Legitimacy Of The Death Penalty

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]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 with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself--the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are rare, if not practically non-existent.' (NT: John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)[/quote]

[Ragamuffin]

I agree with the death penalty in principle, but not in practice. I think the application in the US is rather atrocious and not much of a deterrent. It's not a deterrent because of the lengthy appeals process. If executions were performed swiftly after the guilty verdict, then perhaps it would get people's attention.

On the other hand, the rather rotten application of justice in capital cases in this country makes a lengthy appeals process necessary. DNA evidence continues to exonerate people on death row and not all states give the accused easy access to such testing. Plus, the rate of guilty verdicts seems to be alarmingly correlated to the relative wealth and ability to hire a high-powered law firm to represent them in court. Wealthy defendants are far more likely to get off with a not guilty verdict than poor defendants that have to depend on public defenders or the cheapest lawyer they can find.

So personally, if I had the power to do so, I would put a moratorium on all executions and do extensive study into these and other problems with how the death penalty is handled in this country. If we could figure out steps to ensure that we aren't executing innocent people and that people are getting a good, solid defense regardless of wealth or other factors, then we could reinstitute it. If I can't be assured of that, then life without parole should become the highest penalty we give out.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Ragamuffin

[cmotherofpirl]

THis is the teaching:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church [b]does not exclude recourse to the death pena[/b][u][/u]lty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor"

THis is the decision left up to the legitimate individual governments to decide:
"[b]If[/b][u][/u], however, non-lethal means are [b]sufficient to defend and protect [/b][u][/u]people's safety from the aggressor"

[IrishSalesian]

I cannot agree with the death penalty. The 10 Commandments even say "Thou Shalt not kill" Who are we to decide to take a life? Im sure we can put the person in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. There is never need to kill a person, even if that person has killed. It is not our place as humans to take another's life. I just do not see any possibile justification for it.

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1285133' date='May 31 2007, 10:36 AM']I cannot agree with the death penalty. The 10 Commandments even say "Thou Shalt not kill" Who are we to decide to take a life? Im sure we can put the person in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. There is never need to kill a person, even if that person has killed. It is not our place as humans to take another's life. I just do not see any possibile justification for it.[/quote]
The 10 Commandments say "Thou Shalt Not Murder." The Hebrew word that is sometimes translated as "kill" in that passage is a more specific term than the generic Hebrew word for "kill." To assert this broad definition into the 10 Commandments would in essence make God a breaker of His own Law when He commanded the Israelites to annihilate various Canannite peoples, not to mention His commands to execute people for various offenses in the Law such as having homosexual sex or murder.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1285134' date='May 31 2007, 12:41 PM']The 10 Commandments say "Thou Shalt Not Murder." The Hebrew word that is sometimes translated as "kill" in that passage is a more specific term than the generic Hebrew word for "kill." To assert this broad definition into the 10 Commandments would in essence make God a breaker of His own Law when He commanded the Israelites to annihilate various Canannite peoples, not to mention His commands to execute people for various offenses in the Law such as having homosexual sex or murder.[/quote]
How does one justify, at any time, taking another's life? Is that not murder? The government is not conscribed by God to kill those who kill.

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1285137' date='May 31 2007, 10:43 AM']How does one justify, at any time, taking another's life? Is that not murder? The government is not conscribed by God to kill those who kill.[/quote]
So, did God change his mind? Because He certainly gave Israel's government that conscription.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1285144' date='May 31 2007, 12:58 PM']So, did God change his mind? Because He certainly gave Israel's government that conscription.[/quote]
He gave it to them to free themselves from Slavery, not to kill as punishment for crimes. Also, as Catholics are we not taught, to repect life from conception to natural death?

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='IrishSalesian' post='1285145' date='May 31 2007, 11:00 AM']He gave it to them to free themselves from Slavery, not to kill as punishment for crimes. Also, as Catholics are we not taught, to repect life from conception to natural death?[/quote]
No, he gave the Israelite government the right to execute murderers and those caught in homosexual acts for instance.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1285147' date='May 31 2007, 01:02 PM']No, he gave the Israelite government the right to execute murderers and those caught in homosexual acts for instance.[/quote]
Oh, ok. Sorry, I was on a different train of thought.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Even if we could be sure of someone's guilt, that doesn't mean we should execute them. That's the straightforward interpretation of the catechism. There are alternative means to prevent them from killing more. Especially today.

