When or is the death penalty alright?

[Lycorth]

If you are a human being, the question of whether it protects society is where the conversation eventually funnels to. It is and should be the question answered BEFORE we continue to execute human beings.

No matter what you are told, what you believe, the questions come. Why take someone out of society, lock them up and protect said society, only to strap someone down and murder them because written words on a page says you can?

The Catholic Church has never taught that the death penalty is murder. That is a teaching born of cultural Marxism, not Catholic Tradition.

Seems like overkill…no pun intended. It is completely NOT necessary at this point. Every time we kill a human being, it diminishes and numbs us to continue this dance of death because we have been doing it this way for years? And this is pro life? Seems like a real conflict here. The mission of protecting society had been accomplished at the point you incarcerate the guilty.

Incarceration does nothing to help! Most violent criminals re-offend upon release - how is that protecting society?

Prisons are not magic devices that transform violent criminals into sterling citizens, and they do not operate for free. The innocent must be forced to subsidize them. That is what is cruel, not coddling vipers.

It is pro-life since we are protecting the innocent. Executing the dangerous protects the innocent, and always has. Executing jaywalkers would certainly be considered murder, since a jaywalker is not a threat to others. But to ascribe equality to all human beings and criminal offenses is insane and dangerous.

The innocent must not suffer for the sake of the guilty.

This country has been executing people who have been under their complete control for decades, only to continue quoting law and verse killing more people to stop killing???

This country rarely executes anyone.

Facts:
The death penalty is not working.

Fiction. the real fact is that the death penalty works; if a dangerous thug is executed, then he or she cannot be a threat any more. How is that “not working”?

The death penalty does not and never detered others from killing.

Neither does a few years in a prison at the expense of the innocent. However, individual murderers are prevented from murdering again if they are executed. They cannot rise from the dead and re-offend; if that were so, then the death penalty could be seen as useless.

Prisons are what do not work.

If protecting society is not the reason we engage in the death penalty, then someone please tell me why?

Why continue to insert the wrong key into a lock, only to keep trying and maybe hoping one day it will open. This is no different than creating your own reality then believing it.

Again, that is the prison system; billions of dollars and billions of man-hours a year wasted on criminal communities that return hardened gangsters to civilized society for the most part. That is what needs to go, not a simple and just measure to protect the innocent from the vicious.

 

[CWBetts]

The Catholic Church has never taught that the death penalty is murder. That is a teaching born of cultural Marxism, not Catholic Tradition.

Incarceration does nothing to help! Most violent criminals re-offend upon release - how is that protecting society?

Prisons are not magic devices that transform violent criminals into sterling citizens, and they do not operate for free. The innocent must be forced to subsidize them. That is what is cruel, not coddling vipers.

It is pro-life since we are protecting the innocent. Executing the dangerous protects the innocent, and always has. Executing jaywalkers would certainly be considered murder, since a jaywalker is not a threat to others. But to ascribe equality to all human beings and criminal offenses is insane and dangerous.

The innocent must not suffer for the sake of the guilty.

This country rarely executes anyone.

Fiction. the real fact is that the death penalty works; if a dangerous thug is executed, then he or she cannot be a threat any more. How is that “not working”?

Neither does a few years in a prison at the expense of the innocent. However, individual murderers are prevented from murdering again if they are executed. They cannot rise from the dead and re-offend; if that were so, then the death penalty could be seen as useless.

Prisons are what do not work.

Again, that is the prison system; billions of dollars and billions of man-hours a year wasted on criminal communities that return hardened gangsters to civilized society for the most part. That is what needs to go, not a simple and just measure to protect the innocent from the vicious.

If a murderer is in life without parole, when are they released? I would also ask you to stop dehumanizing them. Like it or not criminals are creations of God, made in His image, and as such have an inherent value. But I guess you reject that particular teaching of the Church.

 

[Ender]

And that, again, is where you differ with Catholic teaching (as presented in CCC 2267 for example).

Set 2267 aside for a moment and think about what the Church teaches on justice and punishment.

