Torn over the death penalty

[JackVk]

Recently, I’ve been thinking deeply about the death penalty and how the Church is opposed to it. I have traditionally supported the death penalty, but I oppose abortion. I feel like I’m not in communion with the Church because I feel the death penalty is necessary.

Here are my reasons:

-The death penalty is the only permanent way of keeping criminals off the streets
-Criminals become more dangerous while in prison
-When their sentence is up, or when they are out on parole, they tend to kill or rape again.

So what’s the deal? Am I excommunicated because I support it? Can anyone convince me otherwise?

 

[vera_dicere]

Actually, the Church isn’t 100% against the DP, it does allow it for extreme circumstances where killing the crim is the only way to safey protect society.

With that said, its 2010, there really is no excuse for the DP anymore. We are more than capable of locking someone up and attempting rehab.

Killing is permenant. Plenty of innocent men and women have gone to their deaths at the hands of the State for crimes they have not committed.

I just think about what Jesus did, with the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, the Jewish Law demanded her death, their society demanded it, yet Jesus stepped in and pointed out that none of us are perfect enough to determine death for another.

Not to mention, life belongs to God, all life, I honestly don’t think any human being has the right to intentionally take the life of another human being, no matter the circumstance.

I used to support the DP as well, and my justification for it whiel beign against aboriton was the unborn was innocent and teh criminal was not. But I found that line of htinking just doesn’t line up with Christ’s message.

I have also come to beleive that the DP is a sin against hope, and a sin against the soul of the criminal, if he is not repetent when he gets the needle, then how assured is he of salvation? God wants all of His children to have salvation and paradise, I think its better to allow the criminal to sit in prision getting the help he needs to find repetence then to murder the guy and call it “justice”, because long and short of it, the DP is simply revenge.

 

[JackVk]

I’ve thought those same things. If there’s no DP, then extremely dangerous criminals should be kept behind bars. I don’t think it’s very merciful to have a bunch of murderers, rapists, and drug dealers walking the streets and doing what they do to our children.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The general reasoning that the Church views the death penalty as a “last resort” can actually be very wide and open to interpretation. One thing I wanna ask other Catholics who are against it though is, just how confident are you in the system? Can you truly examine your environment, your society, and your laws and call it 100% effective in keeping us safe? Can you say for certain that there is absolutely no flaw that would be exploited?

The way I see it, I believe there are still places in the world where the DP is necessary seeing as how corruption in law enforcement, loopy legal systems, or simply poorly funded prisons (heck, perhaps even a mix of all three), make it easy for the bad guys to break loose.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ve thought those same things. If there’s no DP, then extremely dangerous criminals should be kept behind bars. I don’t think it’s very merciful to have a bunch of murderers, rapists, and drug dealers walking the streets and doing what they do to our children.

Any idea how many murders and rapists are over 70 at the time of the crime?

Any idea how many murders and rapists are over 60 at the time of the crime?

It would seem these are crimes of age. When offenders are (name removed by moderator)risoned for years for their offenses, and when offenders reach ages over 50 it would seem the danger is greatly reduced.

 

[DavidPalm]

With that said, its 2010, there really is no excuse for the DP anymore. We are more than capable of locking someone up and attempting rehab.

Killing is permenant. Plenty of innocent men and women have gone to their deaths at the hands of the State for crimes they have not committed.

Your second point is the more important, I think. That is why I came to be against the death penalty at least in our current criminal justice system. When people can be put to death on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence, something is seriously wrong.

That being said, it ranges beyond the competence of the Church to declare that this or that system of incarceration is or is not effective enough to eliminate the need for the death penalty. Certainly it’s way beyond the scope of the Church’s competence to say, for the whole world, that the death penalty is no longer necessary. That’s a prudential matter that belongs to each civil government to decide, informed by Catholic principles, of course.

 

[Kevin42]

I am sure most of the different opinions regarding this issue have or will be played out in this thread, but I just wanted to add one bit I thought might not be. Has anyone (namely the original poster, since he or she is the one in conflict) watched a movie that shows someone being put to death under the death penalty? While I am not sure how close to reality they have been, I have seen several depictions on TV and in movies where people have been put do death by lethal injection. These moments have always been emotional and extremely offensive to everything in me.

