When or is the death penalty alright?

[Gift_from_God]

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?

 

[fish90]

My understanding is that the Death Penalty is morally neutral when the identity and the guilt of the suspect are confirmed, the crime is severe and there are no other nonlethal ways to do justice.

Capital Punishment

2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html

The Church’s position from what I know is that Capital Punishment is acceptable in very rare cases in a first world country.

I hope this helps.

 

[thistle]

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?

The official Church position:

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -** the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.**

If you were to execute all terrorists (of which there are many) then that would contradict the Church position that execution cases should be practically non-existent.

 

[fish90]

I do not think that you will be barred from Communion if you support the Death Penalty in extreme cases like Terrorism.

 

[JimG]

The official Church position:

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself -** the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.**

If you were to execute all terrorists (of which there are many) then that would contradict the Church position that execution cases should be practically non-existent.

I tend to oppose the death penalty for various reasons, yet support it if necessary to protect society.

As to the Church’s position stated above, here is my ambiguity: Does the Church mean that

(a) the state has the means to protect society without resort to the death penalty, therefore cases in which it is exercised ought to be very rare.
or
(b) the state in fact does use the means available to protect society without resort to the death penalty, therefore cases in which the death penalty is exercised ought to be very rare.

It is true that the state does have the means: i.e. life in prison without parole.
But that means is not and cannot routinely be exercised by the state. There are multiple murderers who are sentenced to life in prison, who are in fact eligible for parole. Society is not thereby protected.

 

[diggerdomer]

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?

The USCCB has this initiative that might help:

usccb.org/deathpenalty/

 

[Midwesterner]

The death penalty is a stumbling block for Catholics who claim to be pro-life. I have heard justifications for it but this involves the opinion of one bishop who favors it.

 

[Ender]

Could the death penalty be applicable for people who commit heinous crimes such as terrorism?

Yes.

As others have already noted, 2267 places such restrictions on the use of capital punishment that, in practice, it has been all but banished. There are, however, serious problems with 2267 and it should be noted that, prior to 1995, the Church had always accepted the use of capital punishment. The first paragraph of 2267 says:

the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This statement is simply wrong. The Church has never had such a restriction (everything after the if); she had never tied the use of capital punishment to the protection of society. There are no references in 2267 (or Evangelium Vitae #56 on which it is based) to any such “traditional teaching” for the simple reason that this concept was never taught.

The third paragraph is an opinion on the nature of modern penal systems and cannot possibly be considered binding. I happen to be of a different opinion but the point is that opinions do not confer moral obligations, regardless of who holds them.

The second talks about the common good and human dignity:

the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person

It seems that a concern for the common good is what JPII had in mind when he wrote this; that is, that executions do more harm than good in current society. Another opinion I don’t share. As for being in conformity to the dignity of the human person, I really think this is backwards: it is because of the dignity of the human person that the penalty for murder must be uncompromisingly severe.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

This statement is simply wrong.

Just because the Church never had such a restriction does not make Church teaching wrong.

 

[Ender]

Just because the Church never had such a restriction does not make Church teaching wrong.

If the Church never had such a restriction then it is wrong to claim that it was the “traditional teaching”.

Ender

 

[Portrait]

The death penalty is a stumbling block for Catholics who claim to be pro-life. I have heard justifications for it but this involves the opinion of one bishop who favors it.

Dear Midwesterner,

The death penalty presents absolutely no stumbling block to me and I am an active supporter of my local S.P.U.C. group - sorry but I fail to see how being an exponent of the death penalty is acting at variance with my Pro-Life principles.

Until its recent u-turn in the revised Catechism, which was entirely wanting in biblical support, our Church fully endorsed the death penalty without reserve (as “Ender” has observed above); this was the traditional teaching of our Church. Regrettably the Church’s position against the death penalty has undoubtedly hardened, even though it does not prohibit capital punishment in rare cases, and this, I believe, is cause for concern.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[MacMarauder]

I think the death penalty should only be used in societies that do not have the capacity to detain and control dangerous criminals. In modern developed countries I do not think the death penalty serves any purpose other than appealing to our base human desires for revenge. Obviously I think that is completely against all the teachings of the Catholic Church and it makes me very proud that the USCCB has been calling for the end of this practice for over 25 years!

 

[Ender]

In modern developed countries I do not think the death penalty serves any purpose other than appealing to our base human desires for revenge.

The problem with this uncharitable argument is that you cannot limit its application simply to those of us who support the death penalty today. It would also apply to everyone in the Church who wrote on this subject (prior to JPII) and who also supported it, e.g. Augustine, Aquinas, the entire Council of Trent, and a long list of popes from Innocent I in 405 to Pius XII in 1954. Also, inasmuch as Vatican City had the death penalty on her books for most of the 20th century (until 1969) your condemnation surely would apply to the 20th century popes up through (and including) John XXXIII.

Obviously I think that is completely against all the teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church herself would seem to disagree with you as she supported the use of capital punishment until 1995 … and it’s not all that clear that she has repudiated that position. I believe her current opposition is based on practical considerations rather than moral ones.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

it is because of the dignity of the human person that the penalty for murder must be uncompromisingly severe.

Not as the Church understands and teaches about the dignity of the human person.

 

[diggerdomer]

If the Church never had such a restriction then it is wrong to claim that it was the “traditional teaching”.

Ender

The traditional teaching is that the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.

