Support the Death Penalty?

[Voco_proTatiano]

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?

He could have made his death useful.
See my suggestions.
However, this would require a complete rethink of the purpose of capital punishment from the state.
Timothy McVeigh accepted euthanasia, or was it vengeance.
The former was a sin, the latter, a sacrifice.
But the sacrifice makes the state a sinner for taking vengeance.
So regardles, whether capital punishment is seen as euthanasia or vengeance, it involves sin.
Now if the sacrifice can serve a higher purpose, then there is no sin.

 

[Nino]

Remember, this is a multiple choice poll. Click on the ones you

Sure, this issue gets debated quite often here. Many threads about abortion wander into this topic when people use (some stay “steal”) the phrase “pro-life” and apply it to capital punishment.

Many people claim there is an inherent logical contradiction is being opposed to abortion and being in favor of the death penalty.

Personally I see a logical contradiction from leftists about being opposed to the death penalty and being favor of abortion. This is also That makes no sense to me

 

[Nino]

I like to say that I am a right to innocent lifer…and its not death penalty but capital punishment!..If a bartender can be held liable for the DWI happenings of a drunken customer…he gave him one for the road instead of getting someone to drive him home…well what about a juror who,in a case where the man in the docket admits to killing 5 people…votes to let him go to prison instead…and in prison.this lifer…murders a guard who is a husband and father of three children…is not that juror also partly responsible for the guards death??? Of course,in most US prisons a inmate gets three meals a day,a change of linen and clothes,heat in the winter, playtime etc…and is quite safe…therefor being better off then some 17% of the worlds population…ahh justice…no wonder she wears a blindfold…Nino

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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

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

Good
Look at some quotes for your source:

*“Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.”

“2) Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.”*

Usually the Church is referring to the judgement of God not the judgement of man. Retribution by God is reward or lack of based on the person use of freewill.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I like to say that I am a right to innocent lifer…and its not death penalty but capital punishment!..If a bartender can be held liable for the DWI happenings of a drunken customer…he gave him one for the road instead of getting someone to drive him home.

did God do that? Say that?

…well what about a juror who,in a case where the man in the docket admits to killing 5 people…votes to let him go to prison instead…and in prison.this lifer…murders a guard who is a husband and father of three children…is not that juror also partly responsible for the guards death???

absolutely not the juror may well have done the right thing! A juror is a juror not a judge, juror, and executioner

Of course,in most US prisons a inmate gets three meals a day,a change of linen and clothes,heat in the winter, playtime etc…and is quite safe…therefor being better off then some 17% of the worlds population…ahh justice…no wonder she wears a blindfold…Nino

It may help to start with “What is justice?” Most determine justice to be full judication.

 

[Brendan]

Timothy McVeigh accepted euthanasia, or was it vengeance.

I think you have a BIG misunderstanding about what Euthanasia is.

Self Defense is not euthanaisa, do you really think that the State executed McVeigh because he was suffering too much?

here is Websters on the subject

Main Entry: eu·tha·na·sia
Pronunciation: \ˌyü-thə-ˈnā-zh(ē-)ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos death — more at thanatos
Date: 1869
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

McVeigh was neither hopelessly sick or injured, and the State didn’t execute him out of reasons of mercy. there was no euthanasia involved.

Neither was their vengance. Only a desire by the State to prevent him from doing more damage to Society.

The former was a sin, the latter, a sacrifice.
But the sacrifice makes the state a sinner for taking vengeance.
So regardles, whether capital punishment is seen as euthanasia or vengeance, it involves sin.

But since I (and the Church) see it as a form of Self Defense, there is no sin.

 

[Brendan]

But the sacrifice makes the state a sinner for taking vengeance.

Here is Pope Pius XII on the subject

“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, through his crime, has deprived himself of the right to life.”

The State bears no guilt, rather the offender has deprived himself of the right to life.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I dont think the death penalty is sinful, if its done for the right reasons… but I do not support it…For some things, people definitely deserve it, but I think that people should always be given a second chance, because they might have acted in ignorance, foolishness, or through lack of understanding.Besides, God gave people life, and it should be his choice to decide when they die.Someone who does something REALLY bad should be locked up in the stocks in a jail cell, like in medieval times, and have to stay in prison forever. Blasphemy should definitely be punishable by law, anyone who knows how cruelly Our Lord was crucified and still takes his Name in vain should be flogged.

 

[Brendan]

I God gave people life, and it should be his choice to decide when they die…

He did decide, and even directed man to be his agents for it.

Gen 9:6

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Romans 13:3-5

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

 

[Ignatius2000]

I voted for “[not needed] in countries with satisfactory prison systems” for the following reasons:

1. Back in the day (1764) there was a rather smart Italian fellow by the name of Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria had a theory (called General Deterrence Theory by Criminologists today) that said that an individual will only be deterred from the future commission of a crime (or other deviant act) if the punishment met three requirements:
   1.> Swiftness - The punishment must be administered soon after the act
   2.> Severity - The punishment must be severe enough for the act
   3.> Celerity - The administration of the punishment must be certain.

