Puzzled by friend's support of death penalty

[im_wildrose]

Hi,
I was recently stunned to realize that someone I’ve known for many years supports the death penalty. Even more surprising, however, was why. She feels that placing a convict under penalty of death makes him or her more likely to seek repentance and more likely to get the benefit of spiritual counsel and reception of the Sacraments. She used the example of a convict who is murdered by fellow inmates and doesn’t then have the opportunity to know when death is coming. She used other arguments to defend her position (problems with crimes being ordered and carried out from within prison walls, crime within prisons, the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.) but her basic premise is that it is MORE merciful to give a hardened criminal a sentence of death as well as safer and “better” in general, than not.

I understand that the Church does not forbid the use of the death penalty when it is necessary, but I have been under the impression that it is to be used only when there is a danger to society, and that it is preferable to leave the prisoner alive, working toward conversion and repentance.

I listen to a LOT of Catholic radio and I have never heard her line of reasoning and, honestly, it doesn’t make sense to me. Has anyone else ever heard this before? (Oh, and she is a very devout and serious Catholic which is another reason I was so stunned.)

Deo Juvante, Jen

 

[Corki]

Some people oppose the death penalty on the basis that, once dead, there is no chance at repentance or conversion. I have heard your friends argument, that people are more likely to repent when facing their own mortality, as a counter-argument. But, I have never heard it put forward as the prime reason to support the death penalty.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The subject of the Death Penalty being an emotional issue is such that If you value your friendship with this person, I suggest you leave the subject alone. Your friend is entitled to her belief, just as you are to yours.
Any discussion of this issue with them will do nothing but create ill will.

 

[im_wildrose]

I agree, George. The entire thing caught me completely by surprise. I had posted an anti-abortion meme on Facebook that said, “Everyone deserves life,” and she replied with her belief that, while all innocent people deserved life, those who commit heinous crimes have forfeited their right to live. She wrote it not realizing that I oppose the death penalty and, after some fairly light discussion, I was happy to let it be, but she just wouldn’t let it go. I asked her how her view was compatible with what is in the Catechism but she didn’t answer me directly. In the end, I stopped the discussion and removed the entire thing from my FB.

My whole issue was the idea that the death penalty would be the preferred way of dealing with hardened criminals. I get why it’s permissible, and even necessary, in specific situations, but I can’t understand how anyone could see it as the preferred method. I won’t bring it up to her again and I think our friendship will remain intact, but it still leaves me shaking my head a bit, and saddened too because I simply don’t understand this position.

Thanks for the response.

Deo Juvante, Jen

 

[Nelka]

I’m not sure about America but people always bring up hanging in England when a cruel murderer is captured.

We should disagree with this as Catholics as even the worst people have a chance to convert and repent.

I oppose the death penalty, I could not kill that person, maybe I would want to hit or hurt but not kill.

 

[Annie39]

Hi,
I was recently stunned to realize that someone I’ve known for many years supports the death penalty. Even more surprising, however, was why. She feels that placing a convict under penalty of death makes him or her more likely to seek repentance and more likely to get the benefit of spiritual counsel and reception of the Sacraments. She used the example of a convict who is murdered by fellow inmates and doesn’t then have the opportunity to know when death is coming. She used other arguments to defend her position (problems with crimes being ordered and carried out from within prison walls, crime within prisons, the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.) but her basic premise is that it is MORE merciful to give a hardened criminal a sentence of death as well as safer and “better” in general, than not.

I understand that the Church does not forbid the use of the death penalty when it is necessary, but I have been under the impression that it is to be used only when there is a danger to society, and that it is preferable to leave the prisoner alive, working toward conversion and repentance.

I listen to a LOT of Catholic radio and I have never heard her line of reasoning and, honestly, it doesn’t make sense to me. Has anyone else ever heard this before? (Oh, and she is a very devout and serious Catholic which is another reason I was so stunned.)

Deo Juvante, Jen

Yes I have heard this before and I find it very reasonable.

Annie

 

[porthos11]

Hi,
I was recently stunned to realize that someone I’ve known for many years supports the death penalty. Even more surprising, however, was why. She feels that placing a convict under penalty of death makes him or her more likely to seek repentance and more likely to get the benefit of spiritual counsel and reception of the Sacraments. She used the example of a convict who is murdered by fellow inmates and doesn’t then have the opportunity to know when death is coming. She used other arguments to defend her position (problems with crimes being ordered and carried out from within prison walls, crime within prisons, the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.) but her basic premise is that it is MORE merciful to give a hardened criminal a sentence of death as well as safer and “better” in general, than not.

