Wanting Death Penalty

[Ridgerunner]

2266 states that “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.”…“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.” So how is that (rehabilitation) compartible with the death penalty?

The death penalty is obsolete because in this age, it is not the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Wasn’t it Samuel Johnson who said (probably paraphrasing) “nothing so wonderfully clears the mind as the prospect of one’s own imminent hanging…”? We don’t know who goes to heaven or hell more often; those who live long lives in prison or those who are executed. But knowing the day and the hour, one could argue, would have a powerful psychological effect as it draws near. Even Ted Bundy acknowledged the justice and propriety of his execution toward the end. He said if he were not executed, he would kill again if given the opportunity.

One cannot seriously argue that the death penalty is NOT the only possible way of effectively defending human lives in some circumstances, since there are murders, rapes and maimings in prison and ordered from prison to the outside. That is, in fact, one of the things that makes the Aryan Brotherhood so powerful. It is well known to order killings from prison and in prison; killings that are relentlessly carried out.

Having said that, I will disclose that I oppose the death penalty because JPII did. I oppose it out of respect for him. But it still seems to me his statement about the virtual non-existence of the necessity for CP left out a step. It would be true if prisons were sufficiently secure, and perhaps that was his mesne, but unspoken, message…that if we devoted the resources to it, we could make them sufficiently secure so that there would be no need for CP. But we manifestly have not done that.

 

[Ender]

The Church does not take it literally vis-a-vis capital punishment. That suggestion would mean that the CCC contradicts itself. Is that what you are saying?

The catechism would contradict itself if 2267 was not a prudential judgment, but since that passage deals with the application of capital punishment and not the punishment itself there is no contradiction. The church has always recognized that practical considerations could present exceptions to the rule.

And as EV stated, the OT did not include a full awareness of the sanctity of life as understood by the Church.

The general statement in EV says nothing about the particular passage under discussion. In fact that statement is regularly cited by the church as an explanation of the source of man’s dignity.The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6). (JPII)

No, it is not. I never claimed it called for capital punishment.

You said in an earlier post (in regard to Gn 9:6) that “we are not required to interpret every passage literally.” What could you have intended other than “the literal meaning of the passage is to call for capital punishment?” If that’s not what the words mean then why worry about whether we interpret them literally or poetically?

The Church teaches that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral. It is not, however, morally permissible unless no other recourse is available.

Are we morally justified in executing someone when “no other recourse is available” by which we may protect ourselves even if that person has not yet committed a capital crime?

It is an encyclical and the CCC is the most recent catechism. If you are willing to dismiss them, we have nothing more to discuss.

I haven’t dismissed them; I am explaining what they mean and using church documents to defend my position. If Cardinal Dulles believed 2267 was a prudential judgment then that is surely a serious position and cannot justifiably be simply dismissed.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Certainly, OT teachings are necessary for all time. That is why we still have the OT in the bible and still read some of those books in Church. However, we are no longer subject to some OT laws. There was an old covenant between God and man (as mentioned in 2260). The first coming of Christ was a fulfillment of the new covenant between God and man.

I think you should be very careful about claiming that God’s earlier covenants have been abrogated and are no longer relevant.58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.

2266 states that “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.”…“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.” So how is that (rehabilitation) compartible with the death penalty?

You cannot overlook the caveat* “as far as possible”*. This means that rehabilitation cannot be the primary concern. Nor for that matter is protection. The “primary aim” is and always has been “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” Plainly put, that is retributive justice.

The death penalty is obsolete because in this age, it is not the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Capital punishment can never become obsolete because its use is not dependent on the need for protection but on the need for justice and a just punishment is one that is of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime … and the severity of the crime is fixed by the fixed nature of the sacredness of human life.*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). *(Fr. John Hardon)

Ender

 

[Ender]

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times.

Thank you for your comments. On this point the change has been radical and recent. “Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful.” (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)

many are of the opinion that this teaching should be revisited and that Holy Mother Church should dispel any uncertainty and clarify definitively its position on this most weighty matter.

I agree; this issue really does need to be clarified.

we have almost completely lost sight of just retribution as a concept and have come to view it as something unworthy and wrapped up with vengeance.

I agree with this as well and see it as something that 2267 has fostered. The understanding that a person who sins deserves to be punished is being lost and with it any sense of the true meaning of justice.

Ender

 

[Baelor]

The catechism would contradict itself if 2267 was not a prudential judgment, but since that passage deals with the application of capital punishment and not the punishment itself there is no contradiction.

You are not reading it closely enough:

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.

