When or is the death penalty alright?

[iluvburpees]

I have a question and I hope it has not been asked and answered. I read about 20 pages of posts but got too impatient to read all 33!

Aren’t those here who quote St. Paul and the Council of Trent to support capital punishment viewing this rather simplistically?

It seems to me that allowing the ‘state’ to have unquestioned and full moral authority to decide and administer capital punishment is dangerous. If you live in a ‘state’ where Shariah law is in force you could be subject to the death penalty for being a practicing Catholic! Are you suggesting Jesus thinks you should be subject to the authority of that ‘state’?

Roman’s were killing Christians. Do you think St. Paul was in favor of that ‘state’s’ right to wield the executioner’s sword?

Also, don’t forget that in Jesus’ time the death penalty was justified for adultery. I’m pretty sure you don’t suggest that should be a capital offense today.

Times change and moral understanding increases. If not, we wouldn’t need the Church’s guidance anymore. So singleing out isolated references and according them absolute authority to support a position on capital punishment can get a person into trouble. That smacks of fundamentalism.

I stopped supporting capital punishment in the USA after I read John Grisham’s non-fiction book The Innocent Man. I think our judicial system is too flawed for me to support the death penalty at this time, even though I am not necessarily against it on religious grounds.

As much as I support the death penalty, morally and practically, I nevertheless do not support it as it is in the U.S. today. If were to vote for or against it as it is today, I would have to vote against it. Until the corrupt government is fixed, I can’t support their unfair and ineffective use of the death penalty.

Do I think it is needed today? Yes, but it needs to be implemented with full effect for it to have a serious influence on crime.

 

[Shin]

If I were being executed, and falsely accused and innocent, I would not change my beliefs upon the death penalty being just or not, in and of itself and generally.

My personal circumstances do not change the objective truth of a thing.

 

[iluvburpees]

If I were being executed, and falsely accused and innocent, I would not change my beliefs upon the death penalty being just or not, in and of itself and generally.

My personal circumstances do not change the objective truth of a thing.

And imagine what reparation for sin you would get by offering up such a sacrifice of losing your life without guilt.

 

[Shin]

And imagine what reparation for sin you would get by offering up such a sacrifice of losing your life without guilt.

I would need it, because, otherwise, I need a lot of time on earth to continue to make changes and do penance.

You make a good point. God’s Providence still enfolds all who die deaths, innocent of the charges. It is within His plan and so we always have it to offer up, apparently unjust in this world or not. All our deaths in fact, are determined by God, in their timing, and so ultimately just. It may be true that a sinful hand causes the death, but though God does not will the sin directly, it is He who determines the time of our death. And if we embrace His will at that time, rather than rejecting it, it will gain us great graces for all.

It is true we must do our best to live normally, but when that is clearly at an end… we must embrace God’s will in that matter.

 

[momor]

If I were being executed, and falsely accused and innocent, I would not change my beliefs upon the death penalty being just or not, in and of itself and generally.

My personal circumstances do not change the objective truth of a thing.

It’s one thing to accept injustice for yourself. But if you knew that a system was flawed and unjust in some cases, do you not feel you have an obligation to stop that injustice? Is it OK to support state executions when you know that some of the executed will be innocent?

 

[CWBetts]

It’s one thing to accept injustice for yourself. But if you knew that a system was flawed and unjust in some cases, do you not feel you have an obligation to stop that injustice? Is it OK to support state executions when you know that some of the executed will be innocent?

Very well put indeed.

 

[Shin]

It’s one thing to accept injustice for yourself. But if you knew that a system was flawed and unjust in some cases, do you not feel you have an obligation to stop that injustice? Is it OK to support state executions when you know that some of the executed will be innocent?

Let’s put this a little more broadly for clarity first.

Is it OK to accept state imprisonment, when you know some of the imprisonments will be of innocent victims?

Is it OK to accept the entire criminal justice system, when you know some people will be convicted and punished who are innocent? Fined? Imprisoned? Etc.?

Why don’t we just say ‘no’ right now and get rid of it all?

Is it OK to send some people to doctors to have surgery when we know some of those surgeries will fail or be unnecessary?

The exceptions do not break the general rule. Because the system is not perfect, and sometimes innocent people are unintentionally convicted and executed, execution itself should not be done away with.

 

[CWBetts]

Let’s put this a little more broadly for clarity first.

Is it OK to accept state imprisonment, when you know some of the imprisonments will be of innocent victims?

Is it OK to accept the entire criminal justice system, when you know some people will be convicted and punished who are innocent? Fined? Imprisoned? Etc.?

Why don’t we just say ‘no’ right now and get rid of it all?

Is it OK to send some people to doctors to have surgery when we know some of those surgeries will fail or be unnecessary?

The exceptions do not break the general rule. Because the system is not perfect, and sometimes innocent people are unintentionally convicted and executed, execution itself should not be done away with.

