When or is the death penalty alright?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
You give permission by saying “you may” do something; “you shall” do something is a command. Do you think the phrase “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” is merely a suggestion? If it is not, then how is the phrase “by man shall his blood be shed” any less of a command?

Christ’s statement about mercy was directed to the individual as was his command to turn the other cheek. That, however, is not the directive given to states; their obligation is to impose punishments commensurate with the severity of crimes. I do not suggest that states should not show mercy when mercy is called for but the individual and the state have very different rights and duties.

Ender
Click to expand...
The death penalty is allowed. It should be used when absolutely necessary. To bind the hands of the courts, and to say it must be used, such as you suggest. Is barbarous, and in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church. I now wash my hands of this pointless debate. It is not that you cannot see, but that you refuse to see. Your obstinate demands for the death penalty is based on a misreading of the Scriptures, the Catechism. the Popes, and the Council of Trent. You fail to see that the death penalty is not part of God’s plan, but is rather God has given sanction to out of necessity, and I believe that it is not a true necessity in the modern age. I pray that one day you will see the value of mercy, and that the death penalty serves no purpose. It does not prevent crimes. It is a source of undue burden on the taxpayer, and it multiplies the wrong of the murderer. The death penalty is not commanded. It is merely allowed.
 
The Bible says that he who wields the sword is a minister for justice to punish those who do evil. So even the Bible in the new Testament condones the death penalty. I choose to have it administered if at least two or three witnesses attest to a crime that deserves the death penalty. That could be DNA evidence, fingerprints, and admitance of guilt if eye witnesses aren’t available. Only if there is 100% certainty that someone has committed a crime worthy of death should the penalty be allowed.

I call murderers “Godplayers” because they take the place of God when deciding who should live and die. With the Supreme Court illegally supporting abortion, since it is not supported by the Constitution which supports the death penalty in that a person can be deprived of life if there is due process of law, abortionists that take the lives of unborn babies are Godplayers since abortion is the taking of an innocent life. I can point to the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary as proof that life begins at conception since Christ only died once and that was on the cross for our sins. To say he wasn’t alive at conception but only after the heart formed is to say he died twice. That is impossible.

As for Godplayers, they should be executed since the Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If doing unto others is to kill them, you should be willing to have that done unto you. So I believe the Constitution and the Bible supports the death penalty. Even Jesus was willing to face the death penalty since it was only through the death on the cross for our sins that we have eternal life.
 
CWBetts said:
Again, I never said it should be abolished. I just said in todays age it is not needed (as it was in the days of St. Thomas)
Click to expand...
Do you mean in the US only and even then only in parts of the US since some places the law is not so enforceable?
 
This whole thing of the Church sanctioning the death penalty because it is “allowed” only when it is “necessary” to keep THAT ONE GUY from killing someone else is a creation of Pope J P 2, a great Pope, but not the only Great Pope. Prior to him, the Church taught the death penalty was sanctioned FOR OTHER REASONS…the list being discussed here many times, (proportionality, re-ordering society, etc) Since whether a Catholic can agree or disagree with the newly-found reasons is a matter of prudential judgment, (meaning I can disagree as a Catholic, after due consideration of the current explanations,) I choose to support it because of the reasons taught by plenty of previous Catechisms, doctors of the church, Popes, etc, etc. So, when we find Osama bin Laden, let me know, because after conviction, if they need a good Catholic to help 'em , Ill pull the plug !!
 
**QUOTE=HOORGANVISOR;6058046]The Bible says that he who wields the sword is a minister for justice to punish those who do evil. So even the Bible in the new Testament condones the death penalty. I choose to have it administered if at least two or three witnesses attest to a crime that deserves the death penalty. That could be DNA evidence, fingerprints, and admitance of guilt if eye witnesses aren’t available. Only if there is 100% certainty that someone has committed a crime worthy of death should the penalty be allowed.

I call murderers “Godplayers” because they take the place of God when deciding who should live and die. With the Supreme Court illegally supporting abortion, since it is not supported by the Constitution which supports the death penalty in that a person can be deprived of life if there is due process of law, abortionists that take the lives of unborn babies are Godplayers since abortion is the taking of an innocent life. I can point to the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary as proof that life begins at conception since Christ only died once and that was on the cross for our sins. To say he wasn’t alive at conception but only after the heart formed is to say he died twice. That is impossible.

