Reconciling Two Stances: The Death Penalty

[Annie]

Aquinas in the 13th century stated that referencing Scripture.

You should have included the first part of that Reply, which was to the Objection that the wheat and tares forbade CP:

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2).

If the death penalty is not being a service to the common good it is literally forbidden .

No. If the DP is inimical to the common good, it is forbidden.

What the last few popes have come up against is the US faction claiming that Catholic teaching forbids abolition of the death penalty.

I have not seen that, but I can see where an argument could be made for it.

They call it a divine a right not in service to the common good but an absolute right.

I have never seen this argument, and considering that the divine right is a Protestant idea, I am surprised that Catholics would use it.

 

[Hodos]

As a Catholic and a conservative, I find myself struggling to reconcile two stances on the death penalty.

On one hand, Pope Francis has changed the Catechism to say that the death penalty is inadmissible in any circumstance because human life still has dignity, even if the most serious of crimes are committed.

On the other hand, what good does that do for society? I completely agree that human life must always be dignified, but I don’t see how eliminating the death penalty could do so to the fullest extent.

The issue you are facing is that the prohibition against the death penalty is completely ascriptural. It is an innovation.

God himself established the death penalty, for all mankind, in Genesis 9:6-7. He further affirms this when he places it into the Mosaic law (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy in multiple places) saying that we are to purge the evil from among us. In the New Testament, no less than Jesus, Paul, and Peter again affirm the right of the state to wield the sword to inflict punishment on the evildoer (Matthew 26:52; Romans 13; 1 Peter 3). And do not forget that God himself frequently uses nations and rulers to bear the sword for his purposes of justice, even sometimes using unjust men to do so. The idea that taking someone’s life for a grievous crime is somehow an affront to human dignity is a myth. It is commanded of us to affirm the dignity of life. Lastly, we are all in danger of dying before we repent of our sins. Is it any more of a danger to die at the hands of the state than it is to say die in a car accident before one has the chance to repent? On the contrary, when faced with mortality, people frequently reflect upon their lives and the need for repentance.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Aquinas in the 13th century stated that referencing Scripture.

You should have included the first part of that Reply, which was to the Objection that the wheat and tares forbade CP:

The objection demonstrates the other false claim that is that the death penalty is intrinsically murder and indefensible. Aquinas was responding to that claim by saying no it isn’t intrinsically evil. It is made evil by an unjust and unnecessary use of it in society. Today the Church is pushing back on that extreme which is the claim that it can never be evil… at most unwise, but still a right of man, not determined by the common good.

 

[otjm]

Prisons are state run; jails are city/county run. Someone convicted of a crime for which the death penalty applies is not going to be in some inner city “prison” - actually a jail.

Someone will go to jail for a misdemeanor, in the county facility; someone convicted of a crime normally will go to the state prison system, which may consist of a series of “tiers” based on security - minimum, medium or maximum. At lest in Oregon there is a possibility that they might end up in a work camp in the forest, a minimum security place.

Anyone facing the death penalty is going to be in a maximum facility.

 

[otjm]

I am personally against the death penalty, as there is way too much wiggle room nation wide as to who is condemned to death and who is not, for a charge of murder or aggravated murder.

The possibility that the wrong person is convicted (reduced now based on dna samples, but not all murder cases provide for dna samples), the very real problem of people with very low mental ability, drug addiction, or the combination of the two) being coerced into confessions (or actually seeking to confess a crime), improper work on the part of the police, the mishandling of evidence; on occasion the outright failure of the police/district attorney to provide mitigating or contradicting information, and a multitude of possible errors between the commission of the crime and the final appeals provides too much disparity between who gets the needle and who doesn’t.

We also have had a couple of prisoners shortcut their appeals and be executed in this state (Oregon), at lest one of whom stated they could not face life in prison; they would sooner die (And I refer to them as suicide by death penalty). Anyone who things thatlife in prison is “waltzing” in stead of their “getting it” (death) has likely never been in prison facing real life sentence.

My law partner and I handled two murder cases, before the death penalty was reinstated in our state, and I refused to handle any more after it was put back in effect. I did not want the responsibility of handling a case where something I did, or didn’t do, might be the key to life in prions or death.

