The Death Penalty from a different angle

[dudleysharp]

The first part of 2267 seems like it is doctrinal. The rest not as much.

I guess I just don’t understand how a Catholic can go against the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even if it is prudential.

If one is reading in total isolation, yes it may seem doctrinal. Even then, the strength of it, for you, only merits a “seems”. Upon, examination, in the full light of all teachings, it is this newest teaching which all be dissapears, not the death penalty.

After 2226, the Church has some real problems.

Always and everywhere there is the prescribed sanction of "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”, whereby, it is confirmed, in the Council of Kent, that execution represents paramount obedience to that commandment.

Paramount obedience.

What we have today, in 2267, is the Church making every possible effort to avoid such paramount obedience to eternal teachings and replace that with a human reliance on prison system security.

2267: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

This passage could hardly be more in error.

The traditional teachings of the Church neither exclude recourse to the death penalty nor so restrict it as to make it, virtually, useless, as, I believe, 2267 imagines.

Much more often, biblical instruction, theology and tradition insist on the death penalty being imposed, describes those many sins/crimes for which it shall be imposed and, otherwise, reviews the legitimacy of the death penalty, with particular strength in its application to murder.

The works of biblical scholars and theologians through today (2011) provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings in conflict with that support. This is reinforced with both the word and deeds of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit in the New Testament (see paragraphs/references 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, within Reference 2 and see also 5, below).

The extraordinary limitations on the death penalty, imposed by the imaginings of 2267, conflict with reason, reality and established Church teachings.

There is an obvious conflict between:

(a) the ill conceived 2267 “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” and

(b) 2265 the “common good” “REQUIRES” an unjust aggressor be rendered “UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM”, which is in concert with 2260 “If ANYONE sheds the blood of man, by man SHALL his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for ALL TIME" – all of which contradict (a). My CAPS for emphasis.

The contention that the new limitation in (a) above is a product of evolving doctrine is in error. It is, instead, a doctrinal disaster which conflicts with well known teachings. (review all of Reference 2, starting with 1-4, therein and see also 5, below).

Such obvious conflicts shouldn’t exist within the Catechism and show how poorly considered and constructed this section was.

It is a complete mystery how such writings could have made it into a catechism.

2267: “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect 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.”

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context; and

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

These two teachings could, hardly, be in more conflict.

The contrast/conflict between the very weak and subjective “suffcient” and the demonstartive and objective “shall” and “necessary for all time” should offer enough problems for the Church to reconsider this entire section.

(a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except, with 2267, we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.​

1. Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
2. “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty”, p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999): 511-552

 

[dudleysharp]

So your view is that the catechism is stating an opinion that "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 non-existent.” Correct?

To repeat for emphasis:

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself.

The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves.

Again, a very poorly written section.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in any context.

All of our sins have us suffer early and earthly deaths.

Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and early deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”.

The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does death by car wreck, cancer, old age or any other earthly and early death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come (7).

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins.

The Catechism wrongly tells us that our early deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not.

God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to. I cannot understand how this made it into a catechism, when it is so, cleary, in error.

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and, therefore, may have an advantage over the rest of us and over the innocent murder victim(s).

Both a Quaker scholar and St Aquinas, as have many others, recognize that.

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

 

[dudleysharp]

I have always been against the death penalty, recognizing that it is not a deterrent, and the person may come to repentance during the course of their life.
Also, the reason behind the death penalty is to protect society from the criminal and keeping them locked away under heavy guard seemingly would suffice to that end (protecting society) SNIP

Your thoughts?

Justice is the foundation of the death penalty, just as it is for all sancitons.

Safety and protection are an intended and realized outcome of sanction, but no the reason for it.

Would it be morally right to sanction criminals for protection, only, instead of determining if they deserve the sanction == that they did, in fact, do the crime(s)?

Easy answer.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Can’t two people, with the best of intentions, read the same material, give it very serious consideration, and still come to different conclusions on how and when to apply that material? If something is not defined as doctrine or dogma, then we are to go through that process. In this case, we have the foundation of the doctrine to work from, and also have been given additional guidance that we must weigh carefully.

It should help to remember that the CCC was not designed with the laity in mind, it was created for Bishops and was to be used to develop country specific catechisms. This is not to say that the laity cannot read it, of course they can. It is to say however, that there is a level of nuance that the bishops, who should understand how to put each statement within the context of the Tradition of the Church, can deal with in ways that the laity, who might not have as much education in the Faith, cannot.

As such, if you are going to use the CCC as your personal catechism, I strongly suggest reading about the topics from older sources, in a similar fashion to how Pope Benedict has indicated that the documents of Vatican II should be read, so that you are able to put things in their proper context.

I hope that helps.

Yes it does.

