Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty?

[Ender]

Your quote wouldn’t apply because I alluded to vengeance and not revenge.

You misunderstand the nature of vengeance.

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas ST II-II 108, 1)

It’s all about what constitutes a just punishment, that is, what actions deserve in the way of retribution.

If we are to cherry pick the teachings of Church scholars…

I don’t need to cherry pick what the church teaches; I just need to cite the ones that are relevant.

But where it is off-topic to the OP’s question of why the death penalty seems to have more acceptance in the U.S. than the rest of the Western world, I’ll be muting to avoid getting sucked into an off-topic rabbit trail.

It is relevant to the question. My answer was that the US, being at least temporarily more Christian than the rest of the west, still adheres to what the church taught regarding capital punishment. You may argue that this is not what the church any longer teaches - which would be the discussion the OP is trying not to get into - but we should at least be able to agree on what the church taught.

 

[Annie]

I can’t explain why - or even if - this is uniquely American, but there’s a more concrete answer to your question. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

The #1 cited reason in this poll is vengeance. The second is the erroneous assumption that it’s cheaper to kill them then keep them in prison.

This is what you wrote that I was replying to.

Vengeance is not a word we use when discussing state-imposed penalties for evil criminal acts like murder.

This it seemed that you were trivializing the #1 cited reason for supporting the DP in the poll you linked to by characterizing a concern for “rendering to people their due,” ie, justice, as “vengeance,” a word not typically associated with action on the part of authorities nor with the proportionality that state-imposed retribution implies.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Rau:

Of course, it would be sinful to act in the knowledge (or belief) that said action does more harm than good.

I don’t know why this keeps coming up. Of course it’s true, and no one disputes it, but if you believe it will be harmful and I believe it will be beneficial we must both act according to our beliefs, and if we do so no one sins even though one of us will likely be mistaken.

Supporting capital punishment is a sin only if one believes its consequences will be harmful, which is true of literally everything: we may not do something we think is bad, but my support of capital punishment is not sinful because you (or anyone else) think it is bad.

Christ ordained the Church to guide humanity on matters of faith and morals. If the Church confirms that the movement to abolish the death penalty is of the Holy Spirit, then your opinion is flawed and in need of adjustment.

 

[nfinke]

if they do travel overseas — most do not — it is as “tourists”, to go and gawk, and for many, to travel in groups with other Americans, to treat the rest of the world as a kind of theme park, go, see it, and come back home.

Is it somehow immoral or dumb to go somewhere on vacation without spending months learning the language and then living there for a year? Im honestly confused why this seems to be said in a negative tone.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Exactly four weeks ago, I posted an open letter in which three Catholic bishops appeal for an end to the federal death penalty in the United States. Immediately (i.e. from the very first response), this thread became a debate about exactly what the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is and whether the pope has the authority to change that teaching.

So you expected to start a thread on an extremely controversial subject, just expect everyone to agree with you and not expect people to defend an opposing position? If you ask for an appeal to end it on a forum where debate (which is a good thing) is normal how do think it wasn’t warranted?

 

[Aquinas11]

completely bizarre and just outright wrong

Conclusions aren’t arguments h

 

[Ender]

Christ ordained the Church to guide humanity on matters of faith and morals.

Yes, in the matter of defining doctrines…not so much in the matter of applying them in specific circumstances. The clergy have their rights and responsibilities, and so do the laity.

Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice (Fourth Lateran Council)

If the Church confirms that the movement to abolish the death penalty is of the Holy Spirit, then your opinion is flawed and in need of adjustment.

That’s not the way it works.

For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. (First Vatican Council)

 

[Beryllos]

What I am asking is, rather, whether anybody can provide an explanation for why the United States, almost uniquely among comparably developed countries, persists in its use of the death penalty.

I wonder if the death penalty is a form of honor killing. Many of the countries that still have the death penalty also have traditions of killing to preserve or restore honor.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

if they do travel overseas — most do not — it is as “tourists”, to go and gawk, and for many, to travel in groups with other Americans, to treat the rest of the world as a kind of theme park, go, see it, and come back home.

I didn’t say anything about “spending months learning the language and then living there for a year”.

