The death penalty - right or wrong

[Future_Catechum]

Pope Francis has changed the text of the Catechism to declare the death penalty as inadmissible . ‘Thou shalt not kill’ applies to everyone, even one who has committed murder. It is probably in our human natures to want capital punishment because of a desire for revenge . But, we are all sinners. And how can it be moral and ethical to hire an executioner to take another’s life? It does nothing to bring back the life of the victim .

 

[OnAJourney]

I agree with you. I wasn’t arguing otherwise

 

[CilladeRoma]

In the US, it is no longer necessary to kill someone to protect society from them.

Fortunately, Thomas Aquinas is not the final authority on the matter.

 

[Maximilian75]

Certainly in most of the developed world, we have the infrastructure that makes the DP unnessecary for society.

However, many countries do not have that blessing.

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis has changed the text of the Catechism to declare the death penalty as inadmissible.

Moral truth is not something that can change from one pope to the next.

‘Thou shalt not kill’ applies to everyone, even one who has committed murder.

This is not what the church teaches.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

It is probably in our human natures to want capital punishment because of a desire for revenge . But, we are all sinners. And how can it be moral and ethical to hire an executioner to take another’s life?

What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. (St. Augustine)

 

[E11a]

But with this saying whoever sheds the blood of man, then there blood should be shed as well… then the blood of that man will be on someone else. I think we need to also understand that in those times God would send angels and prophets to the people to help them with those decisions and not just doing it out of anger.
God is pro life like you said, so if a person murders, they need to be killed? and then the person that kills that one is then a murderer too

 

[Ender]

In the US, it is no longer necessary to kill someone to protect society from them.

Protection is not the primary objective of punishment; it is a secondary goal. It is the primary objective that must always determine the extent of a punishment, and the primary objective is retribution - retributive justice.

 

[Ender]

God is pro life like you said, so if a person murders, they need to be killed? and then the person that kills that one is then a murderer too

The authority to punish resides solely with the State. Carrying out a capital sentence is the execution of justice, it is not murder.

…when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance (St. Bellarmine)

 

[halogirl]

Wrong. Strongly disagree with it and always have.

 

[EnglishYew]

I think more people might be against capital punishment if liberal judges and parole boards stopped letting killers out of prison…to kill again.

 

[on_the_hill]

I see a bizarre contradiction in capital punishment and morality.

Person A is trying to kill Person B’s family.
Person B is allowed, by practically all measures of ethics, morality, and the law, to defend himself and his family up to and including killing Person A.

B is obligated by ethics, morality, and the law, to preserve A’s life after the murder attempt is over, regardless of whether A was successful.

B may as well yell over the din of gunfire, “A! I’m allowed to kill you up until you either kill my family or quit trying. Then I have to pray that you don’t get capital punishment. And I’ll call 9-1-1 for an ambulance if you’re hurt. Just thought you’d want to know how this will turn out for you.”

 

[Ender]

I think the word you’re looking for is expiation.

To go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory…"

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come.” (Romano Amerio)

 

[Horton]

From a very practical point of view the death penalty should be abolished in the US. It is very expensive to put someone to death for their crimes. It is much cheaper for the states to house them in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

I am against the death penalty regardless the crime. I used to believe the death penalty was justice for the worst of the crimes until I had an experience up close with an execution and the trauma it causes. I no longer believe the death penalty is just.

 

[otjm]

Well, in Oregon a few years ago we had two prisoners on death row, and both, independently attempted to short-stop their appeals and requested to be put to death; both had the position that life without parole was undoable.

Our then governor commuted the sentences to life without parole, as he was anti-death penalty…

 

[Emeraldlady]

CilladeRoma:

In the US, it is no longer necessary to kill someone to protect society from them.

Protection is not the primary objective of punishment; it is a secondary goal. It is the primary objective that must always determine the extent of a punishment, and the primary objective is retribution - retributive justice.

How are human beings without the attribute of omniscience that only God has, supposed to determine the extent of punishment that serves retribution? The answer is that we simply can’t. We are charged with the authority only in relation to the common good. Aquinas explains this limitation to human justice.

