Opinion on the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thom18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only purpose for use of the death penalty is to protect innocent people from the harm a convicted murderer causes to others.

Prison guards, nurses, wardens and others, are innocent people and need protection as well.

It is not used for revenge for revenge is a disordered emotional response which isn’t about justice.

Jim
 
Thom18 said:
Does anyone believe that the death penalty as a form of retribution is acceptable, if guilt is absolutely certain?
Click to expand...
Retribution is the only thing that can justify any punishment. The only reason it is proper to punish someone is because he deserves to be punished because of his actions. It is nothing other than what justice demands; to reject retribution is to reject justice.

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)
 
Nelka said:
So the church is saying I can freely murder someone who has committed a terrible crime?
Click to expand...
You must be in the wrong thread. Nobody has talked about murder. The thread is about capital punishment only, nothing else and the Church accepts that capital punishment might be necessary in some cases.
 
Nelka said:
So the church is saying I can freely murder someone who has committed a terrible crime?
Click to expand...
The church is saying that the State may execute someone who has committed a terrible crime. The State has very different rights and responsibilities than does the individual. The individual is forbidden to exact vengeance, but the State is obligated to exact it (properly understood).

“Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” (Aquinas ST II-II 108 1)

This is how the catechism identifies it (2266):

Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
 
Nelka said:
Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is mine, I will pay them back.
Click to expand...
Yes - and in some cases - the death penalty.
Government - applied - death penalty.
We must obey our government officials - etc
People cant be martyrs - all the time - to the criminally insane.
 
My thoughts on this:

As has been said, the death penalty in principle is acceptable. Many theologians, many popes, and even Scripture has said that. Accordingly, when to apply the death penalty is not a matter of morality, but rather prudence. I personally do not think that we ought to totally outlaw the death penalty for extraordinary cases. There will always be some extraordinary case that would require the death penalty. I think, however, that it is only once every few years in all the United States, if not the world (at least in societies with modern prison systems). In my ideal society, in order for the death penalty to be applied, the case would have to meet some minimum requirements:
  1. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
  2. The crime was a severe violation of someone’s person (along the lines of murder or rape).
  3. It can be reasonably deduced that the criminal is willing to commit the crime—or similar heinous crimes—again. (i.e. the criminal “repented” before, but committed the same or similar crimes again, or the criminal admits that they would do it again given the opportunity)
  4. It can be reasonably deduced that today’s prison system will not be able to prevent the criminal from doing it (or similar heinous acts) again. (I think that 99% of the time, the only people that can escape today’s prisons are those who have many resources from the outside.)
I have yet to come up with more specific requirements. (i.e. What exactly constitutes “severe” in condition two?)

Again, in my ideal society, it would require the jury to unanimously decide that these conditions are met. Then, it ought to go before some sort of board of people with experience in the justice system. They would have to agree that these conditions are met, with the exception of condition one, since that is what the jury is for. They would be given the facts of the case alone, with no names or any other identifying information. (“the guilty,” “the victim,” “witness a,” “location b,” etc.) If the board agrees that conditions two to four are met, then the death penalty will be used, after the criminal is given an opportunity to be baptized or go to confession. After probably about ten years, the board would go back over the case with all information available. They would again determine if all conditions were met, including condition one. If the answer is no, they would be required to determine what went wrong, and the society’s legislature would be required to pass legislation amending the process before doing anything else. Eventually, the process would be as perfect as humanly possible.

In addition to this, the prison system would be required to go through a similar process of reform every few years, so that condition four is met as little as possible. Another board (possibly of psychologists/psychiatrists) would attempt to determine what caused the person to commit the crime(s), and could require the legislature to pass legislation to fix the problem if it could justly do so.

EDIT: I have come up with another requirement. If the guilty acted due to mental illness, the mental illness could not be dealt with sufficiently.
 
Last edited:
Worse off, odds are we’ve already executed at least one innocent person.

When people are convicted, it’s not the government vs them it’s “the people” vs them. The government represents us as much as we like to pretend otherwise sometimes. When the system that we created executes an innocent, “the people”, we, are the murderers. Sure we may remind ourselves sin requires knowledge and action and we can distance ourselves from the acts taken in our name, but we’re still a part of a system that took the life of an innocent and we should never forget that.
 
