
Deal Hudson wrote a piece at Inside Catholic this week on Catholics and the death penalty:
As most Catholics know, Church teaching on the death penalty developed under the leadership of Pope John Paul II. His encyclical Evangelium Vitae did not rule out use of the death penalty altogether, as some people think, but stated it should be used only “in cases of absolute necessity,” adding “such cases are rare, if practically non-existent” (56). For John Paul, the dignity of the human person demanded that Catholics look for “bloodless means” to protect the common good from the threat of those who are guilty of taking innocent human life.
Author Dudley Sharp has compiled historical Catholic teaching on the death penalty. See page 2 for quotes. He also wrote:
Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
I’m interested in Catholic thought on the evolving view of the Catholic Church on the death penalty. Is anyone concerned or observing that opposition to the death penalty is taking oxygen from opposition to abortion? Am also interested in hearing from those who are pro-life and pro-death penalty, pro-choice and anti-death penalty, and all other variations.
Saint Augustine: “… Iinflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)
Saint Thomas Aquinas: “… 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.)
Romano Amerio, Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council: “The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods.
Sharp commentary: The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.
Some opposing capital punishment ” . . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.”
Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.”
The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005): “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” 2266
Sharp commentary: This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.
We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime of the aggressor and hold them accountable for that crime/sin/disorder by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice, retributive justice, just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260.
“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” Genesis 9:5-6 “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” – 2260
Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43
Sharp: Mercy, salvation and redemption will not be measured by the method of our earthly death, but by our state of grace in the context of the eternal.
“According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. “
“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”
“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”
“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”
“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether….”
” . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. “
“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”
“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”
“This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. “
” . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. “
Sharp: Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.
They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).
Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction can be restorative and rehabilitative.
[Photo via Inside Catholic]

Exodus 21:12: He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. (NKJV)
Numbers 35:30 :Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses: but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.
Those are just two of MANY in THE BIBLE. Point is, if you kill, you are to be killed.
Abortion is completely a different issue. That’s killing an INNOCENT baby who has done NOTHING to deserve death. Two completely separate issues. Not sure WHY people want to argue that if you’re AGAINST abortion you can’t be FOR the death penalty. I know..people will want to argue “That’s OLD Testament”. That debate is too long for this forum.
Not Catholic, but…
Pro-life and anti-death penalty: My position
Pro-life and pro-death penalty: I disagree, but I understand. You could argue that one waives his or her own right to life by engaging in criminal behavior.
Pro-abortion and pro-death penalty: At least you’re consistent.
Pro-abortion and anti-death penalty: What the heck?
I wonder. If any of us could be transported back in time to Jesus’ trial in the middle of the night, would we chant “Crucify Him”, knowing that His death would be the expiation for our sins?
I couldn’t. I doubt any of us would, both because He is God, and because He was innocent.
But many of us shout “Crucify him” for our fellow citizens, even in the face of one overturned murder conviction after another by Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project, which uses DNA testing of the evidence. It causes one to wonder how many innocent men and women have gone to their deaths. Not a few, if the 258 overturned convictions thus far are any indication.
Still, many say that they see a few wrongful executions a small price they are willing to accept. 258 is not a small number of wrongful convictions, (among those able to be aided by DNA evidence).
One is too many.
Speaking only for my own religion, I do not see how a Roman Catholic can accept a share in the first degree murder of an innocent human being by the state as somehow a decent trade-off for the illusion of greater safety. Texas dispatches prisoners by the dozen annually, and still the murders continue unabated. When we shout crucify him regarding or fellow citizens, it is the same as shouting it for our Lord (Matthew 25) “Whatever you did to the least of these my brothers, you did it unto me.”
There are other means of expiation, aside from being murdered by the state. Life in prison is a very harsh existence, and for decades all the more. It also allows for exculpatory evidence to be brought forward in defense of the innocent wrongly accused and convicted.
I remember Edith Bunker’s [All in the Family] reply when asked for her position on capital punishment:
“Ooooooooh, I guess it’s OK…………as long as it’s not tooooo severe.” [Hear her speaking with her New York.]
While I have no doubt the ‘book’ allows for the death penaly and even requires it in some instances and Jesue recomends it obliquely and pre-emptively in the new testament [Having a millstone tied around your neck and being thrown into the sea is not a process that is likely to result in a survivable outcome.] I am uncomfortable with the concept of killing a fellow human who at the moment is no immediate threat to another living soul.
I believe I could kill someone in self defense or in defence of other(s), but scheduling a specific time to do it and then actually killing the dude/dudette is difficult to contemplate even if they are one of the those people who need killing.
‘Catholicism’ aside [catholicism does even speak for all catholics], pre-natal homicide and state authorized execution of people who have been convicted by a jury of a capital crime, which almost always involves a comission of a murder, are two separate and different issues.
In this finite world of time and space and energy, even those who graced with exraordinary abilities of multitasking can only devote so much attention to any one given thing.
We should all fight the battle(s) to which the LORD has called us and ask HIM for the wisdom to discern when we are laboring where HE has NOT called us.
My only problem with the death penalty is not with killing a murderer, but with our judicial system. I think we need to be 100% sure without any doubt the accused is guilty. We have sent too many innocent men to their deaths on cases loaded with false evidence and the prosecutor’s career ambitions.
Ah yes, The OLD testament when god was truly angry and vengeful. Oh how I miss the “scare the children at bed time” antics of the angel of death…
Pamela – Such is the way with the sanctity of life… In one breath you say life is scared and in the next you quote exodus to justify the killing of “guilty” people.
Thou shall not kill… except gays… with big stones…
So abortion is evil but if that baby grows up to be a homosexual we should THEN stone them to death?
I can’t stand it when Christians quote exodus because that book is in direct contrast with EVERYTHING Jesus supposedly said and you can’t have it both ways.
Biggz,
When you find 12 perfect people to empanel a jury, then you may have chance at a 100% chance of a guranteed outcome of justice.
Until then you will have to deal with the best justice system the ‘world’ has yet produced.
“The OLD testament when god was truly angry and vengeful.”
You can relax, now that GOD is a ‘christian’, but the ‘angel of death’ has not been retired, he is in the acitve reserves and can be recalled to active duty at any moment.
Though tne ‘angle of death’ would have no problem fitting under your bed, I hardly think that you are worthy of his attention. One of those cute little winged cherubs could having you wetting your pants and crying uncle or auntie in no time.
