The Biggest Problem with the Death Penalty

[d97c]

I believe that it should be used “rarely,” but USED. Many of these Parish “leaders” / Catholics will make the wild statement that the church is AGAINST the death penalty. It is NOT. The Bishops should stop the one-sided push against it. Once again, I say, if we caught Hitler, would you really have him in jail for life, (giving interviews, writing articles like they do now)? Would that be a proportional response to his 6 million deaths of Jews, etc? Of course it wouldn’t be. Popes have supported the death penalty before J P 2 gave his opinion on it. I prefer to agree with the opinion of the centuries of support for the death penalty and by other Popes.

What makes J P 2’s opinion better than Pius XII, who supported the death penalty???

 

[Ender]

I am afraid you misunderstood me.

I think I still do; there must be something completely obvious here that one of isn’t seeing.

What I was agreeing with you is that it was not part of the traditional understanding.

Be specific, exactly what “it” do you refer to here? I assume that it is the part of the first paragraph that says “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives…”

I did not make it clear that I did not believe that is what it was saying. It is not claiming that it is part of tradition. It does say that the traditional understanding of the right of the state to execute does not preclude the idea of execution being undesirable as there are other means to obtain the same goal. This is not a change more of a development.

This is where I get lost. It appears above that you are agreeing that the restriction (“when this is the only …”) is not part of tradition but here you seem to be saying that the (same) paragraph that starts with *“The traditional teaching of the Church…” *is not claiming to be part of tradition. What am I missing? Here is how I understand that paragraph:

The traditional teaching of the Church is this:
(1) the State may use the death penalty,
(2) but only when it is necessary for protection.

In fact, (1) represents the traditional teaching while (2) was never taught at any time prior to 1995 so this statement is false; (2) was never part of Church teaching.

Ender

 

[Ender]

We look to the Church for those guidelines, and the Church has stated that it should be done rarely and when other means are not effective.

Since you quoted from the Catechism of Trent you know that that Catechism and the current one present completely different guidelines on the use of the death penalty, so which one are we to look to for understanding?

This was my point for commenting on the article by Cardinal Dulles: he is unambiguous in stating that 2267 is a prudential opinion. The position explained at Trent is not opinion; that statement represents the true teaching of the Church; it is ordinary doctrine. What 2267 has done is to disconnect punishment from its primary purpose and to completely lose sight of the demands of justice, the meaning of retribution, restitution, and expiation and, most importantly of all, the real nature of murder itself and how we are commanded to respond to it.

You said above that executions should “be done rarely and when other means are not effective.” Effective in what way? Providing protection? Again, you know from Trent that the reason for employing the death penalty had nothing to do with protection; it was endorsed because we have been explicitly told that it is the proper punishment for murder. Just after the section you cited, the Catechism of Trent goes on to refer to Genesis 9:5-6 where God tells Noah: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” This is the traditional teaching of the Church: the penalty for murder is death.

This tradition is not overlooked in the current catechism for although all anyone ever references in regard to capital punishment is 2267, they should really take a hard look at 2260. I should be interested in hearing that explained.

Ender

 

[adrift]

Thank you for taking the time to allow for clarification. I hope I am up to the task.

I think I still do; there must be something completely obvious here that one of isn’t seeing.

Perhaps not so obvious

Be specific, exactly what “it” do you refer to here? I assume that it is the part of the first paragraph that says “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives…”

Yes and

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined

I don’t believe that this how traditionally we thought and what is being referred to when it says

the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty

This is where I get lost. It appears above that you are agreeing that the restriction (“when this is the only …”) is not part of tradition but here you seem to be saying that the (same) paragraph that starts with *“The traditional teaching of the Church…” *is not claiming to be part of tradition. What am I missing? Here is how I understand that paragraph:

The traditional teaching of the Church is this:
(1) the State may use the death penalty,
(2) but only when it is necessary for protection.

In fact, (1) represents the traditional teaching while (2) was never taught at any time prior to 1995 so this statement is false; (2) was never part of Church teaching.

