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

[MonteRCMS]

The shooter should be transported to the nearest abortion mill and receive euthanasia drugs.

 

[JanetF]

"Life without parole in a maximum security penitentiary.

There is no legitimate reason to execute him. He can be neutralized and locked away without killing him."

This is how I feel as well. There is no longer any need for the death penalty in this country, since we have the ways and means to keep any criminal away from the rest of society. Plus, it’s cheaper to put them in prison for life, than to defend a capital case against the many years of appeals that would be due to a capital offender. It would also get him out of the lime light more quickly which would reduce the potential for copycats seeking attention.

 

[Ender]

There is no legitimate reason to execute him. He can be neutralized and locked away without killing him."

Would you support executing him if he could not be securely locked away? He was clearly a threat before he went on his killing spree, on what basis could you object to his being executed, or at least incarcerated before he killed?

 

[JanetF]

I follow the teaching of the church, if there was no way to keep him safely separated from society then, he could be subjected to the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

I follow the teaching of the church, if there was no way to keep him safely separated from society then, he could be subjected to the death penalty.

I follow the teaching of the church too; I just understand the teaching differently. Let me ask: assuming there is no question of insanity, does this person deserve to die because of the seriousness of his crime?

 

[Crocus]

does this person deserve to die

Does any one of us deserve to live? And yet, here we are.

Life, and death belong to God alone. For the Love of God, choose life.

 

[Ender]

Life, and death belong to God alone.

This is not what the church teaches.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

 

[Crocus]

I read your 68 posts above and all the responses. Nothing new to add. I am with the 70% on this thread who disagree with you on what the Church teaches.

I shared the poll numbers of this thread with my husband and his eyebrows bumped his hairline, before he realized this is a Catholic forum. “Ah. That explains it.” Perplexing though, after all this, the undecided remains at 12%.

 

[Ender]

I read your 68 posts above and all the responses. Nothing new to add. I am with the 70% on this thread who disagree with you on what the Church teaches.

I’m trying to point out what seem to me to be logical inconsistencies in arguments as well as those assertions, like yours that I responded to above, that are actually contrary to what the church teaches. I am impressed that you have gone back so far in this discussion, but you ought to at least consider that, if you cannot defend your position with more than “this is what I think”, it is just possibly because your position is not as sound as you believe.

 

[o_mlly]

This is not what the church teaches.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

The church teaching above affirms the conditional right of the state to execute. The state may set the legal conditions but the church determines the moral conditions. The moral conditions are full knowledge of identity, guilt and “no other means” of protecting society. These conditions are clearly defined in the catechism.

It seems the argument you propose is that the catechism is in error. It seems you claim" that no other means" is novel and not developmental of traditional teaching. But by definition, developmental is always novel in some respect. What you need, I believe, to support your argument that the catechism errs or is ambiguous is a contradiction in 2267’s teachings, that is that the state may execute even if other means of protecting society are available. I have not seen such a citation. Providing more and more historical citations of church teaching that affirm the state has a conditional right to execute does not move the argument forward.

 

[Ender]

The church teaching above affirms the conditional right of the state to execute. The state may set the legal conditions but the church determines the moral conditions. The moral conditions are full knowledge of identity, guilt and “no other means” of protecting society. These conditions are clearly defined in the catechism.

The catechism is at odds with itself. In 2260 it cites Gn 9:6 where God himself calls for the execution of the murderer, and adds “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” Perhaps it should have added “or until you reach 2267.”

In 2266 it says that the State has a duty to impose a punishment of severity commensurate with the severity of the crime. Perhaps it too should have added “until you reach 2267 where we will ignore what we just said.”

It seems the argument you propose is that the catechism is in error.

There seems to be little question about that. The very first statement in 2267 claims that the Traditional teaching of the church allows for capital punishment only when it is necessary for protection, but in fact that caveat has never been part of the church’s teaching.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin Flannery, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)

It seems you claim" that no other means" is novel and not developmental of traditional teaching.

Your own position is in agreement with mine: the restriction you see as a development cannot have been part of the traditional teaching or there would have been nothing to develop. By calling this a development of doctrine you admit the error in the catechism that calls it a traditional teaching.

But by definition, developmental is always novel in some respect. What you need, I believe, to support your argument that the catechism errs or is ambiguous is a contradiction in 2267’s teachings, that is that the state may execute even if other means of protecting society are available. I have not seen such a citation. Providing more and more historical citations of church teaching that affirm the state has a conditional right to execute does not move the argument forward.

