The death penalty is justified

[Ender]

I didn’t mean it that way it’s just he referred to the part before the EV so it made me think he didn’t think that part was important.

Every Church document I have seen (as well as the writings of Augustine and Aquinas) prior to EV supports capital punishment and I think they do so as a matter of justice. EV represents a significant break with what the Church had always taught, moreover it is a teaching based on the need for the protection of society and is silent on the issue of justice. Since the Church still teaches that the primary objective of punishment is justice I find it impossible to reconcile EV (no. 56), not only with what was taught in the past, but with what the Church still teaches today about the nature of punishment.

Ender

 

[joseph_virgen]

give the fallen one his due, given sufficient time, all manner of righteousness falls to the side and is replaced with nothing more than the time honored tradition of tribal vengeance. i know, because i felt it, and it felt goooooooooood.

and yes, i felt comfort in knowing that society, as a whole, shared in my satisfaction.

then something happened, i felt guilty. where were the Nazarene’s teachings in my feelings of satisfaction? i knew where they were. nobody had to tell me. i had thrown them out to be trampled upon by the very people whom the fallen one loves, in truth, i was never farther from the Nazarene as i was on that day. and the shame followed. no doubt the kind of shame as when the founding fathers abandoned the Nazarene. no doubt they, too, justied that abandoning. fortunate for them the Nazarene did not abandon them.

the Nazarene is love, and at the center of that love is mercy. i try to never forget that.

 

[Hastrman]

give the fallen one his due, given sufficient time, all manner of righteousness falls to the side and is replaced with nothing more than the time honored tradition of tribal vengeance. i know, because i felt it, and it felt goooooooooood.

What did you think “justice” was? Justice is the virtue that is served by vengeance, just as mercy is served by pity and charity by compassion.

Justice is and always was, and always shall be, a consideration in the death penalty, even though it gets fairly little mention in EV (hey, JPII was probably a saint, but saints screw up–Louis IX expelled the Jews, and Francis of Assisi tried to work himself to death). What the Pope was saying was that the death penalty can only be sought against a person who deserves it, when necessary to protect society. If protecting society were the only consideration, it would be morally justifiable to, for instance, kill Peter Singer outright, since his thought undoubtedly threatens society.

So far, all this has always been the teaching of the Church, although the emphasis shifted (perhaps too much) to reflect modern European mores. The Church is, unfortunately, part of the world.

Where the Popes are in the realm of prudential judgment, and I think go wrong, is when they say that that condition, where capital punishment is not necessary to protect society, exists right now. First off, not in Africa or the Middle East it sure doesn’t, and I’d argue that it doesn’t in America, either (I wonder if they have the Brand, formerly the Aryan Brotherhood, in European prisons?).

In fact, I question whether it is ever possible to render any human harmless–since they have free will, and are absolutely incapable of being stopped from something they decide to do, without injustices far greater than killing. We may not kill people simply because they might be a threat, of course–not all of them have committed acts that deserve it–but of those whose acts do warrant it, humility forces us to acknowledge that we can never render them “inoffensive”. Even if we could, it is a question of social justice whether we have the right, by the coercive power of taxation, to force a society to feed, clothe, tend, and shelter those it cannot suffer to live in its midst.

That last consideration, by the way, does not (as I know some of you will accuse me of thinking) apply to those “lifers” not eligible for the death penalty, since their crimes do not warrant death on their own merits.

 

[joseph_virgen]

funny how the word justice is thrown in as a substitute for righteousness. the romans proudly presented themselves as having the most evolve form of justice of their time. they were identified as adamant lovers of law. they evolved to having their law codified and administered by trained jurists. no doubt they would agree with your explanation.

unfortunately, they also had the death penalty.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

The Death Penalty is NOT justified. It is not “an eye for an eye” as Jesus said:

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

You see, an “eye for an eye” is indeed a just judgement, but we as humans can not justly exact it upon others. Why? Because to judge according to the Law, we must be sinless ourselves!