Ender

My understanding of the paragraph
(1) The traditional teaching is that the death penalty is a just punishment
(2) This traditional teaching has been developed because

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 nonexisten

I believe that Pope John Paul II would have liked to outright condemn capitol punishment but could not and came as close to it as possible. I do not understand what “possibilities” we have that would render anyone from doing harm. Prisons cannot even prevent drugs from getting into prisoners nor do they prevent killings in prison. It is a slow process for executions one in which ample time for redemption occurs and perhaps knowing when death will occur will spur redemption sooner.

As I have already mentioned, the two different rendering of this section is interesting. The one I quoted it the one that is on USCCB but I have an edition of the Catechism that has it
this way

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

 

[Ender]

My understanding of the paragraph
(1) The traditional teaching is that the death penalty is a just punishment
(2) This traditional teaching has been developed because

Ah, we differ over the definition of traditional. I think if you look it up you will see that it really refers to what has been handed down from the past, that is, the present is linked with the past. In the case of 2267, however, there is no past - no tradition - that links to the restriction it claims is there.

I believe that Pope John Paul II would have liked to outright condemn capitol punishment but could not and came as close to it as possible.

Such condemnation is not his to make.

Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

I do not understand what “possibilities” we have that would render anyone from doing harm. Prisons cannot even prevent drugs from getting into prisoners nor do they prevent killings in prison.

This comment relates to the third paragraph of 2267 which is so clearly an opinion that I think it would be hard for anyone to maintain that Catholics in good conscience may not disagree with it.

As I have already mentioned, the two different rendering of this section is interesting. The one I quoted it the one that is on USCCB but I have an edition of the Catechism that has it this way

Trust the USCCB to not even get this right.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Since you quoted from the Catechism of Trent you know that that Catechism and the current one present completely different guidelines on the use of the death penalty, so which one are we to look to for understanding?

Both, they are not in conflict ( nor can be)

Where exactly do you see conflict in them.

The first ( Trent) speaks to the Just use of the Death Penalty.

The second ( the 1996 CCC) speaks to circumstances where it might not be just.

Both place the determination of it’s use with the secular authorities, the second expands in that the secular authority should limit the use of the death penalty to those circumstances where other effective means exist ( and places the determination of what exactly is ‘effective’ and ‘rare’ with the secular powers).

But outside those circumstances, where the 1996 CCC is silent, Trent is not, and speaks to it’s use as a near requirement under the 5th Commandment,

 

[d97c]

Why…Oh why…then…based on the comments above, does it seem like the Bishops totally disregard the history of the Church when they discuss the death penalty…the Church which (as can be seen in other catechisms and Popes) has supported the use of the death penalty? Why don’t we
hear of the tradition? There is clearly a prudential judgment issue and that’s the reason that I have thought that it is clearly “Ok” to support and advocate the death penalty for…let’s say Osama Bin Laden (if caught and convicted) or Hitler (philosophically).

 

[Fawkes]

The biggest problem that I see with the death penalty is that the entire process takes entirely too long. Yes, there should be thorough investigation, and guilt proven without a doubt. However, does a society need to house the truly guilty for twenty years before their “punishment” is finally dealt?

 

[d97c]

As a former prosecutor, I can tell you that the endless appeals and motions and delays are the result of legislation passed by those who dont want the death penalty. They create the delays and then say, “it takes too long, let’s abolish it.” Im not saying that’s what Fawks believes, but I totally am for a strong set of laws to guarantee competent lawyer, appeal in state, appeal in fed (if there is a Constitutional issue) and plenty of DNA test (in cases where you have semen or blood.)
What gets me are these Catholics who wouldn’t even allow for the ultimate punishment even for let’s say, Hitler, if we had caught him.

 

[Fawkes]

then say, “it takes too long, let’s abolish it.” Im not saying that’s what Fawks believes

Actually, quite the opposite. I’m saying it takes too long… speed the process up!

 

[Ender]

Both, they are not in conflict ( nor can be)

If the statements in the current Catechism are prudential opinions, as I contend they are, then there could well be a conflict with Trent as opinions are certainly not protected against error.

The first (Trent) speaks to the Just use of the Death Penalty.

The second ( the 1996 CCC) speaks to circumstances where it might not be just.