Before someone goes to a foreign country, yes, I think it behooves them to learn some basic phrases, and to learn at least a little about the culture, to show respect for the people and places you are going to visit. Nobody wants a “foreigner” to come to their country without the slightest clue, or shred of respect, for their country, exploiting it as a glorified “fun park”, unless one is of the mindset that these callow, naive “foreigners” are bringing tons of money with them, and are only too eager to spend it. Even then, a lack of respect for the host culture is disliked, regardless of where you go. Add to this the reputation that Americans have for being self-centered, naive, presumptuous, and expecting that everyone will speak English, cater to them, and stand in awe of these great, wonderful Americans, and no, you don’t have a recipe for being well-liked guests.

It does not hurt at all to read up a bit on the culture before you go. There is an excellent series of travel books called “Culture Shock!”, and you should get one before you travel to any country. I did this before I went to France, and I learned a lot. I got along very well when I was there.

Lest I be accused of derailing the thread and veering off-topic, I’ll leave my comments at that. I have much more I could offer on this theme.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

So you expected to start a thread on an extremely controversial subject, just expect everyone to agree with you and not expect people to defend an opposing position? If you ask for an appeal to end it on a forum where debate (which is a good thing) is normal how do think it wasn’t warranted?

I think you are missing my point and I wonder whether you read the whole of my initial post on this thread. I had not realized that the death penalty was “an extremely controversial subject” for Catholics. The Church’s position on the subject has been articulated unambiguously by both the Holy Father and the USCCB. The current pope’s position on the death penalty is a logical continuation of the clearly expressed teachings of all of his predecessors since the 1960s, most notably Pope St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

I could not possibly have foreseen that this would be a controversial subject, let alone an “extremely” controversial one, given this background. I could not possibly have known that there would be such intense scrutiny of the precise meaning of the word “inadmissible”, nor such high levels of concern about the possibility that the pope had said something that could be construed as “changing” Church teaching. I understood that for Catholics the death penalty was an open-and-shut case. Seemingly I was wrong.

 

[goout]

JoeFreedom:

So you expected to start a thread on an extremely controversial subject, just expect everyone to agree with you and not expect people to defend an opposing position? If you ask for an appeal to end it on a forum where debate (which is a good thing) is normal how do think it wasn’t warranted?

I think you are missing my point and I wonder whether you read the whole of my initial post on this thread. I had not realized that the death penalty was “an extremely controversial subject” for Catholics. The Church’s position on the subject has been articulated unambiguously by both the Holy Father and the USCCB. The current pope’s position on the death penalty is a logical continuation of the clearly expressed teachings of all of his predecessors since the 1960s, most notably Pope St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

I could not possibly have foreseen that this would be a controversial subject, let alone an “extremely” controversial one, given this background. I could not possibly have known that there would be such intense scrutiny of the precise meaning of the word “inadmissible”, nor such high levels of concern about the possibility that the pope had said something that could be construed as “changing” Church teaching. I understood that for Catholics the death penalty was an open-and-shut case. Seemingly I was wrong.

It’s not controversial. People simply become attached to political positions in an almost idolatrous way. When that happens, the mind is clouded and the Pope’s words take on a mysterious and confusing content that really isn’t there. Simple prudential judgments by the Pope on the pastoral application of the Church’s teaching become an occasion for controversy.
Docility is a virtue that brings clarity to a lot of issues.

 

[Ender]

I could not possibly have known that there would be such intense scrutiny of the precise meaning of the word “inadmissible”…

If you don’t want this thread to become sidetracked by turning into a discussion of what Catholic teaching is regarding capital punishment then you need to abide by your own restriction. Given that the US bishops asked this very question (“What does inadmissible mean?”), and received the response that it was “An eloquent ambiguity”, it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the laity question whether “The Church’s position on the subject has been articulated unambiguously by both the Holy Father and the USCCB.”.

 

[nfinke]

punishment is supposed to be done by the state on behalf of all of society. Our system is not one based on personal revenge.

Our system isnt based on personal revenge. The whole point of judging people with a jury of their peers is to insure that doesn’t happen. It also isn’t solely based on benefiting all of society in a measurable way.