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Because all humans who are not God inevitably sin, when we try to take God’s place as Judge, we inevitably render wrong judgements since we unlike Him are not perfect. This is evidenced by all the people wrongly put on Death Row who have been pardoned by DNA evidence. And if we can not make absolutely sure that not one innocent person will be put to death, then NO ONE should be put on Death Row.

James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

This is why all through the New Testament we are commanded not to judge others, for with what judgement we judge we will be judged, and with what measure we mete it will be meted to us again. To condemn others by the Law is to condemn ourselves, and God will surely find us guilty and judge us in the same way we have judged others.

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Therefore, the Law is indeed holy, and the commandments holy, just, and good.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

However, by that Old Testament Law will NO ONE be justified in God’s sight, for we are all completely guilty.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Jesus is the only possible exception to that rule (Romans 3:19-20), who can be sinless according to the Law and not “guilty before God”, because He alone IS God, who came in the flesh.

Therefore, we are called to show mercy to others even as God has shown mercy to us. Otherwise, God will not show mercy to us.

Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

In the Lord’s prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), Jesus says “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” There, as with all God’s promises, there is a condition, the condition being that we must also forgive others in order to be forgiven ourselves, which is what Jesus immediately points out after telling us the prayer.

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

 

[pnewton]

The Death Penalty is NOT justified. It is not “an eye for an eye” as Jesus said:

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

You see, an “eye for an eye” is indeed a just judgement, but we as humans can not justly exact it upon others. Why? Because to judge according to the Law, we must be sinless ourselves!

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

If we were to be consistent in applying this idea, we would not only eliminate the death penalty, but all prison as well. After all, it is still judgemental to decide some one committed a crime and rob them of 10 years of life in prison. This would also mean that we wouldn’t judge the family member of the slain victim that goes out and strings the killer up in a tree somewhere. He to should get a pass.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

If we were to be consistent in applying this idea, we would not only eliminate the death penalty, but all prison as well. After all, it is still judgemental to decide some one committed a crime and rob them of 10 years of life in prison. This would also mean that we wouldn’t judge the family member of the slain victim that goes out and strings the killer up in a tree somewhere. He to should get a pass.

Not necessarily. The justification for putting people in prison isn’t to exact vengeance, since “vengeance is mine, saith the LORD, I will repay”, but rather to protect society from those who would abuse its members.

It is done out of necessity, not out of vengeance. And it is not judgmental in the sense of judging according to the Old Testament Law, which is what Jesus spoke against, not simply being judgmental as many people often wrongly assume.

Because the Old Testament judgment was “an eye for an eye”, i.e. equivalent physical destruction, and that is not the same as simply locking someone up where they can’t harm society. So while locking someone up may be judgmental, it is not rendering justice according to the Old Testament Law.

And when one thinks about it, virtually anything can be considered “judging” in a sense. Every time we have thoughts on anything we are judging in the sense of evaluation. Logic alone tells us that Jesus’ words not to judge can not be interpreted in such a context, especially since we are elsewhere told to judge within ourselves about what is right and wrong.

 

[Ender]

funny how the word justice is thrown in as a substitute for righteousness.

You have strong opinions on this subject but apparently lack strong arguments to support them. The logical problem with your responses (quite apart from their unpleasantness) is that they are irrelevant: even if they were true they would still be immaterial to the argument. The truth of a statement in no way depends on the goodness of the person who makes it. It seems you believe that you can defeat someone’s position by making him appear morally deficient so you attack the person and ignore the argument.

Claim: “Capital punishment is a matter of justice!”
Rebuttal: “You’re a dirt bag.”

Not exactly convincing, is it?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Not necessarily. The justification for putting people in prison isn’t to exact vengeance, since “vengeance is mine, saith the LORD, I will repay”, but rather to protect society from those who would abuse its members…And when one thinks about it, virtually anything can be considered “judging” in a sense. .