 

[jwinch2]

Yes it does.

Glad to hear it.

Peace,

 

[Swiss_Guy]

2267 expresses three ideas, the first of which, regarding the tradition of the Church, is actually incorrect. It says that traditionally the Church supported capital punishment if it was necessary to protect society but no such restriction ever existed. The 1992 version talks about the traditional view as well but simply states that the Church recognizes the right of nations to employ capital punishment.

Interesting conclusion. So what is the norm of faith and morals for the Catholic Church isn’t correct on all morals?

Cardinal Dulles addressed this topic in this context:*Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
*Ender

What about Lumen Gentium 25?

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

 

[Dranu]

2267 expresses three ideas, the first of which, regarding the tradition of the Church, is actually incorrect. It says that traditionally the Church supported capital punishment if it was necessary to protect society but no such restriction ever existed.

As you might remember, I largely agree with your position on 2267, etc, but as to this I must disagree. The first sentence of 2267 does not lay out the restriction you mention (though it could be read to imply it if not read strictly literally). It merely says that the Church didn’t prohibit capital punishment when it was necessary to protect society, and that is true, it did not.

I think there is evidence however to think there was a restriction for use of it for the protection of society, but the old definition of that was probably much larger than physical safety (such as St. Thomas’s discussion of its use for protection).

 

[Ender]

Interesting conclusion. So what is the norm of faith and morals for the Catholic Church isn’t correct on all morals?

That isn’t a question of morals, it is a question of fact. Is this statement accurate?*(2267) The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude … recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *
The answer appears to be no, it is not correct. The traditional teaching of the Church on capital punishment has never had this restriction.** The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.** **… The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. **(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Prof. Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Rome)
Ender

 

[Rhubarb]

I’ve heard on Immaculate Heart Radio two different spots by Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento supporting the current proposition in California that will ban the death penalty.

For my part, I agree with Bishop Soto that there are better, less costly ways of dealing with hard criminals that do not risk executing people who may later be exonerated.

 

[Ender]

As you might remember, I largely agree with your position on 2267, etc, but as to this I must disagree. The first sentence of 2267 does not lay out the restriction you mention (though it could be read to imply it if not read strictly literally). It merely says that the Church didn’t prohibit capital punishment when it was necessary to protect society, and that is true, it did not.

The point here is that the Church never tied capital punishment to protecting society. This is understandable if you recognize that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective, retributive justice, that has always determined the appropriateness of the punishment.

I think there is evidence however to think there was a restriction for use of it for the protection of society, but the old definition of that was probably much larger than physical safety (such as St. Thomas’s discussion of its use for protection).

I think the Catechism of Trent is clearest on this point: Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6
I appreciate that we are in some agreement about 2267 but I think it may be for the wrong reasons. The traditional position of the Church is based on Gn 9:6 - “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed because man was made in the image of God.” It is precisely because of the “enormity” of the crime that the punishment is so severe. It has nothing to do with protection.

Ender

 

[Swiss_Guy]

That isn’t a question of morals, it is a question of fact. Is this statement accurate?(2267) The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude … recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
The answer appears to be no, it is not correct. The traditional teaching of the Church on capital punishment has never had this restriction.** The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.** **… The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. **(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Prof. Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Rome)
Ender

First, if you read it literally, and I mean literally, it doesn’t state anything different than what you have said.

Second, I’m still curious about a response to Lumen Gentium. What judgments of the Holy Father are supposed to be sincerely adhered to that aren’t spoken ex cathedra if not also prudential?

I also find this to be informative.

Finally, the last part of 2267 is from Evangelium Vitae, a Papal Encyclical. Aren’t Papal Encyclicals binding?

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Humani Generis 20

 

[Ender]

First, if you read it literally, and I mean literally, it doesn’t state anything different than what you have said.

The normal interpretation of that sentence is that capital punishment is acceptable only when it is necessary to protect society.

Second, I’m still curious about a response to Lumen Gentium. What judgments of the Holy Father are supposed to be sincerely adhered to that aren’t spoken ex cathedra if not also prudential?

LG #25 addresses three types of doctrine: things that are defined as infallible (of which I think there are only two examples), things which are taught infallibly (and for which there is no list), and things taught by the ordinary magisterium. It says nothing whatever about prudential opinion. Cardinal Dulles, however, was quite clear on that point: “…**prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.”

Finally, the last part of 2267 is from Evangelium Vitae, a Papal Encyclical. Aren’t Papal Encyclicals binding?