She teaches that punishment has four objectives and that the primary objective is justice (retribution). The protection of society is one of the four but it, like the other two, is secondary. I think everyone would agree that all punishment must be just … and what does the Church say is the requirement of a just punishment? That it must be commensurate to the severity of the crime (this is all laid out in 2266).

The … penalty is underused if it is less than justice demands and it is overused if it more than justice allows

How is this claim in opposition to what the Church teaches?

Regarding justice, it means giving everyone his due; as Aquinas said: *“Rendering to each one his right.” *This applies not just to rewards but to punishment as well: *“We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.”

*In supporting my position I have quoted Church sources. If you disagree with me you need to do more than simply state “you’re wrong”.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Set 2267 aside for a moment and think about what the Church teaches on justice and punishment.

She teaches that punishment has four objectives and that the primary objective is justice (retribution). The protection of society is one of the four but it, like the other two, is secondary. I think everyone would agree that all punishment must be just … and what does the Church say is the requirement of a just punishment? That it must be commensurate to the severity of the crime (this is all laid out in 2266).

The … penalty is underused if it is less than justice demands and it is overused if it more than justice allows

How is this claim in opposition to what the Church teaches?

Regarding justice, it means giving everyone his due; as Aquinas said: *“Rendering to each one his right.” *This applies not just to rewards but to punishment as well: *“We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.”

*In supporting my position I have quoted Church sources. If you disagree with me you need to do more than simply state “you’re wrong”.

Ender

Justice does not equal retribution. Educate yourself.

 

[Lycorth]

If a murderer is in life without parole, when are they released?

If their sentence is commuted. Most murderers are not sentenced to life without parole, but rather given temporary sentences which are oftentimes not fully served to begin with.

I would also ask you to stop dehumanizing them. Like it or not criminals are creations of God, made in His image, and as such have an inherent value. But I guess you reject that particular teaching of the Church.

I don’t reject that even the worst of criminals are made in God’s image and have inherent value as human beings.

I do however reject any undo value ascribed to them, that they are somehow inviolate because they are human, and assert that if individuals prove dangerous to society they must be dealt with in a manner that abrogates the danger they pose. Since the American-style prison system has proven itself to be a failure, long-term/indefinite incarceration of dangerous criminals is not an option.

 

[Magdalena09]

Most murderers are not sentenced to life without parole, but rather given temporary sentences which are oftentimes not fully served to begin with.

source, please.

 

[CWBetts]

source, please.

He doesn’t have one. He relies on right-wing paranoia.

 

[Lycorth]

source, please.

hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/12483781.html

tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/recidiv.htm

social.jrank.org/pages/1350/Prisons-Likelihood-Re-offense-by-Type-Crime-Committed.html

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:MT1kWGfLL84J:www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf+rate+of+recidivism+in+the+US+for+murder&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

These are just a few sources dealing with lack of sentences being served and/or rates of re-offense; the first link is the most germane.

He doesn’t have one. He relies on right-wing paranoia.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Magdalena09]

hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/12483781.html

tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/recidiv.htm

social.jrank.org/pages/1350/Prisons-Likelihood-Re-offense-by-Type-Crime-Committed.html

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:MT1kWGfLL84J:www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf+rate+of+recidivism+in+the+US+for+murder&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

These are just a few sources dealing with lack of sentences being served and/or rates of re-offense; the first link is the most germane.

Thank you for the sources, I read the first one fully but did not tackle the others yet.

So it would seem to me that if it is true that most murders are not punished with life in prison without parole, then they should be. It’s a problem with the judicial system in this case, and inadequate sentencing. I don’t think it’s necessary to make the jump to “Oh well, let’s kill them.”

But I dunno.

 

[CWBetts]

Thank you for the sources, I read the first one fully but did not tackle the others yet.

So it would seem to me that if it is true that most murders are not punished with life in prison without parole, then they should be. It’s a problem with the judicial system in this case, and inadequate sentencing. I don’t think it’s necessary to make the jump to “Oh well, let’s kill them.”