Let me ask: what is the sole requirement of every punishment (ignoring for the moment any special conditions) that makes it a just penalty?

 

[2towers]

I believe I heard that this kid has some sort of disability, mild autism or something. Does that excuse his behavior? Of course not. Does it reduce his culpability.

2267 reminds us:
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."68

This kid can never be let out of jail. Not ever, but should he be killed given the mitigating issues? No. If somehow, he does escape execution, his life will be no picnic. Prisons are never happy places, particularly for teenagers and those with any sort of disability. Convicts are notoriously unsympathetic to such things. There well be plenty of “redemptive suffering” I am quite sure. There will also be time for a conversion. This might not be your wish or goal, but it is God’s. Christ died for sinners, and he wants their conversion no matter how grievous the sin. We have a duty to protect society, and that will be done, we also have a duty to allow for the possibility for redemption, at least, that is how I see it. People have a right to disagree on that last note, but that is my interpretation, and I believe that is the churches view as well.

 

[o_mlly]

The catechism is at odds with itself. In 2260 it cites Gn 9:6 where God himself calls for the execution of the murderer, and adds “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” Perhaps it should have added “or until you reach 2267.”

As Catholics, we do not claim a private right to interpret Scripture. The teaching is what remains necessary for all time; not a private interpretation of Gn 9:6.

In 2266 it says that the State has a duty to impose a punishment of severity commensurate with the severity of the crime. Perhaps it too should have added “until you reach 2267 where we will ignore what we just said.”

If life imprisonment is a commensurate punishment for murder then the teaching has internal integrity. Do you have evidence that such is not true?

… The very first statement in 2267 claims that the Traditional teaching of the church allows for capital punishment only when it is necessary for protection, but in fact that caveat has never been part of the church’s teaching.

The edition of the catechism under discussion was published in 1997. If the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) is not church teaching then you have an argument. How can you dismiss a papal encyclical as authoritative and within the tradition and, yet, include so many non-magisterial sources as supporting your argument? You cite Flannery, a professor whose credential are solid but not magisterial, and dismiss St. JPII, the pope?

Your own position is in agreement with mine: the restriction you see as a development cannot have been part of the traditional teaching or there would have been nothing to develop. By calling this a development of doctrine you admit the error in the catechism that calls it a traditional teaching.

I do not think we are in agreement. The logic above escapes me. I think your claim necessarily dismisses EV as part of the church’s traditional teaching. How does one pick and choose which magisterial documents may be dismissed and others retained?

Let me ask: what is the sole requirement of every punishment (ignoring for the moment any special conditions) that makes it a just penalty?

1 Tim 2:4.

 

[Ender]

This kid can never be let out of jail. Not ever, but should he be killed given the mitigating issues? No.

It is always appropriate to adjust the punishment based on mitigating factors. Such factors apply to individual cases, and are not generally applicable.

There will also be time for a conversion. This might not be your wish or goal, but it is God’s.

It’s not really appropriate to suggest that others’ Christianity is deficient.

Christ died for sinners, and he wants their conversion no matter how grievous the sin. We have a duty to protect society, and that will be done, we also have a duty to allow for the possibility for redemption, at least, that is how I see it. People have a right to disagree on that last note, but that is my interpretation, and I believe that is the churches view as well.

Of course, just as the catechism says:

2266 Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)

That endnote (67) cites Lk 23:40-43…which is the passage about the salvation of the “good thief” crucified with Christ. That is, it uses an example of capital punishment to demonstrate how punishment can lead to salvation.

 

[2towers]

It’s not really appropriate to suggest that others’ Christianity is deficient

It was an opened ended statement, so I don’t believe I was doing that. That aside, when comments appear to veer away from justice and towards revenge, according to charity, we are called to council those in error.

 

[Ender]

As Catholics, we do not claim a private right to interpret Scripture. The teaching is what remains necessary for all time; not a private interpretation of Gn 9:6.

I cited the catechism; that’s not exactly a private interpretation. Here’s the perspective from an earlier catechism:

The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) Catechism of Trent

The footnote there refers to Gn 9:5-6

If life imprisonment is a commensurate punishment for murder then the teaching has internal integrity. Do you have evidence that such is not true?

