Support the Death Penalty?

[rpp]

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

 

[Yerusalyim]

My opposition to the Death Penalty in the US is that it favors those with money, but in and of itself the death penalty is NOT evil.

 

[rlg94086]

I voted “not inherently evil,” because it is allowed according to the Catechism. I don’t agree with Catholics who use that as justification to say “kill the bastard!” every time there is a murder case on the news.

As a Catholic, I do believe we need to make the death penalty more rare. For example, IMO it should be reserved for mass murderers and the like.

 

[KathleenElsie]

My opposition to the Death Penalty in the US is that it favors those with money, but in and of itself the death penalty is NOT evil.

Same thought here. But I would add that if the prisons were places that punished and those sentenced to LIFE actually stayed in them for the rest of their lives, then there would be little if any need for the death penalty.
Sometimes I think that the “death penalty” sentence is the only sure way to keep a very very evil person in jail.

 

[rpp]

One must also consider the safety of other inmates. A person sentenced to “big life”, life without parole, may feel they have little to loose, except perhaps some time in solitary confinement. There have been many instances of rape and murder in prison. If a person is already serving big life, what more can be done to them?

 

[krissy343]

My opinion, keep in mind that I am a newly returning Catholic that has yet to get through the CCC so I’m not very learned on the CC’s views yet. I don’t think it’s right in any case. If God wanted the criminal to suffer death He would do it himself. I believe the person should have to live with what he/she did and THEN either repent or suffer in hell for eternity. Just my :twocents:

 

[Jay2]

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”.)

If God wanted the criminal to suffer death He would do it himself. I believe the person should have to live with what he/she did and THEN either repent or suffer in hell for eternity.

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.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

In my many years on earth, I have only seen one instance where the death penalty was even remotely needed. That was for Saddam.

I cannot see any case in the US that would justify the death penalty.

 

[melensdad]

I voted “not inherently evil,” because it is allowed according to the Catechism. . . .

As a Catholic, I do believe we need to make the death penalty more rare.

Total agreement on these points. It is allowed in the Catechism. I do generally oppose it. The Church generally opposes it. It is not needed as often as it is used. There is, however, some place for it in some nations and under some circumstances. Therefore to simply condem it is wrong. But to use it is not necessarily right.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Total agreement on these points. It is allowed in the Catechism. I do generally oppose it. The Church generally opposes it. It is not needed as often as it is used. There is, however, some place for it in some nations and under some circumstances. Therefore to simply condem it is wrong. But to use it is not necessarily right.

 

[RobHom]

In my many years on earth, I have only seen one instance where the death penalty was even remotely needed. That was for Saddam.

I cannot see any case in the US that would justify the death penalty.

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.

 

[Newbie2]

Total agreement on these points. It is allowed in the Catechism. I do generally oppose it. The Church generally opposes it. It is not needed as often as it is used. There is, however, some place for it in some nations and under some circumstances. Therefore to simply condem it is wrong. But to use it is not necessarily right.

Well put.

 

[strngrnrth]

What makes me think the death penalty might sometimes be justified is in cases such as Gertrude Banishevsky’s (sp?) murdering Silvia Likens in the 1960’s. It’s an old story, but some may recall it. A teenage girl named Silvia and her handicapped sister, the only children of a couple of carnival workers, went to board with a mother, Mrs. Banishevsky, and her 8 or so children. The Banishevskys slept on three beds and had no kitchen, just a hotplate I think and three spoons. With these resources they took boarders.
All went OK till the Likens’ father sent his payment a day or two late. Gertrude beat Silvia. Then Silvia argued with one of the Banishevsky girls and called her a name. Also, she had to have a gymsuit to go toschool. She came home with one despite no one’s giving her any money. She may have stolen it or begged it. And once she ate a lot at a picnic.
For that, Gertrude organized her kids and other youth in the town and did whatever she had to including lying to get them to beat Silvia and her sister viciously. Soon Silvia was confined to a cellar where she was not allowed to eat or have water. She lay in her own waste, injured so that she couldn’t contain it. She crawled instead of walking. She was branded, dunked in scalding water and other wise tortured for I think several months. Finally she died. Her sister, helpless to leave the house because of her disability, was also beaten and terrified. When the police came to the door, Gertrude shoved in their hands a letter she had forced Silvia to write detailing her supposed loose behavior with a carload of boys and how they had dumped her in the bushes. This was ordered as a prepared explanation in case they ever decided to kill her and leave herr body in the bushes. How the police were supposed to think the 16-year-old girl had found paper and pen and stamps and an envelope there dying in the bushes and mailed it, I don’t know. Well, the body of Silvia Likens wasn’t in the bushes, it was on a filthy mattress in a garbage-piled house with torture tools lying around.
Gertrude Banishevsky was sentenced to life. She was released – not paroled, released – after three years as a model prisoner.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is an interesting question for me. I, personally, have no problem believing that some people do, indeed, deserve death. But when I first read Pope John Paul II’s EVANGALIUM VITAE back in the early 90s, I was truly moved. Jesus did not instruct us to do what is easy, but what is right.