 

[puzzleannie]

Recently, I’ve been thinking deeply about the death penalty and how the Church is opposed to it. ?

the Church is not unilaterally opposed to the death penalty but allows for the possibility that in some cases, when the civil government can and does in a perfectly operating justice system condemn a person whose criminal activity cannot be stopped by any other means the ultimate punishment may be carried out humanely. The contention of those who are opposed in practical terms to the death penalty, rather than theoretically, is that there are no perfectly functioning criminal justice systems nor does society lack other means to prevent the criminal from continuing to be a danger to himself or others. My personal objection to the death penalty is a practical one, I have no problem with the theoretical possibility but living in Texas I have learned that the justice system is deeply flawed, and that in practice it is unconstitutional, dragging out the process for years even decades. When we stop seeing the flood of cases of convicted criminals released because DNA evidence has thrown out their convictions I will regain confidence in the system and acknowledge its right to inflict this punishment.

 

[Ender]

I feel like I’m not in communion with the Church because I feel the death penalty is necessary.

Don’t feel that way. Your position is quite acceptable.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

-The death penalty is the only permanent way of keeping criminals off the streets
-Criminals become more dangerous while in prison
-When their sentence is up, or when they are out on parole, they tend to kill or rape again.

These are all valid reasons but they miss the point. This is one of the biggest issues I have with CCC 2267 - it puts the entire issue of capital punishment in the context of protection, but the Church teaches that there are four objectives of punishment and that in fact protection is only a secondary concern. The primary objective of punishment is retribution.

"The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." (CCC 2266)

The only true justification for capital punishment is to satisfy the obligation of justice - the need to apply a punishment with a severity commensurate with that of the crime, and the Church teaches what that punishment should be:

*“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” *(CCC 2260)

Ender

 

[Edward_H]

Recently, I’ve been thinking deeply about the death penalty and how the Church is opposed to it. I have traditionally supported the death penalty, but I oppose abortion. I feel like I’m not in communion with the Church because I feel the death penalty is necessary.

Here are my reasons:

-The death penalty is the only permanent way of keeping criminals off the streets
-Criminals become more dangerous while in prison
-When their sentence is up, or when they are out on parole, they tend to kill or rape again.

So what’s the deal? Am I excommunicated because I support it? Can anyone convince me otherwise?

I don’t know if this helps or not. Just after college a friend of mine was raped, beaten, kidnapped…this torture went on for hours…finally shot, killed, burned. I remember going to the trial.

Long story, I became a believer in the death penalty because the judge ended up making the two guys sentences (kidnapping, rape, murder) concurrent, vs. consecutive. I believe they’re on the street today, now.

I believe that in the US we have the resources to permanently put people away for the intent of protecting the rest of us, not for some sort of retribution, vengeance, etc.

I believe the way the Church has refined their position on capital punishment in the Catechism still leaves room for the possibility of capital punishment - if society has no other way to protect its citizens…no penal system, total breakdown of society, etc. I don’t believe they’ve ruled it totally, but questions in this day and age whether it’s really the only resort, the last resort.

It has reasoned that most societies have the resources to protect its citizens without the last resort of capital punishment.

This “last resort” angle is thus consistent / coherent with the Church’s position with just war. A just war has to pass the “last resort” test. All other means have failed to protect its citizens short of war.

In the United States we have the resources, but we lack the will to put proven dangerous criminals away for life. While a full life sentence is apparently cruel in some regards, it needs to be seen as legitimate sentence.

 

[Ender]

I believe that in the US we have the resources to permanently put people away for the intent of protecting the rest of us …

I disagree with this assessment but the real issue with this position - which mirrors what is said in CCC 2267 - is that it is an opinion about which reasonable people may disagree. What it is not is Church doctrine, despite the fact that it’s in the Catechism.

… not for some sort of retribution, vengeance, etc.

But this is the primary objective of punishment. Why are you so quick to dismiss it?

This “last resort” angle is thus consistent / coherent with the Church’s position with just war. A just war has to pass the “last resort” test. All other means have failed to protect its citizens short of war.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but punishment has nothing to do with the “last resort” angle. Crime demands punishment. Not for protection but for the sake of justice.

Ender

 

[Edward_H]

I guess we’ll disagree.