It is easy to talk the talk; but until you have had to walk the walk, it is mostly piffle.

On the other hand, I have no problem at all with a criminal, in the process of a crime (burglary, robbery, rape, attempted or intended murder, etc.) who is shot and killed in the commission of the crime, or armed and resisting arrest - by either police or a citizen defending themselves and/or others. There was a recent video of a woman officer who had pulled over an individual for a driving matter; after she had checked his license and registration she walked back to the individual in the vehicle, and just as she came into his view he whipped a pistol across his chest and took a shot at her. She had to have lightening reflexes as she pulled back just as he shot; she still had the presence of mind to key her mike and report “Shots fired! Shots Fired!” as she pulled her service revolver and returned fire, all the while moving to stay out of return fire from him.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever that the driver died at the scene. He tried to kill her, for whatever reason. Or no reason.

 

[Annie]

Today the Church is pushing back on that extreme which is the claim that it can never be evil… at most unwise, but still a right of man, not determined by the common good.

They call it a divine a right not in service to the common good but an absolute right.

You are asserting a lot of claiming on the part of those who are not against the DP, and I have never seen these claims actually made. Do you have sources for these claims as made by Catholics?

 

[puer.dei]

There’s less chance of that happening now than in the past

Less isn’t zero.

 

[Genesis315]

If the novel CCC paragraph devised by Pope Francis is merely a practical consideration, then it should be given due respect, but it can be disagreed with in good conscience (the realm of practical dictates is where conscience is supreme). If it is meant as abstract doctrine on a fixed point of morality, then it is an utter novelty found nowhere in Scripture or Tradition (and instead universally contradicted by them) until a random speech by Pope Francis (which is its only citation). If that is the case, we are bound to reject it, as St. Vincent de Lerins explained in his Commonitory:

St. Vincent:

[48.] This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you: 1 Corinthians 2:9 as though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not immediately rooted up by God, namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest; that is, that it may be apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the Catholic faith.

Here is the fixed principle the Church has universally held as repeated by the Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent):

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Whether it is a “just use” or conducive to the common good in particular circumstances is a factual determination where no one, not even the Pope, is omniscient or infallible. Again, we should respect the Pope’s practical judgment in this matter, but it doesn’t receive the absolute obedience of faith.

 

[blackforest]

what if the murderer is sentenced to life in jail and is either released early or escapes?

How many convicted murderers have escaped from maximum security in recent years? Of them, how many were recaptured? We pay hefty tax money for these prisons, and the burden is on this establishment to provide top-notch security. If people have to be killed by the state in order to accommodate Swiss-cheese security, then we’d have to start executing non-murders in Max, as well.

I think that more ancient teachings on the death penalty made some degree of sense to the extent that it was largely an act of self-defense to stop a murderer from harming others. We now have the technology and obligation to render that irrelevant.

 

[new-kirishitan]

I am STRONGLY pro-death penalty for two reasons:

1. There were enough references to death penalty in the Bible, and the Church has been teaching that death penalty is not wrong until the current pontiff decided to change it. To me it is the same as saying that the Church has been teaching the wrong thing for the past two millennia. That sounds ridiculous to my ears.
2. While death penalty should not be abused and should be reserved for murders only, death penalty itself is not cruelty, certainly not for murderers. Instead, abolishing death penalty is true cruelty. Cruelty to the innocent victims who lost their lives.

I still remember the moment on TV two years ago when the perpetrators of 1995 Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack were executed. The reporter interviewed an elderly woman who lost her son in the attack. She was crying in front of the camera and said “It took too long for justice to be served.” It was a very striking moment.

 

[Elf01]

While death penalty should not be abused and should be reserved for murders only, death penalty itself is not cruelty, certainly not for murderers. Instead, abolishing death penalty is true cruelty. Cruelty to the innocent victims who lost their lives.

Why should it be only reserved for murder?

 

[new-kirishitan]

Because it’s unjust to take a person’s life when he didn’t take another person’s life. It would be like, say, chopping off someone’s hand when he/she stole a wallet.

