When or is the death penalty alright?

[PEPCIS]

First of all, I’ll thank you not to cast aspersions on me nor read into my remarks that which is not there.

Secondly, I said nothing about deterring crime. I know full well that the death penalty does not deter crime. It’s a matter of protecting the innocent, who come before murderers and dangerous thugs. Sorry, but not all human life is of equal value, and coddling vipers does nothing to protect the innocent, which is and ought to be a key occupation of any just state.

That states with the death penalty (supposedly) have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states suggests that there simply are more violent criminals in death penalty states than in non-death penalty states. That is hardly an argument against the execution of dangerous criminals. Another fact is that the majority of dangerous criminals repeat offend as soon as they are turned loose.

The modern idea of the prison system as a “rehabilitation center” has to go. It is dangerous to society, unjust to the innocent (who have to pay to prop these systems up), and ineffective.

Reason and experience fuel my opinions.

I neglected to mention simple justice in my previous post, and it is important. Grave crimes deserve grave punishment, whether or not the individual criminal repents.

However, as mentioned, charity is also key, and it is simply not charitable to permit dangerous criminals to re-enter civilized society and re-offend.

Great post, Lycorth! What the libs have difficulty in conceptualizing is that for a system to be “just”, it must not only punish the perpetrator with a punishment that is equal to the crime, but it must also protect the innocent.

Everyone knows that it would be completely unjust to allow a murderer to go free, because they recognize that he MUST pay for his crime. Even if the judge were to sentence a murderer to 2 years in jail, 99% of folk would look to hang such a stupid judge, because he completely lacks a sense of justice.

There are only two ways to protect the innocent: lock up the perpetrator for life, or sentence him, and carry out, a sentence of death.

 

[CWBetts]

Sorry, but not all human life is of equal value, and coddling vipers does nothing to protect the innocent, which is and ought to be a key occupation of any just state.

This is not true. All human life is of equal value. We all fall short of God’s glory, albeit in different ways. Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. What you speak of is not justice. It is revenge.

 

[akoso]

There are only two ways to protect the innocent: lock up the perpetrator for life, or sentence him, and carry out, a sentence of death.

But why not restrict the protecting of the innocent to the first suggestion (“lock up the perpetrator for life”)?

I’ve read the arguments that defend why capital punishment should be allowed… but just because it is permitted to do something doesn’t mean that it should be done.

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t know how you can say that you accept all of the comments when what JPII said is so at odds with what everyone else said. I can square all of these statements only by accepting that JPII’s were his prudential opinion and have not changed the teaching of the Church. You say that you accept them all but your position is that JPII’s comments rule.
The position laid out in 2267 does not accord with the position consistently taught by the Church for 2000 years. Naturally I believe the Church has been right for 2000 years and is right today; I do not, however, believe that JPII’s comments were helpful, but since they represent only his opinion it does not change the traditional teaching of the Church.

Ender

Simple. The Church does not contradict Herself. I see JPII and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as consistent with Tradition. You can dismiss JPII’s opinions, but you can’t so easily dismiss the teaching of the Catechism. They’re all consistent to me, I’m comfortable with the teaching of the Church. Sorry if you aren’t.

 

[diggerdomer]

Genesis, as the Church understands it, applies only to murder.

Sorry, I don’t understand what this means. Can you clarify? Thank you.

 

[PEPCIS]

But why not restrict the protecting of the innocent to the first suggestion (“lock up the perpetrator for life”)?

I’ve read the arguments that defend why capital punishment should be allowed… but just because it is permitted to do something doesn’t mean that it should be done.

It’s not a question of whether or not capital punishment is “permitted.” It originated with God and His commandments. Romans 13 clearly states that governments were instituted by God to rule over man as a means to bring order and civility.

Notice that verse 4 states: “For he [government] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

You see those cops? You see those guns that they wear in those holsters on their hips? They don’t wear those for nothing (“for he does not bear the sword in vain”). God has placed them as “ministers of God, to revenge and execute wrath upon those that do evil.”