(The power of human law)

"Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that “;law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens.”; Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). " (ST I II 96 Art1)

Aquinas in covering Justice, explains in depth the nature of human justice and how it to be arrived at.

"…the matter of justice is external operation, in so far as an operation or the thing used in that operation is duly proportionate to another person, wherefore the mean of justice consists in a certain proportion of equality between the external thing and the external person. Now equality is the real mean between greater and less, as stated in Metaph. x [Didot ed., ix, 5; Cf. Ethic. v, 4: wherefore justice observes the real mean."

"We may speak of a thing being good simply in two ways. First a thing may be good in every way: thus the virtues are good; and there is neither mean nor extremes in things that are good simply in this sense. Secondly a thing is said to be good simply through being good absolutely i.e. in its nature, although it may become evil through being abused. Such are riches and honors; and in the like it is possible to find excess, deficiency and mean, as regards men who can use them well or ill: and it is in this sense that justice is about things that are good simply." (ST II II 58 10)

He is basically saying that there are some things that are intrinsically good such as the virtues ie. they are always good acts regardless of external factors. On the other hand, legal applications of justice are not intrinsically good. They may be evil if they don’t conform to the dictates of external service to the common good. It would therefore constitute an abuse of justice to defend a law that no longer serves the common good.

 

[otjm]

You analogy falls apart. If B is making an attempt to kill A or a family member of A, A has the right (and many believe, the duty) to defend themselves and others; shooting B is in self defense within most, if not all jurisdictions and there is no criinal penalty.

Subject in some jurisdictions to some issues.

And if A wounds B, A is not required either in law or in morality to put themselves in harms way to try to save B.

 

[YourNameHere]

Could you be specific about the “liberal judges” who give killers parole? Propaganda generalities?
FYI - Judges do not grant parole. Parole boards do.

 

[Ender]

How are human beings without the attribute of omniscience that only God has, supposed to determine the extent of punishment that serves retribution? The answer is that we simply can’t.

The argument that we cannot determine what constitutes a just punishment is an argument that all punishment is unjust and the State cannot punish anyone for anything. That argument doesn’t apply solely to capital punishment.

We are charged with the authority only in relation to the common good.

True, and justice is very much a part of the common good, but you have just asserted that we cannot know what constitutes a just punishment.

He is basically saying that there are some things that are intrinsically good such as the virtues ie. they are always good acts regardless of external factors.

I think you’ve misinterpreted what he said if for no other reason than that there is no such thing as an intrinsically good act. Any act, if done with a bad intent, becomes a bad act. The church gives just such an example:

1755 An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

On the other hand, legal applications of justice are not intrinsically good. They may be evil if they don’t conform to the dictates of external service to the common good. It would therefore constitute an abuse of justice to defend a law that no longer serves the common good.

I don’t dispute this. The point to understand here, however, is that determining what act best serves the common good is a judgment, therefore people may legitimately hold contrary opinions and there is no moral distinction between the positions.

 

[EnglishYew]

Judges who gave light sentences, then. Plea bargaining for dangerous criminals.

 

[Hodos]

But with this saying whoever sheds the blood of man, then there blood should be shed as well… then the blood of that man will be on someone else. I think we need to also understand that in those times God would send angels and prophets to the people to help them with those decisions and not just doing it out of anger.

Who says that this was done out of anger? When you read all of the provisions for this in the Sinai law, persons suspected of murder were tried by a jury, and could not be convicted on less than the testimony of two or three witnesses. This wasn’t just some private person mandating this, this was God’s command that the evil would be purged from the land.

The idea that this was only carried out under the direction of angels or prophets is also untrue. The normative manner in how this was carried out was through the administration of local elders and officials who carried out the law in their municipality.

Also, you are conflating killing that is mandated by God through due process of law as the result of someone committing grievous sin, with murder. The two things are not the same, and God makes a distinction between the two. Lastly, going back to Romans and 1 Peter we see that even under the New Covenant God has not revoked the right and responsibility of the state to bear the sword to implement justice. This was even applied to the Roman government under Nero.

There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in scripture that somehow God holds the “dignity of the individual” over and above the requirement of living within his law. This is Enlightenment Age thinking that is not in concert with scripture.