Death Penalty Question

[KnightofChrist]

An eye for an eye. That's traditional and unchanging Catholic teaching?

You're twisting what I said, so no.

[Papist]

RK, I'll be praying for you. 

 

 

I would think if this man continues to be a threat, it is self-defense to put him to death.  I know that people in prison still have the power to get people killed through a gang network.  It happened here in Texas to an attorney just a few months ago.   You put your own life on the line every time you work for justice.  If this criminal has the ability to continue to kill and destroy people's families and lives, I don't see why you should feel guilty in being a part of his death.  It's self-defense. 

 

The Church allows self-defense.   

 

Yes. The issue is not is it allowed. But rather the conditions and circumstances when to inflict.

 

You're twisting what I said, so no.

 

I am not twisting your words. This is how I am understanding you. I do think you and I are closer on this issue than you think.

[KnightofChrist]

Yeah, see, I don't think you're reading the Catechism right, KoC.   Paragraph 2266 talks about punishment, but then singles out the death penalty in 2267 as a separate issue.  The primary purpose of punishment is addressing disorder.  That disorder is in both the person and society - one isn't more important than the other.  The death penalty ultimately fails at correcting disorder in the person because there is no expiation even if it's willingly accepted. The only way it corrects disorder is by protecting society...which is the only reason given in the Catechism for the proper use of the death penalty.  And because the Catechism takes the time to single out the death penalty as a separate issue, if the purpose of it was primarily medicinal for the criminal, wouldn't you think it would say so?  
 
The death penalty can never be medicinal, because there's no "getting better" from it.  It's like giving someone arsenic for a bacterial infection. Sure, you killed the problem, but you also killed the person, so that's not a treatment.

That part of the Catechism is John Paul the Great's pastoral opinion (see below) and yes Captial Punishment does have medicinal properties.

"the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." - Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2
 

 

 

From The Purposes of Punishment by by R. Michael Dunnigan, JD, JCL
 
 
"If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture." — Avery Cardinal Dulles

Prudential Judgments

As the quotation at the head of this article makes clear, Cardinal Dulles appears to have some sympathy with the Scalia position. That is, Dulles agrees that a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment would be an overthrowing of traditional Catholic teaching [A. Dulles, "Seven Reasons America Shouldn't Execute," National Catholic Register (24-31 Mar. 2002)]. However, Dulles does not believe that this is what the Magisterium is teaching.

Rather, Dulles believes that the passages in question from Evangelium vitae and the Catechism constitute not Church teaching, but rather the "prudential judgment" of the pope that, in our day, bloodless means of punishment generally are adequate [ibid.]. Father Rutler agrees in substance, but is more critical of what he calls the "problematic" decision to place a prudential judgment in a catechetical text.

Dulles and Rutler draw a crucial distinction between actual Church teachings and the prudential judgments of the pope. Both Evangelium vitae and the Catechism rely heavily on an evaluation of contemporary penal systems. This evaluation might be correct as applied to some penal systems, but incorrect as applied to others. In addition, it might be correct today, but might become incorrect in the future as a result of a decline in penal systems. Finally, it is a matter about which people — even orthodox Catholics — legitimately might disagree.

Catholics are obliged to give "a religious submission of the intellect and will" to the ordinary Magisterium, but this duty attaches only to doctrines and teachings of the Church [cann. 212 §1, 752]. This same duty of submission does not attach to the mere prudential judgments of the Church's pastors. The conclusion that the circumstances justifying the death penalty are "practically non-existent" is based on a prudential judgment about the state of the penal system. As a result of the fact that a Catholic legitimately might disagree with this judgment, it follows that he legitimately might disagree as well with the conclusion that the circumstances justifying capital punishment are "practically non-existent."

 

Continue reading...

 

 

Edited May 24, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

I wrote this post a couple years ago, but thought I would re-post it in this thread:

 

 

Pope Pius XII back in the 1950s set forth - in line with the constant tradition of the Church - the three principles that must be taken into account by the civil authorities in maintaining justice:

 

(1) The rehabilitation of the criminal is to be sought.