But I dunno.

I think you have made an accurate assessment.

 

[Ender]

Justice does not equal retribution.

Yes, it does. FWIW: retribution doesn’t just mean punishment for evil, it can also mean reward for good. In both cases it means giving a man what his actions have earned him … which is the definition of justice. Nonetheless, since we are discussing punishment and justice I will focus on their relationship:

Educate yourself.

Since I was quoting Thomas Aquinas I’m not sure how much more educated a source I can provide, but I’ll give it a shot.

"It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments* inflicted by God’s** sanctity and**** justice.***"(Paul VI 1967)

“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium*"* (Pius XII 1954)

"The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin " (Leo XIII 1888)

Regarding Pope Leo’s comment, meting out both reward and punishment constitute retribution and both are done to satisfy the obligation of justice. Finally, even though you consider him uneducated on the topic, I will quote Mr. Aquinas one more time:

"God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them." (ST I/II 87, 3 ad 3)

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, it does. FWIW: retribution doesn’t just mean punishment for evil, it can also mean reward for good. In both cases it means giving a man what his actions have earned him … which is the definition of justice. Nonetheless, since we are discussing punishment and justice I will focus on their relationship:
Since I was quoting Thomas Aquinas I’m not sure how much more educated a source I can provide, but I’ll give it a shot.

"It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments** inflicted by God’s** sanctity and*** justice.***"(Paul VI 1967)

“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium" (Pius XII 1954)

*"*The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin " (Leo XIII 1888)

Regarding Pope Leo’s comment, meting out both reward and punishment constitute retribution and both are done to satisfy the obligation of justice. Finally, even though you consider him uneducated on the topic, I will quote Mr. Aquinas one more time:

"God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them." (ST I/II 87, 3 ad 3)

Ender

Since you talk of “God’s justice”, I take thaqt to mean that you feel that you have the right to act in the place of God.

 

[Lycorth]

Thank you for the sources, I read the first one fully but did not tackle the others yet.

So it would seem to me that if it is true that most murders are not punished with life in prison without parole, then they should be. It’s a problem with the judicial system in this case, and inadequate sentencing. I don’t think it’s necessary to make the jump to “Oh well, let’s kill them.”

But I dunno.

You’re welcome for the links; I hope you find them useful.

Your point is understandable, but actually reinforcing life sentences would not be the complete answer. For one thing, that’s the system we already have now, and it’s not being used. In fact, it’s impossible to implement; life sentences for the thousands of murderers in America alone would be a gargantuan burden on the American people, since prisons do not fund themselves. Innocents, the victims of criminal brutality, must be made to pay for them, in addition to having to support themselves, which is unjust. The poor in particular cannot in good conscience be expected to pay for their oppressors.

The prison system, as I’ve explained in several posts on this thread, is an insurmountable problem in and of itself. Prisons are essentially gated criminal communities, wherein little to no actual rehabilitation occurs. Gang activity thrives in prison systems and there is not a prison to be found where gangs that exist on the outside do not exist on the inside, behind bars, and are oftentimes run in tandem with those on the outside. This is not rehabilitation, this is merely giving criminals a time-out, like in hockey, where they can rest up before going back out on the ice. The links I’ve provided underscore that that is all that basically happens, with recidivism proving how little rehabilitation actually happens.

Gangs grow strong in prisons, where inmates who are not gang members usually have to decide on and join a gang quickly or else face near certain violence and death as a result of being an unprotected loner. This is also not rehabilitation, as criminal activity would decrease and diminish, not grow and thrive.

For those who are relatively minor offenders, such as kids caught with pot or otherwise incarcerated for minor offenses, prison life can be cruel, either killing or maiming them or forcing them to devolve into hardened criminals themselves, driving them into gangs for protection and turning out not a magically rehabilitated individual, but a worse danger than the one that went in.