These three requirements are NOT met in the CJS when the death penalty is concerned. Death row inmates often spend many, many years awaiting their execution (nix swiftness). The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, so surely severity is in the bag (point can be and has been argued, however). Celerity–well, with the appeals process and the subjectiveness of the system throws the “certainty” aspect out the window.

As a matter of deterrence, the death penalty falls flat on it’s face. One can even see the opposite effect in the increase of crime rate around the time executions are carried out (obviously this effect was seen in Texas).

1. On the moral side of things, I ascribe myself to a more utilitarian set of ethics (greater good in many forms). Humanity, that is, human life, is a sacred thing. In certain cases it is acceptable to take a human life, but I do not feel that the death penalty is one of those acceptable times for the following reasons:
   1.> Disregard for human life harms our own perception of the value of humanity. I generally worry what a society will do to itself if it does not value ALL human lives.
   2.> Even the new “humane lethal injection” is not humane. Take the 2006 case of Angel Diaz (FL) for example: two lethal doses of chemicals were required. Mr. Diaz spent 34 minutes strapped to the gurney in the throes of death. This execution struck the Florida government in such a way that Governor Jeb Bush (!) called a moratorium on executions and called a committee to “consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections.”

For academic and moral reasons I generally oppose the imposition on the death penalty.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

He did decide, and even directed man to be his agents for it.

Gen 9:6
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

We do NOT have to listen to them OT rules any more.Lots of the Old Testament comprises of rules, and they no longer apply.

Romans 13:3-5
Quote:
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Like I said, the death penalty is not sinful, when done for the right reasons.But everyone deserves a second chance, and God likes us to give it to them!And besides, sometimes we actually shouldnt listen to authority!Surely you don’t believe God wanted horrible people like Henry VIII to be king?

 

[Brendan]

We do NOT have to listen to them OT rules any more.Lots of the Old Testament comprises of rules, and they no longer apply.

Where do you get that idea, not from the Church!!!

Do you believe that the 10 Commandments are now no longer applicable, because they too are part of the Old Testament?

We no longer have to obey the ceremonial law of the OT ( the concept of being ‘unclean’ for example) , but the Moral Law is unchanging.

Christ Himself said He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

God does not change His Mind on what His Commandments are.

Like I said, the death penalty is not sinful, when done for the right reasons.But everyone deserves a second chance, and God likes us to give it to them!And besides, sometimes we actually shouldnt listen to authority!Surely you don’t believe God wanted horrible people like Henry VIII to be king?

God wants us to obey the Moral Law He sets down, sometimes that includes bad rulers. Did you think that St. Paul was unaware of the Roman Emperor, but yet commanded the Church in Rome to obey him in all that was not against the Moral Law.

 

[SoCalRC]

Here is Pope Pius XII on the subject…

The State bears no guilt, rather the offender has deprived himself of the right to life.

Since 1979 over 120 people have been exonerated and released from death row. At least 66 executed prisoners have been post humously exonerated using DNA evidence.

Perhaps it was accepting Pope Pius XII’s words about depriving oneself the right to life through heinous crimes that led Pope John Paul II to write so forcfully on the matter in 1993. After all, if guilt of the individual can absolve the state, then execution of the innocent would presumably incriminate it.

 

[Brendan]

Since 1979 over 120 people have been exonerated and released from death row. At least 66 executed prisoners have been post humously exonerated using DNA evidence.

Perhaps it was accepting Pope Pius XII’s words about depriving oneself the right to life through heinous crimes that led Pope John Paul II to write so forcfully on the matter in 1993. After all, if guilt of the individual can absolve the state, then execution of the innocent would presumably incriminate it.

Exactly, that is why the Catechism correctly notes that the guilt of the party must be first thouroughly established before Captial Punishment is applied.

But, in such cases as guilt has been firmly established, Pope Pius’s word remain 100% true.

What is really interesting is that the Holy Father made those comments to a group of medical professionals. his main topic was the need for a respect for the Right to Life. He correctly noted that the correct application of Captial Punishment does not involve a denial of the Right to Life. One can be consistant in one’s support of the Right to Life while supporting the application of the Death Penalty in certain circumstances.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I think you have a BIG misunderstanding about what Euthanasia is.

You though Brendan have a deeper misunderstanding what self defense is.
You go and ask any lawyer:
You have disarmed your assailant,
you have him bound securely on the floor.
You consider that should he be released, the he will seek you out and kill you.
So you kill him now.
Any lawyer will tell you that you would be guilty of murder.
Self defense can ONLY claimed in case of heat-of-the-moment. When blood is hot, and life is in immediate danger.

