M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Precisely how I feel about it, and I think the Holy Father supports this.
Pope calls for end to death penalty out of respect for human dignity
- Status
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Mercy and justice aren’t at odds.
Dives in Misericordia 14:
If Paul VI more than once indicated the civilization of love"125 as the goal towards which all efforts in the cultural and social fields as well as in the economic and political fields should tend. it must be added that this good will never be reached if in our thinking and acting concerning the vast and complex spheres of human society we stop at the criterion of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"126 and do not try to transform it in its essence, by complementing it with another spirit. Certainly, the Second Vatican Council also leads us in this direction, when it speaks repeatedly of the need to make the world more human,127 and says that the realization of this task is precisely the mission of the Church in the modern world. Society can become ever more human only if we introduce into the many-sided setting of interpersonal and social relationships, not merely justice, but also that “merciful love” which constitutes the messianic message of the Gospel…
Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.
Thus the fundamental structure of justice always enters into the sphere of mercy. Mercy, however, has the power to confer on justice a new content, which is expressed most simply and fully in forgiveness. Forgiveness, in fact, shows that, over and above the process of “compensation” and “truce” which is specific to justice, love is necessary, so that man may affirm himself as man. Fulfillment of the conditions of justice is especially indispensable in order that love may reveal its own nature.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Yes, they are not at odds, but since so many people equate “justice” with “revenge” it’s hard to pin down that idea.
Let’s find an example of how Jesus handled a situation where a prisoner was on death row for her crimes against the state. No appeals, no legal finagling – just caught in the act and was only minutes before she would die from execution by the state:
John 8-ish:
They said to him, “Teacher, this man was caught in the very act of committing murder. Now in the law, the state allows us to kill him. So what do you say?” They said this because they really wanted the man to die. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to inject a chemical/throw the switch/whatever.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
Strangely, she ended up getting away in the Biblical story. So she could perhaps sin again, even though Jesus told her not to. In the case of capital punishment, we don’t have the same scenario because they may not be put to death, but nor will they be set free to potentially sin again. That’s where the Church says it makes a difference. Apparently neither Jesus nor anybody else took any precautions to keep her “away from society” so she could break the law again so now we are even safer from criminals than back in the day, when Jesus talked others out of carrying out her sentence.
Who would say that Jesus is “against justice” because of the way He handled the situation regarding the woman on death row?
Matt 9:13
Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
E
Ender
Guest
True, but that doesn’t answer the question: should mercy be granted to every murderer without exception? That’s a very specific question that should yield a yes or no answer.
Ender
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
OK I like the way you forced the question.
I do require, though, that we first establish “murderer.” If we are talking about a murderer who is not in captivity, like running from police or in some sort of brawl I’m witnessing, and for some odd reason I happen to have the chance to take him out I would not hesitate to shoot, push the button, run him over, whatever.
Because I value the “life” of the aggressor less than the “life” of the potential victims including my own. (I actually got that idea from the CCC – the I am allowed to value “my own” life above that of “an aggressor.”)
So here, to me, “mercy” would mean “fail to protect myself or other innocents” and I say NO.
And yes I have judged “innocents” in terms of "in the situation I’m viewing, they are victims not aggressors. So yes I have judged. And taken a life. Oh well but yeah I’d shoot. Actually I fear that I may enjoy it too much and think too highly of myself.
If we are talking about a murderer on death row, who is extremely unlikely to ever get out and kill again because “we have the technology” supposedly, then I WANT to say, yes. Do not execute; I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “mercy” in this situation. I suppose for this exercise, “life in prison” would be the alternative. For all I know any given death row inmate may think getting it over with is the most merciful. So that makes it even more complicated.
But with the Holy Father pointing out that a “life sentence” is a death sentence in disguise – that appeals to my head, but I’m not there yet. I can’t go that far; I do think sentencing laws have a lot of problems, but I’m letting the Holy Father have this one for himself; I’ll let him try to convince me.