Execution, labor, and exile are the traditional methods, by and large, for punishing crime. Execution of dangerous and violent criminals instantly removes all danger that individual poses. Even incarceration only keeps the tiger at bay; the tiger will eventually be turned loose and the cycle will repeat. Non-dangerous/non-violent offenders can and ought to be made to work off their debts to society in a productive manner, and exile can be considered in odd cases (though I don’t really see that as practical, since every square inch of earth is owned by someone else, so one cannot be exiled anywhere). But the point is clear - the prison system is part of the problem and must be done away with.

It is said that the mark of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different outcome each time than the outcome that keeps happening. The prison system and the abrogation of the death penalty in cases where it is clearly necessary is an example of that. For decades, we’ve been putting criminals into prisons and expecting miracles to walk out, then wondering why it happens so rarely and instead usually worse criminals are turned loose on society. Furthermore, we wonder why murder and rape is always so problematic and yet we refuse to execute those who are guilty of such depredations. We keep doing things and expecting something different to happen than the failures that consistently are produced.

It’s time to get back to basics, staunch the bleeding in our hearts, roll up or sleeves, and either do what needs doing or else watch as our civilization continues to become more barbaric and dangerous each day.

 

[CWBetts]

You’re welcome for the links; I hope you find them useful.

Your point is understandable, but actually reinforcing life sentences would not be the complete answer. For one thing, that’s the system we already have now, and it’s not being used. In fact, it’s impossible to implement; life sentences for the thousands of murderers in America alone would be a gargantuan burden on the American people, since prisons do not fund themselves. Innocents, the victims of criminal brutality, must be made to pay for them, in addition to having to support themselves, which is unjust. The poor in particular cannot in good conscience be expected to pay for their oppressors.

The prison system, as I’ve explained in several posts on this thread, is an insurmountable problem in and of itself. Prisons are essentially gated criminal communities, wherein little to no actual rehabilitation occurs. Gang activity thrives in prison systems and there is not a prison to be found where gangs that exist on the outside do not exist on the inside, behind bars, and are oftentimes run in tandem with those on the outside. This is not rehabilitation, this is merely giving criminals a time-out, like in hockey, where they can rest up before going back out on the ice. The links I’ve provided underscore that that is all that basically happens, with recidivism proving how little rehabilitation actually happens.

Gangs grow strong in prisons, where inmates who are not gang members usually have to decide on and join a gang quickly or else face near certain violence and death as a result of being an unprotected loner. This is also not rehabilitation, as criminal activity would decrease and diminish, not grow and thrive.

For those who are relatively minor offenders, such as kids caught with pot or otherwise incarcerated for minor offenses, prison life can be cruel, either killing or maiming them or forcing them to devolve into hardened criminals themselves, driving them into gangs for protection and turning out not a magically rehabilitated individual, but a worse danger than the one that went in.

Execution, labor, and exile are the traditional methods, by and large, for punishing crime. Execution of dangerous and violent criminals instantly removes all danger that individual poses. Even incarceration only keeps the tiger at bay; the tiger will eventually be turned loose and the cycle will repeat. Non-dangerous/non-violent offenders can and ought to be made to work off their debts to society in a productive manner, and exile can be considered in odd cases (though I don’t really see that as practical, since every square inch of earth is owned by someone else, so one cannot be exiled anywhere). But the point is clear - the prison system is part of the problem and must be done away with.

It is said that the mark of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different outcome each time than the outcome that keeps happening. The prison system and the abrogation of the death penalty in cases where it is clearly necessary is an example of that. For decades, we’ve been putting criminals into prisons and expecting miracles to walk out, then wondering why it happens so rarely and instead usually worse criminals are turned loose on society. Furthermore, we wonder why murder and rape is always so problematic and yet we refuse to execute those who are guilty of such depredations. We keep doing things and expecting something different to happen than the failures that consistently are produced.

It’s time to get back to basics, staunch the bleeding in our hearts, roll up or sleeves, and either do what needs doing or else watch as our civilization continues to become more barbaric and dangerous each day.

