Opinion on the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thom18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m generally opposed to capital punishment.

That being said, my former governor, Mitt Romney, put together a commission to look into it.

Their report recommended the death penalty for extreme cases.
  1. Convicted for killing a cop
  2. Killing another inmate or prison staff member while serving time in prison
  3. Ordering death contracts on the outside, while doing time in prison. Mob bosses and gang leaders do this.
Of this I agree.

Prison guards, and health officials working in prisons are being assaulted more and more. by those convicts who have been given life sentences and have nothing to lose.

Jim
 
This is interesting. Not sure I agree about the last one (very difficult to prove).

In my mind the death penalty still has a very limited place, namely for those special cases of murderers who kill randomly. I remember a story a few years ago where a man walked into a grocery store, went to the ice cream aisle, and stabbed a woman in the neck until she was dead. A grandmother. Would you want to be a prison guard around this person? There is a legitimate case to make for the death penalty in this case and others.
 
I think it should be allowed but as long as there is irrefutable evidence, e.g. DNA evidence, the crime is caught on camera or witnessed by several sources, used only in cases of murder or treason which caused grave damage, and a death penalty jury should be expanded to 15 people and would have to come to a unanimous decision.
 
I’m generally opposed to capital punishment.

That being said, my former governor, Mitt Romney, put together a commission to look into it.

Their report recommended the death penalty for extreme cases.
  1. Convicted for killing a cop
  2. Killing another inmate or prison staff member while serving time in prison
  3. Ordering death contracts on the outside, while doing time in prison. Mob bosses and gang leaders do this.
Of this I agree.

Prison guards, and health officials working in prisons are being assaulted more and more. by those convicts who have been given life sentences and have nothing to lose.

Jim
I could agree with this as well. I think it would be a reasonable compromise.
 
"Nelka
None of us have the right to take a life.
Self defence is different, when you defend yourself you are looking to murder someone are you?
-ath penalty is murder?
Let us define murder. It is the unjust taking of an innocent life. Using that definition the death Penalty is not murder. As it has been pointed out to you Capitol Punishment is regarded as a means of self-defense. There is legitimate debate on both sides of the question. According to the Catholic Dictionary by Father John Harding.
Theologians further reason that, in receiving its authority from God through the natural law, the state also receives from him the right to use the necessary means for attaining its end. The death penalty is such a means. If even with capital punishment crime abounds, no lesser penalty will suffice.

The practical question remains of how effective a deterrent capital punishment is in some modern states, when rarely used or only after long delays. In principle, however, it is morally licit because in the most serious crimes the claims of retribution and deterrence are so demanding that the corrective value of punishment must, if necessary, be sacrificed.
I am still discerning what my own views are. I believe that there are some instances where only an execution can protect us but I do believe that it is a rare occurrence. It could be rarer if our court system was conducted more reasonably.
 
Last edited:
The New Testament definitely does NOT endorse “an eye for an eye” but Jesus says, rather, to turn the other cheek.
What does that mean, though? Couldn’t one say that to merely imprison someone for a crime is a violation of that commandment?
 
I’m rather in favor of it for child molesters and rapists as well. And serial killers. And people like Timothy mcveigh.
 
That being said, my former governor, Mitt Romney, put together a commission to look into it.

Their report recommended the death penalty for extreme cases.
  1. Convicted for killing a cop
  2. Killing another inmate or prison staff member while serving time in prison
  3. Ordering death contracts on the outside, while doing time in prison. Mob bosses and gang leaders do this.
Of this I agree.

Prison guards, and health officials working in prisons are being assaulted more and more. by those convicts who have been given life sentences and have nothing to lose.

Jim
Excellent points!!!

A prison guard was captured by prisoners and slowly stabbed one hundred times!!! Nothing can be done to punish the prisoners.
 
Last edited:
I think the quote in James 2:13 is that “Mercy triumphs over judgment”, not over justice.

“Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it.” (JPII)

Mercy does not trump justice.
It has always been an overriding teaching of the church that God forgives the repentant sinner. If we “kill” the sinner before they have a chance to repent, who is the greater sinner?
“Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications.” (Romano Amerio)
IMHO NOT EVEN ONE (1) can EVER be justified.
This would be a more compelling argument if the church hadn’t for 2000 years recognized the validity of capital punishment.
Bottom line: We aren’t God. The death penalty is a violation of the first commandment. Only God has the right to take life in payment (i.e. justice) and WE AIN’T GOD.
Again, this is not the position the church has taken.

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.” 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)
 
The death penalty is a form of societal self-defense. It’s a permanent solution to a threat against members of society.
I do not believe that capital punishment can be defended on the basis that it is a legitimate form of self defense. Self defense does not justify what capital punishment demands.
 
St John Paul 2 said that the need for the death penalty would be non existent in some societies ( America) that can keep serial killers completely isolated and unable to cause harm to Anyone else.
 
I believe that the death penalty should be administered to people who commit particularly heinous crimes.
 
Not exactly…

“It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.” (Mt 19:8)

“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)

God’s comments in Gn 9:6 are part of his covenant with Noah, which will be in effect until the end of time, and man’s nature is unchanged. Nor is it accurate to simply say that God “allowed” the death penalty. It was more than that.

“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)
He no longer allows divorce
He no longer permits “an eye for an eye”
. . . and IMHO opinion, he no longer want us to take life in retribution.
It is this final point I find the most troubling. What justifies retributive punishment? Is it not that the person deserves to be punished for his crime? How else could we justify punishing someone unless he deserved it? Retribution is nothing other than justice, but if you say that a person cannot be executed even when he deserves it, how can you justify executing him based not on what he deserves but simply because it safeguards our own lives?

If punishment is not based on retribution then there is no just basis for applying it.
 
Last edited:
"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

“The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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”

St John Paul 2
 
Does anyone believe that the death penalty as a form of retribution is acceptable, if guilt is absolutely certain?
Not if a suitable alternative exists… like St John Paul II taught
 
Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is mine, I will pay them back.

Romans 12:19 Never try to get revenge: leave that, my dear friends, to the Retribution. As scripture says: Vengeance is mine – I will pay them back, the Lord promises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top