Death Penalty

[Enda]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 15 2004, 07:46 PM']I am 100% in favor of the death penalty for all crimes, including, but not limited to, speeding tickets and jaywalking.[/quote]
Come here to Virginia. We execute more people then Texas now, even minors. You'd be in good company.

I think the death penalty is not justified in modern America. As a Virginian it seems like we're executing a prisoner every week and if you read the people who support it (ie the family members of the victim and the victim's friends) the entire justification is revenge. It's just to "make him pay for what he did to my daughter." [i]The death penalty is not justified when its used for those reasons[/i]. I don't understand why Catholics who still support the death penalty can't see this. How can you justify this? Cmom, yes you, made a good point when Drew said the reason why the prison gaurds can't do their jobs was because of Iraq, but that was only one sentence in his post. You totally disregarded everything he said about his experience with prison gaurds. How can you justify it's usage when it's modern purpose is nothing but revenge?

Edited October 16, 2004 by Enda

[Socrates]

I'm personally for the death penalty, though I think of course, it should only be used when it is absolutely certain the perp is guilty. This is up to the courts, of course.

I understand the Pope's personal position (which is not, by the way a magisterial teaching) and respect those who oppose the death penalty, though I tende to disagree with them.

What gets me are those numerous liberal Catholics who use the "death penalty" issue to justify supporting pro-abortion political candidates. ("Yeah, Candidate X is for abortion, but Candidate Y is pro-death penalty. They both go against the Church on life issues, so I can vote for Candidate X.")
The Church has does not and never has put abortion on the same level as the death penalty! Even John Paul II says the state has the right to use the death penalty, but that there is not a good reason for it in modern societies. He has never said anyone has the right to perform or have abortions!

The Old Testament Hebrew Law commanded the death penalty for many crimes, and Catholic monarchies in medieval Europe have always exercised the death penalty, and the Church has never spoke against this. The Church has allowed the death penalty throughout 2000 years of her history, but has never, ever, at any time, allowed for abortion. This false equivicating of the two issues is just typical liberal mucking up the issues to justify one's own wrong stance.

[Enda]

Socrates I agree with everything you say except your support of the death penalty.

[IcePrincessKRS]

The Church is NOT completely [b]against[/b] the death penalty. She argues for the [b]proper[/b] USE of it. The Pope's opinion is that it is rarely necessary in modern society. (note the use of the term "practically non-existant", "practically" does not equal "completely")

[quote]Capital Punishment - The Pope's Position

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Church's teaching has not changed, nor has the Pope said that it has. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty. Nations have the right to just war and individuals have the right to self-defense. Does that means that any and all uses of force to defend oneself against a criminal, or a criminal nation, are justified? No, and  most people understand that.
To be good every moral act must satisfy three elements
1) The act itself must be good.
2) The intention of the one doing it must be good.
3) The circumstances must be appropriate.

1. Capital punishment is the right of the state. This is the principle taught by the Church. The Pope does not deny it, but neither St. Thomas or any Magisterial text presumes this gives the state an unlimited right to make capital laws and carry them out. It is inherent in a just capital punishment law that there be proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good. A law, for example, that takes no account of factors such as repentance, mental age and so on is unjust. States have  executed the mentally retarded, who could be of no conceivable future threat to society, and in one case a woman whose evident conversion even the state admitted. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

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 an unjust aggressor.
2. Intention. The motive of the state is good when it follows a just law, that is, its decision is motivated by the requirements of the common good and not by motives of vengeance. This is probably not usually a problem of the state, though some officials evidence it, but it is clearly the mind of many in the public, a fact every execution seems to bring out.

3. Circumstances. There are, of course, individual circumstances related to the particular capital case which, as I noted, a just law takes into account. Here I want to consider, however, certain general circumstances. The Pope has noted that in the developed countries the possibility exists to incarcerate criminals for life, removing definitively any threat to society. Thus, the Catechism continues in paragraph 2267,

