Support the Death Penalty?

[Brendan]

On another site, this: “Doesn’t the Bible also say: Thou shalt not kill? That’s what always amazes me about the religious people: they live with the Bible in their hand, but also are in favor of the death penalty. That’s like being a vegetarian butcher!”

No, the correct translation is " Thou shall not murder"

And read my quote from the Council of Trent above, this is the Church’s understanding of the 5th Commandment. Do you really claim to know more about the Commandments than the Church does?

The fact is, God Himself gave us the Death Penalty. He Commanded it to be enacted in certain cases.

Fortunately, most of the cases no longer exist now, but they still remain as part of the Moral Law.

Read Ecclesiastes 3

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 **a time to kill **and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

This is exactly what God speaks of when He gaves us this Wisdom.

Sometimes, we need to kill.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You forgot a third option, one that the Church itself recognizes, that of self defense.

No Brendan!
Self defense is an act of slaying committed in the heat of the moment, when there is a ‘him-or-me’ situation.
When the offender is safely in chains, and in a dungeon, that ‘heat of the moment’ does not apply.
Thus then slaying the offender is either vengeance, or euthanasia, as might be given to a rabid animal. The animal is not to be blamed for its condition, but is to be pitied, and treated as humanely as circumstances allow.
Certainly what Saddam Hussain got was vengeance.
Uncle Sam was complicit in that vengeance.
The message was: You do not thumb your nose at Uncle Sam.
Saddam Hussain was now worse than any other CIA stooges. His real crime was not on the charge sheet. Many other worse criminals than him are tollerated. How long for Mugabe? Oh, sorry, no oil, and he is only hurting black folks.
It was not for Al Abjah that Hussain was hanged, it was for turning off the oil!

 

[Philothea53]

No, the correct translation is " Thou shall not murder"

There are those who disagree with that translation and as I said, it was from another site. It was quoted as a point to discuss.

And read my quote from the Council of Trent above, this is the Church’s understanding of the 5th Commandment.

At the Council of Trent. Times were much different then. Do we have to kill when we can incarcerate?

Do you really claim to know more about the Commandments than the Church does?

Do you claim to know as much as the Church?

The fact is, God Himself gave us the Death Penalty. He Commanded it to be enacted in certain cases.

Fortunately, most of the cases no longer exist now, but they still remain as part of the Moral Law.

Although we may be ‘allowed’ to use the death penalty I believe we use it much more than is needed. As the USCCB says in its pastoral statement, “A Culture of Life and the Death Penalty”:

Our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty because:

The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity.

State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us.
Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed.

We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society.

I agree with our Bishops.

 

[FightingFat]

I accept that it may have some moral validity in the most extreme cases as a method of final resort. Other than that, it is inconsistant with Catholic values.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No, the correct translation is " Thou shall not murder"

Actually Brendan, the source for the LXX says the equivalent of: ‘Thou shalt not kill’, which appears in Latin as: ‘non occidere’.
There is a perfectly good Latin verb for murder, and St Jerome did not write: ‘non interficere’, which he undoubtedly would have done had he seen the words you wrote in his text to be translated.
‘Interficere’ is used in the Bible, especially concerning the unlawful killing of John the baptist.
What the commandment seems to be saying is: ‘Do not kill wantonly’. That means, there has to be a pressing need for the killing in order for it to be lawful, either in the heat of the moment to prevent a worse situation, of in the case of it being impracticable to otherwise restrain the offender from further committing harm.
This seems to be in good accord with JP II’s words.
It is of interest, that even some modern Jews interpret the modern, non LXX torah, in the old way, saying that even the the word interpreted as ‘murder’ should be read in a much wider sense, to include un-necessary killing.

 

[Ender]

Punishment which does not intend to reform is vengeance.

Obviously, capital punishment cannot reform, therefore it can only be vengeance, if considered to be punishment

This isn’t accurate - the primary purpose of punishment is not reform, it is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, that is … retribution. Do not confuse this with vengeance.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Although we may be ‘allowed’ to use the death penalty I believe we use it much more than is needed. As the USCCB says in its pastoral statement, “A Culture of Life and the Death Penalty”:

Our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty because:

The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity.

I agree 100% with the bishops. That it should not be used except when necessary to protect society

State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us.

Where do the bishops or the Church claim that?

Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed.

I CAN be used unjustly, but not every application is unjust, in fact, in some cases, Justice REQUIRES it, in order to protect others.

We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society.

Punishment isn’t the issue, it’s the Self Defense of Society. And Society includes other inmates and prison guards, does it not.

The question is, how does one restrain a violent murder in such a way that other inmates are not at risk from this person.

I agree with our Bishops.

As I said, so do I.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This isn’t accurate - the primary purpose of punishment is not reform, it is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, that is … retribution. Do not confuse this with vengeance.