(2) Retributive justice, that is, the restoration of the social order by a punishment that is commensurate with the crime - including in some cases the execution of the criminal - is to be enacted.

(3) The civil authorities are duty bound to defend the common good of society by rendering the criminal harmless, and this principle also includes the possible execution of the malefactor.

 

Moreover, Pope Puis XII held that the death penalty itself can be rehabilitative, because the criminal - confronted by his own mortality - may be moved to remorse and conversion of heart. Finally, when a given punishment (even punishment unto death) is voluntarily accepted by an offender, it takes on the value of expiation, which can help to bring about the criminal's eternal salvation (See Pius XII's Discourse to Jurists, 1955). 

 

 

Taken from the thread entitled: Execution by Firing Squad

[rkwright]

So to bring this down from the 10,000 ft level, in this case would the death penalty be justified? This is a real person were talking about who has two kids. That's about the most good I know about him...

[Basilisa Marie]

So to bring this down from the 10,000 ft level, in this case would the death penalty be justified? This is a real person were talking about who has two kids. That's about the most good I know about him...

 

I don't know.  There's an argument to be made from both sides, with good reasons, both within Church teaching.  Do you think he'll continue to do harm in prison? Is prison adequate for keeping society safe from him?  You can also decide that you're not sure where your conscience stands on this particular case, even after much contemplation, and you could still work the case knowing that you're doing your job to the best of your ability, your job being to support the lead attorney. Or you can decide to not go for it because you're torn.  

 

Go with what your conscience tells you. 

[Apotheoun]

First question, is the death penalty an option in this case? It appears to me that the defendant will continue to manipulate and commit crimes in prison. But you can never really predict the future...
 

 

Second, can I work on such a case? Ultimately the jury will make the call, and I will not be the lead attorney on the case.

 

 

In answer to your first question: Yes, based upon what you described, Catholic Tradition would not rule out the use of the death penalty.

 

As far as the second question is concerned: I see no reason why you cannot work on the case.

 

Edited May 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Guest Allie]

A good discussion. It makes me think. I'll be praying for you.  

[4588686]

That's a tough one, man.  Good luck in your deliberation.  

[fides' Jack]

While I personally don't support the death penalty and believe that the right application of the Church's position on the death penalty is for it to be abolished in the US, my opinion isn't the only sound one.  The Church does allow for the death penalty in some circumstances.

CCC 2267 states:

 

So basically the text leaves you room to decide that there is enough doubt that we would be able to keep this person from harming society, so the death penalty could be just.  You can decide either way and still be acting within Church teaching.  

 

And like Catherine said, you can also incorporate your family and career demands into your decision, and you're also not the one making the decision about whether to pursue or give the man the death penalty, especially because you're not the lead.  You have to follow your conscience, and do the best job you can whatever you decide. 

 

I'm of the opposite opinion, but I think what you're saying here is spot-on.

[fides' Jack]

Yeah, see, I don't think you're reading the Catechism right, KoC.   Paragraph 2266 talks about punishment, but then singles out the death penalty in 2267 as a separate issue.  The primary purpose of punishment is addressing disorder.  That disorder is in both the person and society - one isn't more important than the other.  The death penalty ultimately fails at correcting disorder in the person because there is no expiation even if it's willingly accepted. The only way it corrects disorder is by protecting society...which is the only reason given in the Catechism for the proper use of the death penalty.  And because the Catechism takes the time to single out the death penalty as a separate issue, if the purpose of it was primarily medicinal for the criminal, wouldn't you think it would say so?  

 

The death penalty can never be medicinal, because there's no "getting better" from it.  It's like giving someone arsenic for a bacterial infection. Sure, you killed the problem, but you also killed the person, so that's not a treatment. 

 

The Church is always concerned first and foremost with the souls of people rather than their bodies.  As has been noted many times by many different saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas, the fear of death can be enough to move a person to seek true forgiveness and save his soul.  That should always be the primary concern.