As for Godplayers, they should be executed since the Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If doing unto others is to kill them, you should be willing to have that done unto you. So I believe the Constitution and the Bible supports the death penalty. Even Jesus was willing to face the death penalty since it was only through the death on the cross for our sins that we have eternal life.**

There is a lot of rationalizing when it comes to the bible written by primative people (not God himself) a few thousand of years ago when this was the ONLY way they could control members in society. There were prisons then but they leaned more for the killing of people. It appeared to be more of a hassle, like today feeding, clothing and keeping someone alive you did not like nor feel for. Rehabilitation of a prisioner was only a word then.

The following quote was used by a previous poster and has significance.

“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)

My question to all is where the 20 or so people on death row, tried convicted and ready to be exterminated, were somehow found INNOCENT througfh DNA??? What do we do with this? IS it OK to terminate the inncent along with the guilty, as long as we get them?? Do we care? We do know that there is going to be someone innocent found guilty of murder in the future. It appears this does not become a concern of one who is soo focused on distribution of Justice??? rath??? vengence??? Still going with “What the bible says”, the olde eye for an eye. Not good.😦
 
joe_clark said:
**QUOTE=HOORGANVISOR;6058046]The Bible says that he who wields the sword is a minister for justice to punish those who do evil. So even the Bible in the new Testament condones the death penalty. I choose to have it administered if at least two or three witnesses attest to a crime that deserves the death penalty. That could be DNA evidence, fingerprints, and admitance of guilt if eye witnesses aren’t available. Only if there is 100% certainty that someone has committed a crime worthy of death should the penalty be allowed.

I call murderers “Godplayers” because they take the place of God when deciding who should live and die. With the Supreme Court illegally supporting abortion, since it is not supported by the Constitution which supports the death penalty in that a person can be deprived of life if there is due process of law, abortionists that take the lives of unborn babies are Godplayers since abortion is the taking of an innocent life. I can point to the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary as proof that life begins at conception since Christ only died once and that was on the cross for our sins. To say he wasn’t alive at conception but only after the heart formed is to say he died twice. That is impossible.

As for Godplayers, they should be executed since the Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If doing unto others is to kill them, you should be willing to have that done unto you. So I believe the Constitution and the Bible supports the death penalty. Even Jesus was willing to face the death penalty since it was only through the death on the cross for our sins that we have eternal life.**

*There is a lot of rationalizing when it comes to the bible written by primative people (not God himself) a few thousand of years ago when this was the ONLY way they could control members in society. There were prisons then but they leaned more for the killing of people. It appeared to be more of a hassle, like today feeding, clothing and keeping someone alive you did not like nor feel for. Rehabilitation of a prisioner was only a word then.

The following quote was used by a previous poster and has significance.

“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)*

My question to all is where the 20 or so people on death row, tried convicted and ready to be exterminated, were somehow found INNOCENT througfh DNA??? What do we do with this? IS it OK to terminate the inncent along with the guilty, as long as we get them?? Do we care? We do know that there is going to be someone innocent found guilty of murder in the future. It appears this does not become a concern of one who is soo focused on distribution of Justice??? rath??? vengence??? Still going with “What the bible says”, the olde eye for an eye. Not good.😦
Click to expand...
Jesus stopped “eye for an eye.”
 
fish90 said:
*There is a lot of rationalizing when it comes to the bible written by primative people (not God himself) a few thousand of years ago when this was the ONLY way they could control members in society. There were prisons then but they leaned more for the killing of people. It appeared to be more of a hassle, like today feeding, clothing and keeping someone alive you did not like nor feel for. Rehabilitation of a prisioner was only a word then.

The following quote was used by a previous poster and has significance.

“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)*

My question to all is where the 20 or so people on death row, tried convicted and ready to be exterminated, were somehow found INNOCENT througfh DNA??? What do we do with this? IS it OK to terminate the inncent along with the guilty, as long as we get them?? Do we care? We do know that there is going to be someone innocent found guilty of murder in the future. It appears this does not become a concern of one who is soo focused on distribution of Justice??? rath??? vengence??? Still going with “What the bible says”, the olde eye for an eye. Not good.😦
Click to expand...
Jesus stopped “eye for an eye.”

