Wanting Death Penalty

[bobballen_18]

OK, I didn’t read all of the responses, just FYI.

Isn’t it true that the Church teaches the death penalty should only be used when no other means of justice are possible, or if the guilty party can’t be contained any other way? Or something like that? It seems to me that there is never, ever a situation in which the guilty party cannot be contained - i.e., he could be given a life sentence in jail. Maybe I don’t have the correct understanding of the options of what a sentence could be.

I certainly couldn’t kill anyone, no matter what they’ve done. Some people may say to me, “well, you haven’t had a family member killed…” or something similar. I suppose that’s a true statement that is worth some thought, but I still maintain that I personally could never, ever kill anyone (except for self defense and if I were serving at war, and even those would be difficult), no matter what they had done to me or a loved one.

Of course this is somewhat subjective, but I don’t think anyone deserves to be killed. Obviously some means of containing the person or punishing the person must be carried out, but I don’t think that should ever entail executing someone.

Those are thoughts…I know, I should become more knowledgeable on the exact teaching of the Church in this matter.

 

[Fairwinds]

… It seems to me that there is never, ever a situation in which the guilty party cannot be contained - i.e., he could be given a life sentence in jail. …

and you’d be wrong for making that assumption. there are examples in the thread on how life without parole did not guarantee and can not guarantee the safety of the public in a few instances. be sure to find the FBI report on this.

 

[Baelor]

However, public reparation, as in the case the death penalty, is when legitimate authority passes sentence upon an evil person who has murdered his fellow-man, made in the image of God (Gen. 9: 6).

Yet the death penalty is not permitted as retributive justice. The CCC makes this clear.

Capital punishment for murder was mandated by God (Gen. 9: 6) because a just order is disturbed by murder and only the death of the murderer can restore that justice.

THAT IS EXPLICITLY CONTRARY TO CHURCH TEACHING.

Portrait, you have now stepped WAY out of line by contradicting Church teaching explicitly:

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 more in conformity with 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.” **

 

[Portrait]

As Christians, “an eye for an eye” is not what we believe or should believe in. Christ said that the greatest commandment is LOVE…

Not wanting the death penalty is not about forgetting/ignoring/having no sympathy for victims. It is about not going down to the level of people who do terrible deeds, it is about not affirming a culture of violence.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and thankyou for your response.

St. Paul, dear sister, would have agreed, as do all Christians, that the greatest commandment is love and he exhorted the Romans: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord " (12: 19). Notwithstanding, this did not preclude the apostle from saying that the state, as “the minister of God”, is charged with a function which has been explicitly forbidden to private individuals, (Rom. 12: 17a, 19). The lawful civil government “beareth not the sword in vain” and is “the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13: 4). As God’s legitimate agent the state is invested with the power to inflict punishment, including the death penalty, for it “beareth not the sword in vain”. It is the minister of the justice of God, for the punishment which it inflicts is actually the expression of the righteous anger of God against evil-doing.

If we say that inflicting capital punishment is stooping to the level of those who perpetrate the heinous crime of murder, then surely, dear sister, we impugn God’s character, for it was He who mandated the death penalty at the first (Gen 9: 4). Moreover, are we really to believe that by instituting the death penalty for murder, long before the Mosaic Law, I may add, God was only “affirming a culture of violence”? The death penalty for murder was commanded because man is made in the image of God, indeed, it is man’s creation in the image of God that gives the whole rationale for capital punishment. Since there has been no suspension of man being in the image of God, the rationale given for the death penalty in Genesis. 9: 6 is as true today as it was in the days of Noah. Thus whilst the detailed provisions of the criminal code of Israel are no longer binding under the New Covenant, the mandate of Genesis 9: 6 requiring the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

the mandate of Genesis 9: 6 requiring the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity.

This is explicit against Church teaching.

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 more in conformity with 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.”

 

[BellsMom]

I say, fry 'em up!

Yes because god WANTS us to kill people.

 

[Northumbrian]

Yes because god WANTS us to kill people.

We have lost the way.

Surely there is enough death?

The Holy See has taught us.

Cannot we listen?

Then what is obedience?

 

[severus68]

in the very few cases in which the CCC approves of the DP, knee-jerk opposition to the DP requires “forgetting/ignoring/having no sympathy” for future victims, because it is a fact that people will die because the prison system is unable to protect society from some convicts.

It does for the vast majority.

 

[severus68]

A judicial system actively executing an innocent person is in my book far, far more unconscionable than a judicial system opting not to execute a guilty person who then kills again. There’s no way of knowing if a killer will kill again from inside prison, just like there’s no way of knowing whether he’ll find God and become a saint. Society has a duty to protect itself from dangerous people, but in my opinion it must stop short of risking executing an innocent. We’ve got to do the best we can with what we’ve got apart from that risk. There are plenty of arguments for euthanasia, but we say no, find another way.

