Traditionalism and the Death Penalty

[bilop]

Why is it America seems to have this constant drive to kill people through execution.
The European countries have long abolished capital punishment and the level of murders and violent crimes has not risen because of that. There is no evidence that capital punishment serves as a deterrent.

The U.S. is a much more violent society than Europe, always has been (although the UK is catching up on all non-murder violent crimes). There is also a large amount of violence in prisons.
Even if it is not a deterrent (and I think it is), the specific criminal never murders again. If it is not a deterrent, why do defendents enter into plea bargains to get life imprisonment, instead of the death penalty. That they do so, proves some sort of fear, and at least saves the cost of many murder trials.

God Bless

 

[Matt33]

Why is it America seems to have this constant drive to kill people through execution.
The European countries have long abolished capital punishment and the level of murders and violent crimes has not risen because of that. There is no evidence that capital punishment serves as a deterrent.

Th State of New York (bigger than some european countries) struggles with the death penalty. They do see a lessening of violent crime when it is implemented.(though this is probably due to several factors) To compare Europe and the US on policies is kind of a red herring. Different people, different government. What is true is that rarely is the DP applied with such fairness and certanty that it could be seen as a deterrent. Most states in the US haven’t executed someone in the last 30 years.

 

[Timothysis]

Why is it America seems to have this constant drive to kill people through execution.

Good question. If the energies devoted to having people executed were directed elsewhere there’s no telling what the result would be.

We’ve been through all of this before with saint rafael. His insistence that the death penalty is a “good” and has been the norm for the Church throughout the centuries is laughable at best, and kind of scary at worst. His reassurance that plenty of “traditionalists” favor the death penalty and the calm “don’t worry” is really perplexing, too.

 

[ethelzguy]

I disagree with you on both points.

1. We can imprison for life, but that does not prevent crimes. Violent offenders can, and do, victimize guards and other prisoners. Once the death penalty is off the table, how do you deter those already facing life without parole from killing guards or other prisoners? Also, gang leaders have been able to order murders outside of prison.
2. As Samuel Johnson said “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” I think the prospect of imminent execution is much more likely to lead a prisoner to repentence than a long life in the sinful environs of a prison. In prison he is likely to fall into drug use, sodomy, and violence, while when he knows death is impending, he has every incentive to get right with the Lord.

God Bless

A dead-on commentary

 

[Tommy_Joe]

If called for jury duty and asked to serve in a trial where the death penalty may be used for the sentence, I will do my best to explain to the court that I could NEVER cast a vote for such a sentence. Life in prison without the possibilty of parole would be ok with me,…but I refuse to go to my grave with blood on my hands. Regardless!

Put them in a cell and never let them out. If you say we can’t do that because according to the new laws the prisoner has rights,…then change the laws and do it.
There are, and can be better ways to punish the guilty instead of killing them.

By the way JR I’m gonna print out your first post and keep it if you don’t mind.
That was perfect!

 

[saint_rafael]

catholicapologetics.info/morality/deathpenalty/punishment.htm

The link provides what the Church has always taught, which is that the death penalty is just.

There is a difference between guilty life and innocent life. Guilty life can be taken away. Through punishment, self defense, or war we can take human life.

God through Moses allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament and in the New Testament it continued. In Luke 23:40-42 the criminal on the side of Jesus defended the death penalty as a just punishment.

God never changes. He has always supported the death penalty from Israel to the Western Christendom of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church supported and used the death penalty throught the centuries. It burned heretics at the stake by handing them over to the state.

We can argue whether heresy is a crime that deseves the death penalty, but in that time it was a just punishment according to the Church.
There was no pluralism or religious freedom back then because Catholicism was the official religion and way of life for Christendom. There was no separation between church and state. They both worked together hand in hand.
All Catholic states had the death penalty.

It wasn’t until our modern age after the cultural revolution, that the death penalty became something bad. Due to Atheism and bad philosophy, the traditional teaching has been turned on its head.

 

[Timothysis]

It wasn’t until our modern age after the cultural revolution, that the death penalty became something bad. Due to Atheism and bad philosophy, the traditional teaching has been turned on its head.

So what of slavery, forced marriages, wife/child abuse, substance abuse and a host of other things from the good ole’ days? Is it only until our “modern” that these things have become bad, or should they be allowed because for ages the Church did not speak against them?

Living in the modern world sometimes requires that people look anew at themselves and the world around them. And don’t try to say that I’m suggesting that we abandon the traditional thoughts and practices of the Church. The abuses that we see today do not come close to things that churchmen in ages past have done.

 

[palmas85]

Why is it America seems to have this constant drive to kill people through execution.
The European countries have long abolished capital punishment and the level of murders and violent crimes has not risen because of that. There is no evidence that capital punishment serves as a deterrent.

While true it may not serve as a deterrent, and that is debatable to a degree, at a bare minimum the executed one will never kill again now will he, either in or out of prison?

Europeans have also pretty much abandoned Christianity to a great degree. Would you advocate that we do that as well to be more in line with our more civilized brethren?

 

[Brendan]

Please show in Church documents where it states the the death penalty is “a good.” Taking a human life is NEVER a good. It may be a necessary evil in certain cases (defending oneself or others, just war, etc.) but it is still an objective evil.

Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment� is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Obedience to the 5th Commandment ( and any commandment of God) is always a ‘good’.

Likewise, repressing outrage and violence are also good things.

 

[JReducation]

This

**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 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 non-existent.” (CCC)**

Does not contradict this

Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment� is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. (Trent)

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Chatter163]

What about the significant number of cases where death row inmates have been exonerated, due to DNA evidence that was unavailable at the time of their conviction?

