murder, and whether nonlethal punishment existed that could still protect society.

My answer would be “no”. I personally do not thing that it exists today, at least for some criminals.