Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[Trader]

I feel that the Vatican has been loathe to really push forward the idea of the death penalty being wrong for political reasons, as some Catholics are able to support it without going against the Catechism.n

The Church cannot teach that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong because that would contradict Divine Revelation, both Scripture and Tradition. The current catechism is clear that recourse to the death penalty is not prohibited by Church teaching. You are free to hold that the death penalty should not be used in any specific case, but to teach that it is always wrong is contrary to Church teaching.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

That’s an awesome phrase, but its clear that murder rates are higher in states with the death penalty than those who don’t have it. So it’s a very reasonable thing to say that it doesn’t work as a deterrent, because if it was a deterrent, murder rates would be lower in states with the death penalty, not higher - so clearly it doesn’t work.

Not necessarily. It’s possible that states with higher crime rates are more compelled to have the death penalty. There are too many confounding variables to say for sure just based on crime rates.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The Church has not defined capital punishment as murder. Until they do, I regard all reference as such to be mere polemic arguementation without basis.

How can execution of unborn babies be murder and the execution of adults convicted of crimes not be murder? In both cases, both are ‘legal’ so if its not whether the killing is legal or not, what’s the difference?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Not necessarily. It’s possible that states with higher crime rates are more compelled to have the death penalty. There are too many confounding variables to say for sure just based on crime rates.

That might well be true, but it doesn’t disprove what I am saying. They might have a high murder rate so thought keeping the death penalty will help, but clearly, having the death penalty there is still not working as a deterrent.

 

[Langdell]

Frm the CCC (emphasis added):

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."

---

IMHO, a rich, developed country like the U.S. should not be using the death penalty, in accordance with this teaching.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

That might well be true, but it doesn’t disprove what I am saying. They might have a high murder rate so thought keeping the death penalty will help, but clearly, having the death penalty there is still not working as a deterrent.

The question is would they have a higher crime rate without the death penalty though.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

How can execution of unborn babies be murder and the execution of adults convicted of crimes not be murder? In both cases, both are ‘legal’ so if its not whether the killing is legal or not, what’s the difference?

Murder is the killing of an innocent without cause. An unborn baby hasn’t done anything to anyone.

 

[Trader]

It’s not either/or. Both are murder, plain and simple. Though I wish we’d hear more about the death penalty…it too is an evil issue. Capital punishment is racist, irrational, barbaric, expensive, discriminates against the poor, and places the U.S. on par with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran–not exactly good company.

The death penalty in the US does not put us on a par with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran until it becomes a capital offense to proclaim, “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

If we were to do as Pontius Pilate and order the execution of someone found innocent, that would be equal to murder.

To execute someone who murders a prison guard while already serving a life sentence for murder is rational, just, and necessary to protect those who serve the public in correctional institutions.

Decisions as important as life and death should not be made on the basis of emotions. Equating the death penalty with murder is just as irrational as the decision of a woman to kill her unborn child because she fears a child would hurt her career plans. Murder is a crime of intent. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person. The killing of a guilty person given all the protection of due process of law is very different.

 

[estesbob]

I feel that the Vatican has been loathe to really push forward the idea of the death penalty being wrong for political reasons, as some Catholics are able to support it without going against the Catechism.n

Actually they couldnt do so without rejecting 2,000 years of teaching and tradition.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The death penalty in the US does not put us on a par with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran until it becomes a capital offense to proclaim, “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

If we were to do as Pontius Pilate and order the execution of someone found innocent, that would be equal to murder.

To execute someone who murders a prison guard while already serving a life sentence for murder is rational, just, and necessary to protect those who serve the public in correctional institutions.

Decisions as important as life and death should not be made on the basis of emotions. Equating the death penalty with murder is just as irrational as the decision of a woman to kill her unborn child because she fears a child would hurt her career plans. Murder is a crime of intent. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person. The killing of a guilty person given all the protection of due process of law is very different.

But can you ever be 100% sure that you are executing a guilty person?

Is murder a crime that no one can ever repent from?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

But can you ever be 100% sure that you are executing a guilty person?

Is murder a crime that no one can ever repent from?

If an inmate kills a guard or another inmate and is caught in the act, absolutely.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pope Benedict’s personal understandings of capital punishment are as much a reflection of the attitudes of modern Europe as they are anything else.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is certainly not contrary to the Catholic faith to be against capital punishment.