The only question I could see is whether the death is a deterrant, but I don't think it is. (not to mention that the idea of a deterrant goes against the general notion of the catechism that it's rarely needed. i'm sure they thought about deterrant effect. but, it's not discussed so we don't know)

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1285215' date='May 31 2007, 01:46 PM']Even if we could be sure of someone's guilt, that doesn't mean we should execute them. That's the straightforward interpretation of the catechism. There are alternative means to prevent them from killing more. Especially today.[/quote]
This is true. But I tend to look at it more like "even if we could be sure of someone's guilt, that doesn't mean we [b][i]have to[/i][/b] execute them." But we are permitted to, particularly if the crime is heinous enough or if we have reason to believe they are a danger to others even in a prison environment (guards, other inmates, et al).

Edited May 31, 2007 by Ragamuffin

[IrishSalesian]

Even if the Government says its ok. I dont think it is the Catechism states that it is ok to terminate someone if they pose an signifigant threat to society

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't see any room for the heinous-ness of the act, the whether the person poses a threat (and perhaps arguably the derrence for others).

******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 with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself--the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are rare, if not practically non-existent.' (NT: John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)

[jckinsman]

This topic I must admit, I avoid. I know it is quite important to understand though so here I am! At first I was for it. All I could think about was how the fithly scum bags do not deserve to live after what they have done,and some things were so horrible I would like it all to be gone from my brain but.............In saying that and watching" dead man walking" Studying what the church has taught ,reading the bible and being very pro-life. I would have to say that I know that Christ died for all of us, so that we can be in heaven with him someday. I know that in my heart ,so I pray for these men and women in prison. I wish we had a different system. I do not think that a criminal thinks to much about anything at the time he commits his/her crime,for whatever his motivations are.
I really wish that life in prison would be a motivating factor in NOT commiting crimes! But more then that, I wish that whatever brought these men and women to this point in there lives, can be somehow reconciled with Christs death on the cross for them. I hope and pray that this happens before they die. JC

Edited May 31, 2007 by jckinsman

[goldenchild17]

[b]is the section below quoted from the catechism infallible?[/b]

No it's not.

[b]should abortion doctors be executed?[/b]

I believe so.


[b]do you think the certainty of life in prison for a crime is as much of a deterrant as the death penalty? [/b]

I don't know (and voted so). I believe the death penalty is fully justifiable in cases where guilt is absolutely proven. Though I think (and haven't thought it completely through) that the death penalty can be substituted for life in prison for a full confession and proof of sincere apology for the act committed.

Edited May 31, 2007 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

considering that the catechism segment came from JPII's document, as cited in the first post, how do you say it's not infallible?

[goldenchild17]

I don't believe the church represented by the Vatican from John XXIII to today is Catholic, so I wouldn't consider any document by JPII or the new catechism to be infallible. Now whether or not the seal of infallibility was intended for these documents, and whether or not they are to be considered infallible by those who accept it as a Catholic document, that is an entirely different discussion. But for purposes of this thread that's off-subject and would deter from the thread.

Edited May 31, 2007 by goldenchild17

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1285249' date='May 31 2007, 05:59 PM']considering that the catechism segment came from JPII's document, as cited in the first post, how do you say it's not infallible?[/quote]

Just because it came from the Pope doesnt mean it is infalliable. He has to speak 'excathedra' meaning from the chair. He has to speak and announce that he is speaking infalliably inorder to do so.

[dairygirl4u2c]

or speak in such terms that it's clear he's speaking infallibly even if it's not expressly infallible. we'd have to look it up and read the context.
Well, that's what I thought, but then I found this.

[quote]Question:

Is an encyclical infallible? Is a "letter" infallible?

Answer:

No encyclical or letter is infallible in an extraordinary sense unless the Pope specifically seeks to define an article of faith as Pope Pius IX did with the Immaculate Conception in the "Apostolic Constitution" Ineffabilis Deus (1854). In Munificentissimus Deus (1950), Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption like this:

"...by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. (44,45)

Unless, you get this type of language from a papal document, then no teaching is being extraordinarily defined. On the other hand, that does not give us the license to "opt out" of the teachings of papal encyclicals either. This is especially true if what is being taught has always been taught by the Church. These particular teachings enjoy a presumption of infallibility unless later revoked. A good example of this is Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (1968) where he reaffirmed the Catholic Church's perennial rejection of artificial contraception as a grievous sin against God.

John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
June 7, 2002[/quote]

For a skeptic to the CC such as myself, this is legitimate to the popes who know about the rules described here. Popes before they defined what's actually infallibe and what's not seems like that should be subject to interpretation. Otherwise, the popes could have been intending and pretty clearly intending to state infallibly but didn't jump through the right loops and the CC can get out of error by technicality. I don't know if this has occurred though.
Maybe this where you can interpret older papal texts is open to interpretation, and this is what I twas thinking abotu in terms of what can be interpreted, and I was wrong about current day encyclicals.

Edited May 31, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c