The Death Penalty

[ReeferShepard1]

To go along with the murder thread that was earlier posted, I thought I’d bring another aspect.

Are you for or against the dealth penatly, and why?

I’m for the death penalty. I was actually getting angered when I saw people protesting the death penalty during spring break. But anyways, I’m for it because, at one point or another, that person deliberately took another life. I’m not talking about if the murderer had a mental disorder or not, they obviously receive a different authoritative action.

I do belive however, a murderer can still get into heaven. Before his/her penalty is carried out, if he/she fully expresses his sorrow to God, and he honestly apologizes, they are saved. But, I belive their life here on Earth should end.

 

[puzzleannie]

even if I could support the death penalty in theory, as Catholic doctrine allows, I could not support it as it currently exists in our criminal justice system. Being from Texas I think I can speak to those conditions. Since so many convicts have recently been released from death row based on new evidence, DNA and otherwise, we know that there is no assurance that those who die are actually guilty of the crimes for which they were condemned. Even if they are, our constitution insures a swift, equitable trial, judgement and penalty. Our criminal justice apparatus is neither swift or equitable. Sentencing a person guilty of a capital crime to execution is one thing. let there be an automatic appeal and review, then carry out the sentence. Allowing someone to linger on death row for years or decades is far more cruel and inhumane than swift execution.

 

[thistle]

To go along with the murder thread that was earlier posted, I thought I’d bring another aspect.

Are you for or against the dealth penatly, and why?

I’m for the death penalty. I was actually getting angered when I saw people protesting the death penalty during spring break. But anyways, I’m for it because, at one point or another, that person deliberately took another life. I’m not talking about if the murderer had a mental disorder or not, they obviously receive a different authoritative action.

I do belive however, a murderer can still get into heaven. Before his/her penalty is carried out, if he/she fully expresses his sorrow to God, and he honestly apologizes, they are saved. But, I belive their life here on Earth should end.

The Church is against the death penalty (and so am I) and continuously urges countries who still have it to get rid of it. The Church rejoices when a country abolishes capital punishment (as it did when the Philippines abolished it).
Now the Church accepts that in certain circumstances it might be necessary but that is totally different to supporting it.

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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 nonexistent."

 

[LSK]

The reason I love the Holy Mother Church is stated so beautifully in the Catechism on the subject. I, like Puzzleannie, am ok with the Death Penalty but NOT as it currently exists and is carried out in the United States. As my Church teaches, I believe the necessity for its use is very rare, if not virtually non-existent.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Allowing someone to linger on death row for years or decades is far more cruel and inhumane than swift execution.

It is that reason alone that I first changed my position from being for the death penalty to being against it. I think it is actually more cruel to the families of the victim than the person wasteing away in a cell, because for the unrepentant, they often make some court challange that makes the families re-live it over and over.

I then began to think about the unrepentant murderer on death row and do not feel it inhumane (US prisons) for them to linger in that state of uncertainty. When the repentant murderer is in that situation I think God would give them some level of peace and understanding.

But then I changed my mind about abortion. I used to feel that, though not strictly only a womans choice, but a legal one; leaving the judgement of the decision between God and the parents, and me not making a judgement on it as I would not choose for myself (as a man), or offer it as an option to a woman if I was in that situation.

But then I took myself out of my personal comfort zone and thought about what human life is- in all it’s stages. Often reminded of a favorite story passage (paraphrased from memory):

Frodo- “Do you mean that wretched creature, Gollum? Why, he deserves death!”

Gandalf- “Deserves it? I dare say he does. But many that are innocent, die, that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too hasty to judgement of others, for all may have some part to play for good or ill.”

Even if we have some authority through scripture to exact a just judgement, I do not trust our society to make such judgements on my behalf. If by misfortune I find myself on the victims family side of the argument I do not think a death of retribution would be satisfying. I would rather know they are in some dark hole away from society, giving God the opportunity to reach out to that person for their sake and maybe their salvation before their natural death. After a civil/criminal judgement has been reach I would never want their personal life to interfere with mine in anyay, shape, or form.

Life without parole, without a voice, without personal freedoms. I’d leave them hope for salvation.

 

[Penitant]

But anyways, I’m for it because, at one point or another, that person deliberately took another life.

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world would soon be blind and toothless.” -Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Genesis315]

Even from a purely utilitarian perspectice, the costs (including social utility and expected risks, etc.) far outweigh the benefits. There really is no reasonable justification for it these days.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Genesis315
There really is no reasonable justification for it these days.

What he said.
I’ve been against it since as long as I can remember.
I saw Sr. Helen PreJean speak on her experiences with the death penalty (from both sides) and was so moved I cried.
“Vengence is mine says the Lord. I will repay.”
And as far as I have been able to determine, the death penalty is just that, vengence.

 

[DaveBj]

I support the death penalty for certain crimes, provided the perpetrator’s guilt can be established beyond any doubt whatsoever (not just beyond reasonable doubt). The reason for my support is not to punish the offender, or to give the victim’s relatives revenge, or to deter others from committing the same crime. It is to ensure that the executed person will never again be able to commit the crime for which he was executed.

