Death penalty a good thing here?

[Sojourner]

The statement you took issue with is early on in the article; there's lots more behind his argument.

[Aloysius]

yeah, I read it, and just re-read it now to brush up in case I forgot anything. I don't agree with his conclusions though he may have some valid points. I can't really get into a systematic rebuttal of it right now, but is there some specific arguement from the artical you found most convincing?

I especially took issue with one point where he said "the death penalty may be necessary... but it is never right". if there is a developement of doctrine taking place on this moral issue, it cannot contradict previous doctrine, meaning it cannot say that the death penalty is never right. IN FACT- to be in line with previous doctrine, it must admit that every time it is used on someone who is truly guilty of a grave crime it is ALWAYS right. the overall policy of over-using it may be wrong, but the individual execution of an individual truly guilty of a grave crime is always right.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 27 2005, 10:11 PM']I especially took issue with one point where he said "the death penalty may be necessary... but it is never right".  if there is a developement of doctrine taking place on this moral issue, it cannot contradict previous doctrine, meaning it cannot say that the death penalty is never right.  IN FACT- to be in line with previous doctrine, it must admit that every time it is used on someone who is truly guilty of a grave crime it is ALWAYS right.  the overall policy of over-using it may be wrong, but the individual execution of an individual truly guilty of a grave crime is always right.
[right][snapback]772529[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You "..." through the good stuff! He actually says:

[quote]Capital punishment may occasionally be necessary [b]in a modern democracy[/b], but it is never right, for the death penalty is not in a line with other punishments. A five-year sentence and a twenty-year sentence, even a life sentence, are related as more or less severe forms of imprisonment. [i]Execution belongs to another order of punishment.[/i][/quote]

He then goes on to explain why, in the context of the modern democracy, the death penalty isn't right, albeit necessary at times to maintain order.

I found his argument that because our government doesn't claim a divine right to govern, it cannot claim the divine right of execution, to be particularly compelling. (the preceding sentence is badly worded, I know, but my train of thought keeps getting derailed by circumstances outside my control ... )

[Aloysius]

however, since "non est enim potes nisi a Deo" or "there is no authority except from God", if we follow through with his logic our modern democracy has no authority over us whatsoever. if they have authority, they have it from God, regardless of where they claim it is from. if they have authority from God, then they may use execution justly. if they do not have authority from God, then we have no one in authority. however, it is clear that our government holds authority, and as such we must see it as divinely originated. you can't hold authority over people unless God allows you to, God alone is the source of authority over mankind.

[Aloysius]

let me anticipate the obvious Hitler argument: he held authority over Germany meaning God, the source of all authority, must have allowed that. meaning that Hitler had the right and power to do anything a just ruler of a nation can do. he could have executed people who committed grave crimes, he could have taken taxes and what not. he obviously did not hold authority from God to invade Poland or slaughter a bunch of people, just as our government does not hold authority from God to allow the slaughter of babies. that doesn't mean our government and his wasn't in authority because God allowed it.