The very reason it is becoming more barbaric is because there is a general disregard for the sanctity of life, which the death penalty does nothing for. In fact it reinforces the idea that life is disposable. Certain people are stripped of their humanity, and are viewed as animals to be slaughtered. Only by turning away from excessive use of the death penalty and its drain on the economy (the court costs for the seemingly endless appeals are staggering) serve no useful purpose.

 

[Magdalena09]

You’re welcome for the links; I hope you find them useful.

Your point is understandable, but actually reinforcing life sentences would not be the complete answer. For one thing, that’s the system we already have now, and it’s not being used. In fact, it’s impossible to implement; life sentences for the thousands of murderers in America alone would be a gargantuan burden on the American people, since prisons do not fund themselves. Innocents, the victims of criminal brutality, must be made to pay for them, in addition to having to support themselves, which is unjust. The poor in particular cannot in good conscience be expected to pay for their oppressors.

The prison system, as I’ve explained in several posts on this thread, is an insurmountable problem in and of itself. Prisons are essentially gated criminal communities, wherein little to no actual rehabilitation occurs. Gang activity thrives in prison systems and there is not a prison to be found where gangs that exist on the outside do not exist on the inside, behind bars, and are oftentimes run in tandem with those on the outside. This is not rehabilitation, this is merely giving criminals a time-out, like in hockey, where they can rest up before going back out on the ice. The links I’ve provided underscore that that is all that basically happens, with recidivism proving how little rehabilitation actually happens.

Gangs grow strong in prisons, where inmates who are not gang members usually have to decide on and join a gang quickly or else face near certain violence and death as a result of being an unprotected loner. This is also not rehabilitation, as criminal activity would decrease and diminish, not grow and thrive.

For those who are relatively minor offenders, such as kids caught with pot or otherwise incarcerated for minor offenses, prison life can be cruel, either killing or maiming them or forcing them to devolve into hardened criminals themselves, driving them into gangs for protection and turning out not a magically rehabilitated individual, but a worse danger than the one that went in.

Execution, labor, and exile are the traditional methods, by and large, for punishing crime. Execution of dangerous and violent criminals instantly removes all danger that individual poses. Even incarceration only keeps the tiger at bay; the tiger will eventually be turned loose and the cycle will repeat. Non-dangerous/non-violent offenders can and ought to be made to work off their debts to society in a productive manner, and exile can be considered in odd cases (though I don’t really see that as practical, since every square inch of earth is owned by someone else, so one cannot be exiled anywhere). But the point is clear - the prison system is part of the problem and must be done away with.

It is said that the mark of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different outcome each time than the outcome that keeps happening. The prison system and the abrogation of the death penalty in cases where it is clearly necessary is an example of that. For decades, we’ve been putting criminals into prisons and expecting miracles to walk out, then wondering why it happens so rarely and instead usually worse criminals are turned loose on society. Furthermore, we wonder why murder and rape is always so problematic and yet we refuse to execute those who are guilty of such depredations. We keep doing things and expecting something different to happen than the failures that consistently are produced.

It’s time to get back to basics, staunch the bleeding in our hearts, roll up or sleeves, and either do what needs doing or else watch as our civilization continues to become more barbaric and dangerous each day.

While your points are concise and understandable, I have never been able to agree in good conscience that it’s better to kill people off than to have to pay monetarily for them.

The world is confusing and seemingly getting worse every day–depending on where you look.

You mention rapists and other violent, unspeakable crimes. I have to agree with you there. In all honesty, I can sympathize more with a parent who murders their daughter’s rapist than I can with a rapist who didn’t kill his victim. Why? I don’t know. Taking a life seems to be the ultimate crime in all logical heads… but I digress.

I have mentioned it before, my first post in this thread… I think that a Catholic can hold either position in good conscience but it is essential to explore WHY they hold the positions they do.

Fr Corapi said once on EWTN that forgiveness of others is essential to being a Christian–he specifically mentioned people who were sexually abused and how even they must forgive their abusers. That’s bold. In my own experience, I can’t imagine truly forgiving someone and still wishing them dead.

