Support the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rpp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Murderers can do three things. Stay the same, get worse or become better people. Two are quite bad. You put more innocents at risk by allowing murderers to live. All of us only have until will die to covert. The wages of all sin is death. God gives all of us death for our sins. Does He do so not knowing that we thus lose more time to repent?
 
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!”
Obviously, the correct translation is Thou shalt not murder. There is a reason God detailed many crimes/sin that shall be punished with death.

Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). "
*
“Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.”
*
“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.”
*
"The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. "
*
“Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death.”
*
"The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.
*
"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. "

(“The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3
NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the sections “The Purposes of Punishment” and “Harm Attributed to the Death Penalty”, it is, otherwise, a solid historical treatment of the Church 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.
The foundation for the death penalty is respect for life, both in Caholic teachings and in civil justice. The US Bishops got it wrong on about every point.

Please review:

(1)“The Death Penalty”, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,*

Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.

www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007*

(2)* “Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty”, at
www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
 
I agree 100% with the bishops. That it should not be used except when necessary to protect societyQUOTE]

There is no doubt that PJPII position on the death penalty qualifies as a prudential judgement and his "defense of society position was also unreasoned and was improperly used to affect the Catechism.

PJPII argued that the death penalty was not needed for a defense of society. However, he never looked at the risk to innocents without the death penalty. Innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live. Therefore, the defense of society should call for more executions.

PJPII’s position spares guilty murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents, a position totally at odds with fundamental Catholic principles.

NOTE: Because innocents are at risk of executions, some wrongly presume that innocents are better protected implementing a life without parole sentence, instead.

What many forget to do is weigh the risk to innocents within a life sentence. When doing that, we find that innocents are more at risk with a life sentence.

First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Secondly, no knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

Thirdly, 15 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.

Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.
 
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?
To my knowledge he never repented for the murderers. He always believes that what he did was correct and appropriate.

If true, isn’t that a bit of a problem?
 
The purpose of punishment should be to reduce or stop repeat actions in the future. We are not to hurt them. We are to remove their ability to hurt others.
The moral foundation for punishments is that they are deserved. Protection and defense of society are a secondary outcome as well as an expectation, with a solid foundation in reality.

The Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered* with criminal sanction.
1.* Defense of society against the criminal.
2.* Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3.* Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal’s transgression.
4.** Deterrence

“The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
 
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.
God instructed man that many sins/crimes shall be punished by death. Is it likely that God translated the fifth commandment properly?
 
Look at this statement from this source” NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the sectionshomicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/25/pope-john-paul-ii-a-prodeath-penalty-essay.aspx What error? What logic? What fact? This statement is opinion. If the author had taken the time to clearly compare the statement to the actual written words, the opinion may be shown to be more than an opinion. However if the author does this research he may find the opinion is not supported by facts!!! As is the case in several of his opinions.
No, it is not opinion. It is fact. What Dulles did within those two referenced sections was simply and blindly accept false anti death penalty claims as true or used improper logic to arrive at inaccurate conclusions.

If you wish me to detail them, please let me know at

[Mod edit: e-mail address removed per forum policy]

and I will be happy to reply on this forum.
 
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.
David comes to mind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top