Is The Death Penalty Ever Necessary In Our Society

[amarkich]

In response to anyone who believes the death penalty to be immoral (specifically St. Colette and Clair Bear), have you read what Scripture teaches on the issue with the backing of constant Church tradition and the Roman Catechism as well as various other Church documents (not to mention the authority of history)? In case you have not, I recommend the following to your reading:

"Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God." c.f., Genesis ix.6

"He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death." c.f., Exodus xxi.12

Numbers XXV almost in its entirety illustrates God's institution of the death penalty and the means by which it should be instituted. The most relevant statement in this chapter not only allows the death penalty but absolutely commands it: "Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another. And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel." c.f., Numbers xxxv.33, 34

"In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land: that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord." Psalm C

"Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. [b]But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.[/b] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." c.f., Romans xiii.1-5 (emphasis added)

"He that shall lead into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." Apocalypse xiii.10

All of these verses of the Bible illustrate the right and the [i]duty[/i] of the government to execute the guilty. It should be noted the purpose of the death penalty as found in Sacred Scripture. Is the purpose solely in order to protect the innocent? It surely is not. There is very little mention of protecting the innocent. Rather, Sacred Scripture states that the death penalty is a form of [i]justice[/i] for an action wrongly taken against another, a punishment for guilt. This is illustrated most strongly in Numbers XXXV and implicitly in the other verses. The Roman Catechism reaffirms this concept of the death penalty, that it should be used both as a means of protecting the innocent but also as a means of instituting justice with the authority which God has given the government, c.f., Romans xiii. The Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent, gives a reaffirmation of the concept of the death penalty as given to us from God and as practiced by the Jews and recorded by Sacred Scripture. It states:

"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they [i]punish the guilty[/i] [b]and[/b] protect the innocent. (N.B., the punishment of the guilty is listed before the protection of the innocent) The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of [b]paramount obedience [/b]to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord." c.f., Roman Catechism, On the Fifth Commandment (emphasis added)

The Roman Catechism here clearly reaffirms the constant teaching from Scripture as well as the historical use of the death penalty by the Jews and, more importantly, in the context of the tradition of the Church. It continues the belief that the punishment of the guilty is the primary intention and effect of the death penalty and calls the execution of criminals an act in paramount obedience to the Fifth Commandment. Finally, it calls to mind the words of David, thus reaffirming the Old Testament decrees as valid teachings concerning the death penalty. The idea that the death penalty is not necessary is a ridiculous claim to any informed Catholic, or human being for that matter. The death penalty is not only allowed by the Church but is commanded. God did not only give the government the right to kill criminals, but He commanded it, as is seen in Numbers XXXV and in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans. It should be noted that the comments of the new Catechism leave the idea of justice completely out of the question when considering the death penalty and that the claims made in the Catechism should be critiqued heavily for several reasons. Firstly, the new Catechism's claim that the death penalty has been solely instituted to protect the innocent finds no origin in Church tradition or even human history. Secondly, the new Catechism provides no reference to previous Church teaching on the matter to support its claims. Thirdly, the new Catechism's claims concerning the death penalty are simply pastoral opinions by the authors and certainly do not enjoy infallibility. Fourthly, it can be derived that the new Catechism's decrees concerning the death penalty can be and must be rejected by faithful Catholics insofar as they are altogether unsupported, they find no precedence in even human history let alone Church tradition, and they are contrary to the teachings of a previous Catechism as well as the constant teaching of Sacred Scripture. God bless.

[St. Catherine]

I agree with the death penalty, it should be rare though.

[ThyWillBeDone]

I know Saint Collete already quoted the Catechism above so I will refrain from quoting the same passage again. But I belief if you read what it says it speaks very clearly about this issue. And I for one am in complete agreement with the Church on this issue. The cases in which the death penality is nessasary are only cases in which there is no other way to protect the public, in our modern society that those cases are extremely rare, and I don't believe America is a position where we need to excute anyone inoder to protect society from that person. The Catechism is very clear on this issue and I do not believe it should be questioned. To quote Saint Augustine "Rome has spoken; the case is closed"
God Bless,
Chris

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 8 2004, 09:10 AM'] Since 1976 about 840 people have been put to death.

