When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment be used?

[BornInMarch]

When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment (execution) be used as a punishment for a crime?

Should rapists/pedophiles be executed?
Should murderers be executed?
Should war-criminals, mass murderers, or those who commit genocide or other crimes against humanity be executed?

Why or why not?

 

[Mary_Ellen]

No, no, and no.

Imprisoning the perpetrators should serve to protect the population from further crimes that may be committed by such criminals. If they persist in killing others from within their prison walls, either personally or by influence, then I think the death penalty should be considered. That’s how I feel after having considered the following from the Catechism:

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 definitively 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.”

 

[Neofight]

Of course this is my own opinion -Never!

I view the use of capital punishment as conceding the hard heartedness of man, just as divorce is given wiggle room by the Church, because God knows man is incapable of living the mandated prohibition of divorce explicated stated by Chirst in the gospels (“Whatever God joined together, let no man put asunder.”).

The CCC can be viewed to ways…as justification for, or justification against…I prefer justification against…but it is what it is, and others will have different opinions.

CCC 2267 ("…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…
however, non-lethal means … sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor…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, …the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

 

[ganonscrub]

I view the use of capital punishment as conceding the hard heartedness of man, just as divorce is given wiggle room by the Church, because God knows man is incapable of living the mandated prohibition of divorce explicated stated by Chirst in the gospels (“Whatever God joined together, let no man put asunder.”).

How is capital punishment even remotely similar to divorce? In one case, you have two people removing a legal status they previously held. The other case is homicide.

 

[Neofight]

How is capital punishment even remotely similar to divorce? In one case, you have two people removing a legal status they previously held. The other case is homicide.

Well, first of all, in our church, ganonscrub, marriage is not a legal status it is a sacramental status; marriage is a covenant made in the presence of God, not just a contract on a state document…those who view marriage as only a legal status use that rationale for the legitimacy of same sex “marriage”. While a same sex union, in the eyes of the state may have legal status, it does not (and will never have) sacramental status within Mother Church.

Now, with this understanding, you will see that both the taking of life, and the breaking of covenants are very much similar, in that both are unacceptable in the eyes of God.

Also, you equate capital punishment to homicide…while I am against capital punishment, I would never go so far as calling it homicide, because homicide is a legalistic term for murder, and capital punishment is legal in the eyes of many states, and may be considered as acceptable by my brothers and sisters do not agree with my stand against capital punishment.

Peace and all Good!

 

[BornInMarch]

So, are you saying the Nazi officials who stood trial at Nuremberg should not have been executed?

 

[TimothyH]

It is very simple.

If there is a way to incarcerate a criminal which protects society and other criminals from harm then the death penalty is off the table. The death penatly cannot be used if there is another way.

The teaching of the Church has been crystal clear on this.

-Tim-

 

[BornInMarch]

The bible has God directly ordering Capitol punishment; just look at the laws of the old testament.

And I already mentioned the Nuremberg Trials.

 

[triumphguy]

The bible has God directly ordering Capitol punishment; just look at the laws of the old testament.

And I already mentioned the Nuremberg Trials.

We are Catholics, not evangelical fundamentalists.

Church teaching is as TimothyH says.

In a modern western society capital punishment is off the table.

It is not per se immoral. It is immoral when used inappropriately.

For Capital Punishment To be used in a modern society would be immoral.

 

[New_Disciple]

We are Catholics, not evangelical fundamentalists.

Church teaching is as TimothyH says.

In a modern western society capital punishment is off the table.

It is not per se immoral. It is immoral when used inappropriately.

For Capital Punishment To be used in a modern society would be immoral.

Well said - basically, when it’s a matter of self-defense (for society), it can be acceptable.

Also, the fact that God did so doesn’t justify man doing it. Judges in the courtroom aren’t God (even if they play Him sometimes).

The Nuremberg example is an extreme one. I mean, had I lived during that time, I probably would have been teeming to see them hanged. But, that desire wouldn’t make the act morally acceptable; indeed, it is precisely that desire that would make it morally unacceptable. This is because executions are, more often than not, born out of vengeance (vengeance disingenuously clothed in the language of justice) and not aimed toward the protection of others.

God Bless!

 

[Heathcliff80]

Why do so many catholics still support the death penalty as the CCC seems to make it quite clear that it is not needed in most civilisations?

 

[Neofight]

So, are you saying the Nazi officials who stood trial at Nuremberg should not have been executed?