This is one of those rare times when I’ll deviate from a position of C.S. Lewis! (I’m anti-abortion and, save for extreme circumstances where the death of the offender is the only morally certain way to safeguard the lives and well-being of others, I’m anti-death-penalty.)
First: I completely submit to the fact that the Catholic Church has never, and CANNOT EVER, condemn the use of the death penalty per se (i.e. in principle, as opposed to application); to do so would be a violation of positive Divine Law (i.e. law given by God, which is irreformable).
That being said: I disagree with the suggestion that a lawful and just execution’s potential expiatory value (which is certainly possible) somehow counterbalances the ongoing opportunities for conversion while the criminal is alive. For one thing, the doctrine of the Communion of Saints (illustrated strikingly in Colossians 1:24, among other places) teaches that our prayers and sacrifices can call down great graces upon the rest of the world–graces which can open the criminal’s heart to conversion. It only stands to reason that a longer life on earth, coupled with ongoing prayer and the offering of sacrifices (e.g. “offering up” our own sufferings, in union with the One Worthy Sacrifice of Christ) for them, will yield far more likelihood of conversion, and the salvation of an immortal soul… whose loss would make the worst possible murder (of the body) pale in comparison.
St. John Chrysostom, in one of his homilies on 2 Corinthians, wrote the following:
— quote —
‘But,’ saith one, ‘he insulted me and robbed me of money;’ and which hath need to grieve, he that suffered injury, or he that inflicted injury? Plainly he that inflicted injury, since whilst he gained money he cast himself out of the favor of God, and lost more than he gained: so that he is the injured party. Surely then need is not that one pray against, but for him, that God would be merciful to him.
— end quote —
Translate that into the current issue. Who is more harmed: the one murdered, or the murderer? The one murdered has been grievously wronged, to be sure… but, if he has not already thrown his own soul away through mortal sin (cf. 1 John 5:16-17), he has the bounty of Heaven opened to him (I’ll pass over the idea of Purgatory for now, in honour of mixed company :) ), while the murderer has almost certainly separated himself from God, and put himself in very grave danger of eternal hell. Again: who is the worse off? Who is in greater need of prayer and remedy? I agree with St. John, on that point.
Beyond that: when someone dies, their opportunity for repentance comes to an end. There is no more opportunity to choose for or against God, at that point; your soul’s state of being will answer that, one last time, when you meet Almighty God at the moment of your death. That’s yet another reason why I would urge (unless it’s necessary beyond all reasonable doubt) the stay of the execution of anyone whom we can bind and contain safely by non-lethal means.
Think of it this way: when Our Blessed Lord Jesus gave us the Lord’s Prayer, he did not say that we are barred from being unmerciful to those who wrong us; He merely said that we can expect Our Heavenly Father will treat us in the same way, regarding our own sins against Him. The law of talion (e.g. “eye for eye, life for life”) still satisfies justice–but if we demand justice from God without showing mercy (which is not to be confused with leniency, “turning a blind eye”, or “letting people off the hook”, mind you!), then we can expect to receive the just punishment for our own crimes (i.e. eternal death). I’d rather not, personally.
Just to anticipate, I can imagine some people rushing in with contrary examples: cases where a long imprisonment would embitter a prisoner to the point where he loses his soul, or cases where a quick execution so scares a prisoner that he repents; those are certainly possible. But, especially in this jaded society in which human life is so little valued, executions not only promise very little in the way of repentance for the criminal, but they thicken the callous on our souls, regarding the sacredness of human life… which is a very dangerous thing to do.
Paladin – First: I completely submit to the fact that the Catholic Church has never, and CANNOT EVER, condemn the use of the death penalty per se (i.e. in principle, as opposed to application); to do so would be a violation of positive Divine Law (i.e. law given by God, which is irreformable).
lol yea unless the pope changes his mind…
Also, you are of course making the huge assumption that the human “soul” actually exists which I find to be quite a leap considering there is exactly 0 scientific evidence to suggest that such a concept has any basis in reality. Why would you run your life and make decisions based on a work of fiction instead of undeniable facts?
Why would you run your life and make decisions based on a work of fiction instead of undeniable facts?
This is coming from a pro-choicer who denies the humanity of the preborn?
Recently three mad dogs escaped from an AZ prison and two have been recaptured but not before they killed a couple who were camping.
The death penalty is self defense for society. There are people who are cold blooded predators beyond any “rehabilitation”. Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than that one such predator, Joren Vandersloot, is living in terror of other predators in a Peruvian prison.
A former policeman told me that anyone who opposes the death penalty should have to pull a few dead victims out of a ditch. He assures me it would change their minds.
Kelsey, well phrased comment, very concise!
I am generally against the death penalty, for a lot of reasons. 1: two wrongs don’t make a right, 2: it is possible that an innocent could be executed by accident, 3: it really doesn’t save money with all the mandatory appeals and such, 4: it makes us no better than abortionists who kill for their own convenience. I am a practicing Catholic. The Pope, while he can speak for himself as a man, cannot change Church teaching. If a Pope woke up one day and told us all to worship seagulls, we certainly wouldn’t! There are a lot of misconceptions out there about the Pope and the Church. While I’m against the death penalty, it is hard to compare it to abortion because: an unborn child cannot speak for himself, has no legal counsel or defense not even that of his/her own father, and is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
I don’t lose sleep over pro-choice advocates who try to tell me what kind of pro-lifer I ought to be, nor do I lose sleep over atheists who try to tell me what is and isn’t true about the material universe.
I do believe in the soul and I’ll tell you a portion of why: atoms are not solid, the components are energy in motion. Energy cannot be destroyed. Our thoughts are energy, our mind is perceived to be in the area of our brain, but the mind is not the physical brain itself. Why grow in knowledge and wisdom, if we only end in oblivion? We don’t end in oblivion. Rev. Richard Wurmbrand wrote of an encounter between a believer and an atheist:
“Suppose that we could speak with an embryo in his mother’s womb & you would tell him that the embryonic life was only a short one and after follows a real, long life. What would the embryo answer? He would say just what you atheists answer to us, when we speak to you about paradise and hell. He would say that the life in the mother’s womb is the only one and that everything else is religious foolishness. But if the embryo could think, he would say to himself, ‘Here arms grow on me. I do not need them. I cannot even stretch them. Why do they grow? Perhaps they grow for a future stage of my existence. Legs grow, but I have to keep them bent toward my chest. Why do they grow? Probably life in a large world follows, where I will have to walk. Eyes grow, although I am surrounded by perfect darkness and don’t need them. Probably a world of light and colors will follow.’ So, if the embryo would reflect on his own development, he would know about life outside his mother’s womb without having seen it. It is the same with us. As long as we are young, we have vigor, but no mind to use it properly. When, with the years, we have grown in knowledge and wisdom, the hearse awaits to take us to the grave. Why is it necessary to grow in knowledge and wisdom that we can use no more? …It is for what follows…We are prepared to serve on a higher level that follows death.”