 

[Elf01]

Because it’s unjust to take a person’s life when he didn’t take another person’s life. It would be like, say, chopping off someone’s hand when he/she stole a wallet.

While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Numbers 15 32-36 RSVCE

Are you saying God is unjust for ordering the death of a man for picking sticks on the Sabbath?

 

[new-kirishitan]

Perhaps you should also read the New Testament too.

 

[Elf01]

Perhaps you should also read the New Testament too.

What in the New Testament do you see as supporting the death penalty?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

On the other hand, what good does that do for society?

Considering the miniscule percentage of persons on death row in US who are actually ever executed, there’s no change to society. Most of those guys sentenced to death just sit in a cell till they naturally pass away.

Eliminating the death penalty might actually save society some costs by doing away with the endless appeals that people on death row file. If you just give them life without parole, their appeals run out a lot faster.

 

[Hodos]

Eliminating the death penalty might actually save society some costs by doing away with the endless appeals that people on death row file. If you just give them life without parole, their appeals run out a lot faster.

This is assuming there is no legislative fix, such as limiting an appeal to merely determining whether the person was guilty under the law rather than arguing procedural questions such as the means by which sentence is to be executed. If we did that, I suspect the number of appeals filed would drastically decrease, as would the cost.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s hard to implement a legislative fix when the counterargument is that someone might be unjustly deprived of their life as a result of the fix.
Especially now when the issue of disparate conviction results for persons of color will be put in the forefront.
There are a lot of people currently on death row for fairly garden-variety murders for one reason or another; not all of them committed Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer-type horrible crimes. If there was actually a good chance that these guys might get executed, you’d see a lot more agitation about their cases.

 

[Hodos]

It’s hard to implement a legislative fix when the counterargument is that someone might be unjustly deprived of their life as a result of the fix.

Understood, which is why I did not say that they should not go through the appeals process, I merely stated the appeals process should be limited to determining actual guilt. So if new evidence arises, or if the evidence that was used to convict is tainted, that would be game for the appeals process just like in any other criminal proceeding. Many of the appeals for death penalty cases does not pertain to this question, but to questions of whether method of execution or the conditions on death row are humane, etc., which is why you have such a backlog of cases in the appeals process. Consequently, we could provide funding to increase the number of judges assigned to the state and federal appellate courts.

Especially now when the issue of disparate conviction results for persons of color will be put in the forefront.

The issue of disparate conviction results according to what? Are the disparate conviction results due to disparate rates in commission of crime (in which case disparate results would actually demonstrate justice), or are you assuming without evidence racism? The statistics bear out the first reason far more than the second. That being said, I agree we need to look at the sentencing process, because they tend to be harsher for those who are of lower economic means because they can’t afford the same level of representation. However, that would actually merit more use of the death penalty, not less. The whole issue with the death penalty is that it is used in such a vast minority of cases, when God’s command doesn’t provide for that. God provided for both due process and the death penalty. Not sure who decided God didn’t know what he was doing.

There are a lot of people currently on death row for fairly garden-variety murders for one reason or another; not all of them committed Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer-type horrible crimes.

Not sure how one can refer to a murder as “garden variety” or to say that any murder is not a horrible crime. My cousin was murdered on my grandmother’s doorstep by a .38 shot to his forehead as my grandmother attempted to protect him. There was nothing “garden variety” about that or the lasting impact it has had on everyone who knew him. If you insist that all lives have inherent dignity, and use that as your basis for why we shouldn’t have the death, penalty, but then draw the distinction between horrible murders and garden variety murders, it does not appear that your conclusion flows from your premise.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s not really possible to dismiss entire bodies of constitutional law regarding tainted evidence etc via a legislative “fix” or any other way as being irrelevant in a death penalty case, the highest stakes of all.

There are also a lot of legal arguments that minorities are more likely to be sentenced to death.

Finally, the problem with discussing this issue with people who are not criminal defense lawyers is that they have the same reaction you did to someone saying basically that not all capital murders are created equal. The simple fact is that in the world of law and legal process in USA, they aren’t. But that doesn’t play well to the non-lawyer public.

With that, I’ve said my piece on this thread. I don’t expect anyone to agree and don’t care if they do or not.