Yes, but we refuse to stop…
 
CWBetts said:
The death penalty is allowed. It should be used when absolutely necessary. To bind the hands of the courts, and to say it must be used, such as you suggest. Is barbarous, and in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church. I now wash my hands of this pointless debate. It is not that you cannot see, but that you refuse to see. Your obstinate demands for the death penalty is based on a misreading of the Scriptures, the Catechism. the Popes, and the Council of Trent. You fail to see that the death penalty is not part of God’s plan, but is rather God has given sanction to out of necessity, and I believe that it is not a true necessity in the modern age. I pray that one day you will see the value of mercy, and that the death penalty serves no purpose. It does not prevent crimes. It is a source of undue burden on the taxpayer, and it multiplies the wrong of the murderer. The death penalty is not commanded. It is merely allowed.
Click to expand...
Dear CWBetts,

If the death penalty is “not part of God’s plan”, then clearly para. 2260 has no place in our Catechism and should be expunged without further delay. Yet we are distinctly told that “this teaching remains necessary for all time” and thus will perpetually be a part of God’s plan until the consumation of all things. The death penalty does serve a purpose in that it redresses an outrage against God; any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty. Indeed it is the fact that man is made in the image of God that gives the whole rationale for capital punishment and its continuing validity for nontheocratic societies.

God continues to authorize the death penalty when inflicted by legitimate authority (see Romans 13: 1-4). Moreover, the executioner, a servant of the state, is not motivatated by any personal revenge, but rather his intention is to undertake a lawful act for the common good - motive makes morality.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
 
joe_clark said:
My question to all is where the 20 or so people on death row, tried convicted and ready to be exterminated, were somehow found INNOCENT througfh DNA??? What do we do with this? IS it OK to terminate the inncent along with the guilty, as long as we get them?? Do we care? We do know that there is going to be someone innocent found guilty of murder in the future. It appears this does not become a concern of one who is soo focused on distribution of Justice??? rath??? vengence??? Still going with “What the bible says”, the olde eye for an eye. Not good.😦
Click to expand...
It is certainly reasonable to question whether our system of justice is sufficient to punish the guilty without mistakenly punishing the innocent but that’s not the question being raised here. That is a prudential issue about which there is no Church teaching and if you think the danger of executing the innocent is too great then you are certainly free to oppose the death penalty on that point alone. That doesn’t say anything about the moral issue, however, which is what we are debating here. Assuming we are absolutely certain that the accused committed murder the question remains: is it moral to execute him?

Ender
 
So, for the real liberals on this post. Most of you would say, “Lets abolish the death penalty, and give them life without parole.” I have heard many people say that they think that “life without parole” is more “punitive” than the death penalty (time for the guy to think about his crime, etc etc.) If a person thinks that it is MORE punishment to give “life without,” then shouldnt we ought to abolish life without parole penalty also?? The point is that if you think that we should abolish a penalty because there might be a mistake in the imperfect, human system…how far down the chain and how many penalties do you say cant be used because of possible mistake. Under that theory…abolish “life without” also…If a mistake could be made in sentencing someone to “life without,”…heck…lets do away with that one too. Right??
NO…thats not the way. For example…for Osama bin Laden,lets catch him, be sure the guy gets a good lawyer,…convict him…then juice him !!
 
d97c said:
So, for the real liberals on this post. Most of you would say, “Lets abolish the death penalty, and give them life without parole.” I have heard many people say that they think that “life without parole” is more “punitive” than the death penalty (time for the guy to think about his crime, etc etc.) If a person thinks that it is MORE punishment to give “life without,” then shouldnt we ought to abolish life without parole penalty also?? The point is that if you think that we should abolish a penalty because there might be a mistake in the imperfect, human system…how far down the chain and how many penalties do you say cant be used because of possible mistake. Under that theory…abolish “life without” also…If a mistake could be made in sentencing someone to “life without,”…heck…lets do away with that one too. Right??
NO…thats not the way. For example…for Osama bin Laden,lets catch him, be sure the guy gets a good lawyer,…convict him…then juice him !!
Click to expand...
Life without parole may well be more punitive than execution; but it does not then proceed to something less than life without parole. I don’t know of any movement, or any group of people who propose such, and there is no logical reason to presume that if the death penalty were abolished, that there would be any such movement to then abolish life without parole.

As an aside, I believe Orgeon has had two executions, both of whom stopped their appeal process because they could not deal with the thought of life without parole. That does not mean that all such prisoners would react the same way; but those two did.

Life without parole allegedly does several things: it avoids a death sentance to someone whop did not commit the crime; it allows the possibility of exoneration to those wrongfully convicted; and it removes the issues of executing anyone for those who feel that the sanctity of life should prevent that. As to protecting society, I would again point to the imam convicted of the first towers bombing, found subsequently in contact with others outside of prison trying to plot further chaos. And that was from a Federal prison, which should be as capable if not more so than any state prison system of isolating those who would continue in crime.
 
