Torn over the death penalty

[d97c]

There is mans justice and there is God’s justice. You may have a language problem that prevents you from distinguish the two.
You totally contradict the faith when you say man cannot render justice…
In Rom 13:1-7, we find these words: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. **But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”**Romans 13
God gave us the state to do justice against murderers…like Hitler…so we wouldnt go out and smoke his murdering fanny ourselves !!!

 

[tskrobacz]

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?

It’s hard to see how you can claim a consistent ethic of life with such opposing views. Either you value all life or you have elected to judge.

We, the supporters of the Consistent Life Ethic, affirm that all human life, irrespective of condition or circumstance, is to be valued and reverenced for its own inherent worth, and that all forms of violence against the lives of our fellow humans is morally reprehensible. We acknowledge that life has value from conception to natural death, and we are committed to the protection of life from the threats of war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a “seamless garment” of life and we feel called to protect the unprotected through cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect.

 

[d97c]

The current Pope distiguishes the “Consistent Ethic of Life” approach…There is a clear difference between the death penalty and abortion…so even though he doesnt like the death penalty…there is a huge difference between the 2 (and just war and euthansia.)
"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals,** it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.**
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Thats pretty clear. You can say there is a consistent ethic of life…but it breaks down when the Pope says that I can support the death penalty but NOT abortion. Of course there is a reason—AN UNBORN CHILD IS INNOCENT…AND A CONVICTED MURDERER IS GUILTY…and the Church has never supported aborion but IT HAS SUPPORTED THE DEATH PENALTY FOR CENTURIES …There is a huge difference practically …and according to the Pope …I wish these pro abortion Catholic politicians would read what the Pope says…

 

[Ender]

It’s hard to see how you can claim a consistent ethic of life with such opposing views. Either you value all life or you have elected to judge.

The phrase “Judge not lest you be judged” does not prohibit all judging any more than the command “Thou shall not kill” prohibits all killing. You may have created what seems to you a consistent ethic of life but it is not in line with what the Church actually teaches.

We, the supporters of the Consistent Life Ethic, affirm that all human life, irrespective of condition or circumstance, is to be valued and reverenced for its own inherent worth, and that all forms of violence against the lives of our fellow humans is morally reprehensible.

Interesting philosophy. We Catholics don’t believe this.

We acknowledge that life has value from conception to natural death, and we are committed to the protection of life from the threats of war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a “seamless garment” of life and we feel called to protect the unprotected through cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect.

We agree that the innocent need to be protected but we recognize that the guilty must be punished and the violent resisted even if it requires deadly force.

Ender

 

[tskrobacz]

The phrase “Judge not lest you be judged” does not prohibit all judging any more than the command “Thou shall not kill” prohibits all killing. You may have created what seems to you a consistent ethic of life but it is not in line with what the Church actually teaches.

Interesting philosophy. We Catholics don’t believe this.

We agree that the innocent need to be protected but we recognize that the guilty must be punished and the violent resisted even if it requires deadly force.

Ender

Some might say that it is in the very act of making exceptions to “Thou shall not kill” that we become complicit with abortion and other “exceptions” - at the very least it is difficult for most people to view it as “consistent”.

 

[teak421]

The issue was raised concerning the execution of innocent people. My response was that more innocent people will die if the guilty are not executed so the absolute numbers are not that important; what is significant is the ratio of the two: innocents executed vs innocents murdered.

This is not an easy calculation to make. After a fair amount of Googling I managed to find some Canadian statistics on the number of civilians killed by people who had been sent to prison once for killing and been released. Adjusting for the difference in size between the Canadian and US populations, if we had similar rates we would see about 45 people a year killed by repeat killers. This number doesn’t include the murders of guards or other prisoners or those killed by escapees.

Balanced against those numbers, if innocent people have been executed (and even those organizations which claim this don’t claim that the numbers are large) it might occur once every 4-5 years. Comparing nothing more than the numbers involved it seems clear that more innocents will die if no murderer is executed than will if more are executed.

Ender

Of course numbers are important… because it informs us to help make more sound and reasonable decisions… not ones simply based on ideology. Part of the critical thinking process is to gather evidence, numbers in this case is evidence.

Your Canadian example is poor and does not prove anything except that Canada should have put them in prison with life without parole. Keep googling!

Its simple, if you want to protect society I am suggest to you that life without parole is a much more cost effective and humane way of doing it. AND, as another poster pointed out, its possible as they sit in their cell they may see their guilt and have true repentance.