Your last pos twas only an admonition against being judgemental. That was the only thing I gave a response to. No one here has suggested the use of the death penalty for vengence, so I do not know why you brought this up. My opinion on the subject has always been that the death penalty is justified as a means for protection of society, like you mention here.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Your last pos twas only an admonition against being judgemental. That was the only thing I gave a response to. No one here has suggested the use of the death penalty for vengence, so I do not know why you brought this up. My opinion on the subject has always been that the death penalty is justified as a means for protection of society, like you mention here.

Perhaps, but many often try to defend the Death Penalty Biblically by pointing to the Old Testament Law concerning an “eye for an eye”. And my point was, that whether trying to protect society or not, what it comes down to with the Death Penalty is trying to execute Old Testament judgments according to the Law when we are not sinless ourselves.

Furthermore, why is it necessary to kill someone to protect society? Wouldn’t locking them up work just as well, and without the element of blood or the risk of wrongfully killing someone?

For if we wrongfully kill someone for a crime they did not commit, then we are committing an abuse against society that we are then guilty of. Rather than protecting society, we are fostering just one more way that its members can be exploited.

 

[pnewton]

Furthermore, why is it necessary to kill someone to protect society? Wouldn’t locking them up work just as well, and without the element of blood or the risk of wrongfully killing someone?
.

It doesn’t work as well for some. Some people still can be a danger to others while locked up. This has been the source of many debates here and my reason for still saying that the death penalty is justified, in light of current Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

whether trying to protect society or not, what it comes down to with the Death Penalty is trying to execute Old Testament judgments according to the Law

I am struck by the number of people who imply that if something is in the Old Testament we are free to disregard it in the belief that everything there has been abrogated by the New Testament. God spoke to Noah and said “Be fruitful and multiply” and in that same conversation said “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” How is it that can we revere the former and repudiate the latter?

we are not sinless ourselves.

We are not called to be perfect nor are we commanded not to judge. We are required to judge honestly and to act justly. If your argument was valid we would have no authority to inflict any punishment whatever, not just capital punishment.

why is it necessary to kill someone to protect society? Wouldn’t locking them up work just as well …

As a mere matter of protection it probably isn’t necessary to execute all killers but there is no practical way to protect society - including guards and other inmates - from the worst of them.

… and without the element of blood or the risk of wrongfully killing someone?

Some innocent people will die no matter which decision we make, either because an innocent person is executed (which happens - if it happens - rarely), because someone who isn’t executed kills again (which is considerably less rare), or because someone isn’t deterred by the example an execution sets (I realize this is a debatable point).

None of your arguments touches on the real reason in favor of capital punishment: as a requirement of justice. It is only in the last decade or so that the protection of society has been made the primary argument against capital punishment. Prior to 1995 the Church supported it as an issue of justice, and that remains the unanswerable argument in its favor.

Ender

 

[Jzyehoshua]

I am struck by the number of people who imply that if something is in the Old Testament we are free to disregard it in the belief that everything there has been abrogated by the New Testament. God spoke to Noah and said “Be fruitful and multiply” and in that same conversation said “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” How is it that can we revere the former and repudiate the latter?

On the contrary, the Law is a good judgment upon evil. The Law is righteous and just, as I said earlier (Romans 7:12).

However, we can not righteously render such judgments unless we ourselves are sinless, as Jesus clearly pointed out when the Pharisees wanted to stone the adulteress.

We are not called to be perfect nor are we commanded not to judge. We are required to judge honestly and to act justly. If your argument was valid we would have no authority to inflict any punishment whatever, not just capital punishment.

We are called to be perfect.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

We are called not to judge:

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 **For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
**

As a mere matter of protection it probably isn’t necessary to execute all killers but there is no practical way to protect society - including guards and other inmates - from the worst of them.
Some innocent people will die no matter which decision we make, either because an innocent person is executed (which happens - if it happens - rarely), because someone who isn’t executed kills again (which is considerably less rare), or because someone isn’t deterred by the example an execution sets (I realize this is a debatable point).