There are those who say that putting offenders in so-called super-max prisons will keep them from re-offending. However, I saw a program on a super-max prison in California on National Geographic Channel a couple weeks ago, and it was an eye-opener. Hard-core offenders can rape, mutilate, and kill in super-max almost as easily as they can in open society. Super-max is not the answer.

DaveBj

 

[Digger71]

I am fully and completetly against the death penalty. I have several reasons for this. First, miscariages of justice. They happen. You make nothing better by killing/murdering (they are diffeent concepts) an innocent person. Secondly, a dead person has no opportunities for redemption. Thirdly, depending whether you interpret the commandment as killing or murdering (which are actually legalistic terms, one being considered ‘legal’), it brings people to break the commandment.

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

My eyes are drawn to the bolded words. So what if the id and responsibility are ‘fully determined’? Surely a chance of redemption trumps that? I wonder at the mention of ‘traditiona; teaching’ here. Is this and what follows a non-traditional teaching? Undr what circumstances would the death penalty be the only way to defend the rest of the population? And…ummm, what is the word ‘unjust’ doing in there?

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient …, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Beautifully stated.

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 nonexistent."

Why the weasel words and get-out clauses?

Surely something along the lines of `“the chance of redemption is the greatest opportunity afforded to us by God, and taking way this opportunity is a matter of gave concern. Only when their is no other method whatsoever of protecting other peoples chances of redemption, can the death penalty be considered”

 

[adrift]

The Church is against the death penalty ]

This statement is untrue. Perhaps the other Cannons should be quoted

Legitimate defense

2263
T**he legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. **"The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. **Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. **Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

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 definitively 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."68

Pope John Paul II believed that society did not need to use the death penalty but he never condemned its use only saying it should be rarely used.

In each of these threads I have pointed out that without the death penalty guard are at great risk. I know this from personal experience. I know of guards who were marked for death and they were not killed because the prisoner(in for life) did not want to be executed.

Allowing someone to linger on death row for years or decades is far more cruel and inhumane than swift execution.

Why would it be any less cruel for life? Or are you saying that at sometime they should be released?

 

[Alda]

I always thought that the decision whether or not to use the death penalty should be made by the loved ones left behind. How can anyone know better than them what would enable them to deal with their grief better? Some would opt for it, some wouldn’t.

 

[Digger71]

I always thought that the decision whether or not to use the death penalty should be made by the loved ones left behind. How can anyone know better than them what would enable them to deal with their grief better? Some would opt for it, some wouldn’t.

If they have a faith, why would they need the above option?

 

[Genesis315]

The current position of the Church is similar to that of Pope Pius XII concerning war–even though we still have a just war doctrine, he said in modern circumstances war is out of date as a viable option:

1. No one could hail this development with greater joy than he who has long upheld the principle that the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12XMAS.HTM

 

[adrift]

In todays paper Canon City Daily Record a prisoner is going on trial for killing two fellow inmates. He was in prison for life. How are the other prisoners and guards going to be protected from him?

 

[KathleenElsie]

The reason I love the Holy Mother Church is stated so beautifully in the Catechism on the subject. I, like Puzzleannie, am ok with the Death Penalty but NOT as it currently exists and is carried out in the United States. As my Church teaches, I believe the necessity for its use is very rare, if not virtually non-existent.

I agree with you also. As long as there are other ways to protect society then the death penalty should be allowed but not used.

 

[KathleenElsie]

In todays paper Canon City Daily Record a prisoner is going on trial for killing two fellow inmates. He was in prison for life. How are the other prisoners and guards going to be protected from him?

Isolation and restricted human contact measures. But the ACLU says this is cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[levi86]

But anyways, I’m for it because, at one point or another, that person deliberately took another life. I’m not talking about if the murderer had a mental disorder or not, they obviously receive a different authoritative action.

The death penalty is morally acceptable for a number of reasons, but vengeance is not one of them! To claim retribution is a legitimate reason for putting someone to death is entirely unchristian.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Alda
I always thought that the decision whether or not to use the death penalty should be made by the loved ones left behind. How can anyone know better than them what would enable them to deal with their grief better? Some would opt for it, some wouldn’t.

Reading back through this thread reminded me…
When Timothy McVeigh was executed, I heard the question asked, “Now that he’s dead, did that bring back any loved ones? Does anyone who lost a loved one feel better?”
And, no, it did not. The pain and loss still remain.
I believe it to be a far harsher punishment to be locked up for life than to escape through a needle pinch.

 

[Ender]

To claim retribution is a legitimate reason for putting someone to death is entirely unchristian.

First of all, retribution is the primary justification for the use of punishment. (2266: Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.)

Second, the state has “the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” (2266) Note that it has not just the right but the responsibility of inflicting not merely punishment but punishment that is proportional to the crime.

The statements of 2266 highlight the weakness of 2267 which claims that the only valid reason for using the death penalty is to protect society. This claim is based on the tertiary purpose of punishment (protection) and ignores the primary purpose of redressing the disorder. It is properly a question of justice, not of safety.

Ender