...

I think the death penalty problem is miniscule to the abortion problem. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
[/quote]
More people get killed in abortion in a single day than there have been executions in the US since 1976.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Jul 8 2004, 09:15 PM'] I agree and i am almost completley against the death penalthy now i am going to through a situation into play should Saddam Hussein receive the death penalty? Because no doubt he is guilty....but is he a danger to the public alive as a prisioner? (question i have been wrestling with) [/quote]
This is a question for Iraq.

Personally I'm against the death penalty in almost all cases.

[ThyWillBeDone]

I agree the abortion problem is worse but that is beside the point, we can not allow the death penalty problem to continue simply becuase abortion is a worse problem.
Chris

[StColette]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 8 2004, 07:23 AM'] My question was if Bin Laden were captured, would it be better for us to keep him alive and risk lots of innocent lives because of terrorism, or should he be given the death penalty?

Same with Saddam. [/quote]
I don't think we would give him the death penalty, he has too much information he could give us. The gov't would keep him alive just for that purpose.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I've been wondering about situations like Bin Laden and Hussein:
1. They are murderers, they must be captured and held.
But does this merit death?
1. Their very existence is motivation for terror activity.
2. There would be daily (and deadly) attampts to free them, and reinstitute their reign of terror.
3. As ironmonk said, hostages would be taken daily in an attempt to free these murderers through negotiation. But they can't be freed, because they are mass-murderers...

I'm thinking this is one of those very rare instances where the death penalty would be justified for the good of the public.

[StColette]

It may be one of those rare cases but I highly doubt our gov't will go through with it because like I said they both hold tooooooo much information. If anything giving them the death penalty would make people more angry. They would become martyrs for the people who believe them .

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

The death penalty is allowable in certain cases. Abortion is not (except in the rare double effect cases)

Back on topic:

A good certain case for allowing the death penalty is for high-profile prisoners where hostages would likely be capture to try and free him as ironmonk mentioned. Another would be if you were on a ship or in the wilderness where you are unable to effectively imprison a criminal who has committed heinous acts (and will again if not imprisoned). Given that in the modern world it's possible to effectively contain any prisoner, this second scenario doesn't come up much.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ClaireBear' date='Jul 8 2004, 10:39 AM']I think this is what the Pope says about it... The death penalty is immoral, because God is the author of life.  [/quote]
The death penalty is not immoral; instead, it will always be morally licit, and this truth is founded upon scripture, tradition, and the natural moral law. The Pope can ask that it be used infrequently, but not even the Pope can alter divine revelation or the natural moral law, and so the death penalty, properly applied by the State, will always be morally acceptable. Moreover, the Church has always distinguished between [i]murder[/i], which is never permitted because it is the taking of an innocent human life; and [i]killing[/i], which is sometimes required because of a man's criminal actions, by which he has forfeited his right to life, and which as a consequence empowers the State, for the sake of the maintenance of the common good, to execute him.

[ThyWillBeDone]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 8 2004, 04:46 PM']I've been wondering about situations like Bin Laden and Hussein:
1. They are murderers, they must be captured and held.
But does this merit death?
1. Their very existence is motivation for terror activity.
2. There would be daily (and deadly) attampts to free them, and reinstitute their reign of terror.
3. As ironmonk said, hostages would be taken daily in an attempt to free these murderers through negotiation.  But they can't be freed, because they are mass-murderers...

I'm thinking this is one of those very rare instances where the death penalty would be justified for the good of the public.[/quote]
We can not kill them becuase their followers would kill to get them out. This would be unjustified according the what the catechism says

2267 "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient [b] to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor[/b] , 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"

Saddam or Bin Laden would be the agressor referred to in the quote, they would no longer be a threat, even it their followers are, so they should not be excuted.

God Bless,
Chris

[StColette]

I agree Chris !!

[CatholicCrusader]

"A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go." St. Louis, King of France

[ThyWillBeDone]

Yay some one agrees with me
Chris