If someone is in prison, they can be released. Reparations can be made. Executions are irreversible. Should those responsible for executing the innocent then be executed so they can be punished for the death of an innocent person? They would be culpable after all.

 

[iluvburpees]

It’s one thing to accept injustice for yourself. But if you knew that a system was flawed and unjust in some cases, do you not feel you have an obligation to stop that injustice? Is it OK to support state executions when you know that some of the executed will be innocent?

I think we all need some clarification. The death penalty, as used in the U.S. today, is flawed. Therefore, if I had a choice of keeping it as is or getting rid of it, and those were the only two choices, I’d probably have to get rid of it. But assuming that it is used justly and effectively, that everyone gets a fair trial, and racial differences don’t make it unfair for some, then I would wholeheartedly endorse it.

So, assuming that it is used well, we would still have reason to support it. Just because there are a few unfortunate mistakes, doesn’t mean we should get rid of the penalty. If we used that logic, we would have to get rid of all punishment since we can never know for certain whether someone is guilty.

Again, all we need to do is fall back to the traditional teaching of the Church. The Church always allowed recourse to the death penalty, the Council of Trent declaring it an act of obedience to the fifth commandment. While prison safety, costs, etc., are issues that might change the circumstances, there is always the possibility of executing an innocent person. That was the same back then as it is now. If this was an issue, then, why did the Church not condemn it for that reason?

 

[momor]

Let’s put this a little more broadly for clarity first.

Is it OK to accept state imprisonment, when you know some of the imprisonments will be of innocent victims?

Is it OK to accept the entire criminal justice system, when you know some people will be convicted and punished who are innocent? Fined? Imprisoned? Etc.?

Why don’t we just say ‘no’ right now and get rid of it all?

Is it OK to send some people to doctors to have surgery when we know some of those surgeries will fail or be unnecessary?

The exceptions do not break the general rule. Because the system is not perfect, and sometimes innocent people are unintentionally convicted and executed, execution itself should not be done away with.

Isn’t the taking of an innocent life such a grave offense before God that it should be avoided whenever it can be.

Is it more important to execute the guilty than to protect the innocent?

 

[Shin]

If someone is in prison, they can be released. Reparations can be made. Executions are irreversible. Should those responsible for executing the innocent then be executed so they can be punished for the death of an innocent person? They would be culpable after all.

You cannot actually give back a single day of a person’s life, that was spent in prison.

You can’t give back the time a person did not have the money he was fined, and suffered for that lack.

If a person was executed due to culpable negligence, it is for the state to determine whether that negligence was of the extent worthy to enact the death penalty for it.

In general, in the past, the death penalty was assigned to far more crimes than it is now assigned to, and this with scriptural support. If you wish to argue that today’s justice systems are inferior to those of the past, say, under Jewish law, B.C., as determined by God, in regards to determining the guilt or innocence of suspects… feel free to make your case.

Nothing in this world is going to work perfectly. That doesn’t mean we get rid of the systems we have, it means we acknowledge a certain amount of fallibility is acceptable, however regretable it may be in individual cases.

 

[Shin]

And God knew that in some cases it would be misapplied in His general allowance of it.

Executing criminals protects the innocent. It also executes justice. Both too, are important. The factors that weigh into that importance, according to God, allow the death penalty in general.

And God knew that in some cases it would be misapplied in His general allowance of it.

 

[iluvburpees]

Isn’t the taking of an innocent life such a grave offense before God that it should be avoided whenever it can be.

That’s a tricky way of wording it. If the state takes an innocent life by capital punishment, but they thought he was guilty based on the evidence, then they have no guilt on their part. You’re basically saying that the state is committing a murder and a mortal sin by unknowingly executing an innocent person. I’m sorry, but that’ neither Catholic nor sound logic.

Is it more important to execute the guilty than to protect the innocent?

Another strange twisting of meanings. You are again making it seem as though executions of innocent people are common, and that the state commits a grave sin by unknowingly doing so. You then make it seem as though that, by rarely executing an innocent person, the state is somehow not protecting the innocent.

This logic doesn’t hold. If this is true, then I cannot be a parent because I won’t always do the right thing when correcting my kids. We can never fine someone who is speeding because we might never really know if the person was aware that he was going over the limit. By your logic, all authority must go and we’ll have anarchy. This is clearly not Catholic.

 

[CWBetts]

You cannot actually give back a single day of a person’s life, that was spent in prison.

You can’t give back the time a person did not have the money he was fined, and suffered for that lack.

If a person was executed due to culpable negligence, it is for the state to determine whether that negligence was of the extent worthy to enact the death penalty for it.

In general, in the past, the death penalty was assigned to far more crimes than it is now assigned to, and this with scriptural support. If you wish to argue that today’s justice systems are inferior to those of the past, say, under Jewish law, B.C., as determined by God, in regards to determining the guilt or innocence of suspects… feel free to make your case.