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

Another circumstance, and one related to "the concrete conditions of the common good," is the nature of our society. We have become a culture of death. The question really arises as to whether we have just laws, and whether we can execute those we do have justly. Abortion has worked a truly horrible corruption of our country, for which we are beginning to pay the price, not just in demonic violence but in the "corruptio mentis" (corruption of mind and heart) of people in general. This is manifested in the malfeasance of justice, by police, juries, prosecutors and judges at all levels of the justice system. In the early Church a similar situation existed. During the time of pagan Rome, Catholics could not hold civil or military office if they could be obliged to judge capital crimes or execute capital punishment. Only after the Church was legalized and the state influenced by its teaching would Catholics be allowed such offices. As the state becomes less influenced by the truth the Catholic finds himself returning to the quandary of the early Christians. Thus, while the state may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal it also has the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately then the Church argues for mercy, both so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might convert and save their souls. Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,

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 definitively 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 non-existent." (EV 56)
So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that  capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it's use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances. Ultimately, the laity who are responsible for these judgments in political society must make them in the individual cases. In doing so, however, they have a grave obligation to apply all the principles taught by the Church to the cases before them, as taking a human life is always grave matter if done unjustly.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm[/url]

[quote]Another Death Penalty Question
Question from Gary in Illinois on 01-12-2003: 
I've reread excerpts from the Catechism (2267) and Evagelium Vitae in light of our governor's commutation of all death penalty sentences in Illinois. While many Catholics may argue that the governor's act of mercy is consistent with both 2267 and EV, I still maintain that the death penalty is not morally wrong in and of itself; that the State may authorize its use and be on the "right" side of canon law. Yet I read quotes in the news from so-called Catholic experts that claim the death penalty is inherently morally wrong...many link it (I believe incorrectly) to the abortion debate. Please help me sort out this mess!
JMJ, Gary

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 01-12-2003: 
It is unfortunate that in recent times the Church's teaching on capital punishment has been presented so unclearly, both by members of the Church as well as of the media and other sectors of society. The Church's teaching on this matter is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church's teaching on this matter remains fundamentally the same. The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty *disproportionate* to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching. 
[/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=296154&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=death+penalty&pgnu=1&groupnum=1"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=1[/url]

[qfnol31]

Just use of the death penalty falls under the Just War Doctrine. I'll say more later.

[White Knight]

I believe this is a black & white issue, no inbetween ground. If you Murder someone, that person sould be Loved, Forgiven, and Killed and thats that.

[b]If You Kill someone, You die, but never, hold a grudage against the murder ever, just forgiven them of that crime, contunie to love them, and then put them down.[/b]

I believe it says somewhere in the Old Testment that if a man killers another man, he sould be put to death. I think Noel mentioned it.

Anyway, I started a poll on this, and I'm sorry if anyone didn't like that option where you couldn't debate the issue, I'm just really freakin tired of this issue, being so uneccessarly confusing.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Enda' date='Oct 16 2004, 05:57 PM'] Come here to Virginia. We execute more people then Texas now, even minors. You'd be in good company.

[/quote]
I'm from Virginia and you are exaggerating.

[quote]As a Virginian it seems like we're executing a prisoner every week[/quote]

Every week, huh? First, this is not true. Second, when the state does execute they spare no expense to ensure the guilt of the criminal. Second, one of the contributing factors of our low crime rate is the fact that people are afraid to commit capital crimes in Virginia. Why? Just ask John Mohammed. He is getting ready to find out why.

[quote]if you read the people who support it (ie the family members of the victim and the victim's friends) the entire justification is revenge.[/quote]

What you are calling revenge may be just that, in which case it would be bad (at least as a motivation), but it could also be what the Church has traditionally referred to a resorative justice.

[quote]I don't understand why Catholics who still support the death penalty can't see this. How can you justify this?[/quote]

I don't understand why you can't see that the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate form of punishment, so long as certain requirements are met. It has always been defended by the Church. In fact, until 1969 the Vatican itself had use of it. It was not until the last 15 or 20 years that Catholics have tried to present it as opposed to Church teaching. It is impossible that something the Church has always defended (at least in principle), without exception, could suddenly become immoral based on nothing more than the opinion of one Holy Father. That's not how the Church works.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would also like to point out that our Holy Father is not diametrically opposed to the death penalty either. As has been stated many times already, he still views it as permissible in extreme circumstances. Thus, people who would attack the death penalty cannot fall back upon this vague notion that the Holy Father supports them: he does not.