Trent bases its support of capital punishment on the Church’s understanding of Gen 9:6. The current Catechism bases its opposition on the opinion that it is not necessary in order to adequately protect society, but protection is not the appropriate basis on which to base that restriction. Trent says that the use of such punishment is an act of “paramount obedience” to the 5th commandment; is that no longer true? The just punishment for murder - as the Church understands Gen 9:6 - is death; protection does not enter into that decision.

Both place the determination of it’s use with the secular authorities, the second expands in that the secular authority should limit the use of the death penalty to those circumstances where other effective means exist ( and places the determination of what exactly is ‘effective’ and ‘rare’ with the secular powers).

This is the point: “effectiveness” is irrelevant; it is retribution that not only justifies but mandates capital punishment.

Ender

 

[TheresaAnn55]

I just attended a lecture by a US Court of Appeals judge who discussed the death penalty. His point about the death penalty was not that it was per se wrong, but that the process leading to the death penalty is in such a bad state that we cannot continue executions.

Among the problems the judge recognized:
-Misconduct by the investigating police department. Murder cases often involve a great deal of political pressure, and there are many examples where police have fabricated evidence, mishandled or destroyed exculpatory evidence, forced confessions, struck plea bargains with other witnesses to fabricate or exaggerate stories, etc.
-Misconduct by the prosecutor. Prosecutors in several recent capital cases have neglected to turn important evidence over to the defense (in violation of both law and ethical duties).
-Misconduct by the trial judge. All kinds of rulings can be made incorrectly. One example was where jury instructions gave the jury the option of either sentencing the defendant to “life WITH the possibility of parole, or death” where the instruction should have given the option of life WITHOUT parole or death. Incredibly, the state supreme court held that that was a harmless (nonreversible) error.
-Misconduct by state appeals judges. Many state supreme court justices are elected, and bow to political pressure to uphold wrongful (or at least problematic) convictions.

These are problems that exist with the whole of the justice system; but unlike most criminal cases, mistakes made in dealing death cannot be fixed.

We hope…that the defendant whose life is at risk will be represented by…someone who is inspired by the awareness that a less-than-vigorous defense…could have fatal consequences for the defendant. We hope that the attorney will investigate all aspects of the case, follow all evidentiary and procedural rules, and appear before a judge…committed to the protection of defendants’ rights…

But even if we can feel confident that these actors will fulfill their roles…our collective conscience will remain uneasy. Twenty years have passed since this court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly and with reasonable consistency or not at all, and despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this…challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination…and mistake…

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored…to develop…rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor…Rather than continue to coddle the court’s delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved…I feel…obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies… Perhaps one day this court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness and reliability in a capital-sentencing scheme.

Justice Blackmun, who voted to UPHOLD an automatic sentence of the death penalty in two landmark cases in 1976, remarked just before retirement that despite his and his colleagues efforts to make the death penalty fair, the problems with the system rendered the death penalty irreparably broken:

I have raised a number of problems regarding the death penalty elsewhere, and though I was aware of the above problem, its one that few people outside of the legal field consider. If the death penalty was acceptable to Catholicism, surely we must be concerned with applying it fairly. As the above indicates, it is often unfairly applied now, and it may be impossible to make it fair.

 

[TheresaAnn55]

John 18:1-40
John 19 1-42

Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the high priest,
( who was taking Jesus to be crucified), Simon Peter cut of the servant’s ear. Jesus said to Peter, Put up your sword into the scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given Me?

…As Catholic’s we are separated from the Protestant’s, especially in the US…
…in defense or in punishment for deadly crimes…
…Christ told us as he told Simon Peter…

So, where in the Scriptures does Christ tell us there is some exceptions to kill
, even in self defense?
…Jesus did say in the court with being questioned by the high priests…they asked who were His people,and Jesus said that if the people (the Jews) had been His people, they would have spoke up in self defense of His life…
…they did not even speak up,
…So these 2 scriptures tells me that Jesus wants us to do all we can in self defense,
…but not killing…and that if we die,we go to heaven…
…

 

[TheresaAnn55]

John 18:1-40
John 19 1-42

Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the high priest,
( who was taking Jesus to be crucified), Simon Peter cut of the servant’s ear. Jesus said to Peter, Put up your sword into the scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given Me?