But the only one truly in a position to forgive the murderer is already dead. It is in the nature of the crime.
It would be like me forgiving someone for punching you in the nose. Easy enough for me to do, especially if it puts me in good with God, and it was no skin off of my nose anyway.
But it is not in my place to forgive someone for the crime that he did on someone else. Only the victim can forgive.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That might well be true, but it doesn’t disprove what I am saying. They might have a high murder rate so thought keeping the death penalty will help, but clearly, having the death penalty there is still not working as a deterrent.

LandL,

Just on a conceptual level, I find this interesting. Strictly speaking, wouldn’t you agree that you can’t know if there is a deterrent effect unless you compare the same area with and without a death penalty? I don’t think a “deterrent” would mean that all crime ceases. So, is it possible that crime would be greater without the death penalty?

Another issue that intrigues me is the implication of those statistics is that the death penalty somehow causes more crime. Was there an explanation offered for that?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Actually they couldnt do so without rejecting 2,000 years of teaching and tradition.

Wouldn’t that depend on what L&L meant by “wrong”?

VC

 

[rlg94086]

Well, I have some raw data to show you.

“States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)”

If you click on the link there are various graphs as well as the number of murders per state, showing that in states where there is the death penalty, murder rates are higher. So is it actually a deterrent?

deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

I oppose the death penalty, but raw data is not conclusive. It isn’t research. The correlation does not necessarilly rule out deterrence. Murder rates may be higher in those states with or without the death penalty. The murder rates might go down even further, if the death penalty was instituted in the states with lower rates. Its sloppy reasoning to base conclusions on raw data.

 

[rlg94086]

How can execution of unborn babies be murder and the execution of adults convicted of crimes not be murder? In both cases, both are ‘legal’ so if its not whether the killing is legal or not, what’s the difference?

I can’t believe you are comparing the taking of an innocent life to the execution of a murderer.

 

[Trader]

But can you ever be 100% sure that you are executing a guilty person?

Is murder a crime that no one can ever repent from?

First, it is possible to know a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Modern technology has given us fingerprints, DNA, photographic evidence, and the ablility to record confessions, as well as eye witness testimony.

Second, of course it is possible for a person to repent of his crime, but that does not repay the debt. Murder is a crime for which restitution is not possible. I would go so far as to say that a truly repentant person would acknowledge that he deserves severe punishment, and would accept it as a matter of justice. Consider the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory–even sins that have been forgiven have consequences that require a price to be paid by the sinner.

Also consider the traditional sentence of death. It is immediately followed by a prayer, “May God have mercy on your soul.” We hope and pray for the forgiveness of all sinners, but it would be contrary to justice to deny them just consequences for sin.

I will grant you that some people want a death penalty for reasons of revenge rather than for justice and protection of the innocent. That does not preclude that postion that only a death sentence can satisfy the need for justice in the most serious of crimes.

In the past I have argued with people with two questions:

1. Would you be in favor of capital punishment for someone who raped and murdered your child?
2. Would you be in favor of capital punishment if your child raped and murdered someone else’s child?

If the answer to both questions is not the same, your understanding of justice is deficient.

 

[rlg94086]

In Israel, although the death penalty is on the books, it is very rarely applied. This limited use is in keeping with Torah and Talmud Law, which states that the administration of the death penalty requires two upstanding eyewitnesses to the crime as well as the perpetrator’s forewarning that they are committing a criminal act. The purpose of the death penalty is not so much deterrence as it is the restoration of a measure of justice to the injured party. It also begins the process of atonement for the criminal so that their penance in Purgatory might be somewhat lessened.

Very well stated. I would be very much in favor of taking Israel’s approach.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I can’t believe you are comparing the taking of an innocent life to the execution of a murderer.

Not comparing, but showing that the definition of murder can be changed depending on legality.

 

[Darryl1958]

Very well stated. I would be very much in favor of taking Israel’s approach.

I am very much in agreement with that approach too.Laws often are on the books to express how we are to feel about a crime, an expression as to its seriousness, rather than something that needs to be carried out to the maximum extent in every instance.
The capital law against witchcraft in the Bible is a case in point. To my knowledge, no witches were ever burned in ancient Israel.
But the mere existence of the law set the norm of what kind of society theirs was to be.