Ender

Dear Ender, your needle is stuck in the groove.
We have already decided that the phrase: ‘redress the disorder caused by the offence’ is equivalent to ‘set atonement in place’, in other words, ‘reform’.
Your ultra right wing politics seem to have addled your vocabulary.

 

[Brendan]

Dear Ender, your needle is stuck in the groove.
We have already decided that the phrase: ‘redress the disorder caused by the offence’ is equivalent to ‘set atonement in place’, in other words, ‘reform’.
Your ultra right wing politics seem to have addled your vocabulary.

The question then becomes, does “Reform” mean temporal Reform or Spritual Reform.

The willful acceptance of Just Punishment for Captial Crimes is a Penary Indulgence, that is the Ultimate Reform

It’s most likely that Timothy McVeigh went straight to Heaven. Just prior to his execution, he recieved Sacramental Absolution from a Priest and Last Rites, which includes an Apostolic Blessing (another Plenary Indulgence). Combined with his willful acceptance of his execution, that would remit all temporal cleansing due to sin.

What more of a “Reform” could a Catholic desire in McVeigh?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This isn’t accurate - the primary purpose of punishment is not reform, it is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, that is … retribution. Do not confuse this with vengeance.

Ender

Be careful, it depends on who defines retribution. The purpose of punishment should be to reduce or stop repeat actions in the future. You can never undo the past. During your penance you should attempt to make whole however it is rare when you can do this. Most sin cannot be reversed. The church is very clear we do not kill to equalize a past killing. We do not steal from those who stole from us. We can punish a killer by imprisonment; we can punish a thief by imprisonment. We can punish vulgar language by separating ourselves from those people. We are not to hurt them. We are to remove their ability to hurt others.

 

[Philothea53]

Where do the bishops or the Church claim that?

It was part of the USCCB statement from which I quoted.

I CAN be used unjustly, but not every application is unjust, in fact, in some cases, Justice REQUIRES it, in order to protect others.

I couldn’t disagree more. You punish your child from stealing money from your purse/wallet by putting him on restriction for a week and making him pay restitution and possibly fines. You punish your friend for treating you badly by ignoring her for a week (not that that is the necessarily best way). You punish your child for mistreating his pet by giving the dog away. You punish children for fighting by making them participate in some Work of Mercy.

These can all be applied with some tweaking to criminals in our society.

Why should we kill someone, as in deliberately take their life, when we can incarcerate them and leave the rest in the hand of God? I can only assume you advocate this position because you translate the Fifth Commandment differently.

Punishment isn’t the issue, it’s the Self Defense of Society. And Society includes other inmates and prison guards, does it not.

The question is, how does one restrain a violent murder in such a way that other inmates are not at risk from this person.

People have been 100% safely incarcerated for -]years/-] decades. You are stretching this to ridiculous.

If you would like to read the Bishops’ pastoral statement on the death penalty, it is here:
usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

 

[Brendan]

We can punish vulgar language by separating ourselves from those people.

That is the preferred solution, yes

We are not to hurt them.

Correct, Captial Punishment, if used, should be as painless as possible

We are to remove their ability to hurt others.

That should be the determining factor in all solutions, correct.

 

[Brendan]

It was part of the USCCB statement from which I quoted.

[qutoe]
I couldn’t disagree more.

You can disagree all you want, but remember, God Himself commanded that Captial Punishment be used in certain circumstances. If you disagree with God… well that’s your decision.

Why should we kill someone, as in deliberately take their life, when we can incarcerate them and leave the rest in the hand of God? I can only assume you advocate this position because you translate the Fifth Commandment differently.

I translate it the same was the Council of Trent did (see my post above)

People have been 100% safely incarcerated for -]years/-] decades. You are stretching this to ridiculous.

Certain (and most) people have been incarcerated for years, that is correct. Other people have committed murders in prison, and even others have ordered, through minions, the murders of people outside of prison. Those are people for whom incarceration is not an effective solution ( by definition)

If you would like to read the Bishops’ pastoral statement on the death penalty, it is here:
usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

I have read it. The bishops state their position clearly. I agree with it, except that I have yet to see the bishops address the issue of murders that happen in prison.

By definition, imprisionment is not an effective solution, and the bishops allow for the use of Captial Punishment in those cases.

In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to
impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted
of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only
available means to protect society from a grave threat
to human life.

The bishops did err on one point in this. The CCC states that Captial Punishment may be used if it is the only EFFECTIVE solution, the bishops seemed to have left this word out in their publication. As I believe the bishops would not attempt to diminish the fulliness of Catholic teaching on this matter, it is obviously a clerical error ( no pun)

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 non-lethal methods is not effective with some individuals, the State may resort to Captial Punishment.

One interesting side point, extended solitary confinement is considered torture by the Church, an intrinsical evil, and is thus not a licit option. Captial Punishment is not intrisically evil, and thus should be chosen before the torture of extended solitary confinement.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I take it then that you don’t pay much mind to the “news”, and as such have been completely unawares of the murders and crimes committed by Ted Bundy in FL?..and other states?