Yes. They will be judged by Christ, and if his judgment will be just.

And, it especially violates the spirit of the CCC, as no effort was made to employ a means to ensure they could not do harm to others. Their execution, as with many executions, are acts of human vengeance, not divine justice.

 

[sw85]

When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment (execution) be used as a punishment for a crime?

Should rapists/pedophiles be executed?
Should murderers be executed?
Should war-criminals, mass murderers, or those who commit genocide or other crimes against humanity be executed?

Why or why not?

The conditions for the appropriate use of capital punishment are the same as the conditions for the appropriate discharge of any other right. Namely, one must ensure one acts proportionally (death penalty might be appropriate for a murderer, certainly not for a jaywalker), according to the dictates of justice, and without any trace of foreseeable scandal. Nowadays the Church (wisely, IMO) points out that the latter makes most death penalty cases unwise, because modern man has such an impoverished view of things that he cannot experience capital punishment as it is – the enactment of divine justice – but as the enactment of the collective vengeance of the mob.

Of course this is my own opinion -Never!

I view the use of capital punishment as conceding the hard heartedness of man, just as divorce is given wiggle room by the Church, because God knows man is incapable of living the mandated prohibition of divorce explicated stated by Chirst in the gospels (“Whatever God joined together, let no man put asunder.”).

Whoa whoa, hold on. Capital punishment was not a concession, it was an authority explicitly delegated to man by God in the Noachide covenant, to ensure that divine justice was observed on earth without the need for God’s own dramatic intervention (which he had just assured Noah, after all, he would not do in the form of a flood again). The Church’s teaching is not that this capital punishment is a bad thing, but that the circumstances of the age make it imprudent to use it.

If anything you have it backwards here: the aversion to capital punishment is a concession to the hardness of the heart of modern man, who in his perversion has no notion of God, of transcendent justice, or of the common good by which to experience the execution of criminals as a good thing.

Likewise divorce is not given “wiggle room” by the Church. It just isn’t a thing, at least not sacramentally speaking. Moreover, Christ’s observation that Moses allowed issuance of bills of divorce as a concession to the hardness of hearts came right on the heels of his explicitly revoking that permission. He was saying that marriage as a natural institution could be dissolved by a competent earthly authority, but that he was elevating marriage above and beyond its natural constitution to a supernatural sacrament.

How is capital punishment even remotely similar to divorce? In one case, you have two people removing a legal status they previously held. The other case is homicide.

The death penalty is certainly not homicide and I would go so far as to say that it contradicts the teachings of the Church to say as much.

 

[Neofight]

Whoa whoa, hold on. Capital punishment was not a concession, it was an authority explicitly delegated to man by God in the Noachide covenant, to ensure that divine justice was observed on earth without the need for God’s own dramatic intervention (which he had just assured Noah, after all, he would not do in the form of a flood again). The Church’s teaching is not that this capital punishment is a bad thing, but that the circumstances of the age make it imprudent to use it.

Likewise divorce is not given “wiggle room” by the Church. It just isn’t a thing, at least not sacramentally speaking. Moreover, Christ’s observation that Moses allowed issuance of bills of divorce as a concession to the hardness of hearts came right on the heels of his explicitly revoking that permission. He was saying that marriage as a natural institution could be dissolved by a competent earthly authority, but that he was elevating marriage above and beyond its natural constitution to a supernatural sacrament.

.

Yeah…whoooaaa seems definitely in order…for one of us:shrug:

Your statement, that capital punishment was a tool "to ensure that divine justice was observed on earth without the need for God’s own dramatic intervention " is way off base.
Man does not have the ability, nor has he been granted the authority to carry out “divine justice”, or has God conceded divine authority to man to circumvent His “dramatic intervention”.

This also counters your claim that Christ “was saying that marriage as a natural institution could be dissolved by a competent earthly authority”. He said no such thing. What he said, was, "what God joined, let NO MAN put asunder. He seems to have given the church authority for annulment to satisfy the sacramental aspect of marriage, but annulment by the Church (authority) is not to be dispensed without due process to ensure it is not as frivolous as state issued decrees of divorce.

I’m sorry, but your examples are just bad theology.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

First of all, the term is Capital Punishment. Capitol Punishment is being forced to listen to boring political speeches.

Christians can take human life in defense of human life. This, however, must always be seen as a very last resort. It takes great judgment to determine when this is absolutely necessary. The death penalty for a kidnapper who kills his victim in order to remove a witness might be an example of a defensible death penalty.