[jeffboom]

The death penalty should be abolished in the US. It is far too costly in terms of legislation. The death penalty has never been shown to deter capital crime. Plus, a life sentence in prison may be worse than the death penalty. Additionally, the death penalty fails some of the criteria of the Principle of Double Effect. 

 

We are in need of comprehensive prison reform. We need to avoid incarcerating people who have committed crimes where there is no clear victim. Prisons should not be cages; they need to be camps aimed at rehabilitative work programs. Rehabilitation, not punishment should be the goal of a department of corrections.  

[elizabeth09]

That's a tough one, man.  Good luck in your deliberation.  

 

Agree.  There is no east answer.  If you are pick, just listen to the clues that everyone is saying.  Just watch out for false clues.  Take notes on how the person is sitting, standing, walking, anything to let you believe a clue is false.  You might think that the death penalty might be the wrong thing to do.  

 

The death penalty should be abolished in the US. It is far too costly in terms of legislation. The death penalty has never been shown to deter capital crime. Plus, a life sentence in prison may be worse than the death penalty. Additionally, the death penalty fails some of the criteria of the Principle of Double Effect. 

 

We are in need of comprehensive prison reform. We need to avoid incarcerating people who have committed crimes where there is no clear victim. Prisons should not be cages; they need to be camps aimed at rehabilitative work programs. Rehabilitation, not punishment should be the goal of a department of corrections.  

 

I can`t agree or disagree about abolishing the death penalty in the US, because there are to many cases and people out there that agree or disagree with it.  But I can see where you are coming from

[jim111]

Yeah, see, I don't think you're reading the Catechism right, KoC.   Paragraph 2266 talks about punishment, but then singles out the death penalty in 2267 as a separate issue.  The primary purpose of punishment is addressing disorder.  That disorder is in both the person and society - one isn't more important than the other.

"Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6)."

(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

 

The death penalty can never be medicinal, because there's no "getting better" from it.  It's like giving someone arsenic for a bacterial infection. Sure, you killed the problem, but you also killed the person, so that's not a treatment.

 

"The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.
They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil."

(Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)

[jim111]

An eye for an eye. That's traditional and unchanging Catholic teaching?

 

 

"5. To the argument of the Anabaptists from "An eye for an eye, etc.," there are two solutions. One, that the Old Law, since it was given to imperfect men, allowed the seeking for revenge, and only forbade that the retaliation be greater than the injury; not that it is lawful to seek revenge, but because it is less evil to seek it in moderation than inordinately; besides, Christ, Who instructed more perfect men, recalled this permission. Thus says St. Augustine, and St. Chrysostom and St. Hilary are of the same opinion regarding this passage; but since retaliation is prohibited, "Seek not revenge," and, we read, "He that seeketh to revenge himself, shall find vengeance from the Lord," we shall, indeed, reply correctly with St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure and some others, in their commentary on the third Sentence of Peter Lombard, when Our Lord says: "You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.," He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; just as from the fact that the law said, "Thou shalt love thy friend," they infer that it is lawful to hate enemies; but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: "But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc."

6. But it should be observed that when He says, "not to resist evil," just defense is not prohibited, but retaliation; for Christ commands not to strike him who strikes you, as Theophylactus rightly teaches. But he is said to strike who strikes to injure, not he who strikes to protect himself; and, briefly, revenge, not defense, is forbidden, according to "Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved," that is, not avenging yourselves. For thus it is in the Greek (?) whence it goes on to say: "But set aside wrath, for it is written: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." But neither is revenge forbidden absolutely, if, indeed, it is sought from a lawful judge and for a good end, either because there is hope that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment, or because his malice can be kept in check and restrained in no other way, and he will continue to do evil if he is allowed to go unpunished; therefore, what is forbidden is only that revenge which private citizens wish to take on their own account, and which they seek from a judge through the desire of harming an enemy, and of satisfying their own ill-will and hatred."

SAINT ROBERT BELLARMINE, Treatise on Civil Government

Edited July 4, 2013 by jim111