 

[akoso]

It’s not a question of whether or not capital punishment is “permitted.” It originated with God and His commandments. Romans 13 clearly states that governments were instituted by God to rule over man as a means to bring order and civility.

Notice that verse 4 states: “For he [government] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

You see those cops? You see those guns that they wear in those holsters on their hips? They don’t wear those for nothing (“for he does not bear the sword in vain”). God has placed them as “ministers of God, to revenge and execute wrath upon those that do evil.”

So let’s accept that capital punishment is permitted.

Is there any situation when it is required to be executed? If not, then why not choose the more humane and peaceful alternative?

Edit: And the reason cops carry guns is to protect themselves or others if an unfortunate situation ever presents itself. It’s not to walk around passing judgement and killing murderers. So this has absolutely no context in this discussion of capital punishment.

 

[PEPCIS]

So let’s accept that capital punishment is permitted. Is there any situation when it is required to be executed?

Yes, whenever, and wherever, it is codified.

akoso:

If not, then why not choose the more humane and peaceful alternative?

As Adam Smith stated so eloquently: “mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

Edit: And the reason cops carry guns is to protect themselves or others if an unfortunate situation ever presents itself. It’s not to walk around passing judgement and killing murderers. So this has absolutely no context in this discussion of capital punishment.

The Bible is explicit in its meaning, in that it clearly intimates that no one dares to question the authority of the government, based in large measure on the ever present sword carried by the messengers of government.

Swords are instruments of death. When a soldier weilded his sword, it was not to cut a finger. The sword was the means of maintaining order, and this was done through fear of death - not a fear of getting a paper cut.

In the same degree, our present-day soldiers (cops) carry with them the modern-day equivalent of the sword, and the Bible is clear that this sword (gun) is not carried in vain, but is used to “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” In other words, it is used as an offensive weapon, as well as a defensive weapon.

Now, the argument can be that America can choose to do away with capital punishment. The alternative to death could be life in prison. But there is a pyramid effect that is caused by allowing murderers and rapists to serve out life sentences instead of putting them to death, because they interact with other inmates who will one day complete their sentence and reenter the world that we live in.

I believe that God has given clear instruction that whenever you allow poison to infiltrate into society, that society will grow ever more evil as a result of it. We see that in our society, and there can be no denying this.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, whenever, and wherever, it is codified.

As Adam Smith stated so eloquently: “mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

The Bible is explicit in its meaning, in that it clearly intimates that no one dares to question the authority of the government, based in large measure on the ever present sword carried by the messengers of government.

Swords are instruments of death. When a soldier weilded his sword, it was not to cut a finger. The sword was the means of maintaining order, and this was done through fear of death - not a fear of getting a paper cut.

In the same degree, our present-day soldiers (cops) carry with them the modern-day equivalent of the sword, and the Bible is clear that this sword (gun) is not carried in vain, but is used to “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” In other words, it is used as an offensive weapon, as well as a defensive weapon.

Now, the argument can be that America can choose to do away with capital punishment. The alternative to death could be life in prison. But there is a pyramid effect that is caused by allowing murderers and rapists to serve out life sentences instead of putting them to death, because they interact with other inmates who will one day complete their sentence and reenter the world that we live in.

I believe that God has given clear instruction that whenever you allow poison to infiltrate into society, that society will grow ever more evil as a result of it. We see that in our society, and there can be no denying this.

That sounds scary.

Are you saying “death, so others may live”?

 

[akoso]

akoso:

So let’s accept that capital punishment is permitted. Is there any situation when it is required to be executed?

Yes, whenever, and wherever, it is codified.

When is it required from a religious perspective? (as state laws can always change)

As Adam Smith stated so eloquently: “mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

I agree with this quote. Although I don’t think that life in prison would ever be considered “mercy to the guilty”.

