Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?

[RichardsPlanet]

I am partially with @ender on this.

He definitely had the authority to put Jesus to death - as testified by Jesus.

As to whether he had the “right” to do so, I would argue against. No one has the “right” to sentence an innocent to death because this violates moral law. No legitimate authority has any Divine given “right” towards injustice.

From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

396. Authority must be guided by the moral law. All of its dignity derives from its being exercised within the context of the moral order, “which in turn has God for its first source and final end”. … It is from the moral order that authority derives its power to impose obligations and its moral legitimacy, not from some arbitrary will or from the thirst for power, and it is to translate this order into concrete actions to achieve the common good.

398. Authority must enact just laws, that is, laws that correspond to the dignity of the human person and to what is required by right reason. “Human law is law insofar as it corresponds to right reason and therefore is derived from the eternal law. … [W]henever public authority — which has its foundation in human nature and belongs to the order pre-ordained by God — fails to seek the common good, it abandons its proper purpose and so delegitimizes itself.

399. Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, right, I still believe Pilate had the right to crucify transgressors of Roman law, but that Pilate did not find Him guilty of any Capital offense. So while he had the right to do so, in general, he did not in the case of Jesus.

 

[godisgood77]

The death penalty is only an option for Catholics when there are absolutely no alternatives and that keeping the person alive would result in a danger to society. Saint Pope John Paul II said that the circumstances under which the death penalty would be appropriate are virtually no-existent.

This 19 year old kid needs to be incarcerated and the help of a priest…he needs to repent and atone for his sins.

I don’t see how a Catholic could support the death penalty in this case

 

[Ender]

The stumbling block between us seems the definition of moral order.

As I understand the term it means justice.

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (Aquinas, ST I-II 87, 3 ad 3)

Corresponding to the moral evil of sin is punishment, which guarantees the moral order in the same transcendent sense in which this order is laid down by the will of the Creator and Supreme Lawgiver. (JPII, Salvifici doloris)

Does God will us to execute? The Old Testament supports that. But does the New Testament?

I have a real problem with the idea that there is a complete moral break between the Old and New Testaments. Remember also that the church existed only with the New Testament, so if she refers back to the OT shouldn’t we accept those teachings? I am not the one referring back to Genesis; I am citing the church making that reference. Read CCC 2260 and explain its meaning.

If legitimate authority, in its obligation to preserve the common good, decides that execution is the best option, then we are subject to that.

I agree with this. It seems, though, that the difference lies in our understanding of the “common good.”

However, the Catechism advises that if non-lethal means are available, then the legitimate authority should limit itself to that.

And this is exactly how I understand it as well: advice.

I agree that “warehousing” criminals may be against moral order because it may fail to apply the medicinal aspect of punishment, which as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

If the moral order is understood as justice then what is contrary to that order is the application of a punishment that is unjust, either because it is too harsh or because it is too lenient. This is why the State has a positive duty to apply a penalty “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” This also explains why retribution - retributive justice - is the primary objective of punishment.

 

[Charybdis]

Hello everyone. I’m getting in late to this discussion but there is something out there beyond guns and mental disorders. And that is psychotropic drugs. I am hearing that this kid was perhaps on prescription medication. If you look back at many of these horrific shootings over the last 10-20 years, you will be surprised to find that there is one thing that is common to all of them: psychotropic drugs prescribed for depression or ADHD or something along those lines.

These drugs are the fuel to making these kids disconnect from their lives and commit these horrible acts because they feel they are playing some kind of video game. To them it’s not real.

The real problem are the overuse and misuse of these dangerous drugs.

 

[mVitus]

Correlation =/= causation.

The other way to look at what you said is that people with those mental health issues, which they take drugs for, are more likely to commit those acts.
Kind of like how people taking insulin are more likely to die of diabetes-related issues. It’s not the insulin causing the issue, but the diabetes, and people with diabetes take insulin.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

As I understand the term it means justice.

Good that we both agree justice is important.

I have a real problem with the idea that there is a complete moral break between the Old and New Testaments.

There was no intent to imply a disconnect.

This also explains why retribution - retributive justice - is the primary objective of punishment.

And this is where we disagree. I lean much more to restorative - as in restoring the imbalance that sin has caused. It is not at all clear to me that execution restores the disorder caused - neither to the perpetrator, to the victims, nor the community.

 

[o_mlly]

The teaching is anything but clear, as any number of people have pointed out.

Intrinsically, 2267 has no ambiguity in its teaching. The words are perfectly coherent and plain in their meaning.

The assumption you make, and the one that I reject, is that there is a new doctrine that allows capital punishment solely if it is required for protection. That is, its use is determined by whether it is deemed necessary to satisfy a secondary objective.

I make no assumption and I see no new doctrine. The teaching maintains as always taught that the state’s limited authority to execute is valid.

The teaching recognizes in the “signs of the times” that our time excels previous ages in a more civilized culture and refinement. Canon lawyers and speculative theologians who a priori oppose the teaching attempt to build seemingly rational arguments that the times have not changed since Old Testament days. These vapid arguments are based on elevating a scholastic mental gymnastic about primary and secondary objectives of punishment to a level of magisterial authority which they do not possess. They sound much like those who opposed Trent’s teaching banning dueling. To wit:

> Finally, the new age which boasts of far excelling previous ages in a more civilized culture and refinement of manners is wont to consider older institutions of little value and too often reject whatever differs from the character of the new elegance. Why is it that in its great zeal for civilization, it does not repudiate the base remnants of an uncouth age and foreign barbarism that we know as the custom of dueling?
Pastoralis Officii - On the morality of dueling
Encyclical given at Rome at the See of St. Peter, September 12, 1891, in the fourteenth year of Our Pontificate.
LEO XIII

 

[Ender]

Ender:

This also explains why retribution - retributive justice - is the primary objective of punishment.