Death penalty is a huge grey area for me. Scripture spells out capital punishment and yet God supplied sanctuary cities for those who committed murder unknowingly or in self-defense. Both sides of the issue argue good points and I find myself unsure of where I stand on this issue. I am not Catholic but I am a Christian. Its an issue I tend to just listen to others and try to find where I stand on the issue.
A well known radio commentator once questioned whether the death penalty could deter. For those who think that capital punishment will not deter,imagine for example, if California had a law that imposed capital punishment for all murders that took place on Mon, Tues, and Wed. And life imprison for murderers that committed murder on the other days. What days do you think most murders would take place on?
I’m not sure you can say there is an “evolving” Catholic position on the death penalty. The Church has long held, and will always hold, that the state has the right to use it if they want, making sure that certain circumstances are in place.
Aside from that, I know of no judicial/penal system on earth that is perfectly secure and can guarantee that violent criminals will not escape and cause havoc among the population. The Arizona case mentioned in another comment is just one example of hundreds that could be cited. In Texas, we have had death row inmates escape.
I am also not aware of any plausible case that shows an innocent man (or woman) was put to death wrongly in the United States. What is worrying is the very high number of exonerations that have occurred where I live. At some point, if they have not already, they will start releasing guilty people who have been “cleared” using DNA and law enforcement will be stuck re-investigating cases all over again, many of which will remain unsolved, much to the detriment and continuing grief of the victims families.
And besides, there is not much room for emotional arguments for or against the use of the death penalty. The Church’s position is based on the principal of retributive justice and balancing the scales of justice, which is similiar to what states do (or should do).
It’s always important to remember that John Paul II grew up in a system that abused the death penalty (Nazi Germany) and he grew to despise its use. I can’t blame him. I probably would too. But his words in the catechism denote what the pastoral practice of the Church should be today as opposed to questioning the morality of the act. He does not question the morality of using the death penalty, he just thinks it should be curtailed at this point in history. This is commonly misunderstood.
The mentality of being pro-choice and anti-death penalty is, oddly, somewhat similar to the Catholic view on the death penalty. (Hear me out.) Obviously Catholics do not feel that it is appropriate to take a human life unless doing so is absolutely necessary to protect society or individuals from having their natural rights violated or threatened. The pro-choice/anti-death penalty opinion merely extends this concept to include having bodily autonomy violated/threatened. The only way to end the ‘threat’ to bodily autonomy is to remove the fetus, which (tangentially, etc) kills it. Meanwhile, there are ways to remove criminals from society and thus prevent threats to life/property/bodily autonomy that do not cause the criminal’s death. Usually someone with this point of view will conclude by saying, “If there were artificial wombs that fetuses could be placed into, so that removing them and preserving the right to bodily autonomy of women did not have to kill them, that would be ideal.” It would be the pregnancy equivalent of prisons – removing the fetus from its environment so that no rights are being infringed upon, without killing it.
I am so greatly saddened by the death penalty, in most cases, that I find it somewhat difficult to discuss.
I haven’t read any of the earlier comments, so I apologize if I repeat anything. As a Catholic pro-lifer I don’t think you can support the death penalty at all. Now, I was taught when I was younger that the death penalty is permitted if it were to protect the lives of others, i.e. if a country has a poor jail system and it is very hard to keep a person locked up or protected from others and the chances that a murder would be committed is very high, then it would be permitted so that the rest of the community would be safe. But here in America we have a very highly protective jail system that protects the community around it, so I don’t believe the death penalty should be used at all in the USA.
I remember when Tiller was murdered last year, and the pro-life community condemned it. Many pro-aborts were surprised and asked why we were upset if that meant less “fetuses” would be “killed.” The explanation was simple: we can’t fight for life and take a life at the same time. As Fr. Frank Pavone noted, the Tiller murderer was not pro-life for the simple fact that you can’t say you are wanting to protect life and think that taking one is the way to do it. Doesn’t the pro-abort community use the same language, to take a life when a mothers life is supposedly in danger?
Anyways, back on topic, as Catholics we’re taught to love another as ourselves. If we put someone to death, what’s to say that if we’re put into that predicament, why should e be saved instead? How is our life better then the person we condemned? What gives us the right to cast that first stone?
Ironically, I live in Madison, WI, a very liberal and mostly pro-abort city. Yet in a recent poll upwards of 70% said that the death penalty should not be used, but the majority said that “women’s freedom” (aka abortion “rights”) should definitely be protected. The babies aren’t the ones who have done anything wrong. Makes you scratch your head…
I have some difficulty with this one. I have a good friend who is likely spending the remainder of his life in prison without parole for murder. I am so glad he did not receive the death penalty.
At one time in my life, I held the position that the death penalty was just — to take life for life. And I can see how, in many ways, victims’ families might find a sort of closure in the execution.
However, over time, I have seen the midnight vigils held outside prisons, where people hold signs that laud criminals’ executions. I’ve watched crowds literally *cheer* at the announcements of the deaths of murderers and rapists and others who have done great evil, and I have to be honest: it turns my stomach. What kind of people rejoice in the deaths of others, no matter how evil and depraved?
I think that’s what did it for me. Watching ordinary citizens become depraved in their own way by rejoicing in the deaths of criminals was my tipping point.
In my opinion, in many cases the death penalty is an easy-way-out for the criminal and a good old revenge for the rest of us. I think life imprisonment serves much better, the person is not only stripped of any chance of a normal life, he/she also has the whole lifetime to reflect on their crimes and mistakes. Death penalty doesn’t solve anything. And as someone already mentioned – doesn’t lower crime numbers either, so what’s the point?
As someone who is not Catholic and is pro-death penalty (at least, in theory, anyway), I suppose I’ll throw my two cents in.
