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

  • Thread starter Thread starter do_justly_love_mercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We give them right in the US to our court system and a trial by jury. That is good enough for me.
 
Let’s keep the discussion on the death penalty. Any system established will have errors. That should not cause inaction. IMO!
 
Like most issues in America, the death penalty is a wedge issue used by politicians.
Anyone running for an elected position, who does not come out in favor of the death penalty, is immediately labeled as “soft on crime.”
Many Americans make the issue an-eye-for-an-eye type punishment. You kill another human being and you forfeit your own life.
I doubt that the death penalty will ever be completely eliminated in America.
 
nfinke said:
As a matter of fact I do have kids. But by bringing that up it seems you missed my point. What is and isnt justice doesnt change based on who is and isnt related to me.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was you who missed the point. The point of imagining a family member is not to consider exceptions to rules, but to overcome our tendency to think of criminals as subhuman. Imagining one’s child as the killer may help one to think of the killer as a human being who still has dignity and is loved. This can be a useful exercise.

The same hypothetical visualization has been used on the other side of the controversy. In one of the 1988 Presidential debates, candidate Michael Dukakis was asked to imagine his wife as the victim: “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

Why don’t we take it both ways? Imagine that you have two children, and one murders the other. What is gained and what is lost if the surviving child is killed in the name of justice?
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
The point of imagining a family member is not to consider exceptions to rules, but to overcome our tendency to think of criminals as subhuman.
Click to expand...
This is a baseless assumption. I don’t consider anyone subhuman. I just see people who willingly destroy something of infinite value as deserving to pay the ultimate price. That doesn’t mean they arent human, or that they don’t have dignity. It just means they deserve to face the consequences of their actions. And there are good arguments you can make (some of which have been presented in this thread) that letting someone off or giving them a lesser sentence than their actions may deserve is an insult to their dignity.

Again, the argument I make for the death penalty is a justice-based argument. Justice is, in essence, dispassionate. Trying to intentionally make it an emotional argument is just arguing something parallel to the point I’m making.

I obviously would be sad if my child murdered someone. Doubly or triply sad if that person was another child. But if I knew it had happened, and was asked “do you think they deserve to face the consequences” I would have to say “yes” to be truthful, the same as with any other person.

Of course seeing them executed would break my heart in a way seeing some random terrorist wouldn’t, but my emotional reaction is unrelated to the important issues: 1. Do they deserve it? 2. Is it morally acceptable to do? In the case of first degree murder (and even in some cases of rape) I’d sy yes to both, regardless of who it happens to be.
 
Last edited:
Well with all due respect, I was discussing why I am against the death penalty with someone. If I cannot talk about my reason, how is this a discussion?
 
Somehow opposition to the death penalty wound up in the catechism. Prior to Francis, it had never been the teaching of the Church that the death penalty was immoral per se.
 
The church still doesn’t say it’s immoral, because even that can’t get away with that. They say it’s inadmissible, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
 
nfinke said:
The church still doesn’t say it’s immoral, because even that can’t get away with that. They say it’s inadmissible, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...
The Church as she has done for 2000 years, is responding to correct a heresy ie that the punishment of death in not predicated on the common good. In the US there is actually a natural desire to withhold that extreme measure in civil justice, but it is being hindered by a false conception of Catholic teaching. That is why the Church is confirming the death penalty under the traditional teaching of the Church must be withheld if it is doing more harm than good in society.
 
Last edited:
None of that is saying that the practice is immoral. Because God has explicitly ordered some people to execute other people, so the church lacks the authority to say it is immoral.

I said it doesn’t make sense because I can’t think of another thing where the church has said “this practice is not immoral…but you still really shouldn’t do it in almost any circumstance”. Maybe I’m just not aware of it, but that’s a very strange pairing of qualifiers.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, justice (like love) is not a transaction that must be balanced.
 
Last edited:
nfinke said:
None of that is saying that the practice is immoral. Because God has explicitly ordered some people to execute other people, so the church lacks the authority to say it is immoral.

I said it doesn’t make sense because I can’t think of another thing where the church has said “this practice is not immoral…but you still really shouldn’t do it in almost any circumstance”. Maybe I’m just not aware of it, but that’s a very strange pairing of qualifiers.
Click to expand...
The Church has also taught that God forbids the use of the death penalty when it does more harm than good to society.

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). - (Aquinas Summa Theologica II II 64 2)

If God commands forebearance when the killing does more harm than good, that would surely be a very serious thing to dismiss out of hand.
 
Last edited:
Cone said:
Prior to Francis, it had never been the teaching of the Church that the death penalty was immoral per se.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that is being taught now either. I believe it’s judged immoral in present circumstances.
 
Emeraldlady said:
That is why the Church is confirming the death penalty under the traditional teaching of the Church must be withheld if it is doing more harm than good in society.
Click to expand...
ANY act that does more harm than good is inadmissible. To pursue such an act in such circumstances would be immoral.
 
Last edited:
Patri said:
Who decides that someone has forfeited their right to live?
Click to expand...
That is determined by the nature of their crime.

Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live. (Pius XII)
Nobody should have the power or right to take another life. A life they did not create.
Click to expand...
This is not what the church teaches:

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. (Catechism of St Thomas)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top