There are a lot of opinions on what the purpose of our justice system is: punishment, retribution, re-education, inculcation, and in the case of the proven dangerous, protection of the rest of us from them.

I don’t know enough to see the daylight you suggest in your point about the difference between the Catechism (including the revision / refinement that was made on capital punishment) and Church “Doctrine”. I don’t see variance or daylight between the two. Maybe I am misreading your point.

I think the Church’s position on capital punishment is grounded in the same logic that is present in just war theory. Authority, Intent, Proportionality, Discrimination between combatants and non combatants, and last resort. Wonderfully consistent and coherent.

A Church that thinks coherently, and in a measured way!

Our government’s PRIMARY role is to protect our natural rights, not to meat out justice, punishment, build up society, right wrongs, play god, etc.

So that’s why I like the “protection” angle especially in the case of capital offenses, perhaps more than you.

 

[Ender]

There are a lot of opinions on what the purpose of our justice system is: punishment, retribution, re-education, inculcation, and in the case of the proven dangerous, protection of the rest of us from them.

I’m sure there are many opinions on this issue; I was simply explaining the Church’s position

I don’t know enough to see the daylight you suggest in your point about the difference between the Catechism (including the revision / refinement that was made on capital punishment) and Church “Doctrine”.

The Church teaches in 2266 that retribution is the primary objective of punishment. She also teaches (elsewhere) that there are three secondary objectives: rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection, but although the Catechism just defined the primary objective in 2266, in 2267 it ignores this point and discusses capital punishment in terms solely of one of the secondary objectives (protection). Beyond that, it makes an assessment on the capabilities of modern penal systems that of its nature simply cannot be considered doctrine. It is an opinion and as such has no claim whatever on our obligation to assent to it.

I think the Church’s position on capital punishment is grounded in the same logic that is present in just war theory. Authority, Intent, Proportionality, Discrimination between combatants and non combatants, and last resort. Wonderfully consistent and coherent.

The Church has always connected punishment with justice; she has never associated it with either just war theory or self defense. I understand that you see a connection but I suggest that you might want to reconsider your position in light of the fact that you will not find a single document from a serious Catholic source that supports it.

Our government’s PRIMARY role is to protect our natural rights, not to meat out justice, punishment, build up society, right wrongs, play god, etc.

Whatever the government’s primary role is in general, it has a positive obligation to render justice and apply punishments of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime. As to playing God, the Church also teaches that all authority comes from God and that *“if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” *(Rom 13:4)

So that’s why I like the “protection” angle especially in the case of capital offenses, perhaps more than you.

It is the Church who holds that the justice 'angle" is primary, not me. It is not simply my opinion you are rejecting.

Ender

 

[Edward_H]

Very interesting. I’ll have to dig out my copy of Brugger’s book and think about this more.

Thanks.

Scanning Evangelium vitae is helpful to me.

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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”.48

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
The Church teaches in 2266 that retribution is the primary objective of punishment. She also teaches (elsewhere) that there are three secondary objectives: rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection, but although the Catechism just defined the primary objective in 2266, in 2267 it ignores this point and discusses capital punishment in terms solely of one of the secondary objectives (protection)…

hum

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

Nowhere does it say to rape rapists or to murder murders is says “punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense” and thus prison does quite well. The truly sad part is those who dismiss other related teachings as numerous scripture passages (Cain & Able, woman at the well, adulterous woman, etc…) as well as direct teachings as:

2258
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

 

[Texas_Roofer]

***Amnesty International urged Saudi authorities on Friday not to medically paralyse a man in retribution ** for similar injuries he allegedly caused during a fight.
The London-based group quoted reports that a court in the northwestern town of Tabuk had approached a number of hospitals to ask if they could cut the man?s spinal cord in retribution, as requested by the victim.

“We urge the Saudi Arabian authorities not to carry out such a punishment, which amounts to nothing less than torture. While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally paralysing a man in this way would constitute torture, and be a breach of its international human rights obligations,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, acting director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme.

One hospital reportedly said it would be possible to medically administer the injury at the same place on the spinal cord as the damage the man allegedly caused his victim using a cleaver during a fight more than two years ago.

The court might decide not to impose the paralysis punishment and could instead sentence the man to imprisonment, financial compensation, or flogging.