Now, if as you say you are after justice then explain why the above paragraph does not meet the justice threshold and protect society AND why the use of the death penalty is a better approach and would have greater outcomes of societal protection.

• Michael

 

[Ender]

Some might say that it is in the very act of making exceptions to “Thou shall not kill” that we become complicit with abortion and other “exceptions” - at the very least it is difficult for most people to view it as “consistent”.

I didn’t make the exceptions, the Church did, so it shouldn’t be difficult for Catholics to view it as consistent.

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Your Canadian example is poor and does not prove anything except that Canada should have put them in prison with life without parole. Keep googling!

I doubt that the Canadian figures are much different than ours; they are probably accurate within an order of magnitude, but I’ll see if I can find some other information. On the other hand, you have no data at all to support your contention; why should you be considered right until proven wrong and I wrong until proven right?

Its simple, if you want to protect society I am suggest to you that life without parole is a much more cost effective and humane way of doing it.

The cost is irrelevant to the question of whether or not more innocent people will die if capital punishment is not used.

AND, as another poster pointed out, its possible as they sit in their cell they may see their guilt and have true repentance.

This is another debatable opinion but again it is not relevant to the point we’re discussing. The article linked to below, however, shows what else they’re able to do while sitting in their cells. Given that there is no proof of even one innocent person being executed while this is definite proof that prisoners can commit murders even from within maximum security prisons, your position looks the weaker of the two.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4525733

Ender

 

[teak421]

I doubt that the Canadian figures are much different than ours; they are probably accurate within an order of magnitude, but I’ll see if I can find some other information. On the other hand, you have no data at all to support your contention; why should you be considered right until proven wrong and I wrong until proven right?

The cost is irrelevant to the question of whether or not more innocent people will die if capital punishment is not used.

This is another debatable opinion but again it is not relevant to the point we’re discussing. The article linked to below, however, shows what else they’re able to do while sitting in their cells. Given that there is no proof of even one innocent person being executed while this is definite proof that prisoners can commit murders even from within maximum security prisons, your position looks the weaker of the two.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4525733

Ender

Ender… You say that my position is weaker then the two, please explain to me what my position is. Once I get that, I’ll respond, but I really need to know that you understand my position. Simply do not cut and paste, but tell me in your own words.

Also, can you and I both agree that objective of this discussion is the protection of society from convicted criminals, correct?

• Michael

 

[Ender]

Ender… You say that my position is weaker then the two, please explain to me what my position is. Once I get that, I’ll respond, but I really need to know that you understand my position. Simply do not cut and paste, but tell me in your own words.

I know you said not to cut and paste but it will help clarify my position. Here is what you said in post #40

1. Explain WHY you believe that statement when a convicted criminal can be put into prison for life without parole? Thus, protecting society. Where you are making a huge mistake is saying: innocent people die IF criminal NOT executed. I reject that completely because we can protect society with other means BESIDES the DP.

You then asked for actual statistics to support the contention I made (bolded above in the original) that you rejected. So, I presume that your position is that imprisonment provides sufficient protection from society even from murderers.

This all started I believe from the objection against the death penalty that an innocent person may be executed, to which I responded that in fact more innocent people die because the death penalty isn’t used enough. This is nothing more than a question of criminal statistics: which number is larger (1) innocents executed, or (2) innocents murdered by murderers serving time in prison. We don’t for a fact know that (1) is greater than zero but we do know for a fact that (2) is.

Also, can you and I both agree that objective of this discussion is the protection of society from convicted criminals, correct?

Yes, this discussion is not about any other objective of punishment than protection.

Ender

 

[teak421]

I know you said not to cut and paste but it will help clarify my position. Here is what you said in post #40

You then asked for actual statistics to support the contention I made (bolded above in the original) that you rejected. So, I presume that your position is that imprisonment provides sufficient protection from society even from murderers.

This all started I believe from the objection against the death penalty that an innocent person may be executed, to which I responded that in fact more innocent people die because the death penalty isn’t used enough. This is nothing more than a question of criminal statistics: which number is larger (1) innocents executed, or (2) innocents murdered by murderers serving time in prison. We don’t for a fact know that (1) is greater than zero but we do know for a fact that (2) is.

Yes, this discussion is not about any other objective of punishment than protection.

Ender

You misstated my position. So, I presume that your position is that imprisonment provides sufficient protection from society even from murderers.

NO! I am saying that LIFE imprisonment without parole will protect society… And, from our exchange I’ve seen nothing to alter my opinion that the death penalty is superior in protecting society over life imprisonment.

