Death Penalty (poll)

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1506268' date='Apr 21 2008, 09:53 PM']I believe deterrence should never be a reason for criminal punishment. If it has deterrent effects, thats a positive effect, but it should never, ever, be the reason for punishment.

If deterrence is the reason for a punishment, there may be cases where the deterrent effect outweighs any justice. Making an example out of someone serves only utilitarian goals and ignores that persons fundamental right to justice.[/quote]
false argument. while i think it should not be the only reason (if deterrence were the only reason you could execute thieves).

And your right executing someone on STRICTLY deterrence reasons yes that is utilitarian and not justice but executing a murderer is justice unlike keeping him locked away for life. He gets what he stole from another that is NOT justice.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1506560' date='Apr 22 2008, 08:58 AM']Can you give an example of a possible scenario in the U.S.?

Sounds kinda like Bill Clinton's "safe but rare" pro-choice argument.[/quote]
what a disgusting thing. Firstly as the Holy Father as said you cannot equate abortion to the death penalty, and to do so is disgusting. The death penalty should not be used rarely, it should be used whenever necessary in other words when someone murders in cold blood and possibly other cases. particularly violent rape.

[quote]FWIW, this isn't an infallible statement, so we are free to disagree. Probably also worth considering the context of this, in time, society, technology. Plus, even if an offender deprives themselves of the right to life, it doesn't mean we necessarily must take it. There would be no wrong (and great mercy) in allowing them to live.[/quote]

There is a lot of false arguments from your side and this is one of the more popular one. Firstly the state has the right to execute that is the position of the Church that is what matters in this argument. second it is NOT merciful it is not Great Mercy to not execute someone is great injustice and unmerciful. mercy is not emotional. punishing someone properly IS merciful.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1506886' date='Apr 22 2008, 05:29 PM']Not all who are convicted are truly guilty.[/quote]
Not one innocent person has been executed since its reinstatement. and that is not a valid argument because if we follow it to its end then it mean that we cannot put people in jail because not all who go to jail are truly guilty.

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1506920' date='Apr 22 2008, 05:39 PM']There are mistakes in our legal system. Accidents do happen. Also, as I said in the other thread which appears to have been abandoned, to kill someone who is in a state of mortal sin is to seal his or her fate. Although that person has freely chosen his/her fate, I think that Christian charity demands to afford a soul every reasonable chance to repent. Many manuals of moral theology consistently state that material goods ought to be sacrificed for a spiritual good.[/quote]
That is right we should offer them the chance for confession many chances for confession before they are executed. that is Christian charity it is NOT Christian charity to not execute someone

[quote name='rkwright' post='1506941' date='Apr 22 2008, 05:50 PM']Murder is the intentional taking of life. Thats what the death penalty is. It is considered justifiable homicide, yet it is a homicide none the less.[/quote]
so your saying the church is wrong. The first Catholic Catechism says that execution is not murder that it in fact is part of keeping of the 5th commandment "The just use of this power (execution) far from involving the crime of murder is an act paramount obedience to this (5th)commandment which prohibits murder. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is not Homicide that is Church teaching and you are manipulating the language of Church teaching to portray your position in a better light.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1506942' date='Apr 22 2008, 05:51 PM']Ends don't justify the means. Threatening to kill someone in order to save their soul is not conversion.[/quote]
you don't execute someone to save their soul. you execute them because that is what justice requires. The fact that someone who is on death row is more likely "to turn toward God" (st. Thomas Aquinas) is a happy thing.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1506946' date='Apr 22 2008, 05:53 PM']so it's like in one ear goes the catechism and pope "only in the msot extreme situation, which hardly do not ever exist" and then out the mouth goes "kill em all", without an explanation of how they're objecting.
it's an interesting phenomeonon[/quote]
that is not infallible statement as the current Holy Father said as head of the CDF, that is the opinion of John Paul II and it ignores justice. The purpose for executing someone is NOT to remove them from society the purpose of Jailing someone is NOT to remove them from society its a matter of Justice any other reason for doing either action is immoral.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1507353' date='Apr 23 2008, 08:17 AM']Not sure where you got this definition? No criminal statue in the United States and the United Kingdom, nor does the common law, include 'innocent' in their definition. The CCC doesn't include 'innocent' in its definition either.