 

[Lycorth]

The very reason it is becoming more barbaric is because there is a general disregard for the sanctity of life, which the death penalty does nothing for. In fact it reinforces the idea that life is disposable. Certain people are stripped of their humanity, and are viewed as animals to be slaughtered. Only by turning away from excessive use of the death penalty and its drain on the economy (the court costs for the seemingly endless appeals are staggering) serve no useful purpose.

The death penalty reinforces the sanctity of life by expressing our belief that certain crimes against innocent lives (especially those that end innocent lives) must be punished by the execution of the offender for the sake of protecting other innocent lives as well as a just temporal punishment for the crime.

The death penalty does not have to be a drain on the economy, and is not. Rifle cartridges cost pennies to produce and sell for pennies apiece on the civilian market. Rope costs little to produce as well and is reusable. A guillotine is more costly to manufacture but cheap to maintain and is reusable (but more creative than we need to be). Executing criminals without expensive chemicals is inexpensive and effective.

What cheapens human life is the belief that those who wantonly violate the lives of the innocent are just as important as the innocent - even more important, since more money and time is to be invested in their loving care while the innocent must labor more in order to pay for the upkeep of their oppressors. That is what defiles human life, not the just and proper punishment of those who have declared war on their countrymen.

While your points are concise and understandable, I have never been able to agree in good conscience that it’s better to kill people off than to have to pay monetarily for them.

I hate to cast aspersions, or seem to, but I don’t imagine you’ve ever witnessed much inhumanity. I’m not trying to be rude, but you must realize you cannot just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away.

That’s what prison is. Just throw more money into the prisons and keep throwing people into them and hope everything gets better. It hasn’t, it doesn’t, it won’t. Prisons and our entirely yellow-bellied approach to crime and punishment have made for a more violent society and coarser culture than our forebears enjoyed.

That alone ought to demonstrate that this approach is the wrong one.

The world is confusing and seemingly getting worse every day–depending on where you look.

You mention rapists and other violent, unspeakable crimes. I have to agree with you there. In all honesty, I can sympathize more with a parent who murders their daughter’s rapist than I can with a rapist who didn’t kill his victim. Why? I don’t know. Taking a life seems to be the ultimate crime in all logical heads… but I digress.

You sympathize because you have a sense of justice. That is normal and yes, I believe entirely God-given.

I have mentioned it before, my first post in this thread… I think that a Catholic can hold either position in good conscience but it is essential to explore WHY they hold the positions they do.

Fr Corapi said once on EWTN that forgiveness of others is essential to being a Christian–he specifically mentioned people who were sexually abused and how even they must forgive their abusers. That’s bold. In my own experience, I can’t imagine truly forgiving someone and still wishing them dead.

It’s not hard; forgiveness does not and never did imply letting someone off the hook, nor does it imply implicit acceptance of their crime. That is part of the problem; modern man assumes that when we forgive someone of something, we let that person off the hook. This is not and never has been a Church teaching; the Church has always taught the wisdom of the Lord, that there is temporal punishment due to offenses, be they sins or crimes. Forgiveness has never implied that we just ignore the need to address crimes and dangerous situations. One can forgive someone of a horrible offense and yet pragmatically accept that the offender poses a clear and obvious danger to society by way of his or her actions and must be executed in order to protect society.

It’s tantamount to saying that because one person steals something from someone else, that someone else in the course of forgiveness must not take any legal action to see that the thief is punished appropriately for his crime. He can forgive the thief and also press charges, otherwise the theft goes unpunished and the thief may steal again, having learned nothing.

 

[Magdalena09]

The very reason it is becoming more barbaric is because there is a general disregard for the sanctity of life, which the death penalty does nothing for. In fact it reinforces the idea that life is disposable. Certain people are stripped of their humanity, and are viewed as animals to be slaughtered. Only by turning away from excessive use of the death penalty and its drain on the economy (the court costs for the seemingly endless appeals are staggering) serve no useful purpose.

Such good points; I completely forgot about that!