• Michael

 

[d97c]

“protecting society” is not the only consideration…If we had caught Hitler and had him in custody, we would have been “protected” from him because Nazism was toast…BUT…if we had caught him, keeping him alive and not trying and executing him would have been a slap in the face of 6 million Jews who were slaughtered…Taking his life would have been the proportional punishment, given his crimes.
Only after John Paul 2 was this “we have to protect society from criminal X” anomaly brought to prime consideration.

 

[yosephdaviyd]

“protecting society” is not the only consideration…If we had caught Hitler and had him in custody, we would have been “protected” from him because Nazism was toast…BUT…if we had caught him, keeping him alive and not trying and executing him would have been a slap in the face of 6 million Jews who were slaughtered…Taking his life would have been the proportional punishment, given his crimes.
Only after John Paul 2 was this “we have to protect society from criminal X” anomaly brought to prime consideration.

You are missing the love of Christ in all of this.

1. We Christians failed Hitler - he wasn’t born hating Jews. Before that we failed his parents who obviously failed to raise him in the way as he should have been. At every year of Hitler’s life we failed to effectively offer him Christ in a deep way that could penetrate his heart.
2. No matter how many people Hitler killed - killing him would not bring them back. It would have been far better for Hitler to live and accept Christ than it would have been for him to be killed out of revenge.
3. Even now we out to be praying for Hitler’s soul and not still trying to kill him. When is the last time you prayed for Hitler’s soul? We have to stop giving up on people. God does not give up on us.

Everything I said here is tough stuff, but the love of Christ demands and commands that you learn how to love when love is hard. For anyone can love when love is easy, but how many of us can love when love is hard? No, it is much easier to run, quit, and kill than it is to love.

 

[d97c]

When was the last time “I prayed for Hitler’s soul??”
…sorry pal…I am reminded of that movie “Cool Hand Luke”
…“What we have here…is a failure to communicate !!!”
For you and me…different strokes for different folks…
C’est la vie

 

[StevenFrancis]

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, nonlethal 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 are 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.NT

 

[teak421]

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, nonlethal 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 are 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.NT

The above is why I’m an idiot! I should have simply quoted that and moved on! I will learn… hopefully

• Michael

 

[d97c]

Yeah…we’ve read that over and over here… and once again Ill quote the current Pope so you can read it …so if He says I can legitimately disagree with the conventional opinion against the death penalty…I will…and I do !!!
Meanwhile, read the many posts we have quoted here that show that this current “protect the bad guy from doing it again” interpretation of the use of the death penalty is considered against CENTURIES of other interpretation of the use of the death penalty…

"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
priestsforlife.org/magist…erommunion.htm

 

[teak421]

Yeah…we’ve read that over and over here… and once again Ill quote the current Pope so you can read it …so if He says I can legitimately disagree with the conventional opinion against the death penalty…I will…and I do !!!
Meanwhile, read the many posts we have quoted here that show that this current “protect the bad guy from doing it again” interpretation of the use of the death penalty is considered against CENTURIES of other interpretation of the use of the death penalty…

"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
priestsforlife.org/magist…erommunion.htm

I must have missed it… don’t remember seeing that CCC quote here in this thread. Also, your conscience is you conscience, not mine. We each have to live with it. My point here was directed at a poster who made a false choice by saying that the only way to protect society is to use the DP. I simply offered other options, mainly, life without parole. If you care, you can review the thread and see what I mean…

• Michael

 

[Ender]

You misstated my position. So, I presume that your position is that imprisonment provides sufficient protection from society even from murderers.

NO! I am saying that LIFE imprisonment without parole will protect society… And, from our exchange I’ve seen nothing to alter my opinion that the death penalty is superior in protecting society over life imprisonment.

People can and have commissioned murders even while incarcerated in a maximum security prison. How does life without parole matter? I don’t know if the particular case I cited involved lifers or not but surely it doesn’t make any difference; the issue has to do with whether we are protected from killers while they are in prison and the answer is clearly no. This doesn’t even address the risk to guards and other inmates or the possibility of escape. There is no possibility that society can be better protected by life sentences; the best you could hope for is that prison is as good as execution, and as the example I provided shows … it isn’t.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My point here was directed at a poster who made a false choice by saying that the only way to protect society is to use the DP. I simply offered other options, mainly, life without parole. If you care, you can review the thread and see what I mean…

I hope the poster you’re referring to here is not me as what you’ve said above is a rather grotesque misstatement of my position. If you think someone has made the claim that the death penalty is the only way to protect society you should quote the post. I’m quite sure that none of mine said that.

Ender