Nothing in this world is going to work perfectly. That doesn’t mean we get rid of the systems we have, it means we acknowledge a certain amount of fallibility is acceptable, however regretable it may be in individual cases.

This position is deplorable. “Oh well, things happen” is not sound reasoning.

 

[iluvburpees]

This position is deplorable. “Oh well, things happen” is not sound reasoning.

It’s not sound reasoning because we do not say it. We say that we are not perfect, but cannot do away with authority because of that.

We should get rid of the priesthood, too, since there are bad priests. We should stop consecrating hosts because there will inevitably be some terrible sacrileges. Heck, we should stop making knives too, since Norman Bates used it for nasty purposes.

But, hey, “things happen.”

 

[Shin]

This position is deplorable. “Oh well, things happen” is not sound reasoning.

Your characterization is misapplied. It is the way life works.

I think we can all easily recall one case of a misapplication of it, that He embraced, at the very least.

In other words, when worldly justice fails, Divine Justice and Providence, do not.

We all have penance due our sins. If a person is unjustly executed according to the world… it is still within God’s plan. And He will make the best of it for all.

 

[momor]

Isn’t the taking of an innocent life such a grave offense before God that it should be avoided whenever it can be.

That’s a tricky way of wording it. If the state takes an innocent life by capital punishment, but they thought he was guilty based on the evidence, then they have no guilt on their part. You’re basically saying that the state is committing a murder and a mortal sin by unknowingly executing an innocent person. I’m sorry, but that’ neither Catholic nor sound logic…

**I’m not saying the state is committing murder. I am saying that if the state knows that there might be innocent people on death row, should executions be allowed to continue? This is not hypothetical. It’s common knowledge this happens. **

.Another strange twisting of meanings. You are again making it seem as though executions of innocent people are common, and that the state commits a grave sin by unknowingly doing so. You then make it seem as though that, by rarely executing an innocent person, the state is somehow not protecting the innocent…

**Is it not accepted in our judicial system that many guilty people will go free as a result of due process of law? We accept this because we think it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted. Don’t we have an even greater obligation to those who have been wrongly sentenced to death? Isn’t it better for the guilty to go unexecuted than for an innocent to be wrongly executed?

Even though you previously said you could not support our current flawed system, it sounds like now you are,**

 

[CWBetts]

Your characterization is misapplied. It is the way life works.

I think we can all easily recall one case of a misapplication of it, that He embraced, at the very least.

In other words, when worldly justice fails, Divine Justice and Providence, do not.

We all have penance due our sins. If a person is unjustly executed according to the world… it is still within God’s plan. And He will make the best of it for all.

This does not mean that we should accept it as a matter of “that’s life”! We should work tirelessly to bring an end to unjust executions. Every execution must be carefully scrutinized by a panel with the authority to commute a death sentence to life in prison. To fail to take every possible measure to protect the innocent from unjust execution is paramount. To suggest otherwise turns our responsibility to protect all life from conception until natural death little more than a hypocritical catchphrase. I for one am not willing to accept the execution of even a single person as collateral damage.

 

[iluvburpees]

**I’m not saying the state is committing murder. I am saying that if the state knows that there might be innocent people on death row, should executions be allowed to continue? This is not hypothetical. It’s common knowledge this happens. **

Likewise:

If the priest knows that there might be atheists kneeling for communion who want to spit Our Lord out from their mouths and trample Him beneath their feet after they receive, should Communions be allowed to be received? This is not hypothetical. It’s common knowledge this happens.

Is it not accepted in our judicial system that many guilty people will go free as a result of due process of law? We accept this because we think it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted.

All this does is prove my point. The judicial system does not free guilty convicts because “we think it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted,” they do it because, again, we never really know whether someone is guilty or not. Since guilty people sometimes go free, I guess the system is completely useless and we should therefore get rid of it. Right?

Even though you previously said you could not support our current flawed system, it sounds like now you are,

Based on what? This is just another bogus ad hominem attack.

 

[Shin]

This does not mean that we should accept it as a matter of “that’s life”! We should work tirelessly to bring an end to unjust executions. Every execution must be carefully scrutinized by a panel with the authority to commute a death sentence to life in prison. To fail to take every possible measure to protect the innocent from unjust execution is paramount. To suggest otherwise turns our responsibility to protect all life from conception until natural death little more than a hypocritical catchphrase. I for one am not willing to accept the execution of even a single person as collateral damage.

We should do our best to have a good system that goes the extra mile to ensure the death penalty is applied only to those who are truly guilty of their crimes. Definitely!

However, AFAIK know, at least in the U.S. justice system, the scrutiny generally actually goes too far, and is an unjust waste exploring beyond what is reasonable. This because politicians who are against the death penalty, in and of itself, have tried to make it unworkable by adding on useless legislation in its regard.

This sort of subversion of the law is itself immoral.

We should go the extra mile. We should do what is just to determine guilt or innocence. We should not go beyond reason, and pursue that which is frivilous, and go through mandatory endless litigation.