First off, I agree with everyone thus far who has said that pro-choicers who are anti-death penalty are obviously completely insane. We have two options here. Either abortion and the death penalty are morally similar, in which case both pro-lifers who are pro-death penalty and pro-aborts who are anti-death penalty are being inconsistent with the pro-choice side being more egregious about it. Or abortion and the death penalty are morally dissimilar in which case someone can call themselves pro-life and support the death penalty and not be contradictory. However, in either case, regardless of which side someone is on, you can’t have it both ways. Pick one that you can live with.
Next, in some ways it’s because I am pro-life that support the death penalty. Being that human lives are valuable beyond any measure humans might possess to place on them, then murder is a crime that causes harm beyond any measure humans have to punish it. Therefore, the only punishment sufficient to a crime that bad is that the murder’s life be forfited to pay for the life that he or she took. It is because life is so very valuable that the death penalty becomes appropriate, not in spite of it. Nothing else could possibly pay for what was taken.
But, while I don’t have a problem with capital punishment in theory, I do have a problem with it in practice–at least in the United States. Right now we execute blacks far more readily than whites, and men far more than women. People are often assigned the death penalty based on circumstancial evidence. To me it seems like our judicial system does not understand just how serious a thing capital punishment is, and until they do, I think we should put a moritorium on using it. If there never comes a time when they could get it right, I won’t loose any sleep over it.
Vita,
How hard is it to do time now though? You can work, get a degree, work out in the weight room, have conjugal visits, 3 squares a day. Sounds like a vacation for this SAHM!! :)
Solitary confinement? I agree with that.
Biggz August 14th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
“I can’t stand it when Christians quote exodus because that book is in direct contrast with EVERYTHING Jesus supposedly said and you can’t have it both ways.”
———————————————————————————————
Biggz,
Your postings are becoming eerily similar to the RINO. You make assertions with nothing to substantiate them except your own subjective perspective.
Just for the mental exercise, please give us some examples where Exodus is in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the part of the ‘book’ commonly known as the New Testament or ,for the King James crowd, the New Covenant.
I am pretty sure if Jesus openly violated or even advocated disregarding the ‘law of Moses’ then his 3 1/2 year itinerant ministry would not have lasted 3 1/2 days.
It took 3 1/2 years before the then ‘present religious system’ could even find enough perjurers to falsey accuse Jesus of crimes he never committed. If Jesus teachings were in ‘direct contrast’ to the law of Moses, there would have been plenty of witnesses available to prove him guilty.
There are those who’s only knowledge of God is the ‘book’ and for some of them that is enough information to give them ‘faith’ to believe. But for others, the ‘book’ was a tutor to lead them to Jesus and having come to Jesus, HE has entered into a relationship with them built, not soley on faith, but on an intimate knowledge of God. They both know and are known by God.
As Jesus is recorded as saying, “This is eternal life that you may know God and the Son whom HE sent.”
Then there is Holy Spirit.
But until you believe, that topic of converstion would just be a mental exercise for you.
Comparing abortion to murder is absolutely wrong.Abortion is NOT murder because it is not done with a malicious motive,but out of desperation. Anti-chopicers who think that abortions are done “for convenience” are simply ignorant of the facts. Abortion is a tragedy,not murder.
But being born is often a far worse tragedy than being aborted.
A few weeks old fetus is POTENTIAL life. Life begines at birth.
The death penalty does not reduce vrime or make society safer. Every country in Europe abolished the death penalty long ago,and murder rates there don’t even come remotely close to ours. US states without the death penalty have lower murder rates.
It’s about time the death penalty were abolished in America. No exceptions. If some one is an extremely dangerous violent criminal who would not hesiatate to kill a guard,that individual should be kept in solitary confinement 24/7 and under constant surveillance.
Biggz wrote:
lol yea unless the pope changes his mind…
Translation: “Why does everybody call me a troll? I just throw out irrelevant, incendiary and ignorant comments without punctuation… that’s all!”
Biggz, you’re certainly welcome to write whatever the moderators can put up with, here; but if you want to be taken seriously at all, you might want to add a bit of critical thought and at least a dash of research to your ignorant claims. Google is your friend, remember.
Also, you are of course making the huge assumption that the human “soul” actually exists which I find to be quite a leap considering there is exactly 0 scientific evidence to suggest that such a concept has any basis in reality.
Translation: “I don’t like the idea, and I don’t see the reason, so it must not exist!” How about the fact that you’re alive and breathing, rather than dead and decomposing? The soul is defined as the life-principle of a living thing; it’s the difference between a living person and a corpse. If you think there’s no “scientific evidence” for that (and I can hardly wait to hear what qualifies as “scientific”, in your mind), then I really don’t know what to tell you.
Why would you run your life and make decisions based on a work of fiction instead of undeniable facts?
Okay, let’s play.
1) Prove to me that the Bible is a work of fiction. (Hint: “I don’t like it or agree with it” doesn’t qualify as proof, by any sane standard.)
2) What sort of “undeniable facts” do you use as standards by which you live? (Do you really think Christians deny the law of gravity, the multiplication table, etc.?) My experience has been that, whenever an inflammatory person comes onto a discussion forum and natters on about “science” and “facts”, they’re usually ignorant of even basic logic. I’d love to have you prove me wrong.
Ergh. Sorry about the lack of italics in quotes; I really miss the HTML!
Hi Carla, 8:48am
An excellent point. I remember when the 1966 Chicago student nurse mass murderer Richard Speck was “condemned” to life in prison after the overturning of his death penalty. He said that if they knew what a good time he was having with sex and drugs they’d turn him loose. He even had a breast enlargement, better to serve as a “queen” to the other prisoners. BTW, the parents of his victims have all died, largely due to the stress of parole board meetings to keep this scumsucker in prison.
Speck maintained he had no memory of the murders and of course “experts” testified to that effect. Turns out his memory was very intact and he could describe his victims and their murders and did so on the video shown on TV. What difference did it make now for him to own up to it? When asked why he killed them he responded, “just wasn’t their night”.
This only further reinforced my strong support of the death penalty. I heard it took a few extra seconds to fry a child rapist and murderer in the chair. I’m only sorry it didn’t take a heck of a lot longer.
Robert Berger,
Do you mean the same surveillence that enabled 3 murderers to escape and AZ prison and kill a couple who were camping?
Keep dreaming. No such “surveillence” or superprison exists that a determined predator can’t circumvent.
Carla,
Conjugal visits and weight rooms aside, being constantly confronted with the prospect of being beaten, raped and killed is not what I would call a vacation unless the vacation is in the barrios of Washington, D.C.