Our current teachings on abortion rely heavily on two concepts. First, that we endeavor to treasure life in all its forms. That is, we do NOT say, well, this zygote is undeveloped and has at least a 20% chance of not reaching birth, so the mother’s life is more important. Second, we consider murder particular heinous if it involves the innocent or the defenseless.

In the US, we have unquestionably executed individuals who were innocent of the crimes they were convicted for. While this may not match the near innocence (original sin) of an unborn child, it is still the execution of an innocent human being, wholly within the state’s power. Once I accepted this with my head, there seemed no choice but to agree with Pope John Paul’s reasoning that our application of the death penalty does not reach the standard of self defense. So, I felt compelled to obey and reject it. Over time, my heart has caught up. Some may recall that in 1997 two Catholic family members of a victim pled for a death sentance to be commuted, citing their faith.

I am not sure that I am there yet (or ever will be), but it struck me that it represented the sort of true love and respect for live, as well as trust in God’s jugdement, that we are supposed to strive for.

Best Regards, and thank you for an excellent question

 

[RWMorris]

As a devout Catholic and a staunch right-wing conservative, I have had a hard time coming to grips with “no-death-penalty” even for dictators and serial killers. Yet, I must acknowledge that we should be the standard for a culture of life rather than death, even for those who most deserve it. There is a possibility that a killer will convert his/her heart to God.
For this reason alone we should not execute criminals.
So, I am “pro-life” all the way - even for convicts who don’t deserve to live.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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, else, if it is seen as elimination of a dangerous creature, then it is euthanasia.

Mother Church rightly condemns vengeance: Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord.

Argument can be made for euthanasia, but Mother Church also condemns this.

The problem is that both vengeance and euthanasia miss out on atonement.

I do not argue that the lethally dangerous offender should pay with his/her life, what I do argue is that this payment should be useful and meaningful. There are many lethally dangerous tasks that are performed by honourable volunteers. Mine clearance and extreme rescue come to mind. Obviously anyone condemned to pay in this manner can only be considered to be an expendible slave, with only the human right that he/she will not be expended pointlessly, and otherwise, treated humanely.
It is also possible that if the condemned survives a number of missions, to be decided by the courts, he/she, by nature of experience, may become a reformed person.

For those who refuse to co-operate, there is always the last resort. If the offender refuses to learn the skills of EOD versus antipersonel mine ordinance, then, like cattle they can be marched across the minefield. Surviving such an experience will soften the stiffest neck, and if not then do it again, untill there is a better or final result.

No, this is not vengeance, it is the punishment to fit the crime, and it is the chance of real repairation and atonement.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My opinion, keep in mind that I am a newly returning Catholic that has yet to get through the CCC so I’m not very learned on the CC’s views yet. I don’t think it’s right in any case. If God wanted the criminal to suffer death He would do it himself. I believe the person should have to live with what he/she did and THEN either repent or suffer in hell for eternity. Just my :twocents:

Let me help you out the Church teaches the death penalty is allowed as a last resort. The conditions require no other reasonable alternative. The crime is not relevant !! immediate danger is. So for example Saddam Hussein could have been held in jail safely. It is in the absence of a safe option in which execution of the person of danger is allowed. Consider a deranged man holding you at knife point, what options are available? The Church would not see killing this deranged man as sin. The Church would hold it as an unfortunate event in your life. An his life would be a mystery to all humans.

 

[Ender]

Once I accepted this with my head, there seemed no choice but to agree with Pope John Paul’s reasoning that our application of the death penalty does not reach the standard of self defense.

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.

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.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

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, else, if it is seen as elimination of a dangerous creature, then it is euthanasia…

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

The State has an obligation to protect it’s members. If a person cannot reasonably be prevented from killing others ( including other inmates or prison guards) by incarseration, then the use of the Death Penalty is a valid option.

To do so is neither vengence or euthanasia ( we are not seeking at ending the suffering of the creature, rather, we are seeking to protect innocent lives), but rather that of self defense.

Here is the Council of Trent on the application of the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment� is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

 

[Philothea53]

I abhor the use of the death penalty. I know that the Church allows for its use when it is the only way to be assured of stopping a monster from continuing to hurt society, but I don’t think our country, at least, needs this option. As KathleenElise said, the death penalty is often the only way to ensure that some of the most horrific criminals are kept behind bars and I totally agree with that - up to the point of actually putting them to death. The very thought that one human being can cause the death of another - whether it is a criminal on the street or the legal executioner at the jail - I just can’t imagine how anyone could ever!

“Why is it okay to kill someone to punish them for killing someone?”

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!”