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

[RichardsPlanet]

There is zero evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

Statistics show that regions with the death penalty tend to have higher murder rates than regions without the death penalty.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/deathpenaltyhomicide.htm

 

[RichardsPlanet]

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

Morality does not change, however, there is always room for growth and advancement in our expression of it. As example, I choose the First Jerusalem Council’s prohibition against the consumption of blood (Acts 15:20):

abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Four centuries later St. Agustine wrote:

[T]he apostles did on that occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have [chosen an] easy observance … which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelites, for the sake of the Cornerstone, … now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none who are outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood. Any who still are afraid to touch these things are laughed at by the rest. - Contra Faustus XXXII

It should be obvious that the decree of the first Council, presided by the Apostles themselves, could in any way be ignored. But, since it was for a certain purpose and the necessity of that purpose no longer exists, it can be dispensed with.

It can be similarly argued that (in some parts of the world) the necessity of capital punishment no longer exists and can be dispensed with.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

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.

I agree with @Ender that this sounds somewhat uncharitable. @Ender’s position, as I have seen it, is not contrary to Church teaching. It reflects a legitimate position that can be held by any Catholic in good faith and conscience.

@Ender and I have traded opposing comments - except for the common understanding that true justice is important.

 

[godisgood77]

Why was it OK to torture and then burn a Jew alive at the stake for wanting to pray in his religion,

It most certainly wasn’t OK… we have the benefit of hindsight and the case of this Jew was most certainly a mistake by those in authority who allowed the torture and murder. Thank goodness we have grown and matured and come to a fuller understanding of the truth.

 

[godisgood77]

I’m not giving you my interpretation. I’m citing the position the church has taken for 2000 years.

The Church’s position has changed, developed and matured… that is where the miss is happening. What was allowed during the Inquisition, is not allowed today and in fact is know to be wrong.

It sounds like you may be advocating an eye for an eye type of justice which, of course, is not supported by then Church

 

[MonteRCMS]

A retroactive abortion … which method?

 

[o_mlly]

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.

The argument that 2267 contradicts the traditional teaching is still in need of an historical magisterial citation that supports such a claim. Do you have one? If 2267 contradicts then the gist of that citation must specifically teach that the state may impose the death penalty in circumstances where the criminal can do no further harm.

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.

I think you misread 2267. What is left to prudence is only a determination of whether “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.” The moral teaching in 2267 does not allow one to affirm the above condition and exact the death penalty. Apparently, you argue that one may affirm the condition and still impose the death penalty.

The morality of an act, as you recall, requires the goodness of the object, intention and circumstance. An act under one set of circumstances may be good but the same act under different circumstance is evil. The moral law, as it must, remains constant.

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.

Please read my post again. I did not refer to the person you cited but rather to the generic arguments put forth against the teaching of 2267.

 

[o_mlly]

I agree with @Ender that this sounds somewhat uncharitable. @Ender’s position, as I have seen it, is not contrary to Church teaching. It reflects a legitimate position that can be held by any Catholic in good faith and conscience.

I think not. A Catholic who believes the penal system effectively restrains the criminal may not endorse capital punishment.

@Ender and I have traded opposing comments - except for the common understanding that true justice is important.

Who can know God’s justice? Job tried and failed. But by grace, we can know His charity.

 

[rcwitness]

Who can know God’s justice? Job tried and failed. But by grace, we can know His charity.

Job’s story cried out for justice and a reason for suffering. Job was “perfect in all his ways” but He could not bear the weight of the consequence of mankinds sin with a pure heart like the Son of God.

Jesus Himself is God’s justice. His life, death and resurrection.

If anything, the Church is concerned about judging those imside the Church who refuse to turn away from sin. While those outside the faith, are condemned already and we call them to repent. Executing heritics who were preaching false doctrines against the Church were perhaps justified. However, the Church learned that it was not helping the cause.

I believe the State is perfectly justified to be able to sentance the death penalty. However, the cases which warrant it, morally, have diminished in most all places. It actually would be closer to a “self defence” act to be justified.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

A Catholic who believes the penal system effectively restrains the criminal may not endorse capital punishment.