This fits with out common sense. We call jail-yard killings murder. If a robbery goes bad and one bad guy shoots another, we still call it murder. If someone gets shot in a drug deal, its still murder.[/quote]
check the source documents for the CCC John Paul himself defines it. also Killing and murder are defined by that difference Murder (in herbrew and in greek as well as in english until recent times) is taking of an innocent life. Killing is defined as depriving of life.

as for your definition of murder its a crock. the only possible valid objection is that of the robber murdering the robber. However even that is flawed when you use common sense. The state and its representatives are the only one who have the right to execute people (St. Thomas Aquinas St. Augustine St. Pius V)

Webster murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Kill:to deprive of life : cause the death of

[rkwright]

I ask that you read my posts more carefully, and see specifically the points I was responding to.
[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507477' date='Apr 23 2008, 11:47 AM']false argument. while i think it should not be the only reason (if deterrence were the only reason you could execute thieves).

And your right executing someone on STRICTLY deterrence reasons yes that is utilitarian and not justice but executing a murderer is justice unlike keeping him locked away for life. He gets what he stole from another that is NOT justice.[/quote]
My echoes this point. Executions based on deterrence are not justice. I said this in my post, there is no 'false argument' here. Deterrence can have a positive effect, but should never be the reason for executions.

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507499' date='Apr 23 2008, 12:11 PM']so your saying the church is wrong. The first Catholic Catechism says that execution is not murder that it in fact is part of keeping of the 5th commandment "The just use of this power (execution) far from involving the crime of murder is an act paramount obedience to this (5th)commandment which prohibits murder. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is not Homicide that is Church teaching and you are manipulating the language of Church teaching to portray your position in a better light.[/quote]
Not sure where you're getting this from... but all intentional taking of life is homicide. Look at your own definition (which is the common law BTW); it doesn't make distinctions between 'cold-blooded' murder, self-defense killing, or or executions. Its all homicide, yet we provide 'justifications' for certain circumstances.
Look at the CCC... [quote]2263
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."[/quote]
The CCC states that this is still murder, but murder was not the intended goal, the preservation of life is.
Later the CCC says that [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 very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/quote]
[quote]you don't execute someone to save their soul. you execute them because that is what justice requires. The fact that someone who is on death row is more likely "to turn toward God" (st. Thomas Aquinas) is a happy thing.[/quote]
Well I disagree that is what justice requires; but again you're creating a 'false argument'. I agree, and disagree with the statements made earlier in this thread, that executions can not be made on grounds to save people's souls.
[quote]check the source documents for the CCC John Paul himself defines it. also Killing and murder are defined by that difference Murder (in herbrew and in greek as well as in english until recent times) is taking of an innocent life. Killing is defined as depriving of life.


as for your definition of murder its a crock. the only possible valid objection is that of the robber murdering the robber. However even that is flawed when you use common sense. The state and its representatives are the only one who have the right to execute people (St. Thomas Aquinas St. Augustine St. Pius V)

Webster murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Kill:to deprive of life : cause the death of[/quote]
Well if my definition is a crock, then websters, all of English and American common law, and every murder statute in the United States are a crock. I believe sir, yours the definition that is incorrect. Look at your definition of murder, it doesn't include any mention of killing an innocent person. In fact the innocence of a person does not factor into the debate at all.

In all this, I ask that you read my arguments more carefully. Executing people based on deterrence is not justice. Capital punishment, by its very definition is murder; it is the intentional taking of life with malice. It can be justifiable, just as self-defense is. The innocence of the victim doesn't come into play at all.
The CCC is clear on this; these cases "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1507431' date='Apr 23 2008, 10:24 AM']I did not say that meaning that it makes the death pentalty wrong ipso facto, but to point out that some were assuming all who were convicted were guilty. Please read my sentence in the context of its reply. Thank you.[/quote]
I didn't say you did, just pointing out that it doesn't make it wrong in and of itself. It makes the process something to be amended maybe, but not to be abolished.