There was a lady in our home who had recently been released from prison after serving 11 months for her third conviction of driving while drunk.
Two phrases she used during our conversation which caught my attention were ‘three hots and a cot’ [meaning 3 meals and a bed] and ‘gay for the stay’.
While in prison she had broken her ankle fighting with a fellow guest who was intent on raping her. She was not willing to be ‘gay for the stay’ or even another woman’s willing sex toy.
I am not saying prison should be summer camp for incorrigibles, but it is by no means ‘Camp Granada’ [youtube it].
The law of the jungle prevails.
I also realize that there are some people who just need killing.
Usually one of their colleague eventually does that job for us without all the fuss of being convicted by a trial by jury. Even if they are convicted and imprisoned one of their associates usually end up killing them.
I would submit t the vast majority of people who are executed by the state, even if they are not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted, had already committed a similar crime or would in the future.
That is why the axiom ‘There are no innocent people in prison.’ is almost always true.
When the police go out to round up the usual suspects, the usual suspects have usually already been convicted of violent crimes multiple times.
Comparing abortion to murder is absolutely wrong.Abortion is NOT murder because it is not done with a malicious motive,but out of desperation. Anti-chopicers who think that abortions are done “for convenience” are simply ignorant of the facts. Abortion is a tragedy,not murder.
Right. So, if I am in debt, and kill the person to whom the debt is owed out of desperation due to my inability to pay, that’s a tragedy, not a murder right? Wrong? Oh, so killing human beings because you’re desperate is not okay then? I thought you said it was. Whose side are you on, exactly?
But being born is often a far worse tragedy than being aborted.
You do not have the right to look at somebody else’s life and say that they would have been better off dead. No matter how miserable they may seem to you. You are not a god, and how dare you presume that you can make that call?
A few weeks old fetus is POTENTIAL life. Life begines at birth.
Prove it. These things aren’t so just because you say they are, you know. You’re claiming these things to be fact. Back them up. And, before you try, “It’s obvious, do your own research.” does not constitute proving it. You made these assertions, you back them up.
[Non-sequitur alert! Avert your eyes if you are easliy distracted.]
Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14obama.html?src=mv&ref=homepage
After weeks of avoiding the high-profile battle over the center…Mr. Obama stepped squarely into the thorny debate.
President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, [saying] “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”
“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”
“Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam,” the president said, adding, “In fact, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion, and that list includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”
…Ali Abunimah, an Arab-American journalist and author, said the president has since left many Muslims disappointed…so all you have left for him to show is in the symbolic field,” Mr. Abunimah said, adding that it was imperative for Mr. Obama to “stand up to Islamophobia.”
Sharif el-Gamal, the developer on the project, said, “We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our president’s words.”
===========================================================
Wow!
What an artful, calculated and co-ordinated diversion from the point.
It is the surviving victims and their families of the dead victims of the 9/11 mass murder at the Twin Towers who are the ‘bigots’.
It is only or primarily ‘Islamaphobia’ that has motivated them object to the proposed Mosque adjacent to ‘ground zero’.
Freedom of religion demands that the leaders of the American muslim community be allowed to urninate on the mass grave at the site where the World Trade Center once stood.
I am so relieved that Al Quaeda has killed more muslims than non-muslims. [I grieve all their victims.]
Gee, I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact the U. S. military presence in the middle east have kept the barbarians occupied over there.
I feel confident in asserting that the priamry goal of Al Quaeda is NOT to kill muslims, but to kill Jews first and non-muslims second. The fact that they have killed so many muslims should ratchet up our legitimate concerns, not reduce them. Non-muslims are more at risk, not less.
If Amercian muslims were really interested in reconcilliation with non-muslim americans, then they would have invested some of their wealth in the construction of a memorial to ALL the victims of the jew hating MUSLIM mass murderers who crashed hijacked commercial airliners into the Twin Towers, Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, instead of willfully, deliberately, knowingly erecting a muslim house of worship on the site of the ’man made disaster’.
If political correctness were against the law, this level of insensitivity would be a ‘capital offense’. [Here is my tangential connection to the ‘thread’]
Is there any question that the first ammendment to the constitution would prohibiit CONGRESS from preventing the erection of a mosque? The first ammendment is explicit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor the free exercise thereof. This has never been in question.
If the builders of the proposed mosque had the slightest interest in improving relations with non-muslims, they would never have seriously considered constructing a mosque any where near ‘ground zero’.
This proposed mosque is an in your face provocation. It is the equivalent of the Conquistadors arriving in the ‘americas’ and planting a flag and claiming the territory in the name of the Spanish monarchy.
The muslim world is declaring a victory in a battle with what they consider the war with the ‘great satan’.
I have to give b o some credit. He did practice some restraint, even if it was calculated to acrue to his benefit. In fact b o has miscalculated.
This latest forray into lunacy will only had more seats to a republican majority in congress and probably a republicam majority in the senate.
Look for the leaders of the liberal/progressive/democRAT/humanists to jump at the chance to throw b o under their campaign bus at any and every available opportunity.
This is actually rather simple. Capital punishment is only permissible if the offender is in danger of harming more innocent people (i.e., he or she cannot be safely contained alive). This was the case in times where prisons could not be constructed to ensure that an offender would never escape, or in times of war or violence (in which case it is a matter of self-defense).
What John Paul II and the Church is saying that in cases where the offender can be safely locked away and do no further harm to society, the death penalty is not warranted.
As a Catholic, that makes perfect sense to me.
Comparing the death penalty to abortion is like comparing apples and oranges as far as I’m concerned. The death penalty (to which I am opposed) is applied to people who have been adjudicated guilty regarding the commission of a crime. It is carried out after the accused has had an opportunity to appeal his/her conviction.
Abortion takes the life of a developing human who committed no crime and has no one to legally represent his/her interests against the individual who seeks to end his/her life.
I never mentioned gays, Biggz…not once. Don’t project, and don’t put words in my mouth. We’re talking about the death penalty. In the U.S. you don’t get the death penalty for being gay.
Paladin,
Biggz is now officially Littlez until said commenter shows some indication that there is more that animates his/her posts other than whim.
Littlez,
When I find myself not knowing something (which is 100 times a day), I start by looking it up and reading, then by asking questions of those who know. I don’t walk about belching platitudes and postulations that are so much hot air.
