When is the death penalty justified?

[Tellme_my_rites]

Article 2266 in the Catechism reads: “…the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalities commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” Further in article 2266 it reads: “punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons”.

We already know we must forgive, love our enimies, and do good to those who persucute us, but does that mean we ignore this article? Why would the Church state this if She didn’t stand by it?

My question regards preserving public order and the safety of persons with regards to the death penalty. Would it not be preserving the public order and the safety of persons if there was an automatic death penalty for being convicted for killing a cop? Even if the criminal was to claim manslaughter and that he only meant to shoot at, but not kill, can not the death penalty still be used to “preserve the safety of” police officiers?

Fear of the Lord is a gift, and therefore has value. Does not fear of killing a police officier also have value? A criminal knows he’s going to get busted with a lot of prison time for a serious crime. Since he knows that killing a cop would only mean additional time to serve in prison tacked on to a lot of time already, why would he not try to escape arrest? Without fear of the implications, why would he not shoot at a cop in order to escape, especially since he knows the death penalty is not an option before the crime?

I know there are some bad cops out there, but I also know there are many good ones, who put their life on the line to protect you and me.

If the death penalty could be used as a means to make people fear to commit violent crime, does it not then become a life-saving tool? We can only keep track of crime statistics, but we can’t keep track of the number of people who decided not to commit crime due to fear of the implications. What would the Church say regarding an automatic death penalty for killing a police officer, whether it was with intent, or unintentionally while trying to escape arrest, in order to “preserve the public order and the safety of citizens”?

 

[thistle]

Article 2266 in the Catechism reads: “…the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalities commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” Further in article 2266 it reads: “punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons”.

We already know we must forgive, love our enimies, and do good to those who persucute us, but does that mean we ignore this article? Why would the Church state this if She didn’t stand by it?

My question regards preserving public order and the safety of persons with regards to the death penalty. Would it not be preserving the public order and the safety of persons if there was an automatic death penalty for being convicted for killing a cop? Even if the criminal was to claim manslaughter and that he only meant to shoot at, but not kill, can not the death penalty still be used to “preserve the safety of” police officiers?

Fear of the Lord is a gift, and therefore has value. Does not fear of killing a police officier also have value? A criminal knows he’s going to get busted with a lot of prison time for a serious crime. Since he knows that killing a cop would only mean additional time to serve in prison tacked on to a lot of time already, why would he not try to escape arrest? Without fear of the implications, why would he not shoot at a cop in order to escape, especially since he knows the death penalty is not an option before the crime?

I know there are some bad cops out there, but I also know there are many good ones, who put their life on the line to protect you and me.

If the death penalty could be used as a means to make people fear to commit violent crime, does it not then become a life-saving tool? We can only keep track of crime statistics, but we can’t keep track of the number of people who decided not to commit crime due to fear of the implications. What would the Church say regarding an automatic death penalty for killing a police officer, whether it was with intent, or unintentionally while trying to escape arrest, in order to “preserve the public order and the safety of citizens”?

The Church states that use of the death penalty should be in instances so rare to be almost non-existent.

 

[vZwire]

Hate to say it, don’t hate me.

**It is justified if it effects me, or I can relate to the situation.
**
Let me explain, If someone ever violated my daughters in any way It would be hard to talk me out of the death penalty.

All I’m saying is this, I want badly to say “never”, but I can imagine this to be tough for those who fell victim to a murderer, rapist, or child molester.

 

[otjm]

The Church essentially says that one should not be executed unless society cannot be protected fromt hem.

That society also includes other prisoners and guards.

Anyone who pays attention should know that as well built as prisons are, there are still escapes, and there are prisoner to prisoner murders still. There are also gangs within prisons, and it would only be the naieve who belive that the gangs are made up of people who were in the same gang on the outside.

It might be remebered that the mullah who was convicted as the mastermind of the first Towers bombing was subsequently found to be smuggling notes out of the prison; and you can bet your sweet patootie that he wasnt penning lovenotes to some burkah wearing tootsie. He didnt get the death penalty; but his activites show that it is not possible, for one who has enough intent, intelligence, and time, to continue with some serious mischief and mayhem.

The Holy Father might well say it is extremely rare, but I kind of have my doubts that he did much of a survey of penal systems.