[quote]One can cite quotations from varied sources, but unless one explains and applies a quotation, they carry little weight. Notice that the priest says that the sentence [i]may [/i]be carried out, not that it [i]must [/i]be carried out.[/quote]

I prefer sources that have no need of explanation, which are what the manuals normally are. The quote says what I wanted it to. Yes, it just means that it can be carried out, not that it must be. I don't believe the death penalty must ALWAYS be carried out. I think there are times when its acceptable to not perform it. The quote simply affirms that the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment.

[quote]Pleae note that the Roman Catechism recognizes that the end of this Commandment is the protection and security of human life. If this is able to be done without a recourse to the death penalty, then why inflict the death penalty at all? Keep in mind that advancements have been made in the civil realm since the Roman Catechism. There is a difference between dogma, doctrine, and discipline.[/quote]

You say there as been improvements since then. I don't really agree. But regardless, protection is only ONE aspect of it. Punishment is necessary and God allows his approved authorities to carry it out as a punishment.

[quote]Let us notice here that the death penalty requires moral certainty. Are our juries properly educated in what required for moral certainty? Furthermore, the quotation presumes that the state has already made a correct judgment in proscribing capital punishment for an offense. This does not prove that capital punishment as a punishment is permissible, but that its application, once decided to be permissible, is lawful. It presumes that a state may decide correctly what is punishible by death.[/quote]

Absolutely. Moral certainty is absolutely required, which is why I included this quote. I am in favor of fixing the death penalty cases so that moral certainty is absolutely required before a death sentence is carried out.

[Deb]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507472' date='Apr 23 2008, 12:36 PM']Let me see your stats because the actual stats are quite different. There is a stat from from Yale and some others that show it does deture murder. It is a states moral responsibility to execute certain types of criminals.[/quote]


Go to page one of the posts. I gave you a plethora of information on the stats.

Did you really stay that it is a states MORAL responsibility to murder people? Oh my.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507472' date='Apr 23 2008, 01:36 PM']Let me see your stats because the actual stats are quite different. There is a stat from from Yale and some others that show it does deture murder. It is a states moral responsibility to execute certain types of criminals.[/quote]

Dude, you are SERIOUSLY condescending.

Anyway, if you had read the first page of this thread, this question would've been answered. But, here's the statistics you are looking for:

[quote]This is from the University of Vermont Study in 2001:

One argument in support of capital punishment is that the threat of death deters murder more effectively than prison. However, research indicates that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than the punishment of life in jail. States with the death penalty on average do not have lower rates of homicide than states without the penalty. The average murder rate per 100,00 people in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5 and the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was 3.6 (US Dept. of Justice, 2001). A study examining executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997 found that the murder rate was steady and that there was no evidence of a deterrent effect. The number of executions was found to be unrelated to murder rates (Sorenson, Wrinkle, Brewer and Marquart, 1999). Furthermore, a survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association shows that the overwhelming majority of these experts do not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect (Radelet and Akers, 1995). Additionally, Attorney General Janet Reno stated at a Justice Department news briefing, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." (US Dept. of Justice, 2001).[/quote]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507499' date='Apr 23 2008, 01:11 PM']Not one innocent person has been executed since its reinstatement. and that is not a valid argument because if we follow it to its end then it mean that we cannot put people in jail because not all who go to jail are truly guilty.[/quote]Can you please cite a definitive reference proving the no innocent person has been killed by the death penalty since its reinstatment? Also, there is a substantial difference between jail and the death pentalty that I think you are over looking. Just as the gravity of a sin is considered in determining whether the sin is mortal or venial, the gravity of punishment ought to be conisdered before attempting a reductio ab absurdum. Your counter-example does not hold, for it ignores such a substantial difference.