In the same degree, our present-day soldiers (cops) carry with them the modern-day equivalent of the sword, and the Bible is clear that this sword (gun) is not carried in vain, but is used to “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” In other words, it is used as an offensive weapon, as well as a defensive weapon.

Can you please explain what you mean by “it is used as an offensive weapon”? I’m quite confused, since this isn’t even legal… but I’m assuming I’m misunderstanding what you mean.

Now, the argument can be that America can choose to do away with capital punishment. The alternative to death could be life in prison. But there is a pyramid effect that is caused by allowing murderers and rapists to serve out life sentences instead of putting them to death, because they interact with other inmates who will one day complete their sentence and reenter the world that we live in.

Are you suggesting that murderers in prison will successfully encourage other inmates (who have not committed murder) to murder upon their release from prison?

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, whenever, and wherever, it is codified.

As Adam Smith stated so eloquently: “mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

The Bible is explicit in its meaning, in that it clearly intimates that no one dares to question the authority of the government, based in large measure on the ever present sword carried by the messengers of government.

Swords are instruments of death. When a soldier weilded his sword, it was not to cut a finger. The sword was the means of maintaining order, and this was done through fear of death - not a fear of getting a paper cut.

In the same degree, our present-day soldiers (cops) carry with them the modern-day equivalent of the sword, and the Bible is clear that this sword (gun) is not carried in vain, but is used to “to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” In other words, it is used as an offensive weapon, as well as a defensive weapon.

Now, the argument can be that America can choose to do away with capital punishment. The alternative to death could be life in prison. But there is a pyramid effect that is caused by allowing murderers and rapists to serve out life sentences instead of putting them to death, because they interact with other inmates who will one day complete their sentence and reenter the world that we live in.

I believe that God has given clear instruction that whenever you allow poison to infiltrate into society, that society will grow ever more evil as a result of it. We see that in our society, and there can be no denying this.

I see. Your solution is a police state, where citizens live in fear of an all powerful government. This is a very frightening misrepresentation of Biblical teaching.

 

[Lycorth]

Great post, Lycorth! What the libs have difficulty in conceptualizing is that for a system to be “just”, it must not only punish the perpetrator with a punishment that is equal to the crime, but it must also protect the innocent.

Everyone knows that it would be completely unjust to allow a murderer to go free, because they recognize that he MUST pay for his crime. Even if the judge were to sentence a murderer to 2 years in jail, 99% of folk would look to hang such a stupid judge, because he completely lacks a sense of justice.

There are only two ways to protect the innocent: lock up the perpetrator for life, or sentence him, and carry out, a sentence of death.

Thank you. It is a benighted world that seeks to coddle vipers at the expense of the innocent.

Of course, none of us are innocent in terms of not being sinners. But, whether or not the bleeding hearts want to admit it, all sin is not equal, and if I am a real and present danger to my community because I insist on raping or murdering or the like, then I have forsaken my privilege to live in a community of human beings.

But that’s OK. What do we know? We need to coddle criminals more and maybe have one or two make nice even though the vast majority simply return to society and re-offend. What was I thinking?

This is not true. All human life is of equal value. We all fall short of God’s glory, albeit in different ways. Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. What you speak of is not justice. It is revenge.

All human life is not of equal value, and nowhere is this a traditional Church teaching. The life of an innocent is not equal to that of a murderer or a rapist, especially an unrepentant one.

This is not about revenge. This is about justice and the protection of the innocent.

 

[CWBetts]

Thank you. It is a benighted world that seeks to coddle vipers at the expense of the innocent.

Of course, none of us are innocent in terms of not being sinners. But, whether or not the bleeding hearts want to admit it, all sin is not equal, and if I am a real and present danger to my community because I insist on raping or murdering or the like, then I have forsaken my privilege to live in a community of human beings.

But that’s OK. What do we know? We need to coddle criminals more and maybe have one or two make nice even though the vast majority simply return to society and re-offend. What was I thinking?