None of your arguments touches on the real reason in favor of capital punishment: as a requirement of justice. It is only in the last decade or so that the protection of society has been made the primary argument against capital punishment. Prior to 1995 the Church supported it as an issue of justice, and that remains the unanswerable argument in its favor.

Ender

Well, if someone in prison has killed someone intentionally, they should be locked up permanently unless found innocent. Short terms for murderers make no sense at all.

The thing with justice though, is that if we exact justice God will also exact it upon us, and none will be justified in His sight. As it is written, “he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”

Any pope who demands justice via the Death Penalty will have to stand before God and have justice exacted for their own sins apart from His mercy.

 

[Ender]

However, we can not righteously render such judgments unless we ourselves are sinless

Since no one is sinless, according to your interpretation no one can render judgment. This means that not only could no one be punished but no one’s actions could even be condemned, but this is surely not how we are commanded to act. Here is Aquinas’ understanding of these issues (Summa Theologica)

“to correct a wrongdoer belongs to a man, in so far as his reason is gifted with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I-II, 85, 1,2), does not destroy the good of nature so as to deprive the sinner’s reason of all right judgment, and in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others for committing sin.” (II-II 32,5)

We are called not to judge

This is a common misunderstanding of that teaching, but the Church does not interpret it the way you do.

“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice.” (II-II 60,2)
*“In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things” *(II-II 60 2 ad 1)

The thing with justice though, is that if we exact justice God will also exact it upon us, and none will be justified in His sight. As it is written, “he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”

Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues.

*"If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the *individual good of one person." (II-II 58,12)

Any pope who demands justice via the Death Penalty will have to stand before God and have justice exacted for their own sins apart from His mercy.

If you are right then all popes (and the entire Church) until 1969 have been wrong on this subject. Either that or you are mistaken.

Ender

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Since no one is sinless, according to your interpretation no one can render judgment.

No one but God, yes. There is one Judge, and one Lawgiver, and “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.”

This means that not only could no one be punished but no one’s actions could even be condemned, but this is surely not how we are commanded to act. Here is Aquinas’ understanding of these issues (Summa Theologica)

“to correct a wrongdoer belongs to a man, in so far as his reason is gifted with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I-II, 85, 1,2), does not destroy the good of nature so as to deprive the sinner’s reason of all right judgment, and in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others for committing sin.” (II-II 32,5)

But there is a difference between correction in love, which Christians are called to do, and punishing as a Judge. Correction could be the same thing as telling someone driving towards the edge of a cliff that what they’re doing is a bad idea. You do it because you care about them, not because you’re trying to punish them. I don’t know enough about Aquinas to be familiar more with his thoughts on the matter, but judging simply from that statement, he might simply be saying we can talk to others about what they’re doing wrong. That is different than actively seeking to punish or condemn them. It is the difference between a teacher instructing a pupil and a jail guard beating a prisoner.

“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice.” (II-II 60,2)
*“In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things” *(II-II 60 2 ad 1)

*"If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the *

individual good of one person." (II-II 58,12)
If you are right then all popes (and the entire Church) until 1969 have been wrong on this subject. Either that or you are mistaken.

Ender

Well, according to the Bible, it is love for others that fulfills all the Law and the prophets, not legal justice. The same selfless love that leads us to care about others as we do ourselves so that we forgive them even as God forgave us. Legal justice is what produced the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Humans can not render perfect justice, it is God’s domain alone.

Therefore, we are called to show mercy.

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

[whatevergirl]

We have no moral obligation to support murder in any situation.

Why does our nation condone killing people who kill people in order to show that killing people is wrong? It’s a contradiction through and through.

Innocent men and women have been executed–Christ included. The system is not only flawed but unnecessary in this country where we are perfectly capable of confining and holding murderers. We are not judges over life and death. God is. I recall Saint Paul saying, “Leave vengeance to God.”

The sooner we rid ourselves of capital punishment, the sooner we begin to respect the sanctity of human life as a whole in this nation and, hopefully, the sooner we see an end to abortion as well.