[quote]That is right we should offer them the chance for confession many chances for confession before they are executed. that is Christian charity it is NOT Christian charity to not execute someone[/quote]Why is this not Christian charity to spare someone's life? Christ commended us to turn the other cheek as a fulfillment of the lex talionis. We no longer follow the old law of an eye for an eye, but the fulfillment which is found in mercy.

[quote]you don't execute someone to save their soul. you execute them because that is what justice requires. The fact that someone who is on death row is more likely "to turn toward God" (st. Thomas Aquinas) is a happy thing.[/quote]Can you please define justice and show how killing someone fulfills this cardinal virtue?

[quote]But regardless, protection is only ONE aspect of it. Punishment is necessary and God allows his approved authorities to carry it out as a punishment.[/quote]Your quotation clearly stated the protection and security were the [b]end[/b] of the Commandment. This means that the purpose of the Commandment is protection, not just one aspect. Please explain why punishment is necessary.

[quote]I am in favor of fixing the death penalty cases so that moral certainty is absolutely required before a death sentence is carried out.[/quote]Do you think that if the juries were educated in what is required for moral certainty that there will be far fewer death sentences?

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='kujo' post='1507569' date='Apr 23 2008, 02:16 PM']Dude, you are SERIOUSLY condescending.

Anyway, if you had read the first page of this thread, this question would've been answered. But, here's the statistics you are looking for:[/quote]
I am not condescending I am blunt and I am disgusted by many of the nonsense illogical emotional arguments.


[quote]DEATH PENALTY DETERS MURDER
NCPA Daily Policy Digest ^ | May 7, 2003 | William Tucker

Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:44:52 PM by bruinbirdman

Using data from U.S. Census Reports, a correlation between executions and homicide rate from 1930-2000 can be shown, says William Tucker. His data reveals falling murder rates when the death penalty is implemented and escalating murder rates when the courts prohibited capital punishment in the early 1960s.

There is no way to contravene the logic of murder, he explains, except through the death penalty. No amount of victims' pleading or cajoling -- no promises that "I won't tell" -- will ever convince a robber or rapist that there isn't an advantage to escalating the crime to murder.

The only plausible deterrent is a qualitatively different punishment, he says:

o If the punishment for robbery is a few years in jail and the punishment for murder is a few more years after that, there is very little if any deterrence -- but if the punishment for robbery is jail time and the punishment for murder is death, there is reason to think twice.

o By contrast, eliminating the death penalty creates the exact same dilemma -- without any qualitative differential, there is no disincentive to murder the victim of the crime.

Almost the entire increase in murder from 1966 to the mid-1900s was an increase in felony or "stranger" murders -- murders committed during the course of another crime. Only when executions resumed in the 1990s did the murder rate drop precipitously to its 1960s level.

Source: William Tucker, "Deterring Homicides/With the Death Penalty," Human Events, Vol. 59, No. 12, April 2003.[/quote]

[url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PM3PQ00&show_article=1&catnum=1"]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...=1&catnum=1[/url]

[quote]"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters)—what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory—if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

—Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

—The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

—Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.[/quote]


execution saves lives
[url="http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-0/119674527929570.xml&coll=5"]http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials....xml&coll=5[/url]

[url="http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070611_ap_death_penalty.html"]http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070...th_penalty.html[/url]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507593' date='Apr 23 2008, 03:54 PM']execution saves lives[/quote]
Ends do not justify means. Are we supporting the death penalty because it is a deterent or because it fulfills justice? If it is the former, then that is not permissable. We shall not kill lives to save lives. If it is the latter, then please explain how killing a convicted murderer fulfills the cardinal virtue of justice.

I am out for a run; I will be back shortly. Pax

Edited April 23, 2008 by Paphnutius

[goldenchild17]

Couldn't figure out how much of your post was responding to me. If there's more you wanted me to address let me know.

