Wanting Death Penalty

[HabemusFrancis]

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…

 

[RyanBlack]

The Church does not forbid the death penalty.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Really?

I have been told for ages that the Church held death penalty bad only in absolutely necessary cases (i.e terrorist ordering bombings from his prison cell)

 

[Forkfoot]

Different Catholics have different perspectives on the death penalty, and the line of demarcation generally looks like it falls along the lines of personal ideologies and how invested people are in their own political parties. There’s no hard-line doctrine forbidding the death penalty in Catholicism like there is for abortion and euthanasia, so Catholics will generally line up on that issue the way their favorite talking heads on TV tell them to and use whatever Catholic writings support that position to justify it.

 

[Della]

Really?

I have been told for ages that the Church held death penalty bad only in absolutely necessary cases (i.e terrorist ordering bombings from his prison cell)

Paragraphs from the Catechism on the death penalty: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=death+penalty&s=SS.

The death penalty is imposed by governments, so it is up to governments to decide if they are warranted or needed. The Church merely urges governments to try other means of punishment before resorting to the death penalty. Unlike abortion or euthanasia, it is not intrinsically evil, but should be avoided whenever posssible.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Exodus 20:13
Deuteronomy 5:17
Thou shalt not kill

Matthew 5:21
You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

 

[Della]

Exodus 20:13
Deuteronomy 5:17
Thou shalt not kill

The intent being we are not to commit murder. Just war and executions do not come under this law.

Matthew 5:21
You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

Again, it’s murder. Jesus is reminding us of this and to not harbor anger against others in our hearts against others because that leads to murder, either of the body or of repudation.

We must follow what the Church tells us about these things not interpret them for ourselves.

 

[outfctrl]

Suppose you are on the jury for Jodie Arias? It has to be unanimous for the death penalty. The jurors are still deliberating. If you selected the death penalty, the guilt of murdering someone would haunt you the rest of your life and it would seem to me that it would be a grave mortal sin. You are actually agreeing to murder someone.

Thou shalt not kill.

You are killing someone, no matter how heinous the crime was from the defendant.

Being a Catholic or even another denomination, you live by the commandments.

Thoughts?

 

[FrancisBenedict]

’’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… The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere… The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

— Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Rence]

Suppose you are on the jury for Jodie Arias? It has to be unanimous for the death penalty. The jurors are still deliberating. If you selected the death penalty, the guilt of murdering someone would haunt you the rest of your life and it would seem to me that it would be a grave mortal sin. You are actually agreeing to murder someone.

Thou shalt not kill.

You are killing someone, no matter how heinous the crime was from the defendant.

Being a Catholic or even another denomination, you live by the commandments.

Thoughts?

Killing and murdering, by definition, are illegal. Using the fake arguments such as misrepresenting legal executions as “murder” and “thou shalt not kill” does nothing to move forward the discussion. No juror, law enforcement agent, or judge, etc. is guilty of murder by selecting the death penalty. The only guilty party is the one convicted of the crime. In addition, the Church does NOT forbid the death penalty but defers to the State while encouraging other means to protect citizens -IF possible. Again, misrepresenting what the Church teaches prevents advancement of meaningful discussion.

 

[St_Francis]

Different Catholics have different perspectives on the death penalty, and the line of demarcation generally looks like it falls along the lines of personal ideologies and how invested people are in their own political parties. There’s no hard-line doctrine forbidding the death penalty in Catholicism like there is for abortion and euthanasia, so Catholics will generally line up on that issue the way their favorite talking heads on TV tell them to and use whatever Catholic writings support that position to justify it.

However, there are some who have actually considered different aspects of the question and come to their own conclusions, so just because someone has an opinion on the issue does not mean they have only relied on their favorite political pundits to form their opinions, even if the opinion seems very similar to that of one political way of thinking or another.

Here is an article in First Things which considers the role of justice in the death penalty. I bring it up because I have seen very little Catholic material on that side and there is lots explaining the position outlined in the CCC.

 

[kelvinf]

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…

How is killing someone justice to a family? Have the continuous use of the death penalty in some countries stop murderers and terrorists?

Too bad that in Britain you can’t kill a murderer? And you are mad about it? Gee

 

[Baelor]

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.

We never forfeit the right to live. Would you be willing to carry out the sentence? Would you be willing to look someone in the eye and tell him that there is no hope, that he is beyond redemption? Who are you to do what God is unwilling to?

The Church does not forbid the death penalty.

Killing and murdering, by definition, are illegal. Using the fake arguments such as misrepresenting legal executions as “murder” and “thou shalt not kill” does nothing to move forward the discussion.

The opposition to the death penalty does not depend on its legal status. The fact that a government recognizes it as sanctioned murder does not make it any less murder (assuming it is in the first place). Legal theft is still theft. Legal discrimination is still discrimination.

