Death Penalty

[the_rev]

It is posted in the apologetics board I believe

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dtofdh' date='Jan 29 2005, 06:12 AM'] What is the official position of the Church on the death penalty? [/quote]
Apotheoun just stated it. For further clarification look in the apologetics section.

[Dudette]

[quote name='jiyoung' date='Jan 28 2005, 11:01 PM'] ah just kidding then.

i'm the lone asian then.

suhp suhp hah nae... [/quote]
naw, your not lonely. I'm half Chinese.

[zwergel88]

[quote] Leland which is my middle name[/quote]

that's intersesting, that is my brothers middle name, it's pretty rare

Also, I hate the death penalty. I think that the US should join the rest of the civilized world and abolish it

[jiyoung]

[quote name='Dudette' date='Jan 29 2005, 09:47 AM'] naw, your not lonely. I'm half Chinese. [/quote]
yayyy

maybe not illicit, but isn't it supposed to be not used unless there is a DIRE reason? i'm inclined to think of st alessandro, who raped and murdered st maria goretti...italy doesn't have a death penalty so he was in prison, and st maria goretti came to him and forgave him. he turned his life around and became a saint. many people are capable of that change...i know the Church doesn't outlaw it but doesn't it also not usually advocate its use?

[StMichael]

Isn't the Death Penalty one of the non-negotiables along with abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, gay "marriage" that we as Catholics must adhere to?

[popestpiusx]

nope

[MilesChristi]

"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..." (CCC 2267)

[argent_paladin]

What the loquacious ppx meant by that "nope" was that the Church's teaching on the death penalty is not the same degree nor the same kind as its teachings on abortion, euthanasia, etc. It is intrinsically evil (always wrong) to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Emphasis on "intentionally" and "innocent". Also, government (instituted by God) has different responsibilities than individuals. Firstly, they are charged with protection of society. This has traditionally included the execution of criminals. So, while the Church is 100% against abortion and euthanasia, the same is not true of the death penalty. It is also not the same kind because the teaching on the death penalty is in a state of flux. The Vatican City State executed its last criminal just over 100 years ago, and the pope is the soveriegn of Vatican City. If he were then to condemn capital punishment as always wrong, there would be a contradition.
Here is the current understanding of the death penalty (from the Catechism):
"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person"
But this was not always so. The teaching has developed recently. Traditionally, there were three arguments for the death penalty: retributive justice, protection of society and deterrence. However, the evidence for deterrence is uncertain and in any case, there are strong philosophical arguments against it (involving not using human beings as a means, in this case, a teaching tool).
The pope only considers protection of society as a valid reason for capital punishment, and there are very few situations in the modern world which demand the death penalty as the only means to protect society (perhaps in warfare). But the real point of controversy is the dismissal of retributive justice as a reason, since this is the original and central reason in the tradition: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life." Justice has long meant "giving one his/her due" and death was due someone who committed murder, regardless of whether he/she would kill again. Many argue that there is still room to argue for this position and that retributive justice still has a place.
But, the bottom line is that one cannot say that it is always and everywhere wrong to execute a criminal, however one CAN and MUST say that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally directly abort a fetus or commit euthanasia.
Of course, I am against capital punishment in America because it is costly (California has spent approximately one BILLION dollars per executed person in the past 30 years), unfair (capital cases are common in some places but rare in others), prone to error and possibly lowers our culture's respect for human life.

[spathariossa]

I disagree with the death penalty on principle. I don't declare the US government to be illicit in doing it but I disagree with it.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you deliberately murder an innocent life, you forfeit yours in return.

[popestpiusx]

Thank you, argent, for that breviloquent explanation of my loquacious post. In addition, I would count myself among those who believe that retributive still "has a place". In fact, I would say that it is a crucial aspect of punishment. Furthermore, the recent so-called "development" is based on a prudential assessment of modernity that, it seems to me, is subject to debate. (The phrase 'it seems to me' should indicate in the mind of the reader that I am not proposing this as de fide, but as a subject for debate/discussion in which my presently settled mind could be changed.)

[Norseman82]

The one fear that goes through my mind regarding the effectiveness of keeping them locked up for life came tome during the Timothy McVeigh debate, which is that some terrorists might take a school full of kids hostages in an effort to release him.

Another thing to ponder is that Charles Manson was once on death row and now he is up for parole every two years all due to some judge.