It isn’t called the punishment system, or the rehabilitation system, or even the deterrence system. It’s called the justice system. And while Reformation and deterrence can be a goal of the justice system, it is a valid function of it to pursue that titular goal in exclusion of the others.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Christ ordained the Church to guide humanity on matters of faith and morals.

Yes, in the matter of defining doctrines…not so much in the matter of applying them in specific circumstances. The clergy have their rights and responsibilities, and so do the laity.

Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice (Fourth Lateran Council)

You’ve effectively interpreted that to make the Church redundant. If Christianity has no right to address social evils, what is it even for? Do you believe it should shut up on abortion and euthanasia as well? Proof of your misinterpretation…

CCC 1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

If the Church confirms that the movement to abolish the death penalty is of the Holy Spirit, then your opinion is flawed and in need of adjustment.

The Apostles did not disclose any doctrine regarding capital punishment. There is no divine command to carry out death as a punishment. The Church has treated of death as a sentence in relation to the 5th commandment, essentially describing it as a permission if warranted by human justice. And we can be assured of its status as a permission when Aquinas reminds men that if it does more harm than good to society, it is forbidden by God.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And here we gave what convicts do when given the chance.

Inmates attack guard at max security prison in Shirley

SHIRLEY, Mass. (AP) — Three guards were injured and a maximum security Massachusetts prison was placed in lockdown Friday after a group of inmates attacked a guard, state prisons officials said.

The officer was surrounded and then assaulted in a general population housing unit at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley, according to a statement from the state Department of Correction.

“One of the correction officers involved in this incident immediately radioed for assistance. Additional correction officers responded and within minutes secured the area. Six inmates have been removed from the unit and the matter remains under investigation,” the agency said…

Loading…

www.boston.com

 

[Beryllos]

Better to kill them than take the risk, eh?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Easy to say when you’re not the one in danger. What do you do when they escape and kill ?

Do you think they assault just guards ?

They also assault healthcare workers and other staff when they have the chance.

Like I said earlier in this thread, when a convicts assaults prison guards, healthcare workers or staff members while serving time, capital punishment can and should be used. Each case has to be evaluated.

 

[Ender]

You’ve effectively interpreted that to make the Church redundant.

The church has her role, we have ours. My arguments do not diminish the church’s role, they only point out (roughly) where one begins and the other ends.

If Christianity has no right to address social evils, what is it even for?

This is so broad it can be either true or false depending on the specifics of how it’s applied.

Do you believe it should shut up on abortion and euthanasia as well?

No, but these examples make my point. I have always held that most political issues are not moral issues, and do not involve moral choices. There is a very small subset that deal with intrinsic evils that are exceptions, and your examples are all in that category. There is no moral choice in building a border wall or not, of raising the minimum wage or not - of applying capital punishment or not. There is a moral choice in voting for or against the legalization of abortion and euthanasia, and the clergy are well within their duties to speak out.

CCC 1930 …It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims .

It is one thing to point out man’s basic rights and from where a state’s moral legitimacy comes, but that is entirely different than suggesting the clergy ought to help craft specific legislation or tell their flocks how to vote.

The Apostles did not disclose any doctrine regarding capital punishment.

Perhaps, but the church certainly has.

There is no divine command to carry out death as a punishment.

Actually, there are several, the most notable of which is Gn 9:5-6.

And we can be assured of its status as a permission when Aquinas reminds men that if it does more harm than good to society, it is forbidden by God.

I think you have this backwards. If it had been seen as permission then Aquinas’ comment would have been unnecessary: everyone knows you don’t do something that is harmful. If, however, it was understood as a command then Aquinas observation becomes necessary to provide an exception to that command where it is beneficial to society.

 

[Rau]

everyone knows you don’t do something that is harmful…

…because to do so would be immoral.

And “everyone one knows” we should do our best to live up to the the positive precepts as best we can.

The church is well within her role to point out both these things, and to show us how we can do so, as we are a very forgetful people.

 

[EndTimes]

What I am asking is, rather, whether anybody can provide an explanation for why the United States, almost uniquely among comparably developed countries, persists in its use of the death penalty.

In 2019 … 22 persons were executed in the USA - in a State by State reality (50 States)

In other words … those numbers have been declining - and I don’t hear multitudes talking about it