And this is where we disagree. I lean much more to restorative - as in restoring the imbalance that sin has caused.

Do we disagree here? I’m saying that it is justice itself (in the form of punishment) that restores the disorder caused by the sin.

A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium (Pius XII, 1954)

It is not at all clear to me that execution restores the disorder caused - neither to the perpetrator, to the victims, nor the community.

We can debate that point, but I think it must be made clear that it is the punishment (whether capital or not) that restores the disorder, and that for the punishment to achieve that restoration, it must be of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime.

 

[Ender]

I make no assumption and I see no new doctrine. The teaching maintains as always taught that the state’s limited authority to execute is valid.

That’s not actually what it teaches. Take the first assertion in 2267:

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

This is inaccurate. The traditional teaching of the church appears to have never contained this restriction. The traditional teaching actually stops right at the point where the caveat begins. I can cite a half dozen earlier catechisms, plus the comments of another dozen or so popes, Doctors, and Fathers of the Church in support of that claim. I’ll also claim that neither you nor anyone else can cite a single document (prior to 1995) that supports what the catechism asserts.

The teaching recognizes in the “signs of the times” that our time excels previous ages in a more civilized culture and refinement.

This is a belief that morality changes with the times.

Canon lawyers and speculative theologians who a priori oppose the teaching attempt to build seemingly rational arguments that the times have not changed since Old Testament days. These vapid arguments are based on elevating a scholastic mental gymnastic about primary and secondary objectives of punishment to a level of magisterial authority which they do not possess.

This is not a serious argument. It is merely an uncharitable judgment of others, and a dismissal of their arguments without refuting them.

 

[godisgood77]

Here’s the CCC 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 are 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 non-existent.”

Here’s PJPII on two occasions:
“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

As Catholics, I do not know how one could support the death penalty in this instance.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s not actually what it teaches. Take the first assertion in 2267:

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

This is inaccurate. The traditional teaching of the church appears to have never contained this restriction. The traditional teaching actually stops right at the point where the caveat begins. I can cite a half dozen earlier catechisms, plus the comments of another dozen or so popes, Doctors, and Fathers of the Church in support of that claim. I’ll also claim that neither you nor anyone else can cite a single document (prior to 1995) that supports what the catechism asserts.

The traditional teaching of the church did not restrict dueling until Trent. Just as Trent did not contradict traditional teaching by adding to it, neither does the 1995 catechism. I do not think that you or anyone else can cite a single magisterial document that contradicts 2267.

This is a belief that morality changes with the times.

That’s not correct. If times change circumstance then a change in circumstance may certainly change the morality of an act without changing the underlying moral law.

This is not a serious argument. It is merely an uncharitable judgment of others, and a dismissal of their arguments without refuting them.

Please show evidence of a lack of charity that would allow you to judge my argument as such.

 

[Arkansan]

The other way to look at what you said is that people with those mental health issues, which they take drugs for, are more likely to commit those acts.

That’s why we constantly hear about all the mass shootings committed by people with mental illnesses who aren’t on psychotropic drugs.

 

[Arkansan]

The traditional teaching of the church did not restrict dueling until Trent.

You know that’s not true right?

 

[ChunkMonk]

The death penalty is the only appropriate punishment in this case.

 

[Irishmom2]

Never thought it would happen, but I agree with you.

 

[rcwitness]

Never thought it would happen, but I agree with you.

Have we disagreed that much?

 

[Ender]

The traditional teaching of the church did not restrict dueling until Trent. Just as Trent did not contradict traditional teaching by adding to it, neither does the 1995 catechism. I do not think that you or anyone else can cite a single magisterial document that contradicts 2267.

The 1997 catechism makes a statement that factually is either correct or incorrect regarding what the traditional teaching of the church was regarding capital punishment. Given that the church never taught that capital punishment was restricted to cases necessary for defense it cannot be correct to claim that it did. It may be argued that this change is within the parameters of what was taught, but it cannot be argued that it was in fact taught.

If times change circumstance then a change in circumstance may certainly change the morality of an act without changing the underlying moral law.

If an act that was moral yesterday is immoral today then morality has changed between then and now. Conditions can make unwise today what was reasonable yesterday, but that is a prudential distinction, not a moral one. This has been my argument regarding 2267: it makes a prudential argument against the application of CP in today’s societies, but it cannot make immoral what was once moral.

Please show evidence of a lack of charity that would allow you to judge my argument as such.

Canon lawyers and speculative theologians who a priori oppose the teaching attempt to build seemingly rational arguments that the times have not changed since Old Testament days. These vapid arguments… (post #333)

There is nothing whatever to suggest the person I cited even opposed (your interpretation of) the teaching, let alone that it was an a priori decision, and it ought to be apparent that “seemingly rational” and “vapid” are not particularly charitable descriptions of anyone’s comments.

 

[Ender]

As Catholics, I do not know how one could support the death penalty in this instance.

It is precisely because we are Catholics that we can support the death penalty. The church has for 2000 years recognized a State’s right to apply it. Yes, JPII was opposed to its use, but that was a prudential objection that it was unwise, not a moral judgment that it was sinful.

 

[godisgood77]

I fully disagree… there is a clear alternative to the death penalty in this case. If you refer the CCC passage I referenced earlier, a good Catholic wouldn’t be able to support the death penalty in this instance.

A state’s right to apply it, doesn’t mean a Catholic can support it.