All human life is not of equal value, and nowhere is this a traditional Church teaching. The life of an innocent is not equal to that of a murderer or a rapist, especially an unrepentant one.

This is not about revenge. This is about justice and the protection of the innocent.

You have a misguided view of justice. As long as you hold that some deserve to die, you have nothing to say to those in favor of abortion, euthanasia, or genocide. In their opinion, those victims are not worthy of life either. All life is sacred, because all were createdin the image of God. And I say again, life in prison is not “coddling”

 

[PEPCIS]

That sounds scary. Are you saying “death, so others may live”?

No. I’m saying “Justice, so that others may live in peace.”

 

[PEPCIS]

When is it required from a religious perspective? (as state laws can always change)

The death penalty was instituted by God. There is nothing wrong or immoral with the death penalty. If there was, then you’d have to say that God is immoral, and He is clearly not.

akoso:

I agree with this quote. Although I don’t think that life in prison would ever be considered “mercy to the guilty”.

You don’t think that of the choices of “life in prison” versus “death”, that giving life in prison is not mercy? Why do courts deliberate in death penalty cases whether the convicted is deserving of death? Because there may be a chance that mercy would be granted, and a sentence of life in prison would be given instead of death.

akoso:

Can you please explain what you mean by “it is used as an offensive weapon”? I’m quite confused, since this isn’t even legal… but I’m assuming I’m misunderstanding what you mean.

During raids, and other activities deemed appropriate activities for law enforcement officers, they draw their weapons in offensive mode, not for the purpose of defending others, but for the purpose of apprehending the criminal. Rules of engagement which govern the activities of police agencies require that they restrain their offensive use to “threat of force” before they actually engage in deadly force. But make no mistake about it, their weapons are drawn for offensive tactics.

In most activities, police carry them defensively. But that does not negate the fact that they are many times used in offensive maneuvers.

akoso:

Are you suggesting that murderers in prison will successfully encourage other inmates (who have not committed murder) to murder upon their release from prison?

Yes. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

 

[PEPCIS]

I see. Your solution is a police state, where citizens live in fear of an all powerful government. This is a very frightening misrepresentation of Biblical teaching.

LOL I love how you reduce my statements to that of a liberal. LOL

The fact is, the death penalty is a Conservative cause. Liberals are against it. The biggest liberal of them all, Barrack Obama, is on a maddening course of socialism and other leftist causes right now as we speak, and it is through his efforts that we are seeing a police state become more and more of a reality.

Bush started it, but Obama is finishing it.

 

[CWBetts]

The death penalty was instituted by God. There is nothing wrong or immoral with the death penalty. If there was, then you’d have to say that God is immoral, and He is clearly not.

You don’t think that of the choices of “life in prison” versus “death”, that giving life in prison is not mercy? Why do courts deliberate in death penalty cases whether the convicted is deserving of death? Because there may be a chance that mercy would be granted, and a sentence of life in prison would be given instead of death.

During raids, and other activities deemed appropriate activities for law enforcement officers, they draw their weapons in offensive mode, not for the purpose of defending others, but for the purpose of apprehending the criminal. Rules of engagement which govern the activities of police agencies require that they restrain their offensive use to “threat of force” before they actually engage in deadly force. But make no mistake about it, their weapons are drawn for offensive tactics.

In most activities, police carry them defensively. But that does not negate the fact that they are many times used in offensive maneuvers.

Yes. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Lunacy like this is why I am no longer Baptist.

 

[PEPCIS]

This is not about revenge. This is about justice and the protection of the innocent.

Amen

 

[CWBetts]

Amen

The death penalty is revenge, pure and simple. The paranoid rantings of execution advocates testifies to this.

 

[PEPCIS]

Lunacy like this is why I am no longer Baptist.

Well, your denominational choice is merely a reflection of your world-view. I would say that there, sadly, are more liberal/libertarian minded individuals within the RC Church. But, with that said, liberals/libertarians are making huge inroads in many denominations. It’s the world that we live in.