I’m not completely without hypocrisy on this. There is still a little of that in me, that likes to think “yes but what if” even though my head says “if you do the math, you’re more likely to have a drunk driver come through the wall into the living room and you don’t seem too worried about that happening.”
So yeah if one does escape, then I kind of hope the police will find him and “take him out” before we waste any more resources on him. So no I’m not as pure as I’m “calling us to be” in Christ.
But there is one thing I have been able to do personally, that has made me feel much better about my life as a Christian, is I have eliminated the desire to “see them suffer for what they’ve done.” So it bothers me whenever we hear from the media that the victim “deserves” to see certain things done to the victims – to me that is just revenge. What the victim “deserves” is for the state to do its best to stop whatever harm might be in progress, and prevent it from happening again.
Because I was staunch defender of death penalty for decades so it may not seem like it but I do have a lot of empathy for those who currently are. Really if it sounds like I’m hating on you, I’m not. And I’m not saying it’s because I’m smarter now or better than you or anything. Because I still am a bit confused, but I do try to strike at “sacred cows” and mindless mantras and herd mentality, whether they are from my side or the other. Plus I have my triggers, and I’ve been on this thread and a few others so long I don’t even remember exactly what we were arguing about.
Because as much as I don’t want to be on the “wrong” side of something, no more do I want to be on the “right side” but for all the wrong reasons. Because then I’d be like the Pharisee thinking I’m better than the tax collector.MS
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Absolutely it should. And sometimes the most merciful solution is to execute the murderer.
That said, IMO those instances are very very rare.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Nice.
I thank you all so much for participating in this thread.
At this point I really don’t have anything else to say, except in response to comments and questions others may have. Go ahead, take it where you want … I’ve “had my say” as it were.
Thank you again for participating. Even those I may speak harshly to, have given me some of the time of your life that you will never get back, attending to me whether it be in support, in anger, or trying to prove something to me or whatever. It actually humbles me more than I’ve ever tried to describe, that with all the stuff I write on the Internet, somebody on this planet almost always takes of their time to read it. Even if I’m like a maggot to them, it gives me significance; it makes me a “Part of the Body” even if one of the more undesirable parts.
All I hope, is that somewhere, somehow, I may plant some seeds that end up being of value, to someone else. If not those who gave me personal attention, then maybe someone else indirectly.
MS
E
Ender
Guest
Her crime was not against the state but against her religion, and she was not threatened by the state but by other Jews. The church does not refer to this passage in her discussion of capital punishment. It is an entrapment story: if Jesus said “stone her” he would violate Roman law because the Jews lacked the right to execute her. If he said “let her go” he would violate Jewish law which specified her execution.
Regarding the objective that the punishment should lead to the correction of the offender, the scripture the church cites is Luke 23:40-43…which is about the salvation of the good thief crucified with Jesus. If you’re not familiar with those passages here is 23:41: “*We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.”
*This reference is the endnote to the last sentence in CCC 2266.
Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67
67 Cf. ⇒ Lk 23:40-43.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Forcing the question is not the same as forcing an answer; I’m still waiting for one.
This is not a trick question. A person is captured, duly tried, and convicted of first degree murder. I assume that others who call for mercy in this situation mean that it is merciful not to execute him, that he should be sentenced to prison instead. What I am asking is: do you agree that everyone in this situation should be shown mercy? Assume there is no concern about future crimes and that he can be securely imprisoned.
Please: yes or no?
Yes, I’m trying to make the choice as clear and uncomplicated as possible. I am trying to address solely the question of mercy.
"According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal…[but]The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."
Ender
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
I’m pretty sure I covered it as best as I could, and when I could not answer I said so. I even called myself a hypocrite so you wouldn’t have to! What does your ego want me to do? Roll over and beg? Sigh… ok I’ll try again… intentionally being condescending at this point btw, for my having bared my soul before you only for you to give me a snarky “you didn’t answer” reply …
Yes. Now that you have finally clarified the question enough, based on mercy, yes.
