When or is the death penalty alright?

[Saint_Sebastian]

I’ve often opposed the death penalty my whole life, believing that we have a right to life and there are people like Stephen Truscott who are given the death penalty even though they are innocent (Truscott’s death sentence was commuted, thank God) but more recently, I’ve been following the news about Khalid Shiekh Mohamed and how he will get the death penalty if found guilty. There’s a part of me thinking “he deserves it” and another part of me thinking “put him in prison and make his life a living Hell”. Could the death penalty be applicable for people who commit heinous crimes such as terrorism?

Gift from God, I think every Pope from Peter to Benedict XVI would agree with you. The Scriptures are clear as it is written, “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”. As governmental judicial courts pronounce the death penalty, they risk their own condemnation before Christ. Who will stop it? Usually the State Governor can and does stop the death penalty and so can the President offer pardons and the Pope’s have famously defended the condemned by intercession with governmental prisons. Of course it is wrong to pronounce the death sentence yet it is because of great fear that judges and lawyers want to see the person dead. If they had an ounce of courage, they would do the right thing by God and by man [and woman].

Even my most favorite country singer Merle Haggard received a pardon from President Ronald Reagan and I am glad he did, I don’t know who I enjoy listening to sing more than Merle. It would have been a shame to see such a valuable life condemned to die when he had so much to give to music and to life.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is a good question.

We know that the Church throughout her history has supported the State’s right to use capital punishment, therefore it seems clear that the Church believes that this is (for some crimes) a just punishment; if it was an unjust punishment the Church wouldn’t support it under any circumstance. That is, it fulfills the duty to levy a penalty that is commensurate with the severity of the crime so I think it is clear that the death penalty meets the requirements of a just punishment.

Your question, however, seems to be whether there is a lesser punishment that also meets the “commensurate” criterion and I really think the answer is no. Take serial killer Ted Bundy. It is apparent that no punishment is really sufficient to balance the books on his crimes but surely that is no argument for settling for less than the maximum punishment that can be imposed. If even the maximum is too little what argument can there be for accepting less? If a person owed you $2000 but could only repay $1000 would you suggest that, since the entire debt cannot be payed, you should collect only $900?

Ender

If no punishment is sufficient to “balance the books” as you say then I’ll continue to believe that God is merciful over vengeful.

 

[akoso]

There are so many regular postings asking about capital punishment here. I think that alone is proof that we feel guilty inside about allowing it, because we know it’s not right. We don’t continually ask about whether “life in prison” is accepted in Catholicism or if “no parole granted” is wrong.

 

[karoleck]

There has to be a distinction between what a Government and its’ courts decide when deliberating a just penalty for the common good and the practical application of the Churches’Teachings.Also when Church officials intervene say pleading for mercy.How often in a court proceedure are the Catholic Clergy called to give a character support and even ask the courts for a lesser judgement.Some one asked well ,what about verdicts with an non parole period etc.I remember reading and seeing the story about fr.Flanagan and The Boys’Town .Remember his motto’'these is not such a thing as a bad boy".The Courts of the land were putting away boys in jail as a punishment,deterent and perhaps a chance of rehabititation.This processes no doubt met with the principals of justice,however by Fr.Flanagan seting up a Boys Town,with strick boundries he showed that mercy in the long run ,was more beneficial to society and the common good than incarceration;where they came out harder criminals.
I would apply this same practicalities to the death penalty,sure Mercy cannot be applied until the Justice processes has run it’s course.Like the case mentioned above,the Government Judicial processes has to be played out say in a murder trial,again the verdict could be execution and all within the principles of justice and the common good.What would be wrong if Church officials asked for mercy and clemancy?I would maintain that generally the Press would be all for killing particularly if it gauged that the general population wanted blood.I would maintain that the world is becoming so hard heart that the only voice for mercy came via the Catholic "voice."The merciful will have no fear of judgement"so all you linching mob-reflect on that statement!!

 

[Ender]

Gift from God, I think every Pope from Peter to Benedict XVI would agree with you.

You have this backwards: no pope prior to JPII registered opposition to the death penalty and even he recognized the State’s right to impose it.

The Scriptures are clear as it is written, “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”.

Scripture also says:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
and …

• Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.** He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.***

The State has not just the right but the obligation to impose punishment. The verse you cite would deny the State the right to impose any punishment, not just capital punishment.