Don’t presume I am pro-death penalty; I am not. However, I generally don’t lose a lot of sleep over the issue.

 

[dudleysharp]

Pope John Paul II made serious errors in fact and logic within his anti death penalty writings. In addition he overlooked the many biblical, theological and traditional Church teachings on the death penalty - such teachings overwhelm his inaccurate writings on the death penalty.

PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.

We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, thatactual innocents are more likely to be sentenced tolife imprisonmentand more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
*
Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Somebelieve that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t.*Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
*
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it,some havechosen to put more innocents at risk.
**
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death in the US since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.

 

[dudleysharp]

Pope John Paul II made serious errors in fact and logic within his anti death penalty writings. In addition he overlooked the many biblical, theological and traditional Church teachings on the death penalty - such teachings overwhelm his inaccurate writings on the death penalty.

PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in by so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.

We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.

Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.

 

[manualman]

mmmKay. I’m sure you are much closer to God and understand his justice MUCH better than JP2, dudley. Actually, I’m not so sure.

I used to be for the DP. When I hear of horrific crimes and it is clear who did them, I still struggle to control my blood-lust for vengeance on behalf of the innocent. But that is the sinful side of me, not the righteous side.

Americans remain enamored of the death penalty largely because of Hollywood, IMO. Life isn’t Hollywood and criminals are not subhuman monsters who have no remaining semblance of being created in the image and likeness of God.

Most DP supporters merely assume that the DP helps to deter violent crime. Reality is hardly so clear. Most studies show otherwise. Some give some support. The best that can be said is that it is unclear if it has ANY benefit whatsoever to society and has dramatic costs. It can’t be rescinded if/when new evidence arises, it costs more than life in prison, it potentially removes opportunity for future redemption, and it takes a ghastly toll on those who actually have to kill the convict.

 

[adrift]

Most DP supporters merely assume that the DP helps to deter violent crime. Reality is hardly so clear. Most studies show otherwise. Some give some support. The best that can be said is that it is unclear if it has ANY benefit whatsoever to society and has dramatic costs. It can’t be rescinded if/when new evidence arises, it costs more than life in prison, it potentially removes opportunity for future redemption, and it takes a ghastly toll on those who actually have to kill the convict.

I know it deters the deaths of guards in prison. I know guards who have been marked for death but were saved because the prisoners would have faced the death penalty.

I don’t believe it should ever be a standard but judged case by case. Ted Bundy was an example of a man that society needed to be protected against. He escaped from prison and killed. He would have killed again if he had not been executed.

 

[dudleysharp]

mmmKay. I’m sure you are much closer to God and understand his justice MUCH better than JP2, dudley. Actually, I’m not so sure.QUOTE]

Let’s no be too snippy, OK?

First, PJPII’s teachings on this topic are prudential judgement and each of us is free to make up our own minds.

Secondly, PJPII made so many errors in fact and logic on the topic, that his conclusions were neither prudent nor accurate.

Thirdly, the biblical, theological and traditional teachings of the Church on this topic overwhelm PJPII’s writings and speaches on the issue.

I wrote an essay on this
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/25/pope-john-paul-ii-a-prodeath-penalty-essay.aspx

In adddition, there are some solid Catholic scholars who also share my criticsm of PJPII on this topic. Please review.

(1)“The Death Penalty”, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,*
*
in a blog domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007*
*
NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.

(2)* “Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty”, at
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
*

(3) *“Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective” at
sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm
*

(4) “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

(5) “MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?”, KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
*

(6) “THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS’ MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS” , KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, Nov. 22, 2005
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp
*

(7) Forgotten Truths: “Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty”, by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
tfp.org/crusade/crusade_mag_vol_87.pdf*

 

[vern_humphrey]

My experience with the penal system is on the training side. But that has opened my eyes to what really goes on in prison.

Prisoners do kill other prisoners. Prisoners do kill Corrections Officers. Prisoners do operate dangerous criminal enterprises from prison – including ordering the murder of people on the outside.

Imagine you are a warden, and you learn that an inmate just gave a photograph to one of your Corrections Officers. The photograph shows that Corrections Officers’ 6-year old daughter playing in her back yard.