Bruce 11:27am
Please refer to my posts of 9:40am and 9:42am today and tell me about “safely” locking up murderers and predators.
I think the Peruvians have the right idea concerning Joren Vandersloot, involved in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway and the murder of a Peruvian woman. They throw him and others like him in the worst prison hellhole imaginable. Holes in the floors for toilets, rat infested, dirty beds, etc., with every minute a struggle to survive among the worst predators society can produce. Isn’t it just the nicest thought?
My only sibling was murdered twenty six years ago.
I support the death penalty because the prison system as it presently exists in the United States is inadequate to protect innocent people from murderous felons. Not only does a danger exist due to the lax parole system in some states, but on more than one occasion it’s been discovered that iron bars are no deterrent for criminals involved with gangs and other forms of organized crime. The information is readily available, check it out if you doubt me.
But back to my own situation for a moment.
The ones responsible for my brother’s murder have never been caught. Should they ever be discovered, tried & convicted I would press for life without parole.
Because as a Catholic I believe in the possibility of death bed conversions. That would mean possible Paradise for the perpetrators long before my mother stops weeping over the death of her favorite son. She still does it, several times a year.
No, I would want the murderers locked up somewhere near to where I live. I’d visit three or four times a year, show them pictures of my family, discuss the prime rib I ate the night before, inform them of the latest fad in entertainment.
Then I’d ask how that whole life without parole thingy was working out for them.
But other than that, I fully support the death penalty.
Vita 7:43am
If life imprisonment is so terrible, why do people try so hard to get it? You’ll notice that its the death penalty that is fought tooth and nail with lawyers specializing in such cases. These predators want to stay alive and don’t think for a minute they have any remorse or will see this as punishment. Please check my 9:40am post as to what “punishment” Richard Speck endured. Prison was just old home week for Charles Manson. Susan Atkins died far more humanely in a prison hospital than did Sharon Tate, the pregnant actress she slaughtered.
subvet,
Predators will not care less about you, your murdered brother, or the anguish they have caused your family. You might as well visit a zoo and converse in the same manner with crocodiles.
Life without parole would probably work as nicely for them as it did Richard Speck and it continues to for Charles Manson.
Mary, you may be right. But I’d like the chance to find out.
Sorry that this may be hard to swallow, but Jesus’ ocean of mercy is infinite and all we have to do is say “yes”.
That means even Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and the worst abortionists and murderers in history can receive the mercy of God if they are sorry and seek repentance. Jesus is the judge…the final judge. And all of heaven rejoices when a sinner comes home.
Even the worst sinners. Pray for them, for it is not our place to condemn them to hell. Judge their actions as wrong? Of course. Condemn them to hell? Nope. That is the Lord’s call.
Bruce, the death penalty doesn’t condemn anyone to Hell. It only ends their life in this vale of tears. Even the mere desire for forgiveness will avert eternal damnation, for proof of that look to the story of St. Dismas.
Mary,
Jesus gives us the parable of the unforgiving servant for a reason. Our sin, in effect, is us spitting on the majesty of God. We cannot repair that separation on our own. But for God’s mercy, the separation is eternal. Yet when we cry to Him for forgiveness, He shows an ocean of Mercy, telling us the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (interpreted to mean rejection of His saving grace).
He goes on to tell us in the parable of a servant forgiven a great debt by his master who then throttles a fellow servant for a far smaller debt. For this lack of mindfulness of the great mercy shown the unforgiving servant, the master punishes him severely. Jesus warns us that this is how the Father will treat us unless we forgive our brothers from our hearts.
Murderers deserve humane treatment in prison under sentence of life without parole. That protects society and does justice without sacrificing our humanity in the process.
I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. Part of me says no killing, ever, not even to people who deserve it. But there are some crimes that are so heinous, so horrible, so mind bendingly evil, that you want to do whatever it takes to make sure the perpetrator has a zero percent opportunity to repeat the act. That supports the death penalty. But then there is the innocent convict problem, people who are mistakenly convicted. That supports an end to the death penalty. You can say that the Bible supports the death penalty. Ok, but there is still the innocent convict problem. DNA testing is helping correct the innocent convict problem, but still! ? !
I really think we should have the death penalty on the books. But use it very sparingly, maybe just to kill off anti-child predators and sex offenders. Then only with DNA testing to prove who the guilty party really is.
BYW: I am pro-life. No abortion, except to save the life of the mother. If you have an ectopic pregnancy or other life threatening condition, ok, you can have your abortion. But other than that, forget about an abortion. Don’t even think about it.
“But being born is often a far worse tragedy than being aborted.”
For who, and would you have the guts to say that to their faces?
I have one and only decided opinion in connection to the death penalty. I’m glad they executed Ted Bundy, because he was a sociopathic master manipulator who escaped from prison twice and killed several more women while on the run.
Sociopaths do not have the ability to care about anyone but themselves. They know some things are considered right and some are considered wrong, but they don’t care and never feel guilty for anything they do. Therapy doesn’t work to rehibilitate them, because they love talking about themselves and have absolutely no desire to change. They don’t think anything is wrong with them. The one and only way to possibly get a sociopath to stop hurting people is to convince them that they can advance their own best interests if they stop, and they’re not easy to convince. I suppose God could work a miracle and make them not sociopaths, but it doesn’t seem to happen too often, if at all.
Romans 13:3-5 (New American Standard Bible)
3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
Hi Gerard,
With all respect to you and your faith, and I do have great respect for you, I don’t see that the families of Richard Speck’s victims got any justice, just anguish and early deaths. Speck had a great prison life of drugs and sex.
Sorry Gerard, but society has a right to be protected, and those three mad dogs that fled the AZ prison, and killed two campers, don’t deserve anything but a chair with a blast of electricity.
Marauder’s 4:40PM post sums up the sociopath very well. These people are master manipulators. You want repentence? You won’t beat them for religious fervor. You want remorse? Can scrounge that up to. That’s what makes these people so dangerous. High intelligence, NO conscience, and an incredible ability to manipulate. This can be the professional killer, the office lothario, the friend and confidant you are shocked to discover is undermining you with your employer, etc. You encounter these people in everyday life.
Gerard I would strongly suggest you read the book “The Sociopath Next Door” by Dr.Martha Stout. Great info minus the psychobabble. Dr. Stout gives advice on how to spot a sociopath. So given what I have said do I think these people change? NO!
Gerard I determined some time ago a former co-worker of mine is a sociopath. It was a painful realization, believe me.