The traditional teaching of the Church, as stated by the CCC, does not exclude recourse if the written condition is met. This is not a prudential judgment but a moral one, as the subsequent section in the Catechism explains.

The general statement in EV says nothing about the particular passage under discussion. In fact that statement is regularly cited by the church as an explanation of the source of man’s dignity.

Yes, which is exactly how it is used in the CCC, not as a timeless mandate for capital punishment in cases of murder.

[/INDENT] You said in an earlier post (in regard to Gn 9:6) that “we are not required to interpret every passage literally.” What could you have intended other than “the literal meaning of the passage is to call for capital punishment?” If that’s not what the words mean then why worry about whether we interpret them literally or poetically?

i.e. we are not meant to interpret the passage as a timeless mandate for capital punishment in cases of murder, as I said.

Are we morally justified in executing someone when “no other recourse is available” by which we may protect ourselves even if that person has not yet committed a capital crime?

Yes.

I haven’t dismissed them; I am explaining what they mean and using church documents to defend my position. If Cardinal Dulles believed 2267 was a prudential judgment then that is surely a serious position and cannot justifiably be simply dismissed.

2267 includes prudential and moral judgments. One need not dismiss his opinion.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Are we morally justified in executing someone when “no other recourse is available” by which we may protect ourselves even if that person has not yet committed a capital crime?

Yes.

I think this position is logically consistent with the way you interpret 2267 but it should be apparent that this would allow the state to be unjust.On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment (Aquinas)
We may not punish someone except for sinning and we may surely not punish someone before he sins or to prevent sins. Beyond that, the punishment we apply to a crime cannot be more than the crime deserves.Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity (Ibid)

*Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, *(Ibid)
We may not, therefore, execute a person for any reason whatever unless he has committed a capital crime.

2267 includes prudential and moral judgments. One need not dismiss his opinion.

I have not dismissed his opinion; I have disagreed with it and the fact that it is a prudential judgment gives me that right.*Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Dulles)
Ender

 

[Baelor]

I think this position is logically consistent with the way you interpret 2267 but it should be apparent that this would allow the state to be unjust

Let us be clear on our terms: define “capital crime.” If we define it as crime that incurs capital punishment in the US, yes. If we define it as sin in general that could incur a capital punishment, no.

We may not punish someone except for sinning and we may surely not punish someone before he sins or to prevent sins.

Agreed.

Beyond that, the punishment we apply to a crime cannot be more than the crime deserves.Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity (Ibid)

Agreed.

We may not, therefore, execute a person for any reason whatever unless he has committed a capital crime.

Which is tautological if we define a capital crime as something that incurs capital punishment. Please define “capital crime.”

I have not dismissed his opinion; I have disagreed with it and the fact that it is a prudential judgment gives me that right.

The right does not exist because it is not merely the prudential judgment of a pontiff but a moral teaching binding on all Catholics.

Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

It is not a prudential judgment. The precondition of having no other recourse is a moral imperative.

 

[Portrait]

Wasn’t it Samuel Johnson who said (probably paraphrasing) “nothing so wonderfully clears the mind as the prospect of one’s own imminent hanging…”? We don’t know who goes to heaven or hell more often; those who live long lives in prison or those who are executed. But knowing the day and the hour, one could argue, would have a powerful psychological effect as it draws near. Even Ted Bundy acknowledged the justice and propriety of his execution toward the end. He said if he were not executed, he would kill again if given the opportunity.

Dear Ridgerunner,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good observation, that.

It is oftentimes remarked that the problem with capital punishment is that it forecloses the possibility that a man might repent and make his peace with God. However, this rather seems to assume that each person has a right to determine the exact time when he will make his final decision to repent and believe the Gospel of Christ. Life is uncertain, and decisions concerning our spiritual welfare cannot and should not be delayed at our own leisure. Did not God say to the rich and complacent fool, “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee…” (S. Luke. 12: 20).

Yes, dear friend, as the day of execution draws nigh it can have a powerful psychological effect, just like you say. Indeed, rather than foreclosing the possibility of salvation, the reality of the death penalty forces the convicted man to ponder eternal realities and his destiny, which can surely be seen as something very beneficial. Perhaps another reason why God instituted the death penalty was for the benefit of the murderer to shock him into a state of penitence, even at the eleventh hour, by the immediate prospect of death and judgment to come. The death penalty reminds the murderer, in a way that life imprisonment cannot, of that grim but inescapable truth that “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement” (Heb. 9: 27).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[CompSciGuy]

I know Church forbids the death penalty, yet I find myself struggling with that teaching.