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1507592' date='Apr 23 2008, 02:49 PM']Your quotation clearly stated the protection and security were the [b]end[/b] of the Commandment. This means that the purpose of the Commandment is protection, not just one aspect. Please explain why punishment is necessary.[/quote]
Because that's not the only source on the issue. Pius XII said it is done "in expiation of one's guilt":

Pope Pius XII -
"Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life [b]in expiation for his guilt[/b], after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life."

This is clearly referring to a punishment for the sin of the crime.

Pope Innocent III said the same:

against the Waldensians: "Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood [b]as long as one proceeds to bring punishment[/b] not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly" (Denzinger 425).


Catechism of Trent also referred to the punishment aspect:

"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 [b]of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent[/b]. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience 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."

The intent is to punish the guilty AND protect the innocent.

[quote]Do you think that if the juries were educated in what is required for moral certainty that there will be far fewer death sentences?[/quote]

I do. I think it should be required that a jury understands this, but in a non-Catholic country this is somewhat unreasonable to expect I think.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1507592' date='Apr 23 2008, 02:49 PM']Can you please cite a definitive reference proving the no innocent person has been killed by the death penalty since its reinstatment? Also, there is a substantial difference between jail and the death pentalty that I think you are over looking. Just as the gravity of a sin is considered in determining whether the sin is mortal or venial, the gravity of punishment ought to be conisdered before attempting a reductio ab absurdum. Your counter-example does not hold, for it ignores such a substantial difference.[/quote]like what?
my example is a good one, what you are saying is that we should give a lesser punishment because the person might not have committed the crime, that is exactly your argument and I am only following it to its conclusion. In reality my argument was not reduced to the absurd as that is EXACTLY what is happening in the US justice system . I will find a link, however again even if an innocent person was executed that still does not null the death penalty. Innocent people are sent to jail all the time it does not null the need to send people to Jail.

[quote]Why is this not Christian charity to spare someone's life? Christ commended us to turn the other cheek as a fulfillment of the lex talionis. We no longer follow the old law of an eye for an eye, but the fulfillment which is found in mercy.[/quote]Firstly Christs commandment was directed to individuals not to the state. The State sharing in the Authority of God has the RIGHT to sentence people to death. It is not charity because you ignore the offended parties that is 1 the person murdered and 2 the larger society. remember murder is a crime which cries out from the earth for justice. Something you people on the left of this issue seem to fail to grasp at is that execution is about more than the person being executed its about justice. Justice by its very definition is paying someone what is due them, it is also restoring balance. Giving someone a lesser punishment for ANY offense is not mercy it is an act contrary to Justice which can never be mercy. I forgive you does not mean you dont have to pay for the window you broke.
[quote]Can you please define justice and show how killing someone fulfills this cardinal virtue?[/quote]yes i will publish my CMP paper here

[quote]Your quotation clearly stated the protection and security were the [b]end[/b] of the Commandment. This means that the purpose of the Commandment is protection, not just one aspect. Please explain why punishment is necessary.[/quote]again i will publish my paper if it does not satisfy let me know

[quote]Do you think that if the juries were educated in what is required for moral certainty that there will be far fewer death sentences?[/quote]
this is not Rome, Here in our current age someone must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. juries are instructed and educated what qualifies a reasonable doubt. so to answer your question its already done

[CatholicMax]

CMP
The Death Penalty

There seems to be a confusion as to what exactly the Catholic Church teaching in regards the Death Penalty. This confusion comes form the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself when it states the personal opinion of John Paul II in section 2267 “...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 are more in conformity to 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 definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."”. This is the opinion of the Holy Father and while it is important to show respect for his personal opinion it is not necessary to agree with him. Section 2267 begins by stating the Church position “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,...” this is to say is and has always been the traditional teaching of the Church. The second part of the first section of paragraph 2267 “(Comma) if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”, the reason for the comma is because this is NOT traditional Church teaching. The Traditional Church teaching is that of which was elegantly put by St. Thomas Aquinas and reaffirmed by The Catechism of the council of Trent.
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 stated. “2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. ***For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion***. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."” The statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger was in response to a question about the death penalty in Evangelium Vita which is the source of the Catechism statement. It is incumbent for us to remember that while there are infallible things in the Catechism of John Paul II not everything in it is infallible, just like with the Catechism of Pius V. The standard way of stating something in the CCC is to first state the Churches official position and then to state an interpretation of that position.