Yes,

 

[severus68]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and thankyou for your response.

St. Paul, dear sister, would have agreed, as do all Christians, that the greatest commandment is love and he exhorted the Romans: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord " (12: 19). Notwithstanding, this did not preclude the apostle from saying that the state, as “the minister of God”, is charged with a function which has been explicitly forbidden to private individuals, (Rom. 12: 17a, 19). The lawful civil government “beareth not the sword in vain” and is “the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13: 4). As God’s legitimate agent the state is invested with the power to inflict punishment, including the death penalty, for it “beareth not the sword in vain”. It is the minister of the justice of God, for the punishment which it inflicts is actually the expression of the righteous anger of God against evil-doing.

If we say that inflicting capital punishment is stooping to the level of those who perpetrate the heinous crime of murder, then surely, dear sister, we impugn God’s character, for it was He who mandated the death penalty at the first (Gen 9: 4). Moreover, are we really to believe that by instituting the death penalty for murder, long before the Mosaic Law, I may add, God was only “affirming a culture of violence”? The death penalty for murder was commanded because man is made in the image of God, indeed, it is man’s creation in the image of God that gives the whole rationale for capital punishment. Since there has been no suspension of man being in the image of God, the rationale given for the death penalty in Genesis. 9: 6 is as true today as it was in the days of Noah. Thus whilst the detailed provisions of the criminal code of Israel are no longer binding under the New Covenant, the mandate of Genesis 9: 6 requiring the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

So the State should do it because it can?

Should we also cut of the hands of thieves, stone adulterers, kill gays? That is in the Bible too.

 

[severus68]

We have lost the way.

Surely there is enough death?

The Holy See has taught us.

Cannot we listen?

Then what is obedience?

 

[BlaineTog]

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.

To be precise, the death penalty is only permissible if you can’t “defend human lives against the unjust aggressor” without it. In other words, criminals are not to be put to death as a form of justice but only because there is no other way of preventing them from killing again. Generally that means you don’t think your prison can hold them indefinitely, which is basically never the case in the developed world.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

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

You are probably right as I myself feel that the death penalty is an abhorrent and barbaric practice. Nevertheless, I can’t apply that to everyone and as a libertarian I wouldn’t, for the most part because I never had enough of a reason to want it to happen to someone and there are too many who do.

You and I both know that if tomorrow, God forbid, something happened to one of our loved ones by some beastly individual, that our views may very well change and we may find ourselves out for revenge. I pray that day never comes for either of us.

 

[Ender]

"portrait:

the mandate of Genesis 9: 6 requiring the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity.

This is explicit against Church teaching.

It can’t be against church teaching if it is in fact what the church teaches.2260 …* 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. (Gn 9:6)

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.*
Ender

 

[Ender]

Yet the death penalty is not permitted as retributive justice. The CCC makes this clear.

It isn’t as clear as you suppose. The current opposition to the use of capital punishment is prudential, not moral. The traditional teaching of the church justifies the use of capital punishment specifically as a form of just retribution.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Baelor]

It can’t be against church teaching if it is in fact what the church teaches.2260 …* 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. (Gn 9:6) *

We are not required to interpret every passage literally:
Deuteronomy 22:23-4:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

Will you advocate for stoning now?

The CCC, when discussing the death penalty, does not state that it is permissible in cases of murder. Nor does 2260 call for capital punishment. You omitted the necessary context:
"CCC 2260:

The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence… The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life…This teaching remains necessary for all time.

Not about capital punishment.

It isn’t as clear as you suppose. The current opposition to the use of capital punishment is prudential, not moral.

Perhaps we are reading different documents. The CCC does not state that the restriction on the death penalty is prudential; its basis is clearly moral.

The traditional teaching of the church justifies the use of capital punishment specifically as a form of just retribution.

Again, “just retribution” is not a permissible criterion in the application of the death penalty according to Catholic teaching. The problems with such thinking are obvious:
Evangelium Vitae:

Among the signs of hope…In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

The OT understanding of life is incomplete:
EV:

Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty.

Pope John Paul II elaborates later in the encyclical:
EV:

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”. 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.

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”.

There is little doubt.

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
​

No one is denying the possible justified use of the death penalty. The Church simply states that it is an exceptional punishment and must be considered separately from other punishments. Nor is retributive justice ever a sufficient reason to employ capital punishment.​

 

[kelvinf]

The argument against capital punishment “in this age” is based on several assumptions: that prison really can safeguard the innocent from recidivist killers, that this capability is a recent development, and that the only reason that justifies the death penalty is protecting the public. The caveat “in this age” has to be added because the church’s acknowledgment of the validity of capital punishment throughout her entire history is too extensive to dispute.