There have been some pretty terrible attacks in the past year and half. The batman shooting spree, sandy hook, the boston bombing, and now, that poor british soldier.

I feel that the death penalty should be applied to the perpetrators of 3/4 of the above ones both as justice to the families and a deterrance against future agressors. Like, if you kill someone you forfeit the right to live.

I think, especially in the cases of islamic extremism that future perpetrators would think twice before doing something like that. I think if it works, if it would prevent murderers and terrorists from acting out, it should be applied in some cases. Seems too bad that in Britain, you cannot kill a murderer no matter what .

What does anyone else think? Im pretty sure I will be spirtually corrected…

Let me ask you something. If we did apply the death penalty, what would it accomplish? Would it bring the victims back from the dead? First let me address your statement:

“I feel that the death penalty should be applied to the perpetrators of 3/4 of the above ones both as justice to the families and a deterrance against future agressors. Like, if you kill someone you forfeit the right to live.”

Here you will meet the opposition of “your feelings” versus “the teachings of the Church.” It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that all human life is inherently sacred and valuable no matter what that person has done. So according to Catholic teaching it is unjust to kill this person. Now to address:

“I think, especially in the cases of islamic extremism that future perpetrators would think twice before doing something like that. I think if it works, if it would prevent murderers and terrorists from acting out, it should be applied in some cases. Seems too bad that in Britain, you cannot kill a murderer no matter what .”

First of all, statistically there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. Second of all, in case you haven’t noticed, people have been willing to commit suicide in order to perform an act of terror. Look at 9/11, Al-Quaeda, etc. These men are motivated by Jihad. I don’t think that death is a sufficient deterrent to stop such terrorists.

Finally I would like to give you a homework assignment. In the first book of Plato’s Republic, there is a brief discourse between Socrates and another man (I forget the name) about the nature of justice: Socrates’ opponent claims that justice is “to do good to your friends and evil to your enemies.” Socrates, in his usual fashion, uses his opponent’s own reasoning to counter the argument. I would encourage you to read this dialogue.

 

[Fairwinds]

Let me ask you something. If we did apply the death penalty, what would it accomplish? Would it bring the victims back from the dead? First let me address your statement:

thanks for illustrating a strawman argument.

…

First of all, statistically there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. Second of all, in case you haven’t noticed, people have been willing to commit suicide in order to perform an act of terror. Look at 9/11, Al-Quaeda, etc…

it prevents incarcerated killers from ordering deaths on the outside from inside prison, as has happened, because prisons cannot be made so secure and consistent with constitutional law that passing information to and from convicts is preventable. only the willfully ignorant or those who place a higher value on a killers’ life than their future victims can ignore instances where this has happened.

 

[Ender]

Let us be clear on our terms: define “capital crime.”

A capital crime would include murder but would not be limited to that alone. If it simplifies things for this discussion I would be (temporarily) willing to stipulate that a capital crime means murder. So let’s go back to your answer that the state would be justified in executing someone who has not yet committed a murder in order to prevent him from committing one. How is it possible to justify punishing someone more harshly than his crime would allow? It really is difficult to sustain the idea that it would be acceptable to punish a person to prevent a crime in a way that would not be justifiable if he in fact committed the crime.

It is not a prudential judgment. The precondition of having no other recourse is a moral imperative.

Not unless we accept that the teachings about punishment have changed and that what was just said in 2266 no longer applies in 2267. Either “redressing the disorder” is the primary objective of punishment or it isn’t, but if it is then protecting society cannot determine the degree of punishment because it is only a secondary objective.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The traditional teaching of the Church, as stated by the CCC, does not exclude recourse if the written condition is met. This is not a prudential judgment but a moral one, as the subsequent section in the Catechism explains.

I missed this statement before but did mean to comment on it.

In fact the statement in 2267 about the traditional teaching of the church is inaccurate. The church never restricted the use of capital punishment to whether it was necessary to protect the public. I can cite a half dozen earlier catechisms plus the comments of any number of popes, Doctors, and Fathers of the church and in none of them will you find any reference to such a restriction. I would challenge you to find a single example of this “traditional teaching.”*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Prof Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)
Ender

 

[Ender]

If we did apply the death penalty, what would it accomplish? Would it bring the victims back from the dead?

Since no punishment will resurrect the dead this is an argument against punishment in any form. To the question of “what would it accomplish” the answer is simple: it would satisfy the obligation of justice.

“Like, if you kill someone you forfeit the right to live.”
Here you will meet the opposition of “your feelings” versus “the teachings of the Church.”