1. What do you do about it?
2. What is the status of your prison?

Those are rhetorical questions. You are no longer in charge of the prison – the inmates are. The Corrections Officer in question now works for the inmate who showed him the photograph (how can he not, with his 6-year old daughter at stake?) You have no idea how many other Corrections Officers have been compromised in this manner, or in other ways and are also working for the inmates.

1. What can be done to protect your Corrections Officers and their families from prisoners who are already serving multiple life sentences and have nothing to lose by another murder – or a dozen murders?
2. How can police officers, judges, juries and prosecutors be protected when people already serving multiple life sentences decide to have them killed?
3. If Corrections Officers, police, judges, juries and prosecutors can be cowed by people in prison, how can society function?

 

[manualman]

Forgive my snideness, but you must realize how you come off when you assert boldy that John Paul 2 and Avery Cardinal Dulles make serious errors of logic and fact.

I read your essay and noted a strange thing. You seem to have a very protestant notion of justice in your belief. Justice is not a long list of punishments attached to corresponding sin. I recommend this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=163165
for a contrast between the definition of justice you seem to subscribe to and the Catholic idea of justice as I understand it.

 

[m134e5]

Pope John Paul II made serious errors in fact and logic within his anti death penalty writings. In addition he overlooked the many biblical, theological and traditional Church teachings on the death penalty - such teachings overwhelm his inaccurate writings on the death penalty.

PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.

We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, thatactual innocents are more likely to be sentenced tolife imprisonmentand more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
*
Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Somebelieve that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t.*Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
*
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it,some havechosen to put more innocents at risk.
**
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death in the US since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.

From the Church document “Lumen Gentium”…

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yet we must remember that Cardinal Ratzinger specifically told us it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and the death penalty – but not on abortion.

The Catechism clearly places war and death penalty decisions in the province of the secular authorities.

 

[whatevergirl]

Yet we must remember that Cardinal Ratzinger specifically told us it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and the death penalty – but not on abortion.

The Catechism clearly places war and death penalty decisions in the province of the secular authorities.

if all life is meaningful, I wonder why that is?

 

[God4life]

I don’t believe the death penalty is ever justified. If someone has committed a heinous sin, then I’m sure God will be able to decide what to do in the afterlife, and I feel prematurely ending the life of a sinner will not give them an equal chance to repay their sins.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t believe the death penalty is ever justified. If someone has committed a heinous sin, then I’m sure God will be able to decide what to do in the afterlife, and I feel prematurely ending the life of a sinner will not give them an equal chance to repay their sins.

agreed

 

[jmcrae]

Soemthing is seriously the matter with a prison where lifers have opportunities to communicate with the outside world, and where they have access to weapons.

If it is really impossible to prevent a prisoner from committing further crimes, then the death penalty is certainly the next step.

But not before making sure that the prison system is set up in such a way that prisoners aren’t basically staying in a hotel, and coming and going pretty much as they please. It amazes me that they can just go out any time they want, and bring in drugs, guns, knives, etc., and nobody stops them.

It’s harder for an innocent law-abiding person to get on an airplane than it is for a lifer to wander out of prison, load up shopping bags full of guns, drugs, knives, etc., and then wander back in at his leisure. As long as he’s present at bed-check, nobody even knows the difference.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Soemthing is seriously the matter with a prison where lifers have opportunities to communicate with the outside world, and where they have access to weapons.

If it is really impossible to prevent a prisoner from committing further crimes, then the death penalty is certainly the next step.

But not before making sure that the prison system is set up in such a way that prisoners aren’t basically staying in a hotel, and coming and going pretty much as they please. It amazes me that they can just go out any time they want, and bring in drugs, guns, knives, etc., and nobody stops them.

It’s harder for an innocent law-abiding person to get on an airplane than it is for a lifer to wander out of prison, load up shopping bags full of guns, drugs, knives, etc., and then wander back in at his leisure. As long as he’s present at bed-check, nobody even knows the difference.

No prison is secure when the guards know their families can be killed at any time.

And we can never be sure the guards aren’t under that threat – and afraid to tell us.

 

[vern_humphrey]

if all life is meaningful, I wonder why that is?

Read the Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. 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.67

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 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 nonexistent."68

 

[whatevergirl]

Read the Catechism:

thank you vern.