How does this factor in? I’ve never heard of Humanitarian Theory until just now so I Googled it and studied for about two minutes. What’s a Desert in this context? What are you, personally, trying to convey with this quote?
A
app_jude
Guest
Some criminals are extremely wicked and their crimes so horrendous that the society is better of without them. This kind of people are usually unrepentant even when given the opportunity to change and would repeat committing murder with relish.I have seen people like that. Death penalty for these kind of people, I think, is welcome.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
I totally get that. And even though I claim to and sort of try to believe otherwise, I actually do feel this way at some point inside. I’m talking personal feelings here not ideals.
The only thing is the part about “yes but we would have executed Paul or Augustine” before their conversions!
To that I can just say, “oh well, good thing we didn’t.”
Personally? I think we “civilized” people live in an illusory world anyway. Look at any nature film, and for the most part, survival and reproduction take up most of the day. In a “civilized place” we live in a world where we think we are protected against all that ugly “life and death” stuff. It’s still there, whether we keep it hidden or not. And stuff happens. People die.
It seems disproportionate though how much we stew over protecting the lives of criminals, v. keeping hundreds of thousands of others from starving. Guess we each have to pick our battles; only one lifetime and so much to do!
meltzerboy
New member
There is not, or never should be, joy in carrying out the death penalty. It is the ultimate punishment by government, depriving a person of their legal, constitutional right to life. Even the possible social benefit of deterrence has not been proven beyond a doubt. And there is no reversing a completed execution if later evidence should confirm the innocence of the individual, quite apart from the sometimes unfair legal proceedings before the death penalty is inflicted.
Despite the above, from a moral perspective, it is even more complicated. Is the death penalty regarded as murder, thus in defiance of one of the Ten Commandments? Or is it instead killing in self-defense, which is permitted according to Judeo-Christian belief? Or perhaps it is a necessary form of justice, just as in ancient times, when people were stoned to death for violating one of the commandments such as by committing idolatry, murder, or adultery? The criteria for the death penalty in ancient times was, however, intentionally set at a very high threshold (for example, two reliable eyewitnesses to an act of adultery). And in modern Israel, while the death penalty is still on the books, it is rarely put into effect due to the exceptionally high criteria required. Yet another consideration, though, is that the death penalty, according to Jewish thought (and perhaps Catholic thought as well?), may be regarded as a merciful means of punishment, not only to the victims of the crime and the larger society but to the person who is being executed. That is, it is believed to be a first step in the afterlife purgatorial punishment meted out to that person and may therefore serve to mitigate their afterlife punishment.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
The idea of death penalty being merciful reminded me …
I heard one rather convincing explanation of how we justified burning heretics at the stake. It was done out of love and concern for the person who stood a chance of suffering eternal torture. When absolutely nothing else would work, they would burn them so that with the most earnest of hope the heretics will, in the heat of the searing flames, recognize their sins and perform an act of perfect contrition. Thus even though we had to take their life, it was “for their own good” since it could have saved them from eternal suffering.
I heard one rather convincing explanation of how we justified burning heretics at the stake. It was done out of love and concern for the person who stood a chance of suffering eternal torture. When absolutely nothing else would work, they would burn them so that with the most earnest of hope the heretics will, in the heat of the searing flames, recognize their sins and perform an act of perfect contrition. Thus even though we had to take their life, it was “for their own good” since it could have saved them from eternal suffering.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I find this not to be persuasive in the slightest. Rather, I find it to be an absurd attempt at justifying a shameful and barbarous act for which there is no justification, and certainly no Christian justification.
E
Ender
Guest
Question: Should mercy be granted without condition?
Let me start by noting that mercy is not the same as clemency, and that calling for a reduced sentence (prison instead of execution) is really a plea for clemency rather than mercy.Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and recoil from another’s unhappiness, but in different ways. For it belongs to mercy to relieve another’s unhappiness by a beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another’s unhappiness by the cessation of punishment.