 

[Adonis33]

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 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 non-existent.” (CCC)

Given all the crimes we have seen in the prison system, it seems to me that non-lethal means are not sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.

 

[Adonis33]

What about the significant number of cases where death row inmates have been exonerated, due to DNA evidence that was unavailable at the time of their conviction?

Interesting point.

However - now that we use DNA, the likelyhood of somebody being wrongfully convicted are non-existent.

 

[Tommy_Joe]

Interesting point.

However - now that we use DNA, the likelyhood of somebody being wrongfully convicted are non-existent.

Not so fast there my friend:

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109568,00.html

Locally, we lived through this little mess for several years, it happens,…and in time will happen again.

 

[thistle]

While true it may not serve as a deterrent, and that is debatable to a degree, at a bare minimum the executed one will never kill again now will he, either in or out of prison?

Europeans have also pretty much abandoned Christianity to a great degree. Would you advocate that we do that as well to be more in line with our more civilized brethren?

Well I don’t agree with your second paragraph but that is not for this thread.

As to the first I agree with the Church when it states that executing someone deprives them the opportunity of salvation.

 

[palmas85]

Well I don’t agree with your second paragraph but that is not for this thread.

As to the first I agree with the Church when it states that executing someone deprives them the opportunity of salvation.

The Church says that executing someone deprives them of the chance for salvation? Where exactly does it say that? I have never even heard that one before.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Here we go again…

( @ JR Education ): What do you think ?.. It’s uncanny the way this thread resembles another which had to be yanked by the mods (esp. since Brother Azariah has re-joined to voice his comments). The lack of insults this time around are a nice touch though. Good job everyone …Deja vu?

Here’s something that was posted in the other thread also, from the prophet Ezekiel. Interpret it as you wish:

Ezekiel 33: 10-11

"… Answer them: As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live. Turn, turn from your evil ways ! Why should you die, O house of Israel?"

Whatever side of the discussion we find ourselves on, we need to be vigilant, to ensure our intentions aren’t inordinately influenced…especially if we hear money mentioned; for example:

• How many times have we heard the cost of the Iraq war referred to in terms of dollars instead of lives ?
• It seems to be becoming more popular here in Canada to mention that it costs $ 66,000.00 per year for the care of one prisoner in the penal system. This in turn gives rise to feelings of contempt in many of the taxpayers towards our imprisoned criminals .
• I saw a documentary about 7 years ago where a new super hospital was built in China for organ transplants. The patients who came for the transplants were mostly european and north american. Guess where they procured the organs?.. From the prisoners ! The documentary actually had footage of prisoners being led into a yard w/hands tied behind their backs being told to kneel and then being (I think the word executed fits here) shot with one bullet in the back of the head so their organs could be harvested. The prisoners were told they could pay their “debt” to society this way.

Matthew 5:7 …

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is an interesting discussion. Personally, I think Pope John Paul II’s position has to be developed more. It almost seems to boil down to, “You can’t execute anyone, unless you don’t have the proper facilities.”

Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote an interesting article on the Death Penalty where he gives a brief overview of the development of the opposition to it:

"The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. When death came to be understood as the ultimate evil rather than as a stage on the way to eternal life, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham found it easy to dismiss capital punishment as “useless annihilation.”

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a “moral revolution” on the issue of capital punishment."

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

 

[JReducation]

This is an interesting discussion. Personally, I think Pope John Paul II’s position has to be developed more. It almost seems to boil down to, “You can’t execute anyone, unless you don’t have the proper facilities.”

Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote an interesting article on the Death Penalty where he gives a brief overview of the development of the opposition to it:

"The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. When death came to be understood as the ultimate evil rather than as a stage on the way to eternal life, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham found it easy to dismiss capital punishment as “useless annihilation.”

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a “moral revolution” on the issue of capital punishment."

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

I’m wondering if Cardnal Dulles is really arguing the abolition of the death penalty or the inconsistency in many modern societies and minds, that are against the death penalty because it’s inhumane.

I believe the Cardinal states the problem well. When you argue the death penalty from a purely humanistic point of view, you can do anything you want with other moral issues.

But when you look at it from the perspective of scripture and Church teaching, then you are committed to applying those same moral principles to ther issues, the biggest being abortion.

I don’t think that the Cardinal is arguing so much in defense of the death penalty, but in defence of Christian morality. The European Union is an example of a society where the death penalty was abolished, but abortion is almost mandated.

In many Middle Eastern countries the death penalty is their daily bread, while abortion is strictly condemned.

When you fall of the evangelical track, you have inconsistencies which are difficult to reconcile.

If one reads both the statements of Trent and the statement of the CCC, they don’t contradict each other. Neither abolishes the death penalty. Both call for a judicious application. The only new element that the CCC has added is the fact that today we have better and more resources to protect the innocent than ever before.

Both documents are very consistent with the scriptures and the interpretation that the Church has applied to the scriptures. Whereas, the “humanitarian” movement is guided by a false sense of morality, because it’s a fabricated sense of morality.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense. I hope so.

JR

 

[NeedImprovement]

Within the last 5 or 6 months I read an article in the newspaper here reporting on a criminal who was given the death penalty ( in the USA). Apparently this criminal had been convicted of murdering another man.

There was a family member of the victim in attendance at the execution (…can’t say for certain but I believe it was the victim’s sister). The article went on to say that as the sister watched the criminal being executed, she screamed out at him, “Die you bastard!”

When I read that, it struck me that she needs our prayers as much if not more than the murderer does.