Ender said:
It is certainly reasonable to question whether our system of justice is sufficient to punish the guilty without mistakenly punishing the innocent but that’s not the question being raised here. That is a prudential issue about which there is no Church teaching and if you think the danger of executing the innocent is too great then you are certainly free to oppose the death penalty on that point alone. That doesn’t say anything about the moral issue, however, which is what we are debating here. Assuming we are absolutely certain that the accused committed murder the question remains: is it moral to execute him?

Ender
Click to expand...
No it is not. We are human and should remain that way. Once we use the bible as a sharp tool to aid in the murder other human beings, we cease to be Gods children. If God wants a bus to hit you or a plane that your in to drop out of the sky, that is for him alone to decide. I do think everyone gets what is coming to them, goood or bad.
 
d97c said:
So, for the real liberals on this post. Most of you would say, “Lets abolish the death penalty, and give them life without parole.” I have heard many people say that they think that “life without parole” is more “punitive” than the death penalty (time for the guy to think about his crime, etc etc.) If a person thinks that it is MORE punishment to give “life without,” then shouldnt we ought to abolish life without parole penalty also?? The point is that if you think that we should abolish a penalty because there might be a mistake in the imperfect, human system…how far down the chain and how many penalties do you say cant be used because of possible mistake. Under that theory…abolish “life without” also…If a mistake could be made in sentencing someone to “life without,”…heck…lets do away with that one too. Right??
NO…thats not the way. For example…for Osama bin Laden,lets catch him, be sure the guy gets a good lawyer,…convict him…then juice him !!
Click to expand...
This flippancy towards the gift of life sickens me
 
joe_clark said:
No it is not. We are human and should remain that way. Once we use the bible as a sharp tool to aid in the murder other human beings, we cease to be Gods children. If God wants a bus to hit you or a plane that your in to drop out of the sky, that is for him alone to decide. I do think everyone gets what is coming to them, goood or bad.
Click to expand...
Dear Joe,

The Catholic Church receives Sacred Scripture as a source of revelation and, therefore, it is right that we make our appeal to the bible in support of the doctrines one is seeking to uphold. Now provided that we are not undermining Catholic teaching or dogma but, on the contrary, endeavouring to vindicate it, then we act with integrity. As far as I am aware no Catholic supporters of capital punishment on this thread are being disloyal to the teaching of the Church; so how are they employing " the bible as a sharp tool to aid in the murder of other human beings"?

As I have remarked in a previous posting, God has delegated the function of executioner to the governing authorities, which by the way are ordained by God (see Romans 13: 1). St. Paul then tells us that the executioner, a servant of the state and therefore God, “does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (see verse 4). Thus God has chosen to punish felons through the agency of the state and not through buses or planes. If you feel that I am distorting the meaning of Sacred Scripture here in Romans “as a sharp tool to aid in the murder of other human beings”, then please inform me how I am doing this.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
 
Portrait said:
Dear Joe,

The Catholic Church receives Sacred Scripture as a source of revelation and, therefore, it is right that we make our appeal to the bible in support of the doctrines one is seeking to uphold. Now provided that we are not undermining Catholic teaching or dogma but, on the contrary, endeavouring to vindicate it, then we act with integrity. As far as I am aware no Catholic supporters of capital punishment on this thread are being disloyal to the teaching of the Church; so how are they employing " the bible as a sharp tool to aid in the murder of other human beings"?

As I have remarked in a previous posting, God has delegated the function of executioner to the governing authorities, which by the way are ordained by God (see Romans 13: 1). St. Paul then tells us that the executioner, a servant of the state and therefore God, “does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (see verse 4). Thus God has chosen to punish felons through the agency of the state and not through buses or planes. If you feel that I am distorting the meaning of Sacred Scripture here in Romans “as a sharp tool to aid in the murder of other human beings”, then please inform me how I am doing this.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is your refusal to accept that even criminals are human beings. Execution, except in cases of absolute necessity, is a denial of the dignity that human beings must be extended. Execution is treating people like animals.
 
CWBetts said:
Perhaps it is your refusal to accept that even criminals are human beings. Execution, except in cases of absolute necessity, is a denial of the dignity that human beings must be extended. Execution is treating people like animals.
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent does disagree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top