This is why Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.". Even in regards St. Ambrose position it should not be perverted as some have tried to, as to imply he was against the death penalty. His position was that the Church should not pronounce these sentences and his reasoning was wise, he did not want the Church to be involved in an area he saw the state was the fit party to decide “render unto Ceaser”. Cardinal Avery goes on to say "Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he
proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. ".
To gain a deeper appropriation and understanding for John Paul II opinion on the death penalty we must examine the context in which he said it as well as his reasons for saying it, and then see how it can be harmonized with Catholic tradition if it can be. Reading is more than looking at the words on a page it is understanding what the author is saying, why he is saying it, what he means by it, and internalizing it. John Paul II is a European Pope, he is a Pope who experienced and lived through World War II, and this is going to greatly affect his view of things. If one does not understand the post war mindset of Europe he cannot understand either John Paul II or our current Pope. To summarize the experience is that of an abusive State Government who executed anyone at will for any reason(This is contrary Church teaching), being mindful of this abuse John Paul II went to the other extreme taking a personal view of extreme limition of when the death penalty can be applied. His philosophy also seems to create what is standard in Christian philosophy the false dichotomy between Justice and Mercy implying they are some how opposed. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this clear when he says “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to... exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals”. It should be made clear that Justice and Mercy cannot be opposed to one another and to imply that they can is absurd as it violates the dignity of God as well as the Philosophical Law of non-contradiction. If God is as we believe Perfect Mercy and Perfect Justice then for the two to be opposed to one another at any time makes God an absurdity, and as absurdities cannot be real God then could not exist.
Mercy and Justice then are not opposed to one another at anytime but are in truth different perspectives of the same thing. When someone feeds the poor it is as true to say “He is being merciful” as it is to say “He is being just”. When you punish someone fairly for an offense they have committed it is equally true to say “That judge is being Just” as it is to say “That judge is being Merciful”, as by giving the offender his just punishment the judge is not only restoring the dignity stolen from the offended party but is also restoring the dignity of the offender. One can also say that the Judge is being merciful in prescribing a just punishment no matter how harsh as it not only helps to repair the temporal damage done but also the spiritual damage, this is to say simply it will reduce the time needed in purgatory for the repartition of the offense.
The problem with John Paul II philosophical approach to the death penalty is that it is overly pragmatic on the part of the offender and deals only with his physical good, assuming and presuming that it is good, and does not examine the deeper question of “Is it good”. The approach also seems to more troublesomely ignore the physical, psychological, and spiritual good of those individuals affected by the actions of the murder. This is to say that his only concern seems to be again that of the murderer, and only that of what he perceives as the immediate material good of said individual without ever examining if in fact it is his immediate good at all. This approach seems to create in imbalance as well as an injustice in that it revictimizes the immediate victim (the man killed), as well as the other parties(Family, Neighbors, and the Larger Society in gerneral). I will expand on this last statement later.
Defining Justice and Mercy
Mercy by its very definition is not “reduction of a penalty owed”, in its Latin form (merced-, merces,) mercy means price paid, wages. Where as Justice means to “Pay someone their due” or “to Pay what is owed”. Mercy and Justice then are far from being contrary to one another but instead are brothers.
If someone is Just they will then they will seek justice, this means that if someone commits an offense they seek that due payment be given that man. If however they are the offender and they are just they will seek out their own justice. They will demand that proper punishment be given to them and will accept nothing less than their own perfect justice not only to repair the physical damage they have done but the Spiritual, and psychological, sense as well. The question then arises of how forgiveness fits into the world of the Just man. Forgiveness does not mean ignoring the offense forgiven as part of what the Just man seeks in his own justice is forgiveness of his offense. As Catholics this concept is easily understood as when we go to confession we are forgiven but given penance, this is because part of forgiveness is penance. When a Just man however forgives an offense against him and does not seek immediate reparation this should not be confused as saying “I do not wish this man be punished”, but rather “I leave it to God that what is owed him will be given in this life of the next”. It should also be understand that nothing compels the Just man to act heroically in this way.