As governmental judicial courts pronounce the death penalty, they risk their own condemnation before Christ.

The Church permits the death penalty and even incorporated it in the laws for Vatican City until 1969; she had a much different view of executions than you do:

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

Judges and juries who impose the death penalty face no special condemnation.

Ender

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

You have this backwards: no pope prior to JPII registered opposition to the death penalty and even he recognized the State’s right to impose it.
Scripture also says:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
and …

• Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.** He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.***

The State has not just the right but the obligation to impose punishment. The verse you cite would deny the State the right to impose any punishment, not just capital punishment.
The Church permits the death penalty and even incorporated it in the laws for Vatican City until 1969; she had a much different view of executions than you do:

*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of *paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

Judges and juries who impose the death penalty face no special condemnation.

Ender

Ender,

I quote from the Vatican:
It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

I quote from the Catechism: 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

 

[Ender]

I quote from the Vatican:
It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

I quote from the Vatican also:
“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)

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” (Innocent III)

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. (Innocent I)

I quote from the Catechism: 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

I also quote from Church catechisms:
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

*Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
*A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*… 3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. *(Baltimore Catechism)

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

 

[akoso]

“are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

… just adding the rest of that quote from Pope John Paul II.

Punishment “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.”

I think it would be fair to assume that 2009’s 24 executions in Texas alone would not equate to “very rare, if not practically non-existent”, nor situations “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society”.

 

[fish90]

… just adding the rest of that quote from Pope John Paul II.

Punishment “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.”

I think it would be fair to assume that 2009’s 24 executions in Texas alone would not equate to “very rare, if not practically non-existent”, nor situations “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society”.

When would capital punishment be necessary in order to protect society in a society like the United States? Would a enemy combatant from the War on Terror meet the requirements?

 

[akoso]

When would capital punishment be necessary in order to protect society in a society like the United States?

Good question. I would imagine it’s quite easy to argue that in a western society, such as the U.S., it would be next to never… and surely not 24 times/year in one state.

Would a enemy combatant from the War on Terror meet the requirements?

I can’t see why. But I suppose if you argued that said combatant was somehow continuing to provide orders and information to his fellow soldiers, despite every effort made to prevent such communication… that it might fall under that. Although war and trying citizens from another country is a very different ball of wax from executing one’s own citizens.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

I quote from the Vatican also:
“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)
Ender

Ender, The position of the Catholic Church is stated according to the latest Catechism and the older versions are considered superceded by the new. Technology has enabled the lifetime incarceration or rehabilitation of criminals to the extent that the death sentence is no longer considered necessary. The reason for this is the possibility that anyone may repent prior to death, even dangerous criminals and so need not be deprived of the gift of final repentance.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

… just adding the rest of that quote from Pope John Paul II.

Punishment “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.”

I think it would be fair to assume that 2009’s 24 executions in Texas alone would not equate to “very rare, if not practically non-existent”, nor situations “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society”.

Akoso, Civil leaders impose their own jurisprudence according to their personal faith beliefs. What the Vatican is currently saying is that it is practically non-existent any justification rationally for the death sentence in this day and age, so the Church currently views the death sentence as a highly questionable public option. Of course Christ is the final judge of us all so all civil authorities will face Christ for judgement of whom they imposed the death sentence on. I personally would not pass a death sentence on anyone practically from the view that Christ Himself may condemn me. Being condemned by the Vatican is not nearly as permanent as being condemned by Christ. I would say the Texas executions could result in the Eternal Condemnation of those authorities who executed the men in question.

A group of convicts from Illinois won national award for rehabilitation for building ships and Merle Haggard went on to become a country music success through rehabilitation so it is possible for men to repent and mend their ways.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

Good question. I would imagine it’s quite easy to argue that in a western society, such as the U.S., it would be next to never… and surely not 24 times/year in one state.

I can’t see why. But I suppose if you argued that said combatant was somehow continuing to provide orders and information to his fellow soldiers, despite every effort made to prevent such communication… that it might fall under that. Although war and trying citizens from another country is a very different ball of wax from executing one’s own citizens.