The last sentence in 2267 is the clearest of all to categorize: it is an opinion. If I challenged you to prove the assertion it makes how would you go about doing it? There is no Church document you could turn to because this isn’t a theological issue. To show that society is adequately protected by prisons you would first have to define what “adequately” meant in terms of the amount of harm repeat murderers inflict - how many injuries, how many more murders - and then you would have to review something like the Bureau of Justice Statistics to see whether the statistics support your assertion. None of this has to do with ethics or morality. The allegation is an opinion about which reasonable people can differ.

Ender

 

[Bill_7154]

Your thoughts?

While I’m against the death penalty on moral grounds it also seems to me that life in prison without the possibility of parole seems to me to be a WORSE punnishment that the death penalty. Also, I think it’s important to recongize that the costs of someone being sentenced to death are, I believe, extremely high. It’s my understanding that people stay on death row for like 10-20 years and going through appeal after apppeal after appeal- costing taxpayers a lot of money.

And another thing that I think is an extremely important factor to consider (which would be an argument FOR the death penalty is this:

People who are in prison for life without the possibility of parole, and who have committed murder, and are willing to commit murder or order others to commit murder…are the people who control the prisoners. If they are in a state that does not have the death penalty and kill again while inside prison, they receive the same sentence they already have- life without the possibility of parole.

This is a KEY factor that effects ALL of the other prisoners in any prison where there are one or more prisoners who are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. These are the people who are the ‘shot callers’ in prison lingo, the gang leaders, the one’s who control the other inmates. They are known murderers, all the prisoners know this. These are the people who are the gang leaders, the ‘shot callers’. So they are the ones in charge of the drug rackets, etc. They can not receive any harsher punnishment than they already have. This is an extreme detrement to ALL the other prisoners in all the prisons without the death penalty.

 

[Bill_7154]

Your thoughts?

While I’m against the death penalty on moral grounds it also seems to me that life in prison without the possibility of parole seems to me to be a WORSE punnishment that the death penalty. Also, I think it’s important to recongize that the costs of being sentenced to death are extremely high. It’s my understanding that people stay on death row for like 10-20 years and go through appeal after apppeal costing taxpayers a lot.

Another thing I think is an extremely important factor to consider (which would be an argument FOR the death penalty);

People who are in prison for life without the possibility of parole, and who have committed murder, and are willing to commit murder or order others to commit murder…are the people who control the prisoners. If they are in a state that does not have the death penalty and kill again while inside prison, they receive the same sentence they already have- life without.

This is a KEY factor that effects ALL of the other prisoners in any prison where there are one or more prisoners who are sentenced to life without. These are the people who are the ‘shot callers’ in prison lingo, the gang leaders, the one’s who control the other inmates. They are known murderers, all the prisoners know this. They are the gang leaders. So they are the ones in charge of the drug rackets, etc. They can not receive any harsher punnishment than they already have. This is an extreme detrement to ALL the other prisoners in all the prisons without the death penalty.

So all the prisoners must obey them, or face death themselves. The ‘lifers’ run the prison. I think it’s very important to recognize that people are sent to prison for a number of different crimes, some extremely heinous, some bad but not heinous. So any prisoner who is trying to rehabilitate themselves is impeded by the lifers having control over them.

And in prison one MUST join a gang. If you don’t join a gang anyone and everyone is going to target you to extort you, rape you, do whatever they want to you. Your only protection is joining a gang. And by being in a gang you MUST do certain things when a shot caller commands you to do it or you face being killed yourself. So if your in prison for burglery and have a cell mate who is a child molester and you are told to “kill him or we are going to kill you”, you have no choice except for to do it. If you are told to store weapons in your cell, store drugs in your cell, you must do it. If your told to participate in the killing of another prisoner you must do it. So everyone who enters prisons with ‘lifers’ is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The lifers have nothing to loose, they run the show. Everyone who goes to a prions with lifers is going to have a pretty difficult time in participating in rehabilitation and avoiding the participation of any criminal behavior while in prison. You are either a rape toy or you are in a gang. If your in a gang your subject to following the orders of the gang leaders. How can a person stay on the straight and narrow, focus on changing their heart, mind, soul while in prison when the enviornment is like this?

I believe that this is a significant factor in the high recitivism rate of prisoners as they are psychologically impacted by the prison mentality. Only the strong survive. Kill or be killed. So for the people who most of society feels should be released from prison after some period of time, they have every moment of every day they spend in prison actively participating in a criminal gang, putting on a tough facade, etc. People can and do go into prison with no gang affiliation, and sometimes for isolated incidents where they are not career criminals, but then for the number of years they spend in prison their mindset is shifted into being gang affiliated and participating in gang activities whether they like it or not. .

I believe this negatively impacts society because most of the prisoners are going to be released at some point. For all the non career criminals who do not crimes on a daily or weekly basis or whatever, they wind up behaving like a career criminal while in prison out of necessity. How does such a person mentally survive a prison sentence if they want to rehabilitate and change but are forced to live in a gladiator school? How can rehabilitation really be effective under such circumstances?