Am I afraid of him? Not at all
Do I fear he would harm me? Nope
Do I think he would con and lie to me? In a minute, he has several times
Do I ever let my guard down that I am dealing with a sociopath? NEVER
Please Gerard for your own sake heed the advice of Marauder and me where these people are concerned.
They are masters at making you think they have.
A few weeks old fetus is POTENTIAL life. Life begines [sic] at birth.
Robert, here is the dictionary definition of “life” for you (from the American Heritage Dictionary):
“1 The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.”
Not a word there about whether a baby has to be in or out of the womb to be “alive”.
An unborn child in the womb nourishes himself on nutrients provided by the mother’s body, reproduces his own cells, grows, and shows a capacity in a number of ways to adapt himself to his environment. There is no doubt also that this is a specifically human life.
Your definition, on the other hand, is just one made up by pro-aborts because the real definition would have meant they had to respect the human lives in the womb, so they made up a definition that would dehumanize them and serve the cause of abortion. No one with any real knowledge of science would be fooled by this.
But then the arguments for abortion are not and never have been fueled by science.
I very highly agree with Gerard. In fact, I was going to quote that same parable. I’m currently in the production of Godspell, and that’s one of the first stories in that play. We need to forgive those who offend us, or God will not forgive us. See Matthew 18: 21-35. It may be difficult to forgive, but that’s something we’re put on this earth to learn how to do, as it is part of learning how to love.
Ceecee, there are a lot of different things that cause someone to be convicted of a sexual offense, and therefore not all sexual crimes warrant the death penalty. If someone’s pants fall down in public, they can be cited for public nudity. Same thing if your bathing suit top falls down on the beach and a kid sees you. One guy a couple years ago forgot to pull his blinds, and even though it was the middle of the night, a neighbor and her kid saw him naked in front of a window, and called the cops on him. People who have turned 18 and have high school sweethearts that are only 17, if they are found in any position that the parents think constitute sexual activity, the 18 year-old can be labeled a sexual offender. That’s why only law enforcement should be able to access those kind of records.
A friend of mine was recently wrongfully convicted of a sexual offense with a 15 year-old, but the court won’t hear his defense, as the recent kidnapping and murders of a couple of teenagers in the area have made it difficult for those accused of any sexual offense with a minor to be heard, even if they aren’t guilty.
I’m pro-life through and through: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-unjust war. However, I do believe that it is warranted to fight back against someone who means to hurt you, and if they die in the process, then it is not your fault. Therefore, if it is justified, if you or someone else is in immediate danger, your or the other person’s life being threatened by someone, then it is justified to take the life of the person who is endangering you. However, if you can protect yourself or someone else in a way other than killing the attacker, then you must choose that option instead.
Just like in abortion, a human is a human, and only God gets to choose when we die. We should respect someone’s right to live, unless they pose an immediate threat to us, and there is no other way. Some criminals find God when they go to prison. Shouldn’t we allow them that chance? I think that is why God doesn’t take them sooner, and we should respect that.
It costs us less to keep someone in prison for life than to condemn them to death. Yes, it is because of all of the appeals that we have to pay more, but that still means millions of dollars more for taxpayers, rather than the couple of hundred thousand to keep the offenders in prison for life without parole, and possibly in solitary confinement.
Not only that, but our justice system is not perfect. There have been many on death row who were eventually found to be innocent, including a couple of people who have been wrongfully executed. These cases are often prejudiced by things such as racial tensions, corruption in the government and the courtroom, perjured testimony, inadequate representation, refusal to examine evidence (i.e. Virginia law says that any evidence admitted after 21 days of the crime is inadmissible), public or political pressure (especially in highly publicized cases). Those wrongfully executed include:
Jesse Joseph Tafero – The primary witness in this case was actually the one who committed the crime. Sonia Jacobs, who was thought to be Tafero’s accomplice, was acquitted of charges after new evidence came to light, but Tafero had already been executed.
Joseph Roger O’Dell – The state refused to look at the forensic evidence, which he protested would have exonerated him.
Dobie Gillis Williams – He was mentally handicapped and had no clue what he was doing. He needed to be treated in a mental hospital, not executed.
Cameron Todd Willingham – The judge would not listen to the prominent and experienced fire scientists who all proved that the initial investigation was wrong. The governor fired the scientists who did not agree with the judge, and refused to look at the evidence proving Willingham’s innocence.
Sources:
Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions by Sister Helen Prejean
The Risks of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions are Common in Capital Cases by Samuel Gross
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/flJacobsSummary.html
http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm
As for what the Church says about it, what was posted here seems a bit taken out of context.
The cross-references and everything else was too long to post here, so I posted those on my blog, including links to those cross references that I could find, since they provide a much deeper insight into the argument. So you can see it here: http://moonchild02.blogspot.com/2010/08/catholic-church-and-death-penalty.html
Here’s the basic text of the Catechism, which basically says, respect and protect all life. Only kill if there is immediate danger, as in if you or someone else is being attacked, and there is no way to protect yourself or the other person other than killing the attacker.
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.”65
65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm – see Article 7)
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm – see Article 7)
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party (emphasis mine), it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
67 Cf. Lk 23:40-43.
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 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 nonexistent.”68
68 John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56. 69 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM) Cf. Gen 4:10
Mods, I just posted something, and it had a few links for references, and I think it got lost in the spam filters. So if you would please get it out of there, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Mary,
The deep respect is reciprocated here.
I understand sociopaths. My first career was seen years on staff at Covenant House in NY’s Times Square in the 1980’s, when Times square was a cesspool. I witnessed the most unspeakable atrocities: children who were at the mercy of pimps, who had hundreds, thousands of men use their immature bodies for cheap thrills. These pimps pumped them full of heroin and crack cocaine to keep them dependent, terrorized them with death threats to keep them from leaving, and kept all of the money for themselves. And that’s just for openers.
I understand evil, having looked it in the eye. If I had my druthers, I’d burn every pimp, among other such unsavory characters, at the stake. But the cost of discipleship is accepting the Master’s discipline. That’s where the parable of the unforgiving servant comes in.
God IS Justice itself. He tells us how to order our justice in the scriptures as He has brought humanity along a pathway of evolved enlightenment. That’s why jesus says,
“You’ve heard it said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. But now I give you a new commandment. Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors, do good to those who hate you.”