 

[sw85]

Yeah…whoooaaa seems definitely in order…for one of us:shrug:

Your statement, that capital punishment was a tool "to ensure that divine justice was observed on earth without the need for God’s own dramatic intervention " is way off base.
Man does not have the ability, nor has he been granted the authority to carry out “divine justice”, or has God conceded divine authority to man to circumvent His “dramatic intervention”.

All you’re doing here is reasserting the point I just denied. You will not find the notion that capital punishment is a “concession to the hardness of hearts” (except in the very loose sense that it would not exist in a world without sin) anywhere in the Magisterium, past or present. On the contrary it is the constant teaching of the Church from the beginning that the state exercises authority, given it by God, to punish the wicked, even by death. St. Paul taught it. Augustine taught it. Aquinas taught it. The Council of Trent confirmed it. Etc. See this useful and measured treatment of the issue by Cardinal Dulles, no theological slouch. They all differ on the extent to which they think the state necessarily ought to exercise that authority, but none of them deny that it does so justly.

This also counters your claim that Christ “was saying that marriage as a natural institution could be dissolved by a competent earthly authority”. He said no such thing. What he said, was, "what God joined, let NO MAN put asunder.

“What God has joined, let no man put asunder” does not apply to natural marriage, is exactly my point. Natural marriage is what existed before Christ came along. Then, a bill of divorce was permissible (he said) because of the hardness of hearts. But with Christ marriage was elevated to a sacrament, hence the permission to divorce no longer applied.

He seems to have given the church authority for annulment to satisfy the sacramental aspect of marriage, but annulment by the Church (authority) is not to be dispensed without due process to ensure it is not as frivolous as state issued decrees of divorce.

Annulment is not divorce, it is a juridical recognition that marriage never existed in the first place. You cannot put asunder what God never joined in the first place.

 

[TimothyH]

When we kill someone we execute judgement. They die with no further chance for repentance. It is over for them - heaven or hell as per the moment we decide they should die.

Whenever possible we must allow people to live out their natural lives and so be judged by God and not by us. God gets to decide when they die. God gets to decide how much time they will be given to repent.

God is patient with us, giving every one of us time to repent.

***Then his lord summoned him and said to him, `You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? *(Matthew 18:32-33)

We should do the same because…

***For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. *(Matthew 7:2)

-Tim-

 

[Neofight]

All you’re doing here is reasserting the point I just denied. You will not find the notion that capital punishment is a “concession to the hardness of hearts” (except in the very loose sense that it would not exist in a world without sin) anywhere in the Magisterium, past or present. On the contrary it is the constant teaching of the Church from the beginning that the state exercises authority, given it by God, to punish the wicked, even by death. St. Paul taught it. Augustine taught it. Aquinas taught it. The Council of Trent confirmed it. Etc. See this useful and measured treatment of the issue by Cardinal Dulles, no theological slouch. They all differ on the extent to which they think the state necessarily ought to exercise that authority, but none of them deny that it does so justly.

“What God has joined, let no man put asunder” does not apply to natural marriage, is exactly my point. Natural marriage is what existed before Christ came along. Then, a bill of divorce was permissible (he said) because of the hardness of hearts. But with Christ marriage was elevated to a sacrament, hence the permission to divorce no longer applied.

Annulment is not divorce, it is a juridical recognition that marriage never existed in the first place. You cannot put asunder what God never joined in the first place.

I’ll leave this thread after this, because my my last post had nothing to do with Capital Punishment (which is the subject of this thread - may apologies to the Original Poster), Divorce, or Annulment…the point was the bad theology of claiming man was granted authority by God to act divinely so He didn’t have to.

 

[Ender]

If there is a way to incarcerate a criminal which protects society and other criminals from harm then the death penalty is off the table.

The primary objective of all punishment is the same, and it isn’t protection. The church teaches that it is retribution.

The teaching of the Church has been crystal clear on this.

The teaching of the church is not what you think it is.*It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *(Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Well said - basically, when it’s a matter of self-defense (for society), it can be acceptable.

The church has never justified the use of capital punishment on the basis of self defense, and there is good reason to believe such a justification is not appropriate. Aquinas addressed the issue of killing in self defense:* For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. … but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him.* (ST II-II 41,1)
How do we justify capital punishment as an act of self defense when the act is undertaken “with the fixed intention of killing” the prisoner, which is a mortal sin?

Also, the fact that God did so doesn’t justify man doing it.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)
Ender