So despite being against the death penalty on moral grounds I believe that society is worse off without the dealth penalty. I believe this because the lifers can not face a harsher sentence than the one they already have. If there is a death penalty a lifer who kills someone in prison can be sentenced to death, which might have an impact to deter to some degree their ruthless behavior and control over the other prisoners. This in turn would lessen the negative impact on all the other prisoners who will be released back into society eventually, reduce the threat of death to them if they don’t follow orders of shot callers and increase the chances of them working towards rehabilitation. Then again, it might not have much of an impact, I’m not sure. But I do know that the lifers run the prison and the rest of the prisoners must do their bidding.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The normal interpretation of that sentence is that capital punishment is acceptable only when it is necessary to protect society.
LG #25 addresses three types of doctrine: things that are defined as infallible (of which I think there are only two examples), things which are taught infallibly (and for which there is no list), and things taught by the ordinary magisterium. It says nothing whatever about prudential opinion. Cardinal Dulles, however, was quite clear on that point: “…**prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.”
The last sentence in 2267 is the clearest of all to categorize: it is an opinion. If I challenged you to prove the assertion it makes how would you go about doing it? There is no Church document you could turn to because this isn’t a theological issue. To show that society is adequately protected by prisons you would first have to define what “adequately” meant in terms of the amount of harm repeat murderers inflict - how many injuries, how many more murders - and then you would have to review something like the Bureau of Justice Statistics to see whether the statistics support your assertion. None of this has to do with ethics or morality. The allegation is an opinion about which reasonable people can differ.

Ender

Yes, it may be an opinion, but it doesn’t mean that it is wrong. What if I say that Canada wants to put a hole in the USA and that they want to establish a worldwide empire, to defend ourselves we should attack them; I’m not necessarily dissenting from Church teaching or doctrine, but that doesn’t mean that I’m right either. Now what if the Pope for whatever reason comes out in an Encyclical saying that at the present time Canada should not be attacked? Is it a matter of binding Catholic doctrine that I am not supposed to support invading Canada? No. Am I dissenting from Catholic teaching by supporting an invasion on Canada? No. But at the same time should I listen to the Pope and his Encyclical by not supporting an invasion of Canada? Yes. Why? Because according to Humani Generis:

1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

 

[Ginkgo100]

Despite the fact that the catechism claims that modern prisons can adequately protect society that is a prudential opinion with which we are free to disagree. The case you cite, and others like it where civilians, guards, or other inmates are murdered, makes one wonder what “effectively repress crime” really means.

The other side of the coin on this issue is that, in claiming that society is justified in executing someone to prevent future crimes, it would not be unreasonable to argue that we should execute not fewer but more as society is completely protected from the dead but only mostly protected from the living.

Ender

I’m against the death penalty in most cases. But I’ve worked in the criminal justice field in the past and I’m a realist about the fact that prisoners do attack the system itself by murdering those in the criminal justice system. I think we should eliminate the possibility of the death penalty from most “capital” crimes, but leave it as a possibility for certain crimes, including murder of witnesses, judges, cops, corrections officers, and yes, inmates. Such a murder itself should not “automatically” earn the death penalty, but qualify an offender for consideration for it.

 

[Ender]

Yes, it may be an opinion, but it doesn’t mean that it is wrong

Of course not. The point I am making is that this section of the Catechism, being opinion, is not binding. We may believe what our own experience and investigation tells us is likely to be true. That is, there is no moral objection to employing capital punishment, only practical ones.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m against the death penalty in most cases.

Punishment has four objectives (according to the Church): retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection with the primary objective being retribution. What is your objection to capital punishment?

Ender

 

[ivebeenshown]

My wife and I firmly believe that people convicted of molesting, torturing, or killing children should be swiftly executed, likewise for those who commit other serious offenses such as brutal robbery, abduction, etc.

I would rather die wrongly convicted knowing that a large quantity of threats to society are eliminated than be alive while we drag our feet and permit them to live.

Call me cruel, I don’t care.

 

[Ender]

My wife and I firmly believe that people convicted of molesting, torturing, or killing children should be swiftly executed, likewise for those who commit other serious offenses such as brutal robbery, abduction, etc.

I would rather die wrongly convicted knowing that a large quantity of threats to society are eliminated than be alive while we drag our feet and permit them to live.

Call me cruel, I don’t care.

Your last comment is counterproductive. There are valid, serious reasons for supporting capital punishment; don’t make it easy for those who disapprove of it to dismiss those reasons by simply labeling supporters as cruel. I think your instincts are right: there are crimes for which execution is the appropriate punishment and that is the argument you should unapologetically make.

Ender