Akoso, Indoctrination is a very difficult aspect of war as all combatants are subject to the effects of indoctrination. American soldiers undergo a training of indoctrination as well as enemy combatants and in the final analysis war has always provoked many deep discussions for years after of what was just or unjust about a war from either side. The best way to get an idea of how American soldiers view indoctrination and combat go to your nearest Veterans Administration Hospital and talk to the old war veterans who are in treatment, they will give you the most comprehensive view of who was right or wrong. Most to the veterans I have spoke to personally are of the opinion that war should be avoided at all costs and that peaceful negotiations should be attempted at all costs in order to save lives and prevent destruction of the families who ultimately pay the highest price for war. Governments do not pay psychologically and physically for war, families pay for the cost [in spiritual terms] of war.

 

[akoso]

Akoso, Civil leaders impose their own jurisprudence according to their personal faith beliefs. What the Vatican is currently saying is that it is practically non-existent any justification rationally for the death sentence in this day and age, so the Church currently views the death sentence as a highly questionable public option

I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what I said.

 

[akoso]

Akoso, Indoctrination is a very difficult aspect of war as all combatants are subject to the effects of indoctrination. American soldiers undergo a training of indoctrination as well as enemy combatants and in the final analysis war has always provoked many deep discussions for years after of what was just or unjust about a war from either side. The best way to get an idea of how American soldiers view indoctrination and combat go to your nearest Veterans Administration Hospital and talk to the old war veterans who are in treatment, they will give you the most comprehensive view of who was right or wrong. Most to the veterans I have spoke to personally are of the opinion that war should be avoided at all costs and that peaceful negotiations should be attempted at all costs in order to save lives and prevent destruction of the families who ultimately pay the highest price for war. Governments do not pay psychologically and physically for war, families pay for the cost [in spiritual terms] of war.

Are you just responding to every post? a) I’m agreeing with you and b) I’m not even sure what this post has to do with what I said… other than that they both contain the word “war”.

 

[Ender]

The position of the Catholic Church is stated according to the latest Catechism …

What is stated in the current catechism is not so much the position of the Church as it is the personal opinion of JPII.

… and the older versions are considered superceded by the new.

This is not how it works. Truth and morals do not change with time and place and the conditions specified in the Catechism of 1997 on the use of capital punishment are starkly different from anything the Church had previously taught. You can only accept what it says by also accepting that the Church was in error for 2000 years.

Technology has enabled the lifetime incarceration or rehabilitation of criminals to the extent that the death sentence is no longer considered necessary.

The necessity for capital punishment has little to do with whether or not it protects society. The primary objective of all punishment is not protection but justice and technology has no bearing whatever on the accomplishment of that objective.

The reason for this is the possibility that anyone may repent prior to death, even dangerous criminals and so need not be deprived of the gift of final repentance.

This is not the position the Church takes.

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *(Aquinas)

Ender

 

[joe_clark]

Judges and juries who impose the death penalty face no special condemnation

Is this courtesy also extended when it is discovered that the guilty were innocent and a grave mistake was made??

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

Judges and juries who impose the death penalty face no special condemnation

Is this courtesy also extended when it is discovered that the guilty were innocent and a grave mistake was made??

Joe, From Pope Benedict XVI; Violence must never be a way to resolve difficulties. The problems is first and foremost human. I invite people to look at the face of the other and discover that he too has a soul, a story and a life. He is a person and God loves him just as He loves me".

And the Holy Father continued: “I would like to make similar considerations concerning man in his religious diversity. Violence towards Christians in certain countries has aroused the indignation of many people, also because it happened on the days most sacred to Christian tradition. It is important for both political and religious institutions not to renege … on their responsibilities. There can be no violence in the name of God, nor can we think to honour Him by offending the dignity and freedom of our fellow man”.

 

[fish90]

Joe, From Pope Benedict XVI; Violence must never be a way to resolve difficulties. The problems is first and foremost human. I invite people to look at the face of the other and discover that he too has a soul, a story and a life. He is a person and God loves him just as He loves me".

War, capital punishment and self-defense are three ways to morally kill another person under conditions. With all do respect, I would think the Pope understands that just wars are necessary in a fallen war.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

War, capital punishment and self-defense are three ways to morally kill another person under conditions. With all do respect, I would think the Pope understands that just wars are necessary in a fallen war.

Fish, Pope Benedict XVI fully understands just war and will declare one when the situation calls for it. So far, neither he nor Pope John Paul II declared American aggression in Iraq or Afghanistan as just war. Many times the Americans were asked to modify their war intentions toward justification and still have not done that.