I understand that the Church does not forbid the use of the death penalty when it is necessary, but I have been under the impression that it is to be used only when there is a danger to society, and that it is preferable to leave the prisoner alive, working toward conversion and repentance.

I listen to a LOT of Catholic radio and I have never heard her line of reasoning and, honestly, it doesn’t make sense to me. Has anyone else ever heard this before? (Oh, and she is a very devout and serious Catholic which is another reason I was so stunned.)

Deo Juvante, Jen

You must also recognize that the death penalty is one issue where a diversity of opinion is permitted; Cardinal Ratzinger himself said as much while he was CDF prefect. This is as contrasted with abortion and euthanasia which are inherent evils and can never be justified under any circumstances.

Both your opinion and your friend’s are legitimate positions to hold, and neither of you are going against the teachings and tradition of the Catholic Church, and as such, if you can’t agree, you may just opt to respect each others’ positions.

 

[27lw]

I personally believe that there might be 3 reasons to consider using the death penalty:

1. If someone serving a life sentence kills someone in prison (otherwise there is no way to “increase” the penalty).
2. If for some reason, a violent offender cannot be housed to assure the safety others.
3. To provide peace to any victims who are alive, so that they don’t have to worry that the offender will escape and come after them.

I believe that although these reasons exist, there might not be an occasion to use the death penalty.
Some of these ideas and reasons were borrowed from Al Kresta, as expressed on his show.

 

[Ender]

I was recently stunned to realize that someone I’ve known for many years supports the death penalty.

Your friend is in good company: the Fathers and Doctors of the church were virtually unanimous in their support of it as well.

She feels that placing a convict under penalty of death makes him or her more likely to seek repentance and more likely to get the benefit of spiritual counsel and reception of the Sacraments.

Rehabilitation is certainly one of the valid objectives of punishment but no punishment is appropriate if it is not just, and what makes a punishment just is whether its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The fundamental argument in favor of capital punishment is that it is the just punishment for certain crimes, especially murder.

I understand that the Church does not forbid the use of the death penalty when it is necessary, but I have been under the impression that it is to be used only when there is a danger to society, and that it is preferable to leave the prisoner alive, working toward conversion and repentance.

Not exactly. The church’s understanding of capital punishment is based on Scripture, specifically Gn 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image of God.” That is, it is a matter of justice. Man’s life is sacred and the life of a murderer is forfeit because he has taken a life.

So, what to make of the statement in the new catechism that asserts capital punishment should be used only when it is necessary to secure the protection of society? There are several ways to understand this. It could be that this represents a break with the past, that where before capital punishment was understood as a demand of justice it is now seen to be valid only for protection. It could also be that the objection is cultural and not moral. That is, it is perceived that the nature of the death penalty is so misunderstood in modern societies that its use contributes more problems than it resolves.

I am uncomfortable with the belief that the church failed for 2000 years to correctly understand the basis for using capital punishment, that its use is justified by protection rather than justice. There is a lot of confusion and debate about this issue, but for me the answer that seems most likely is that the traditional teaching of the church is valid and that the current opposition is prudential and not doctrinal.

Ender

 

[tabycat]

I personally believe that there might be 3 reasons to consider using the death penalty:

1. If someone serving a life sentence kills someone in prison (otherwise there is no way to “increase” the penalty).
2. If for some reason, a violent offender cannot be housed to assure the safety others.
3. To provide peace to any victims who are alive, so that they don’t have to worry that the offender will escape and come after them.

I believe that although these reasons exist, there might not be an occasion to use the death penalty.
Some of these ideas and reasons were borrowed from Al Kresta, as expressed on his show.

A fourth: When a police officer is killed.

 

[Brendan]

Hi,
I was recently stunned to realize that someone I’ve known for many years supports the death penalty. Even more surprising, however, was why. She feels that placing a convict under penalty of death makes him or her more likely to seek repentance and more likely to get the benefit of spiritual counsel and reception of the Sacraments.

There is a real life example. Timothy McVeigh.

He had been raised Catholic, but in a family that didn’t really practice the Faith, and, needless to say, fell away from what little he had.

But while in prison, he requested and received Sacramental Absolution. And, when the time came for his execution, he was given Last Rites, including Absolution, Holy Communion and the Apostolic Blessing.