[mulls]

for the sake of the accused, i'm against the death penalty. i'd much rather he spend life in prison and possibly come to repentance and to know Christ than to have his life cut short when an unforgiving eternity awaits.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='mulls' date='Oct 19 2004, 11:12 AM'] for the sake of the accused, i'm against the death penalty. i'd much rather he spend life in prison and possibly come to repentance and to know Christ than to have his life cut short when an unforgiving eternity awaits. [/quote]
yeah, me too...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='mulls' date='Oct 19 2004, 12:12 PM'] for the sake of the accused, i'm against the death penalty. i'd much rather he spend life in prison and possibly come to repentance and to know Christ than to have his life cut short when an unforgiving eternity awaits. [/quote]
I think a person is more likely to convert when staring death in the face. Prison is not known for being overly conducive to living a Christian life. Most conversion are to Islam. There are actually statistical figures on this. I'll see if I can find them.

[toledo_jesus]

I support the Death Penalty, because a state has the right to ensure its survival and the safety of its citizens. A dangerous person who can't reasonably be contained should be executed.

[XIX]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 19 2004, 12:39 PM'] I think a person is more likely to convert when staring death in the face. Prison is not known for being overly conducive to living a Christian life. Most conversion are to Islam. There are actually statistical figures on this. I'll see if I can find them. [/quote]
Conversions in the face of death--I would seculate that many of these are not genuine, but people converting just in case, or whatnot. I mean, it's hard to say that w/o making a judgement about the person's soul, but that is what it would seem like to me.

Better somebody convert to Islam out of some sort of true desire, than to be a pseudo-Catholic whose heart is really very far from Jesus.

Again, it is debatable. The fact of the matter is that the Church is against it unless it is necesary to contain the murderer--fallibly, I'm pretty sure.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='XIX' date='Oct 19 2004, 09:15 PM'] Better somebody convert to Islam out of some sort of true desire, than to be a pseudo-Catholic whose heart is really very far from Jesus.

[/quote]
The most common reason these guys convert to Islam in prison is for protection. It's like a gang. If you are in the Muslim gang you can avoid becoming Bubba's little plaything. Unless Buuba is a Muslim too, then I suppose that could get complicated, but you get the point.

[quote]Conversions in the face of death--I would seculate that many of these are not genuine, but people converting just in case, or whatnot.[/quote]

This may be true in some cases, but Aquinas seemed to think that it was pretty safe bet.

[mulls]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 19 2004, 01:39 PM'] I think a person is more likely to convert when staring death in the face. Prison is not known for being overly conducive to living a Christian life. Most conversion are to Islam. There are actually statistical figures on this. I'll see if I can find them. [/quote]
I hear you on the Islam thing, but I think an extended lifetime is a better avenue for possible conversion. The person is most likely to stare death in the face at some point in life anyway, so why speed a process that is shaky to begin with?

But I think this does the trick:

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation..." 2 Peter 3:15


Time is a good thing, it appears.

[popestpiusx]

I think experience shows that the longer a person lives a certain way, the less likely they are to change. A long life in prison is more likely to make them hardened and bitter.

[mulls]

hmm, i've heard of some thriving prison ministries.

though it is true that most people come to Christ as a young person (though that's a protestant stat), why would you want to give up on people, especially when the Lord is patient with us?

(please don't take that as an attack)

[the_rev]

For my paper, I have to choose one side, and I can not be for and against.

Though, as a very Pro-Life person, I have chosen to be in favor the death penalty. Though, the morality behind it, and all other perspectives, says Rev should be against, I must choose to be for it.

Though, I do feel this leads a jury or judge, playing as God, also the possibility of putting a innocent person to death.

Here is my stance:

If there is DNA evidence, or balistics, that link the person to the crime of murder, I do feel since they took one's life, their life should be taken as well. Though repentance may come, to kill in cold blood, is just outrageous.

However, if the evidence is circumstantial and based only upon witnesses, then the person should not get death. This is where, maybe someone serving a life term, etc. would be getting a deal, saying, if you testify we will let you out in 15 years, for example. I do feel it is playing God, but to take one person's life, you should pay with yours.

[popestpiusx]

It's not a matter of giving up on them. They are free to convert anytime they please. That does not mean that the state must postpone what is a just punishment.

[mulls]

right, i never said the state should postpone anything. biblically speaking, i think the death penalty is fine.

but because i doubt our legal system gets it right all of the time, and because the Lord's is patient with us, i personally like life in prison better.

i'm not against the death penalty, but if one soul makes it to heaven because they were spared of it, than it's worth not having it. but as always, the Lord is in control.