 

[MacMarauder]

The problem with this uncharitable argument is that you cannot limit its application simply to those of us who support the death penalty today. It would also apply to everyone in the Church who wrote on this subject (prior to JPII) and who also supported it, e.g. Augustine, Aquinas, the entire Council of Trent, and a long list of popes from Innocent I in 405 to Pius XII in 1954. Also, inasmuch as Vatican City had the death penalty on her books for most of the 20th century (until 1969) your condemnation surely would apply to the 20th century popes up through (and including) John XXXIII.

My statement was only my opinion on the merits of the death penalty as I see no reason for it in modern society. I would not expect death penalty supporters to share my view and furthermore am not looking to condemn anyone!

The Church herself would seem to disagree with you as she supported the use of capital punishment until 1995 … and it’s not all that clear that she has repudiated that position. I believe her current opposition is based on practical considerations rather than moral ones.

Ender

I was merely expressing my happiness that the USCCB has been fighting against a practice I find abhorrent for the past 25 years. I’m not looking to start a debate on the attitudes of the Church over the past 2,000 years with regard to this issue. I will humbly point out that I don’t have enough knowledge on church history to debate that point.

 

[Brendan]

The death penalty is a stumbling block for Catholics who claim to be pro-life…

Well the death penalty is not a “Right to Life” issue, so being “Pro-Life” does not imply a disagreement with the death penalty.

Pope Piux XII

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather, public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."

The Catholic teaching on the subject is that the offender has, by their act, chosen to deprive themselves of their Right to Life.

 

[diggerdomer]

Well the death penalty is not a “Right to Life” issue, so being “Pro-Life” does not imply a disagreement with the death penalty.

Pope Piux XII

The Catholic teaching on the subject is that the offender has, by their act, chosen to deprive themselves of their Right to Life.

Yes it is a pro-life issue.

e.g. from the U.S. Bishops:

The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the
Death Penalty is part of the Church’s broad commitment
to defend human life from conception to natural
death whenever and wherever it is threatened.16 God
is the Lord of life. Protecting human life is a sacred
duty…
This initiative is not about ideology, but life and
death. In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John
Paul II told us that we have an “inescapable responsibility
of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.”18 This
Catholic campaign brings us together for common
action to end the use of the death penalty, to reject a
culture of death, and to build a culture of life.

See usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

 

[Portrait]

I think the death penalty should only be used in societies that do not have the capacity to detain and control dangerous criminals. In modern developed countries I do not think the death penalty serves any purpose other than appealing to our base human desires for revenge. Obviously I think that is completely against all the teachings of the Catholic Church and it makes me very proud that the USCCB has been calling for the end of this practice for over 25 years!

Dear MacMarauder,

To state that you “do not think the death penalty serves any purpose other than appealing to our base human desires for revenge”, really does show a complete ignorance of the biblical teaching on capital punishment, as well as running counter to the consistent teaching of the Church up until 1995.

One of the most important pronouncements in Sacred Scripture regarding capital punishment is to be found in Genesis 9: 6 - “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image” Now it is this reference to the image of God that gives the death penalty its whole rationale. You speak of it as “appealing to our base human desires for revenge”, yet the bible speaks of an act of violence perpetrated by one man against another man and declares that this is, in effect, an outrage against the Almighty. clearly any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty. It was for this reason that the death penalty was sanctioned by God at the very beginning.

Romans 13:1-7 is pivotal in any debate on capital punishment. In verse 4 St. Paul states that the civil magistrate “…does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer”(emphasis mine). Now the term “sword”(Gr. Macharia) which St. Paul employs here is not the weapon that the emperor carried as the symbol of the authority of his office, but rather the one worn by the superior magistrates in the provinces, who had the power to inflict capital punishment.

In Acts 25: 11 St. Paul, imprisoned for the sake of the Gospel and standing before Festus, stated that “…if I have commited anything for which I deserve to die (emphasis mine), I do not seek to escape death”. Is it not plainly evident that St. Paul
was saying that if he was found to have commited a capital crime then he would not seek to escape the death penalty. What is surely noteworthy is that the Apostle clearly presupposed that some crimes are in fact worthy of death - a presupposition that is clearly at variance with modern abolitionist thinking. Thus according to St. Paul’s mind, not only were some crimes intrinsically worthy of death, but the “powers that be” actually had the divinely sanctioned authority to exercise capital punishment in such cases (see Rom. 13: 4).

It is quite true, of course, that many Christians have found it hard to square such mandates for the violent restraint of evil with our Lord’s teachings on love and non-violence. However we should bear in mind that Sacred Scripture clearly affirms that God is concerned with both the preservation of the world from evil and with the sinner’s salvation; God mandates the punishment in* time* of those who He may in fact pardon in eternity.

Finally, any punishment inflicted by lawful government is making no appeal “to base human desires for revenge”, on the contrary its sole purpose is the supression of evil. Indeed more benevolence is demonstrated in punishing violence, and thus repressing it, than in allowing it to prevail.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Brendan]

Yes it is a pro-life issue.

e.g. from the U.S. Bishops:

See usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

Well, we have a choice between what a Pope’s says on the matter and the US bishops. If we understand that our bishops will not intentionally put themselves in the position of contradicting a Pope, we must then look for how they are compatable.

The two really are not incompatable, but not in the way that you think.

The bishop’s call is to protect human life from conception until natural death. That is certainly true. But where does the loss of the right to life happen? Pope Pius tells us that it happens when the offender commits the crime.

So the bishops call here is in the prevention of the offender commiting the murder, not necessarily in the use of the death penalty.