I’ve quoted from the Catechism (pretty much the only one in this thread) and it says:

2267 . … If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means …

The problem is the should, which in vernacular English reads as a recommendation. I double checked the French and Spanish (which I can read) and the Latin (which I can parse with a dictionary) and, to my surprise, it is not the should of recommendation, but the should of obligation.

As is clear in the French, Spanish, and Latin versions of the Catechism:

l’autorité s’en tiendra à ces moyens,
la autoridad se limitará a esos medios
auctoritas his solummodo utatur instrumentis

I now stand clarified, if the state has the means to secure the criminal without resorting to the death penalty then it must limit itself to that means. There is no discussion of that unless one wants to be in contradiction of official Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

We can debate that point,

Isn’t that what we’ve been doing?

I was referring specifically to your questioning whether “execution restores the disorder.”

We agree that true justice is what needs to prevail so that the disorder incurred can be redressed. However, we disagree on the form of that justice.

It sounds like you accept that retribution (retributive justice) is the primary objective of all punishment, so I’ll press on to what I think this implies.

We recognize that a just punishment must be imposed by the State, and for a punishment to be just its severity must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

We know also that the church considers death a just punishment for the crime of murder, otherwise she could never have supported it - which she clearly has done for her entire existence. So it is reasonable to ask: since the State must apply a just punishment for crimes, and death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder, what is the moral objection to its use?

 

[rcwitness]

Execution does not restore the disorder. It ends the life of a disordered person. Only acceptance of God’s sacrifice restores the disorder of a sin against God.

The disorder is caused by many disorders in our society. We must take some responsibility of allowing these crimes to happen.

Does society endorce hating our neighbor? Does society confess that Jesus is Lord and gives life through His coming in the flesh? Does society offer mercy to those afflicted by hardships? Does society show mercy to its neighbor?

If society does NOT offer perfect mercy to one another, why should it think it is entitled to offer perfect justice?

 

[o_mlly]

… it ought to be apparent that “seemingly rational” and “vapid” are not particularly charitable descriptions of anyone’s comments.

The proper objects of charity are persons, not ideas. While in charity we must always tolerate those who have bad ideas, we ought not tolerate those bad ideas themselves.

 

[anikins]

Wow. People with Catholic imagery in their icons voting yes. Yikes.

 

[rcwitness]

Id say the poll is very good considering what the total real world Catholic acceptance of Church Teaching really is like!

 

[RichardsPlanet]

I was referring specifically to your questioning whether “execution restores the disorder.”

I do not believe it does. There are two disorders: the disorder of the person who committed the crime and the disorder brought into the community by the crime. The purpose is to restore the sinner to reconciliation with God and to restore the injury to the community.

We know also that the church considers death a just punishment for the crime of murder, otherwise she could never have supported it

Be careful with your wording, the Church considers that legitimate authority has the right, in safe guarding the community, to impose the death penalty. That is not the same as saying the Church endorsed the death penalty.

Recall there was a long debate in the early Church whether or not violence of any kind could ever be justified. The outcome was that under certain conditions - namely that of defense - a measured an proportioned violence was tolerable. Nevertheless, the preference has always been for peace.

Jesus spoke quite plainly against retribution (Matthew 5):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person." (38-39)

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. (43-45)

A position that many martyrs held to their death. It was not until Augustine that the notion of justified violence emerged.

 

[rcwitness]

A position that many martyrs held to their death. It was not until Augustine that the notion of justified violence emerged.

You mean Constantine?

He changed the law of the land which made it illegal to persecute Christianity.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

No, I meant Augustine.

My intent was to say that early Christians preferred to be martyred than respond with violence. (Perhaps “preferred” is too strong - what they truly preferred was to their lives without being bothered).

It was Augustine who planted the seed for the notion of just war (even using the term) in City of God:

[T]he wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; - Book 19, Chapter 7

 

[rcwitness]

Right. But didnt the change in the State joining with the Church influence that?

The State executed sentances based on Church beliefs.

 

[Maximilian75]

As said upthread multiple times, the Church says in the CCC that capital punishment is permissible in some circumstances. From what I understand, the occasion of permissibility is what is debatable.