**That prisons really can secure the public from determined killers is at least debatable. **Beyond that, it is an entirely prudential judgment which may legitimately be disputed. It obviously is not doctrinal.

The assertion that this is a new development is also questionable. We know of cases where prisoners even in supermax prisons have ordered executions, using supporters on the outside to carry them out and it is reasonable to ask whether such a thing would have been possible for prisoners serving out their time on Devil’s Island or on a slave galley. The Romans seemed to have had little trouble managing their prisoners. What justification is there for believing that ancient systems of imprisonment were in fact less secure than our own? Again, this is another prudential judgment with which one may disagree.

The real issue, however, is the question of whether capital punishment should be limited solely to those cases where it is deemed necessary for protection. To assert this is to repudiate the traditional justification for its use - which was retributive justice. The primary objective of punishment is not protection but retribution, not protecting against future crimes but repairing the disorder caused by crimes already committed.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

As others have pointed out time and again, the key here is whether there are other effective ways of defending human lives against criminals. And the answer is unequivocally YES! Thus making the death penalty obsolete.

If we go by your logic that prisoners can order executions while in prison, then suspects would have to be executed on the spot because they could as well also order executions while in custody. Also, by your logic, some people who preach certain things in the name of free speech would also have to be executed immediately.

The Church does not explicitly state that prisoners must be kept in a traditional prison. C’mon, there are just too many ways in this age to isolate someone from the rest of society.

Back then, they used to nail criminals and even innocent people to the cross and allow them to suffer painfully and bleed to death. Then we have had things like the guillotine, the electric chair, hanging (still being practiced in some areas) etc. This generation more than any other generation has developed a deeper understanding of human dignity and how all humans ought to be treated. This generation knows the history of divine intervention more than any other generation. It is thus in this light, that it has been declared that, the lives of criminals should first and foremost be preserved and we acknowledge that we have the means to immobilise such persons.

 

[vz71]

To be precise, the death penalty is only permissible if you can’t “defend human lives against the unjust aggressor” without it. In other words, criminals are not to be put to death as a form of justice but only because there is no other way of preventing them from killing again. Generally that means you don’t think your prison can hold them indefinitely, which is basically never the case in the developed world.

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

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.

 

[kelvinf]

to we fair, we should also discuss the special efforts and successes we Catholics have made in evangelizing the convicts who would be eligible for execution under CCC guidelines, since saving their souls is a salient argument for preserving their lives.

we can break down these convicts into two categories:

first, the islamic terrorists:

second, senior prison gang leadership:

Anyone?

Regarding efforts, if you are familiar with Prison Ministries, then you would know for such that Catholics put in effort in helping out and evangelising criminals.

Regarding success, we know for sure that criminals do convert. From the Old Testament still date, we have learnt about criminals who have converted. A good example is Alessandro Serenelli.

We as Catholics also know for sure that God acts at His desired time (and not ours). So if your definition of success is that you pray to God and expect Him to answer your prayer immediately and exactly as you want, then your questioning of the success in converting criminals is analogous to the success of prayer.

St Thérèse of Lisieux promised that she would spend her time in heaven praying for the conversion of souls. So you are indirectly questioning the success of this mission of hers. Etc.

 

[kelvinf]

You are probably right as I myself feel that the death penalty is an abhorrent and barbaric practice. Nevertheless, I can’t apply that to everyone and as a libertarian I wouldn’t, for the most part because I never had enough of a reason to want it to happen to someone and there are too many who do.

I agree that there are certain things in life that some people have to decide for themselves but I don’t think the death penalty is one of them. It seems like we fundamentally differ in the way we see killing in the first place. Killing a human being is huge. It is devasting to kill a human being. Killing a human being is a traumatic event and could thus negatively affect the health of those who witness it or are closely involved in the event in one way or the other.

So the death penalty is not a matter of opinion in my view. Personally, I am not sure I can be closely associated with someone who supports the death penalty because just looking at the person and thinking about the fact that he or she desires that people should be killed rather than confined, would trouble me.

I don’t not believe there is still any legitimate reason to use the death penalty in this age.

You and I both know that if tomorrow, God forbid, something happened to one of our loved ones by some beastly individual, that our views may very well change and we may find ourselves out for revenge. I pray that day never comes for either of us.

Sadly, there are people who change their views when they find themselves in some unfortunate situations. For instance, someone who is normally against abortion turning to abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Or someone who has always opposed gay marriage changing his or her view on the subject because their offspring is gay. Changing views on core beliefs is a sign of weakness and a potentially dangerous path to take.

If someone eradicates my entire family, I don’t see how killing that person would bring justice to me / bring back my family to life. I believe justice will ultimately be done by the one and only true judge at the right time.