Actually, his feelings are in line with the teachings of the church. *“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” *(Pius XII)

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that all human life is inherently sacred and valuable no matter what that person has done. So according to Catholic teaching it is unjust to kill this person.

This belief is not only not according to church teaching but has actually been considered heresy.One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day* is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise** magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. *(St. Bellarmine)

First of all, statistically there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

Sure there is. The question is still open as to the extent of the deterrence but there is surely evidence that some people are deterred. Evidence is different than proof.

In the first book of Plato’s Republic, there is a brief discourse between Socrates and another man (I forget the name) about the nature of justice: Socrates’ opponent claims that justice is “to do good to your friends and evil to your enemies.” Socrates, in his usual fashion, uses his opponent’s own reasoning to counter the argument.

The church teaches both that the individual is prohibited from taking vengeance and that the state is obligated to do so. Socrates argument is irrelevant to the question of what the state is required to do.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties …(CCC 2266)
Ender

 

[kykid]

When I used to be a heathen, I supported the death penalty wholeheartedly for any of a number of crimes.

When I became a catholic, I revisited all of my prior opinions in light of my new faith. The death penalty was one of the first positions to fall. God gives life and only He has the right to take life. This goes for abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia, suicide, as well as the death penalty.

This new position of mine was solidified by the fact that convictions are routinely overturned for errors on the part of witnesses, prosecuting attorneys, judges, etc. When someone is executed, it is too late to correct such errors when discovered. Whereas, when the punishment is life in prison, the injustice can be corrected easily without spilling innocent blood.

It is further solidified when one considers the weight of punishment of death vs life in prison. In my mind, I would rather die than exist in prison for life. The call is not even close.

 

[Forkfoot]

More interested on peoples thoughts after viewing this link.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

In order to believe that in spite of all the dozens and dozens of people who have been ruled incorrectly convicted of capital crimes in a court of law, there haven’t been innocents who have fallen through the cracks, you would have to believe that there’s some sort of supernatural force protecting the integrity of the death penalty. In other words, in order to believe that we have never executed an innocent, you would have to be a moron.

 

[BlaineTog]

And yet it is the rarest of exceptions that a criminal will actually serve their entire sentence.

So you would advocate for the death penalty to prevent the possibility of rehabilitation?

Regardless, your argument is specious. Any criminal up for the death penalty could instead be given life without the possibility of parole.

 

[Forkfoot]

Yes, dear friend, as the day of execution draws nigh it can have a powerful psychological effect, just like you say. Indeed, rather than foreclosing the possibility of salvation, the reality of the death penalty forces the convicted man to ponder eternal realities and his destiny, which can surely be seen as something very beneficial.

Heck, we should sentence EVERYONE to death then!

 

[Forkfoot]

Until the system can improve to such a degree that the criminal is rendered incapable of harming another without actually using the death penalty, the death penalty will still be called for.

You cannot predict with anything even approaching certainty whether someone who has murdered will murder again. If we’re to execute people due to statistical probability of future acts of violence, we should start executing all male victims of child abuse, too.

Anyway our judicial system doesn’t work like that. Criminals are sentenced to death based on the severity of the crime(s) they committed, not on the probability that they’ll kill again. So it doesn’t even make sense to use this incredibly flawed argument in the first place.

 

[vz71]

You cannot predict with anything even approaching certainty whether someone who has murdered will murder again.

I don’t need to.
One murder is sufficient evidence that they are a danger to the public.

If we’re to execute people due to statistical probability of future acts of violence, we should start executing all male victims of child abuse, too.

No one suggested that.
What has been suggested is precisely what the CCC calls for.
Execution when there is no other means.

Anyway our judicial system doesn’t work like that. Criminals are sentenced to death based on the severity of the crime(s) they committed, not on the probability that they’ll kill again. So it doesn’t even make sense to use this incredibly flawed argument in the first place.

It is the argument provided by our church.
You may disapprove if you wish.
However, it does have the virtue of not being a straw man, which is what seems to be tossed about with regularity when the case is weak.

 

[Forkfoot]

I have yet to read a single intelligent argument for the death penalty being applied in a practical way in a developed nation. People seem to come up with argument after argument to justify their desire to satify their baser instincts by killing those who kill, but IMO if you find yourself laboring to justify something, it’s probably not all that just.

Vengeance/retribution- Stupid.
“But the Church sed we could!”- Stupid.
Deterrent- Stupid and categorically disproved.
No innocents have ever been executed- Stupid and wrong.
It helps sanctify the killer- Stupid.
It protects society from future acts of violence- Stupid and not applied in practice, as I described above.

Am I forgetting any?