I’ve always used this as a thought experiment. Suppose our system worked just as it does now, with juries ultimately rendering a verdict and determining sentencing which may include the death penalty, with one caveat. If it was later proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the executed was innocent, the jury would be executed.

How many juries do you imagine would convict? I suspect very few, especially if unanimous decisions were required. The confidence one has in the system I suspect waivers heavily when one’s own life is on the line.
 
“Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others.” If there is a scarier word in scripture than that “as” I don’t know what it is.
Imagine yourself sitting before the Lord who gave us that prayer, in judgment. If He says to you " many times I heard you say that prayers, asking my Father to forgive you in the same manner your forgave others. Okay, so explain your position on the death penalty. Should I give you eternal death, in the same manner you supported death for other sinners?" What would be your answer?
Given that we have the ability (at least in the Western world) to lock up those who commit crimes worthy of the ultimate punishment, why kill them. (And please don’t cite the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for a long time. It is a fact that putting one to death costs more than lifetime incarceration.) I say, give them life, no parole, solitary confinement 23/7/365. Don’t ever let them see the light of day, not to mention freedom, again.
Draconian, I hope so.
 
I think the death penalty is unnecessary, and I think we can do better. These days the only punishments we have are either forced labour, fines, prison, or in some countries torture and/or death.

I would propose we bring back the traditional punishment of public humiliation. Criminals who commit very heinous crimes can be taken to a public place under guard, and people that pass by can throw rotten tomatoes at them and yell insults. We could even make it profitable by selling the opportunity to punch one of them (with a protected glove of course), and maybe famous terrorists could be tourist attraction, of sorts.

I guess this sounds awfully barbaric and bad, but I honestly don’t see a good reason why we shouldn’t implement something like this. I think there are lots of people out there who aren’t afraid of death or life in prison, like terrorists or depressed mass murderers, but something like this is bound to scare anyone.

And if we could prevent even just one of them from commiting what they would have otherwise, what’s stopping us?
 
I know but Saint Paul says - to obey those put in authority over us as citizens.
 
Youd have to go to college and training and all the rest of it -
to be a part of a death penalty situation -
 
YoungApologist3 said:
…in order for the death penalty to be applied, the case would have to meet some minimum requirements:
  1. It can be reasonably deduced that the criminal is willing to commit the crime—or similar heinous crimes—again. (i.e. the criminal “repented” before, but committed the same or similar crimes again, or the criminal admits that they would do it again given the opportunity)
Click to expand...
I wonder if you’ve considered this problem: you justify the execution of a person to prevent a crime that you would refuse to execute him for if he successfully committed. Your criteria do not allow a person to be executed for having committed a crime no matter how heinous. It is only if you “reasonably deduce” that he will commit such a crime in the future that you would allow his execution, but why would you not execute him to prevent him from committing the first crime?

If prevention justifies his execution to prevent the second crime why doesn’t it equally justify his execution to prevent the first one? Why do we have to wait for him to commit the first crime before we can protect ourselves? Surely if protection justifies his execution to prevent the second crime it should equally justify executing him to prevent the first one as well.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Surely if protection justifies his execution to prevent the second crime it should equally justify executing him to prevent the first one as well.
Click to expand...
(Tongue firmly in cheek) Certainly! Let’s not make such a big leap, though. First, we must start with house arrest. Let’s place everyone under house arrest for crimes that it can be reasonably deduced that they will one day commit. Then, after society gets used to that, we can imprison people for crimes that they will likely commit. After society gets used to that, then we can go to the death penalty. (End of tongue in cheek)

I hope that you can see why this line of reasoning is wrong.

If that line of thinking applied to something as serious as the death penalty, then it would certainly apply to lesser penalties as well. The reason that we ought not apply this line of reasoning is simple: we don’t imprison people who are as of yet innocent. We only imprison people for crimes that they are committing or have committed. The entire justice system is based around preventing further crimes for the good of society, and has been since Biblical times.

Edited to prove my point:
Ender said:
If prevention justifies his imprisonment to prevent the second crime why doesn’t it equally justify his imprisonment to prevent the first one? Why do we have to wait for him to commit the first crime before we can protect ourselves? Surely if protection justifies his imprisonment to prevent the second crime it should equally justify imprisoning him to prevent the first one as well.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top