Cardinal Dulles noted that same effect in an article he wrote for First Things magazine

There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

I would not say that this should be considered to be more merciful that life imprisonment, as that too does give opportunities for conversion. So it should not be considered a REASON for Capital Punishment, only that Capital Punishment does not preclude reconciliation with God.

 

[JimG]

There is, I suppose, something to be said for your friend’s argument. One thinks of Charles Manson, who, as near as I can tell from news reports, has never repented, and likes to seek notoriety from prison interviews. Sometimes, facing death does bring someone to repentance.

The flaw in the argument though, is that persons who receive the death penalty never face immediate death. It is most often decades before the sentence is ever carried out, if it ever is. A prospect of death in 10 or 20 years following numerous appeals is not something that is calculated to bring a person to repentance.

Still I find that parents who have had children murdered, often do favor the death penalty for the murderer, especially in cases of repeated sequential murder of innocents. And in the vast majority of death penalty cases, there is by law the possibility of parole. This often brings families of victims repeatedly to a prison testify in a parole hearing to oppose the release of the person who murdered their child.

 

[im_wildrose]

I appreciate all the responses. Still though, in regards to the idea that we should support the death penalty because that was what the Old Testament and the Church Father’s taught, doesn’t work for me. In the Old Testament, they believed, “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,” but Jesus, in fulfilling the Law, taught forgiveness. If someone takes our cloak, give him your shirt too; someone strikes your cheek, give him the other. Obviously He didn’t mean for us to let people go about stealing and murdering, but He clearly preached forgiveness over “eye for an eye” justice.

Also, if you look at the Church Fathers, they were writing at a time when the most secure prisons were only wood or brick structures, and escape was a very likely possibility. Our prisons today are very secure. Yes, bad things can still happen within the prisons and I suppose there are times when someone within can order crime to be done outside, but by and large, the public is not in extreme danger from criminals who are behind bars. The Church Fathers could never have envisioned prisons like our’s with security, cameras, cement and steel, etc. Just like the teaching of ensoulment has changed since St. Thomas’ time, I believe we have to consider modern advancements in security when discussing this.

Finally, I’ve seen numerous studies that show the murder and violent crime rates are actually higher in states that have the death penalty, so I don’t think it works well as a deterrent. And like was pointed out above, it often takes a very long time to actually carry out the execution.

Again, I can completely understand supporting the death penalty in certain specific cases where a real and present danger could exist by leaving the person alive. But I can’t quite wrap my mind around it being the “preferred” method. That said, my friend and I have talked it out and, as she comes from a tradition of very staunch pro-death penalty family, we understand each other better now. I did challenge her to think over the idea and consider the points I was making. Thanks again!!

Deo Juvante, Jen

 

[pnewton]

I think you should cut her some slack. I have always believed in the death penalty and it took years of studying the issue from the Catholic position to arrive where I believe that it is not worth the cost. The value of life can motivate a desire for the justice of the death penalty as well as opposition to it. If you can discuss it without anger, then it might help, but that is really a call you have to make. The only advice I give is not to use arguments that are irrelevant to her. For, example, don’t argue the value of human life if she already has a high value of human life. To do so implies you value life more than she does, which may not be the case.

 

[Brendan]

Wild Rose,

Yes the moral law of the Old Testament is still valid ( if it was not, the 10 Commandments would no longer be taught)

The Moral Law defines what is Good and what is Evil. ‘Good’ is what is pleasing to God, ‘Evil’ is what is offensive to God.

God is unchanging, what is good in His sight is always good in His sight, what is offensive to Him is always offensive to Him.

That will never change.

What the O.T. tells us ( and actually the N.T. as well in Romans 13:4-6) is that Capital Punishment, as a rule, is not a offense against God.

It can be used injustly, or it can be used justly (God Himself commanded it at several points, and since God cannot command an unjust act, it must be, at least on occasion, a Just act)

But you are correct, the Just use of it at this time, requires that it be used rarely, if at all. The needs of State for punishment and the safe guarding of society, can, almost always, be accomplished via other means.

Go back to my previous post and read that article I linked to by Cardinal Dulles. If you are unaware of him, he was installed as a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II, not as a bishop of a major diocese, nor as a head of a major Vatican organization, but for his theological ability.

He has the clearest statement on the Catholic understanding of Capital Punishment I have ever read.