The man, whose name has not been made public, has already been sentenced to seven months imprisonment for the offence. Amnesty said it had information that he was convicted and sentenced in a trial in which he had no legal assistance.

Saudi Arabia regularly sentences people to various forms of corporal punishment.*
breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4c9f915f604329d2775041d5e4286b05.941&show_article=1

Looks rather ugly in practice

 

[DavidPalm]

Nowhere does it say to rape rapists or to murder murders is says “punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense” and thus prison does quite well.

I think it’s important to point out that the Church has always taught that capital punishment is in fact a punishment proportional to the offense. So, for example, the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.”

So not only is capital punishment not murder, it is actually “an act of paramount obedience” to the 5th Commandment.

Again, I am not a big capital punishment supporter, but my reasons hinge on the grave flaws in our criminal justice system.

 

[Ender]

Nowhere does it say to rape rapists or to murder murders is says “punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense” and thus prison does quite well.

It is valid to ask whether the punishment of life in prison is commensurate with the severity of the crime of murder. It would appear that God does not think so or he wouldn’t have given us Gen 9:6 (“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image of God.”). And it would appear that the Church accepts this or she wouldn’t have cited this passage in CCC 2260.

The truly sad part is those who dismiss other related teachings as numerous scripture passages (Cain & Able, woman at the well, adulterous woman, etc…) …

If you can cite these passages being used by the Church in the context in which you use them then I would accept those interpretations as valid, but if you cite them without any reference to how the Church understands them then I see no reason to see them as anything other than your personal opinion.

… as well as direct teachings as:

2258
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

Nor do I have any quarrel with this comment; I accept it. I would point out to you the final line which says *“no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an **innocent *human being." First, no one is claiming the right of anyone for any reason to kill an **innocent **person, but that prohibition does not adhere to the guilty. Second, the claim is not being made for the right of the individual to execute but for the right of the State. Big difference: the individual is prohibited from punishing the guilty while the State is obligated to do so. As Pius XII explained: *“as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable, … God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.”

Ender
*

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think it’s important to point out that the Church has always taught that capital punishment is in fact a punishment proportional to the offense. So, for example, the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.”

So not only is capital punishment not murder, it is actually “an act of paramount obedience” to the 5th Commandment.

Again, I am not a big capital punishment supporter, but my reasons hinge on the grave flaws in our criminal justice system.

This teaching is very important without it or an equal catholics would be torn on whether any moral capital punishment existed. It is equally important to see the teaching does not require support for capital punishment.

It is valid to ask whether the punishment of life in prison is commensurate with the severity of the crime of murder. It would appear that God does not think so or he wouldn’t have given us Gen 9:6 (“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image of God.”). And it would appear that the Church accepts this or she wouldn’t have cited this passage in CCC 2260.

nor does the church reject God’s very action in releasing Cain

If you can cite these passages being used by the Church in the context in which you use them then I would accept those interpretations as valid, but if you cite them without any reference to how the Church understands them then I see no reason to see them as anything other than your personal opinion.

this very disappointing it would imply God errors twice once with Cain, and again with adulterous woman, btw I think you are quite aware of 2267

Nor do I have any quarrel with this comment; I accept it. I would point out to you the final line which says "no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an **innocent **human being." First, no one is claiming the right of anyone for any reason to kill an **innocent **person, but that prohibition does not adhere to the guilty. Second, the claim is not being made for the right of the individual to execute but for the right of the State. Big difference: the individual is prohibited from punishing the guilty while the State is obligated to do so. As Pius XII explained: “as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable, … God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty."

Ender

And the state may also comply with 2267

 

[Ender]

nor does the church reject God’s very action in releasing Cain

As far as I know the Church has never used the episode of Cain and Abel to explain her position on the death penalty therefore I believe it is inappropriate for us to do so for her.

this very disappointing it would imply God errors twice once with Cain, and again with adulterous woman,

Not at all, it simply means that the Church does not interpret those episodes in the same way you do. She has, however, multiple times explained her position as based on Gen 9:6 - which is why I refer to that passage and ignore the others.

btw I think you are quite aware of 2267 And the state may also comply with 2267

I am excruciatingly familiar with 2267 which is why I am as comfortable as I am objecting to it.

Ender