Keep something in mind… Capital Punishment is not really supposed to be a “deterrent”… instead it is how society at large eliminates the incorrigible and unredeemable murderers, preventing them from ever ending up in society later.

The real sin is committed when a murder, especially a serial murdered gets a “walk” on a technicality, then murders again.

I have absolutely no problem with Capital Punishment.

Yes I do listen to the news.

The fact is that Ted Bundy would of never gotten out of jail thus was no threat to society.

There was a real chance Saddam would of been freed at some point by his supporters and put back in power.

 

[SoCalRC]

I have thought about this topic a good bit too but the decision I have reached is that the argument given by JPII does not adequately address the problem. His conclusion may be correct but his argument is insufficient.

For me, it was reading the Supreme Court ruling and filed briefs reinstating the death penalty that did it. No one seemed to disagree that it costs more, does not deter, and that innocent people periodically get executed. So, I asked myself if it was important enough to me to have my fellow citizens execute innocent human life, seemingly a grave moral disorder.

Before the charges of “cafeteria Catholic” start flying let me add that I feel quite sure that this section in the catechism is a prudential teaching (e.g. it is JPII’s opinion) and therefore we are not bound to accept it - to give it serious consideration, yes, but in the end we have the option to accept or reject it.

I would make no such assertion. All a person can do is give prayer and deep consideration. I would encourage you to revisit the issue in your thoughts and prayers from time to time, but I certainly would not judge you over such a difficult and emotional issue.

Best Regards

 

[Brendan]

Yes I do listen to the news.

The fact is that Ted Bundy would of never gotten out of jail thus was no threat to society.

There was a real chance Saddam would of been freed at some point by his supporters and put back in power.

I agree, Ted Bundy would have posed little threat to other inmates, or to prison guards.

Saddam, on the other hand, had the resources and minions to continue to damage Society even from within prison walls. He would have been a strong canidate for contiuning to punish those who deserted his cause, and even to threated prison guards by threating their familes.

That is what is unusual about the Church’s position on the D.P. It’s not the serial killers, or even the viscious rapist\murder that should be executed, but rather those who are most likely to kill again from behind bars.

It’s very-counter cultural

 

[Ender]

Be careful, it depends on who defines retribution.

I believe I’m using the definition the Church employs. Punishment has four purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and defense against the criminal and it is retribution that is primary. This article by Cardinal Dulles is an excellent resource.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=4099

The purpose of punishment should be to reduce or stop repeat actions in the future.

CCC 2266: “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” Deterrence and defense are secondary purposes.

The church is very clear we do not kill to equalize a past killing.

This is not all obvious to me. The Church is very clear that the severity of the punishment **must **be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” Prior to Evangelium Vitae this very much meant the death penalty.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

You can disagree all you want, but remember, God Himself commanded that Captial Punishment be used in certain circumstances. If you disagree with God… well that’s your decision.

Do you really think that such dialog is helpful? Or, are you really asserting that you are inherently more correct in your interpretation of the Word of God than our apostolic Church?

Holy Scripture has plenty of examples of widespread killing of children. Should we assume then that the Church’s 1000+ effort to stamp out infanticide was a mistake, or that our position on abortion is a mistake today?

I would encourage all my fellow Catholics to be mindful of yesterday’s Gospel, a recurring theme throughout all three synoptic Gospels.

 

[jman507]

I didn’t vote, because I feel the choices are skewed…

I grew up (teen years) only 8 or so blocks from where a guy named Gacy lived. I could have easily been one of his victims.

(No guessing on my opinion - I’d be first in line to “light up 'ol sparky”, or push the plunger on the “juice”.)

They do live with it, and (in Gacy’s case) crave to do it again, and again until they’re stopped! These people have no remorse, and could give a rat’s patootie about what God thinks… they’re just looking for the next victim.

What about the parents of the victims? They suffer a living hell every day they’re alive knowing what this creep did to their child.

This is where the law & society step in. A murderer of this magnitude is a menace and threat to the common good and needs to be eliminated. We’ll all meet God and be judged someday - but in some cases (un-contestable) there needs to be an express lane.

I used to be against the death penalty, but when it comes to cases like these, I eventually changed my mind. I don’t know what the family of the victims will do, but I’ll pray that these people will be forgiven and accept God’s mercy. As for now, I think they are in a psychologically that is too abnormal to trust that they’ll avoid situations that are dangerous for others in the public, or other inmates and guards.

There is a need to prudentally deside how safe it is to the public to keep criminals alive. There needs to be a heavy weight placed on not taking a person’s life taken into that consideration.

 

[Ender]

Your ultra right wing politics seem to have addled your vocabulary.

Yes, I know quoting the catechism, popes, bishops, and doctors of the Church is a dirty right wing trick but I can’t help myself.

Ender