The Churches traditional teaching is stated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent when it says “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.”. The reason Pius V can say this should be self evident, however with the dulling of the modern mind to such an extent as it is things which should be self evident are no longer. Then to demonstrate the reason for saying this let us examine the two types of murder and punishment that are due justly to them. First is the crime of passion, this crime is one which is committed in the heat of the moment. As an example the man who murders his wife and her lover moments after finding them in bed together. This action which was done in the moment without thought should receive sever punishment however as it was not done with full cognition it would be unjust to ask for his death.
The deliberate murderer however who plots the death of another especially over a period of time is not only guilty of showing the up most contempt for human life but demonstrates an awareness of his actions. We must then ask “what is the just punishment for deliberate murder”, as part of paying what is due is in fact reparation what then can be sufficiently demanded of a deliberate murderer? It must be established that if the murderer were to die ten thousand times that this would not repair the damage done as unlike stealing a set amount of money or killing someones pig each human life has infinitively unique value. Knowing then that death is the ultimate punishment, it is the climax of human existence as we move from an existence in which we can turn to or from God, to an existence in which we are either eternally turning to God(purgatory/Heaven) or eternally moving from God(Hell). It must also be established that when an offense is committed murder or otherwise there is always some imperfection in the ability to pay back what is due in reparation. For example if I were to kill your dog I may have to pay for another Dog however the sentimental value you gave to that creature can never be reproduced. I cannot give you back your dog.
Having established the above principles we can understand why it would appear that when justice is carried out the authorities may be inclined to demand more than what was taken. For example if I steal your grandmothers ring from you, even if it is returned to you there is still a stain on it because of my defilement of the object. My punishment may then not only require returning the object but also to spend time in jail, this “added” punishment is meant to attempt a restoration or polishing of the stain. The death penalty works the same way, while it is true that the death of the offender does is not a perfect reparation it is the most perfect reparation possible. Having been guilty of robbing another man of what is uniquely his and can never be restored to him it is only just that the offender forfeit what is his and can never be restored to him. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas says "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6. What is quantitatively irreparable(a human life stolen) is able have some reparation.
False Arguments
There is common among today a false argument that seems to be prevalent among many even among those who are brilliant thinkers. This falseness comes from the pragmatism which seems to have overtaken our modern world. While I myself am a pragmatists I try to avoid the mistake of many by only considering one individuals pragmatic circumstance. In the case of the death penalty as I have said John Paul II mistake is that he only considers the murderer and does not seem to take into account the individual victims. It creates an injustice because it takes the wellbeing of an individual who has forfeited his right by a conscious act of his free will by saying “I know the punishment for my actions and accept them”, and values him higher than the victims.
The false arguments are as follows: The death penalty is nothing more than vengeance killings on the part of the family. The death penalty is bad because it does not allow the person the opportunity to turn to God. In the first there is a sever logical fallacy, that is namely it is not the family who prescribes the death penalty but the state. The state does not nor should it execute a man who has committed murder on the grounds that it is proper vengeance for the family. The state Acting with the Authority of God(The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21) rightly punishes the individual in order that “healing and preservation of the common good” be allowed. It is beyond the authority of any individual acting on his own behalf to murder a murderer. Only a valid state sharing in the Authority of God and the representatives of that state may declare execution as the fit punishment. The reason for doing so is not one of “Vengeance” as is ignorantly and falsely claimed but one of restoring order and peace.