The church has taken no position on this point. It seems we are left with the position God took.

The edition of the catechism under discussion was published in 1997. If the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) is not church teaching then you have an argument. How can you dismiss a papal encyclical as authoritative and within the tradition and, yet, include so many non-magisterial sources as supporting your argument? You cite Flannery, a professor whose credential are solid but not magisterial, and dismiss St. JPII, the pope?

I don’t dismiss anything. I only stated what appears to be true, a truth your own position requires you to admit. You’ve claimed the restriction on the use of capital punishment is a new development. How can you also claim it is also part of the traditional teaching? It can be one or the other but it cannot be both. If it is a new development as you assert then the statement in the catechism that it is in fact part of the traditional teaching is incorrect.

I asked what the one requirement was that made a punishment just, and you replied 1 Tim 2:4. I assume by that you meant the rehabilitation of the sinner. If so, that would not be correct. How would that square with 2267 which appears to put protection first?

The primary requirement of all punishments is that they be just, and in order for one to be just it must be of commensurate severity with the crime. We know death is a just punishment for murder or the church would not have accepted it, and since the severity of murder does not change with time or place, this punishment is always a just one. The question of whether it is always a wise one in the circumstances can change, but not its inherent justness.

 

[o_mlly]

I cited the catechism; that’s not exactly a private interpretation. Here’s the perspective from an earlier catechism:

The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) Catechism of Trent

The footnote there refers to Gn 9:5-6

The catechism cites it scriptural authority for its teaching. But doing so does not open Gen 9:5-6 to alternative interpretations.

How does the killing of a homicidal beast relate to the state’s right to execute a person?

The church has taken no position on this point. It seems we are left with the position God took.

But the church has taken a position. “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient …” then those means suffice.

I don’t dismiss anything. I only stated what appears to be true, a truth your own position requires you to admit. You’ve claimed the restriction on the use of capital punishment is a new development.

You use a phrase that seems awkward to me “new development.” What is the difference between “a development” and a “new development” in teaching? EV is a development in church teaching, the substance of that teaching has always been true.

If it is a new development as you assert then the statement in the catechism that it is in fact part of the traditional teaching is incorrect.

The teaching is in EV. Do you claim EV is not part of the traditional teaching of the Catholic church? If so, on what authority do you make such a claim? It has been 22+ years since EV was published and I know of no dubia asserted by any bishop.

We know death is a just punishment for murder or the church would not have accepted it, and since the severity of murder does not change with time or place, this punishment is always a just one.

The fact that death is a just punishment for murder does not mean that death is the exclusive (the only just) punishment for the crime. Once again, I note that your argument relies on citing a church teaching that requires death, not merely permits death, as a punishment. I have not seen such a citation.

 

[o_mlly]

We know death is a just punishment for murder or the church would not have accepted it, and since the severity of murder does not change with time or place, this [capital] punishment is always a just one.

The bold and italicized claim above is incorrect and is the central tenet of your argument.

In a philosophical debate, an appeal to authority is a fallacious argument. But in this thread an appeal to church authority is the only acceptable argument. Again, do you have an authoritative source that supports your above claim (contra EV) that capital punishment for the crime of murder is always just?

 

[Ender]

Again, do you have an authoritative source that supports your above claim (contra EV) that capital punishment for the crime of murder is always just?

If capital punishment is ever a just penalty for the crime of murder it must be because it is of commensurate severity with the crime. So, if in general the punishment is ever just, then it is always just. In a particular case, because of mitigating circumstances it may not be wise to impose it, and for that reason be unjust because circumstances unrelated to the crime call for a different punishment, but without those circumstances the penalty is just because it is always commensurate with the crime.

2267 argues that circumstances make the penalty harmful, and therefore unjust, but there is nothing in the penalty itself that makes it so. Capital punishment is always just in principle, but not always in practice.

 

[Ender]

The teaching is in EV. Do you claim EV is not part of the traditional teaching of the Catholic church? If so, on what authority do you make such a claim? It has been 22+ years since EV was published and I know of no dubia asserted by any bishop.

You have claimed that the restriction on capital punishment is a development of doctrine, that it is new. 2267 claims that the restriction is part of the traditional teaching, that it is old. If you are right then the catechism is wrong, but if you accept that the catechism is right then you contradict your own claim. The teaching cannot be both old and new, so pick one. Which is it?