Self Defense is not euthanaisa,

As I said, this is not self defense, as the immediateness is no longer the essence.

do you really think that the State executed McVeigh because he was suffering too much?

Is a rabid dog euthanased because it is suffering, well yes, but also the consideration is that it is lethally extremely dangerous.
Cattle with foot-and-mouth-disease are not suffering a painful and incureable disease, the disease is quite mild, and it is quite cureable. Further, innoculation is effective in giving immunity.
No, the cattle are euthanased because it is ecconomically preferable to have a certified disease free stock, which recovered and imune animals make impossible to certify.
Thus euthanasia is not necessarily used to relieve suffering, but as a defense against an ecconomic threat.
Euthanasia, according to your own definition, means only an easy death. There is no implication for its reason. Mercy is irrelevant. It is just a humane killing. This is what the majority of means of execution today try to achieve.

McVeigh was neither hopelessly sick or injured, and the State didn’t execute him out of reasons of mercy. there was no euthanasia involved.

Euthanasia has nothing to do with mercy, it means only:‘easy death’.

Neither was there vengance. Only a desire by the State to prevent him from doing more damage to Society.

So the state euthanases a dangerous individual to remove the danger threatened thereby.
If done without un-necessary torment of the victim, fine, but still euthanasia.
If though, the victim is tormented then evil is being repaid with evil, and the retribution is vengeance.

But since I (and the Church) see it as a form of Self Defense, there is no sin.

Mother Church accepts this definition if, and only if, there exists no practical alternative.
At the time it was put into the catecism, that was the case. now it is not, at least in civilised countries it is not.
Perhaps then countries employing Capital Punishment are not civilised?
You then be the judge.

 

[Brendan]

You though Brendan have a deeper misunderstanding what self defense is.
You go and ask any lawyer:
You have disarmed your assailant,
you have him bound securely on the floor.
You consider that should he be released, the he will seek you out and kill you.
So you kill him now.

How many murders happen in our prison system? How many guards have their lives threatened?

Society is not safe when some of these men are in prison. Society INCLUDES their fellow inmates.

Are you now going to guarantee that they will never, ever murder anyone again?

As I said, this is not self defense, as the immediateness is no longer the essence.
Is a rabid dog euthanased because it is suffering, well yes, but also the consideration is that it is lethally extremely dangerous.

So the state euthanases a dangerous individual to remove the danger threatened thereby.

No, it defendes itself from the danger nearby.

Mother Church accepts this definition if, and only if, there exists no practical alternative.

Which is exactly what I am claiming!

At the time it was put into the catecism, that was the case. now it is not, at least in civilised countries it is not.

Really? The world has changed that much since 2003?

Perhaps then countries employing Capital Punishment are not civilised?
You then be the judge.

No, the Church does not give me that right, in fact, it doesn’t even claim that right for herself.

Rather, the Church, in her Wisdom, leaves the right to make that determination to the Civil Authorities.

You would do well to follow her example.

 

[Gamera]

I’ve worked as an attorney in the New York criminal justice system since 1991. Trust me. You don’t want these people holding the power of life and death.

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve worked as an attorney in the New York criminal justice system since 1991. Trust me. You don’t want these people holding the power of life and death.

What people? Juries of our peers?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Here is Pope Pius XII on the subject

So if a pope says something you like, you say: 'The pope says this, so it must be true, but if like JP II the pope says something you do not like, then you say: ‘This was opinion, not ex-cathedra, so is not binding’

I do not claim to be a Catholic. I do not bind myself to any pope, but I accept the wisdom of most.
You seem to be a cafeteria catholic: Pius XII is ok, but leave out the JP II

The State bears no guilt, rather the offender has deprived himself of the right to life.

I agree that one who has committed murder can no longer be classed as a human being, yet if the state sees CP as vengeance rather than euthanasia, then the state is taking vengeance, so is guilty of sin.

My belief is that those guilty of what you consider capital murder, should be condemned to hell on earth.

The alternative should then be offered, reminiscing the Dirty Dozen, who were sent on a potential suicide mission, that they might offer their lives in a humanitarian cause.

 

[Gamera]

What people? Juries of our peers?

I’m not sure what you’re thinking of, but no, you don’t want juries holding power over life and death, but that isn’t what I mean. I mean the criminal justice system. I mean prosecutors who conceal exculpatory evidence and joke about it. I mean prosecutors who proudly display plaques on their wall commending them for putting an innocent man in prison. I mean police who admit to stopping people because of their being the “wrong” race for the neighborhood. I mean judges who know darn well what the law provides yet rule the other way in order to ensure a conviction. These each are events I’ve personally witnessed in 16 years as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I don’t expect perfection in any human endeavor but there is no way I’ll agree to these people holding power over life and death.