 

[Magdalena09]

The death penalty reinforces the sanctity of life by expressing our belief that certain crimes against innocent lives (especially those that end innocent lives) must be punished by the execution of the offender for the sake of protecting other innocent lives as well as a just temporal punishment for the crime.

The death penalty does not have to be a drain on the economy, and is not. Rifle cartridges cost pennies to produce and sell for pennies apiece on the civilian market. Rope costs little to produce as well and is reusable. A guillotine is more costly to manufacture but cheap to maintain and is reusable (but more creative than we need to be). Executing criminals without expensive chemicals is inexpensive and effective.

What cheapens human life is the belief that those who wantonly violate the lives of the innocent are just as important as the innocent - even more important, since more money and time is to be invested in their loving care while the innocent must labor more in order to pay for the upkeep of their oppressors. That is what defiles human life, not the just and proper punishment of those who have declared war on their countrymen.

I hate to cast aspersions, or seem to, but I don’t imagine you’ve ever witnessed much inhumanity. I’m not trying to be rude, but you must realize you cannot just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away.

That’s what prison is. Just throw more money into the prisons and keep throwing people into them and hope everything gets better. It hasn’t, it doesn’t, it won’t. Prisons and our entirely yellow-bellied approach to crime and punishment have made for a more violent society and coarser culture than our forebears enjoyed.

That alone ought to demonstrate that this approach is the wrong one.

You sympathize because you have a sense of justice. That is normal and yes, I believe entirely God-given.

It’s not hard; forgiveness does not and never did imply letting someone off the hook, nor does it imply implicit acceptance of their crime. That is part of the problem; modern man assumes that when we forgive someone of something, we let that person off the hook. This is not and never has been a Church teaching; the Church has always taught the wisdom of the Lord, that there is temporal punishment due to offenses, be they sins or crimes. Forgiveness has never implied that we just ignore the need to address crimes and dangerous situations. One can forgive someone of a horrible offense and yet pragmatically accept that the offender poses a clear and obvious danger to society by way of his or her actions and must be executed in order to protect society.

It’s tantamount to saying that because one person steals something from someone else, that someone else in the course of forgiveness must not take any legal action to see that the thief is punished appropriately for his crime. He can forgive the thief and also press charges, otherwise the theft goes unpunished and the thief may steal again, having learned nothing.

I feel like you put a lot of words in my mouth that I never said which I am willing to bet was not your intent. I don’t think throwing money at problems makes them go away. What I actually said was that I don’t think NOT wanting to pay monetarily–even if it means life instead of death–is a good response to situations. I hold this position when I talk with pro-choicers, too, who use the same argument when trying to rationalize abortion. All other points aside, (that the baby is innocent, etc) and just looked at the money aspect of things, pro-choicers will argue that unwanted children are a drain on government sources. They are a worthy “drain”, to be sure, whereas it can be argued that inmates at prisons are not worthy. However, I think that an overall mindset of “I don’t want to pay for that so let’s kill them” is a faulty mindset. That’s all I was saying. Not, “let’s throw money at it and hope it fixes itself.”

I didn’t say that forgiveness means letting someone off the hook. I **actually **said that based on my own personal experience, I can’t imagine truly forgiving someone and still wanting them dead. God said that vengeance is his; he didn’t say vengeance is up to us. And I think that is dangerous to pretend that wanting vengeance doesn’t cloud peoples’ judgements and that they don’t try to exact it themselves.

 

[Brendan]

Since you talk of “God’s justice”, I take thaqt to mean that you feel that you have the right to act in the place of God.

I don’t remember seeing where Ender claimed that right for himself, but rather for the State.

And yes, the State DOES have the right to act in the place of God. The Holy Spirit said so through Paul

Romans 13:3-4

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. 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.

 

[Brendan]

The very reason it is becoming more barbaric is because there is a general disregard for the sanctity of life, which the death penalty does nothing for. .

Your statement is contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Catechism of Trent On the 5th Commandment - Execution Of Criminals

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. The end of the Commandmen is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Also, in reference to my post above, note that Trent reinforces what St. Paul wrote about the State being the legitimate avenger of crime