…As Catholic’s we are separated from the Protestant’s, especially in the US…
…in defense or in punishment for deadly crimes…
…Christ told us as he told Simon Peter…

So, where in the Scriptures does Christ tell us there is some exceptions to kill
, even in self defense?
…Jesus did say in the court with being questioned by the high priests…they asked who were His people,and Jesus said that if the people (the Jews) had been His people, they would have spoke up in self defense of His life…
…they did not even speak up,
…So these 2 scriptures tells me that Jesus wants us to do all we can in self defense,
…but not killing…and that if we die,we go to heaven…
…

We do not kill…period…what happens to our souls when we allow during war innocent children to be killed by a bomb that is to protect many in the US, at the death of one innocent child?..like @ Hiroshima?..how does Christ look @ the US for killing innocent children for our protection?..the death penalty?..not even a second thought should be given,put them in prison for life,
…why are we as a Christian Nation…even considering the death penalty
?..the first Catholics for hundreds of years were martyers…
martyers…I enjoy my life, and freedom in the US…my Dad is buried in Arling National
purple heart med corp Hiwa Jima…
…but I could not kill even in self defense,and know that I will go to Heaven
yes,it is true God our Father can forgive us for killing inn self defense or even killling in the issue of the US death penalty…but to assure our salvation,we were told by Christs very words and actions,how we are to behave,it’s not the life here,we are to protect, but our life in heaven,
…so when would Christ tell us we can kill?
Where in the scriptures did he say or act out any exception to “thou shalt not kill?”
…truely,do we as Catholics really believe in heaven? Or, would we rather protect our lives here,and chance Father will forgive US for killing either in self defense or in capital punishment?
…reallythinkaboutthis…
In Christ Jesus…

 

[TheresaAnn55]

We do not kill…period…what happens to our souls when we allow during war innocent children to be killed by a bomb that is to protect many in the US, at the death of one innocent child?..like @ Hiroshima?..how does Christ look @ the US for killing innocent children for our protection?..the death penalty?..not even a second thought should be given,put them in prison for life,
…why are we as a Christian Nation…even considering the death penalty
?..the first Catholics for hundreds of years were martyers…
martyers…I enjoy my life, and freedom in the US…my Dad is buried in Arling National
purple heart med corp Hiwa Jima…
…but I could not kill even in self defense,and know that I will go to Heaven
yes,it is true God our Father can forgive us for killing inn self defense or even killling in the issue of the US death penalty…but to assure our salvation,we were told by Christs very words and actions,how we are to behave,it’s not the life here,we are to protect, but our life in heaven,
…so when would Christ tell us we can kill?
Where in the scriptures did he say or act out any exception to “thou shalt not kill?”
…truely,do we as Catholics really believe in heaven? Or, would we rather protect our lives here,and chance Father will forgive US for killing either in self defense or in capital punishment?
…reallythinkaboutthis…
In Christ Jesus…

 

[TheresaAnn55]

If the statements in the current Catechism are prudential opinions, as I contend they are, then there could well be a conflict with Trent as opinions are certainly not protected against error.

Trent bases its support of capital punishment on the Church’s understanding of Gen 9:6. The current Catechism bases its opposition on the opinion that it is not necessary in order to adequately protect society, but protection is not the appropriate basis on which to base that restriction. Trent says that the use of such punishment is an act of “paramount obedience” to the 5th commandment; is that no longer true? The just punishment for murder - as the Church understands Gen 9:6 - is death; protection does not enter into that decision.
This is the point: “effectiveness” is irrelevant; it is retribution that not only justifies but mandates capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

…As Catholic’s we are separated from the Protestant’s, especially in the US…

So, where in the Scriptures does Christ tell us there is some exceptions to kill, even in self defense?

One of the major differences between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants are encouraged to read and interpret the Bible for themselves while Catholics look to the Magisterium for an authentic interpretation. The fact that there is no scripture quote of Christ addressing this issue is not significant; what is significant is what the Church teaches and what she has pretty much always taught - as she does so today - is that killing can be acceptable in self defense, just wars, and … the execution of criminals. Your personal interpretation does not accord with Church teaching on the subject.