No juror, law enforcement agent, or judge, etc. is guilty of murder by selecting the death penalty. The only guilty party is the one convicted of the crime.

Not true. The juror or whatever is condemning someone to death. The guilty party may not have even done anything morally wrong. Are you willing to send someone to his death?

In addition, the Church does NOT forbid the death penalty but defers to the State while encouraging other means to protect citizens -IF possible. Again, misrepresenting what the Church teaches prevents advancement of meaningful discussion.

The Church teaches that the death penalty is only permissible if there is no other recourse. That is not the same thing as deferring to the state. The Church simply does not make claims about individual circumstances, in keeping with Her teaching on almost any other moral subject.

The idea that the USA is justly executing its citizens is absurd. It is obvious that the death penalty is not necessary, and is thus immoral.

 

[Baelor]

Here is an article in First Things which considers the role of justice in the death penalty. I bring it up because I have seen very little Catholic material on that side and there is lots explaining the position outlined in the CCC.

While the article mentions punishment in a broad sense, it is clear that any consideration of retribution, justice, deterrence, etc. are all actually irrelevant in the case of the death penalty:

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.

Does the Church consider how heinous the crime was? How often it was committed? How effective a deterrent the execution would be on other unjust aggressors? No.

Those considerations are irrelevant when considering the morality of the death penalty.

 

[TomD123]

The death penalty is not intrinsically immoral, meaning that in some cases the government has a right to use it.

When exactly is a matter of debate. But how to apply general principals in specific situations is a matter of free opinion, discussion, and personal prudential judgment.

To say otherwise is to go against 2000 years of Church Tradition, Scripture, St. Thomas and the other doctors, the Magisterium, etc.

 

[Fairwinds]

Really?

I have been told for ages that the Church held death penalty bad only in absolutely necessary cases (i.e terrorist ordering bombings from his prison cell)

even then, the anti-DPers will find a way to hand wave the necessity away.

 

[Fairwinds]

How is killing someone justice to a family? Have the continuous use of the death penalty in some countries stop murderers and terrorists?..

strawman argument. criminal punishment brings justice to the public, not to individuals.

every murderer and terrorist executed has never committed an act of terror or murdered anyone again. QED

 

[otjm]

How is killing someone justice to a family?

Unless and until one has had a spouse, child, parent or other family member murdered, this is only a question that can be asked speculatively, and then without any real-world experience.

Sister Helen Prejean has written about this, and I recall one particular set of parents (I think they were the parents of the girl killed in the book Dead Man Walking). She certainly tells a story of two parents who did not find justice in the execution of the murderer of their daughter; or perhaps it would be better to say, they did not find peace, reconciliation and healing.

It would be simplistic, however, to go from one example to any universal. There are families who feel, right down to their roots, that the person who wrongfully took the life of their family member would be permanently sneering (to put it as politely and mildly as I can) should they not be executed. There is, in some people (many, actually) a very strict sense of justice.

I am not suggesting that there is not a better way to resolve the matter; but there certainly is a very clear and strict sense that someone who murders another forfeits their right to life.

Have the continuous use of the death penalty in some countries stop murderers and terrorists?

this is a question based on a false logical premise.

To begin with it is absolutely clear that the murderer who is executed will not kill again.

But the rest of the question goes something like this: " A" murders someone and is executed. “C”, after the execution, murders someone. Therefore, the execution of “A” does not stop murderers.

That is false logic, as it does not address whether “B”, or “D”, or any number of other individuals chose to not murder someone when they may have been in a position to do so, or that it did not deter them from getting into such a position. And it is almost impossible to prove a negative unless some of those individuals come forward. Thus people make the assumption that executions do not deter murderers.

There are countries with different judicial systems than ours, and at least some of them have lower capital crimes than we do. They also execute a lot faster than our system does.

I do not suggest that we would want to go to those systems, but the answer seems to be that swift executions seem to be at least part of the reason they have less capital crime.

Too bad that in Britain you can’t kill a murderer? And you are mad about it? Gee

 

[Fairwinds]

Unless and until one has had a spouse, child, parent or other family member murdered, this is only a question that can be asked speculatively, and then without any real-world experience.

except you really don’t want to connect punishment for public crimes to a sense or purpose of individual justice.

 

[otjm]

Suppose you are on the jury for Jodie Arias? It has to be unanimous for the death penalty. The jurors are still deliberating. If you selected the death penalty, the guilt of murdering someone would haunt you the rest of your life and it would seem to me that it would be a grave mortal sin. You are actually agreeing to murder someone.

Thou shalt not kill.

You are killing someone, no matter how heinous the crime was from the defendant.

Being a Catholic or even another denomination, you live by the commandments.

Thoughts?

My understanding of a correct translation of the Jewish commandment is “Thou shalt not kill an innocent person”.

That changes the complexion of the discussion. Simplistic phrases do not result in cogent answers (and I am not saying you are simplistic; only that the translation you quote is).