You and I think alike–I too don’t see the logic behind the death penalty. Well, wait…I take that back. I see the logic, but it seems to go against the basic tenets of Christianty. I think people use Jesus’ words…‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s…’ twisting that to somehow mean that we are to leave such things to the individual states. I have heard that passage used many times to justify capital punishment. There really is no ‘justification,’ and I would personally feel rather hypocritical saying I’m pro life, but not for everyone. Can’t speak for what others should think on this–but this is MY feeling on the subject.

 

[whatevergirl]

Here’s a question–why are only certain murders punishable by death? For example, the marine who is a fugitive–the guy who killed his pregnant gf, and fled to Mexico? (I think this is the gist) I believe I read somewhere that he would get the death penalty if tried and found guilty. Also, the recent case about the ex cop who murdered his gf and confessed? I think they are seeking the DP in that case, too? I don’t get why certain people are ‘eligible’ cases for the DP, and other murders are not?

 

[Hastrman]

Here’s a question–why are only certain murders punishable by death? For example, the marine who is a fugitive–the guy who killed his pregnant gf, and fled to Mexico? (I think this is the gist) I believe I read somewhere that he would get the death penalty if tried and found guilty. Also, the recent case about the ex cop who murdered his gf and confessed? I think they are seeking the DP in that case, too? I don’t get why certain people are ‘eligible’ cases for the DP, and other murders are not?

Um…any man who kills a comrade within a military force, should die. That she is also the mother of his child means he *really *must die.

Civilians can be imprisoned, but the bond between comrades is too sacred to allow it to be violated–and, pragmatically, it renders a military force unable to function if it can be violated. To function, warriors need to be able to trust each other with their lives.

It is, in other words, absolutely necessary to protect that society, the Marine Corps.

Ditto the cop. Police and soldiers (Marines are soldiers, in the generic sense of the term) are trusted with the power of life and death, and therefore are especially accountable when they act against the sanctity of life. That’s why even Europeans have the death penalty in their military law.

Still never got a response to the question of what the anti-CP people do if one of their lifers–“rendered harmless,” remember–kills somebody in prison. Sentence them to life again?

 

[whatevergirl]

Um…any man who kills a comrade within a military force, should die. That she is also the mother of his child means he *really *must die.

Civilians can be imprisoned, but the bond between comrades is too sacred to allow it to be violated–and, pragmatically, it renders a military force unable to function if it can be violated. To function, warriors need to be able to trust each other with their lives.

It is, in other words, absolutely necessary to protect that society, the Marine Corps.

Ditto the cop. Police and soldiers (Marines are soldiers, in the generic sense of the term) are trusted with the power of life and death, and therefore are especially accountable when they act against the sanctity of life. That’s why even Europeans have the death penalty in their military law.

If a person’s life is threatened…such as a cop let’s say, then shooting that person is the only option left.* Self defense is not capital punishment. Capital punishment is not self defense*. Comparing the two is like comparing an apple with an orange. It’s (the DP) been around since the dawn of time, and if it is so effective–why is violent crime on the rise? It’s not effective–even if you look at it in a logical sense…it’s not effective. Violence will always beget more violence–always. That can never be good for society.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Um…any man who kills a comrade within a military force, should die. That she is also the mother of his child means he *really *must die.

Civilians can be imprisoned, but the bond between comrades is too sacred to allow it to be violated–and, pragmatically, it renders a military force unable to function if it can be violated. To function, warriors need to be able to trust each other with their lives.

It is, in other words, absolutely necessary to protect that society, the Marine Corps.

Ditto the cop. Police and soldiers (Marines are soldiers, in the generic sense of the term) are trusted with the power of life and death, and therefore are especially accountable when they act against the sanctity of life. That’s why even Europeans have the death penalty in their military law.

Still never got a response to the question of what the anti-CP people do if one of their lifers–“rendered harmless,” remember–kills somebody in prison. Sentence them to life again?

There’s always solitary confinement.