On that scripture alone is the reason why the pro-life movement decries the murder of abortionists. Yes, murderers are horrendous people, the very worst among us. But even if we were unanimous in agreeing to executing the guilty, we could never know how many innocent were among them, as I mentioned in my initial post.
God told lot that even if there were ten righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah, He would spare all of the guilty. Given that DNA evidence has cleared 258 so far, and that others have no such forensic evidence that could exculpate them, shouldn’t God’s standard be our own?
Heavy topic Mary. Perhaps Jill can open a thread for us to share our favorite dessert recipes ;-)
God Bless.
Mary,
Only the word IS was supposed to be in bold. I don’t know why that happened, but I was not yelling.
“society has a right to be protected”
Some contend that abolition of the death penalty is protective of society because states without capital punishment have lower murder rates than death penalty states. I had a psych professor who was convinced the reason for this was because many sociopaths identify with the aggressor. I don’t know of any research that confirms his hypothesis though.
Hi Gerard,
First I want to commend and thank you for your work at Covenant House. I’m the sister of a big city police officer(his stories!) along with having a sociopath or two in the family.
In all fairness not all criminals are sociopaths and not all sociopaths are criminals. They make great undercover cops and special forces soldiers, like my father in WW2. BTW, a former cop I knew loathed pimps like no other criminals, calling them the ultimate predators.
I can understand that you see this from a religious perspective that I do not and that’s where we will part ways on this issue big time. If you do get a chance to read Dr. Stout’s book it is fascinating and informative. How I wish I had this info much earlier in my life!!
As for desserts I am trying to lose weight!
Hi Gerard,
The most disheartening thing I ever witnessed was Dr. James Dobson listening to Ted Bundy blubber about how porn turned him into the killer he became. Worse, Dobson actually believed him! Dr. Dobson YOU of all people should know Bundy knows exactly what you want to hear and is telling it to you! YOU should know sociopaths are masters at this sort of thing. To think of the killers that escape or are turned loose because of this incredible ability to manipulate.
My mother in law once said, “Of course I’m against captial punishment! The death penalty killed my savior!” That one stuck with me.
I am honestly undecided, but I lean away from the death penalty. I think that the state can wield the power of the sword… but then I look at it and there is no way the state can do this as an abstract entity. Someone has to administer the injection or push the button or pull the trigger or hold the sword, and my concern is for that person. If they do it though unwilling, they may think themselves murderers; if they are willing, how much the worse for their souls. What of the jurors? How will they deal with having condemned a person to death?
The possibility of killing the innocent–as happened to Jesus–is sobering. How could amends be made after an innocent man is killed?
Certainly they do not need gyms and comfortable beds and pleasant company (but I think any humane treatment might sometimes seem tempting to a SAHM mom, Carla). They are still human beings and should be treated as such: enough nutritious food (not catering to preferences, but taking widely held religious/social beliefs into account and medical issues; like avoiding sugar for diabetics, Kosher meals for Jews); bathroom facilities and the means to clean them, meaningful labor if possible. Perhaps reading material. A soft place to sleep if medically necessary. Perhaps the awful prison culture wouldn’t be so bad if they were all in solitary confinement, though…. Allow visitors, if only for the sake of the visitors, but only insofar as is safe. A conjugal visit seems a luxury for the prisoner, but what about for his wife? Should the state deprive her of her marital rights? What if she doesn’t believe in divorce?
The issue is complex, moreso than if it were just convicted, guilty criminals we were dealing with. If you are pro-death penalty, you should be willing to pull the trigger yourself, or you are forcing someone else to kill (not murder, but kill) for your sake. And I know I could not kill in cold blood. Yes, society needs to be protected; yes, punishments need to be deserved (though this is not to say they all need to be as harsh as deserved); but allowances must be made for the fact that an innocent (or even a not-guilty) could be harmed.
For those who believe in an-eye-for-an-eye: do you believe rapists deserve to be raped? Should this be a punishment assigned by the state? How would it be implemented? Would you be willing to be employed by the state as a rapist of those convicted of rape?
There is a big difference between an unborn baby and a murderer.
testing
Hello ycw,
A predator born is one who will always be. You don’t change predators, you only protect yourself from them. Society needs to be protected. Gerard is considerably more charitable concerning human nature than am I.
DNA has made me far more comfortable with capital punishment. Had those mad dogs in AZ been executed, two campers would be alive. These predators concern themselves with one thing, survival. They are devoid of conscience, compassion, and human emotion.
I still say the Peruvians have the best idea. I understand they don’t have capital punishment. Heck they don’t need it.
Mary, would you be willing to kill them yourselves? If not, and you think they should be killed in the defense of innocents, who should kill them?
Part of the reason I am (somewhat) against it is because I couldn’t kill a murderer in cold blood, so I could not ask another to kill on my behalf.
ycw,
When you call a police officer for help are you not asking another man/woman to very possibly kill on your behalf? Are you so certain you could fire a gun?
I’m sure any number of victim survivors out there would happily pull the switch. I’m not so sure I wouldn’t be one of them.
I am willing, in theory, to kill in my own defense. That’s different, in my opinion, than killing in cold blood, no matter what the person has done.
I am not completely decided on the matter, but if you’d be willing to pull the trigger yourself, then I don’t think your position is inconsistent. I don’t have any problem with those who want the death penalty for people who kill or commit other abhorrent crimes; I just can’t see pulling the trigger myself, and so I can’t advocate that someone else do so on my behalf.
Keli Hu,your comparison of some one killing a person because of owning money and being desperate and a mother aborting a fetus is just plain ridiculous.
These are totally fals ecomparisons. Many pregnant don’t have the means to take care of their children,born or unborn.Bringing those children into the would would doom them to growing up in horrible circumstances.
That is not the same as some one who kills a BORN person in cold blood for whatever reason, in the course of a robbery,out of hatred,revenge etc.
And please don’t tell me that there’s plenty of help available to all poor pregnant women.This claim is blatantly untrue.If it were true,there would be far fewer abortions.
Unless we are able to change conditions in America to the point where pregnant women are fall less likely to seek and obtain abortions we will never be able to do anything out this problem. And our government has so far utterly faile dto do this,largely because of conservative politicians foolish and hypocritical refusal to advocate more help for the poor.
Robert Berger
August 16th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I had this big, awesome reply to your post, but you’re really just a troll and I shouldn’t feed you. Do not take any further lack-of-reply on my part as anything but me getting fed up with your tediousness.