Ender

 

[ljubim]

My problem with the death penalty is that they don’t have a lifetime to repent (not legally, but make it right with God). I would support it for the perverted, demonically influenced people who are violent to the point of near-insanity who cannot be helped, but will only hurt the guards and others around them, even in jail.

Every time I think of the death penalty I can picture myself in that postion, sobbing silently as the priest gives last rites to a perfectly normal, healthy person. Then they put the needle in. What a horrible way to die, especially for those afraid of needles. Do they tie you down?

I mean we have to have empathy for these people. We are all sinners. And especially if they don’t fully understand the evil in what they’ve done, then their ‘venial’ sins are equal to the sin you committed yesterday when you cursed, in the eyes of God. Not to mention the numbers of innocents who are framed…:nope:

 

[St_Francis]

TheresaAnn, You have posted 3 posts in which you seem to have done nothing more than to quote the poster. I am confused about your intent.

If you want to make a comment on what was written, then you need to take your comments out of the quote, then people will be able to find your comments and if they want to respond, your comments will show up when they quote your post. This is done like this (without the asterisks!!!). The parts in red are what you put in, without the asterisks!!! the blue shows where your comments would go.

*QUOTE=TheresaAnn55;5943888]<<This shows up in the text box. If you want to make a comment on what was written, then you need to take your comments out of the quote, */quote]
Your comments go here.

quote]then people will be able to find your comments and if they want to respond, your comments will show up when they quote your post./quote]
Your comments go here.

quote]This is done like this (without the asterisks!!!)/QUOTE]
Your comments go here.

All this comes out looking like this:

TheresaAnn55:

<<This shows up in the text box. If you want to make a comment on what was written, then you need to take your comments out of the quote,

Your comments go here.

then people will be able to find your comments and if they want to respond, your comments will show up when they quote your post.

Your comments go here.

This is done like this (without the asterisks!!!)

Your comments go here.

 

[TheresaAnn55]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

CHRIST MADE IT SIMPLE AND CLEAR TO US AS TO HOW WE ARE TO LIVE LIFE

BY HIS ACTIONS AND WORDS…

IF WE STAY WITH THE SIMPLICITY OF WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT US, RATHER THAN

CONTINUING TO GO INTO SUCH DEPTH OF DISCUSSIONS, WE WOULD FIND

SALVATION…

THE DEATH PENALTY WAS ANSWERED BY CHRIST IN MANY WAYS…

ONE SCRIPTURE I READ DAILY TO KEEP ME FOCUSED…

IN THE “PASSION”…JOHN: 18: 1-40 AND 19: 1-42
Jesus himself was about to serve the death penalty…
As the Jews came to take Jesus away to be crucified, Simon Peter struck with his sword the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. Jesus said Put up your sword into the scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given Me?
And during this time, the Jews said to Pilate, take him yourself and judge him according to your law. The jews said " It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."
Jesus said My kingdom is not of this world, If my followers were of this world, they would have fought that I might not be delivered to the Jews. This is why I was born, why I have come into the world…to bear witness to the truth…
So here is the answer to all our questions about the death penalty.
…We can protect society from rapists and murderers by life in prison…and this is more pusishment than death…it also allows God to work…everyone has the right of penance and salvation…isn’t life in prison penance?
…Does man take all that Christ taught, and alter it to meet mans needs?
…We follow Christ not man…
God told us with the Ten Commandments and Christ came to show us…
Why do “we” continue to discuss the right or wrong…
It is wrong,as Christ taught.
…now what about the innocent children who died during War?
To protect the US our nation dropped a bomb … many…on large populations
who is accountable for their lives lost…
Christ taught us to fight with counsel and retraint…but if we kill,we stand a chance of loosing our souls to eternal hell.
…Catholics during the first few hundred years after Christs death were martyers
they would not kill even in self defense…
For that is what Christ taught them in John 18 and 19
…but most of us seem to not want to accept this…and continue to compromise what Christ taught…and make laws mans way and change what Christ taught