If it is understood that the merciful punishment is LWOP then what is the just punishment? Why is there a need to plead for mercy if not to escape from the full demands of the just punishment? After all, if LWOP was the just punishment there would be no need to appeal for mercy. It surely seems that if you’re appealing for LWOP as the merciful punishment it can only mean that execution is the just punishment.
Now if mercy should be extended without conditions then even those who have not repented of their crimes should receive it, but that isn’t what the church teaches. We know that we are not forgiven our sins if we do not repent so why should we believe that mercy is not also dependent on contrition? And in fact it is."God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.
So, if contrition is required to receive mercy then those who do not repent of their murders may not receive mercy and therefore should receive the just punishment for their crimes…and the just punishment as shown above is death.
Ender
I wasn’t trying to be snarky, only persistent.
Let me start by noting that mercy is not the same as clemency, and that calling for a reduced sentence (prison instead of execution) is really a plea for clemency rather than mercy.Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and recoil from another’s unhappiness, but in different ways. For it belongs to mercy to relieve another’s unhappiness by a beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another’s unhappiness by the cessation of punishment.
If it is understood that the merciful punishment is LWOP then what is the just punishment? Why is there a need to plead for mercy if not to escape from the full demands of the just punishment? After all, if LWOP was the just punishment there would be no need to appeal for mercy. It surely seems that if you’re appealing for LWOP as the merciful punishment it can only mean that execution is the just punishment.
Now if mercy should be extended without conditions then even those who have not repented of their crimes should receive it, but that isn’t what the church teaches. We know that we are not forgiven our sins if we do not repent so why should we believe that mercy is not also dependent on contrition? And in fact it is."God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.
So, if contrition is required to receive mercy then those who do not repent of their murders may not receive mercy and therefore should receive the just punishment for their crimes…and the just punishment as shown above is death.
I was addressing the idea that sinners deserve to be punished, and that it is only because someone deserves his punishment that the state is justified in applying it. After all, what could be more unjust than punishing someone who doesn’t deserve it?
Ender
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Understanding that it is a matter of prudential judgment, here is a brief quote from JPII on why extending clemency toward all prisoners would be a good idea:
*In the context of these proposals, looking to the future and continuing a tradition begun by my Predecessors in Jubilee Years, I turn with confidence to State authorities to ask for a gesture of clemency towards all those in prison: a reduction, even a modest one, of the term of punishment would be for prisoners a clear sign of sensitivity to their condition, and would surely evoke a positive echo in their hearts and encourage them to regret the evil done and lead them to personal repentance.
Acceptance of this proposal by the competent authorities would not only encourage prisoners to look to the future with new hope but would also be an eloquent sign, at the dawn of the Third Christian Millennium, of a growing worldwide affirmation of a justice that is more genuine because it is open to the liberating power of love.*
vatican.va/holy_father//john_paul_ii/messages/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20000630_jubilprisoners_en.html
E
Ender
Guest
This cannot be true inasmuch as the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution clearly allows it.
No. “Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill.”
No. Killing in self defense is justified under the concept of double effect, but one of the criteria this concept imposes is that the benefit of the act must come from the beneficial effect, not the harmful one. In an execution the benefit comes directly from the fact that the felon is deceased and therefore no longer a threat.
Yes. Since justice is the same now as it was then, what was just then is equally just now.
Punishment serves as expiation only if it is accepted, but if it is accepted then the death penalty serves entirely to expiate the sin.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
A “Jubilee Year” is "a special year of remission of sins and universal pardon." (Wiki) They are typically celebrated every 25 or 50 years. I am not objecting to clemency or mercy; I am defending the point that the church does not support the belief that mercy (or clemency for that matter) ought to be given out as a matter of course in all situations. That’s not what she teaches.“this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded
Ender
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Implied within your post is that only if there is capital punishment can justice be attained.
And, as I have mentioned numerous times, punishment is always exercised within a historical context where it can only be used insofar as it serves the common good. The just solution is the one that best promotes the common good. And that requires prudential judgment.
- Status