The second false argument mentioned is that it does not permit the individual sufficient time to repent of their deeds. This again is a fallacy for as St. Thomas Aquinas points out “...They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146. There two other things which must be considered, namely that if the individual has hardened his heart to the point of rejecting repentance even in the face of death it can with good faith and reason be presumed that given more time the individual would only harden his heart more firmly against God. This speaks directly to “Is it good the man be let to live”, of which the answer when taken in light of this must be no as it permits him to turn further from God. Secondly if in fact more time would permit them to turn to God it must not be questioned or doubted that God being perfectly merciful and just would in his judgment either delay the execution of the man or take into account this opening.
There is one final false argument on the part of the pragmatist, this false argument does the most violence to justice of any kind. The pragmatist is operating from the false presumption that the offender must be repentant of his actions. Are the souls in hell repentant? Repentance is not required for justice to be carried out neither on a human level nor on a Divine level. It should always be desired by man and is always desired by God that the individual be repentant of his action of his wrongdoing, it is however not required. If I steal $300 from you I do not first have to be repentant before I return said money to you, and it would be absurd if such a thing were required. It is the duty of the state and those in charge of the state to will the good of every individual this includes the salvation of his soul. Therefore it is not only of the utmost importance that the state provide the individual with adequate catechists and spiritual formation but it is required by the Moral Law. If the individual persists in his defiance of God again no amount of time will turn him to God, and this is only a stronger case for his punishment. It is impermissible to allow such a man who has committed the ultimate crime against God and man(murder is a form of blaspheme) to continue in being as the very fact that he is allowed to continue to live demonstrates to the spiritual detriment of the community at large that such an attitude is not only permitted but acceptable.
It must always be taken into consideration that the death penalty is not exercised on behalf of the immediate victim (the man killed), nor his loved ones (family and friends), but on behalf of the entire Society which is why it is the State who determines the use of the death penalty. It is to restore the imbalance which is created by murder. When the state denies proper justice to any crime it then demonstrates a level of permissiveness toward that crime, this is why Pius V says it is “Paramount obedience” for the state to carry out the death penalty. To allow the individual to continue to live even if in prison creates injustice which will only beget more injustice. Imagine not sending a rapist to jail because it might interferer with their rehabilitation. It happens today and the reason is because of states reluctance to carryout the necessary just punishments.
One Final point
There can be no clear or good argument made for life imprison over the death penalty except for this which has been heard often by those who advocate the death penalty “I think it is better for them to spend life in jail where they can suffer more. Death ends it all.” this is neither Just nor merciful it is cruel and the person needs to examine themselves very carefully. It is true that someone who accepts the punishment of the death penalty may need to spend little to no time in purgatory for the offenses they have committed it should not be mistake that they are somehow getting a get out of jail free card. Death is the ultimate temporal punishment given by God himself to mankind, it takes a heroic action to completely embrace ones execution. He enters heaven at no small price, as he in his act becomes the good thief saying to Christ “I deserve this but you do not I ask only that you remember me in paradise”.
It should be clear then by now that the Churches official teaching on the death penalty is that it is not only permissible but necessary. John Paul II can be taken in conformity with traditional Church teaching if we take his situation in the CCC 2267 to mean that “When the state can legitimately find a reason for deferment to life in prison such as a crime of passion or mental retardation such actions should always be preferred.”, Any other interpretation is not only a perversion of Church teaching but an act of subversion of God and a legitimate state.

[Paphnutius]

Wow, a lot of information to suddenly read and digest. I ask both Catholicmax and goldenchild to allow me some time to read this after my night class tonight. I appreciate your paitence.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1507629' date='Apr 23 2008, 03:26 PM']Wow, a lot of information to suddenly read and digest. I ask both Catholicmax and goldenchild to allow me some time to read this after my night class tonight. I appreciate your paitence. [/quote]
Feel free I am on my way to my night class in a bit as well. and if it makes you feel any better my CMP prof is on your side. however even he admits that you cant get around what I say without some serious Yoga.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1507629' date='Apr 23 2008, 03:26 PM']Wow, a lot of information to suddenly read and digest. I ask both Catholicmax and goldenchild to allow me some time to read this after my night class tonight. I appreciate your paitence. [/quote]

not a problem take your time