Titus One Nine has found a Reuters article examing us in the Lone Star State and our use of the death penalty. Read it. Then, consider:
As an article of faith, and in the name of ”life”, I am supposed to oppose the death penalty. Yet, I have seen time and again where released thugs commit rape and murder and other mayhem post – release. I simply have not belief that anything other than a grave will secure society from these thugs.
The life sentence? I fail to see the point, as a mandated replacement for the D.P. What’s the purpose in holding people so long that they get acclaimated to prison as “home”? I know that such people do not lose their desire to be “out”, but do they lose the pain of being “in”?
Does God actively protect us from scum? I don’t think so. What say you?
If we could really have a culture of life, I would agree to end the death penalty, with one exception. If a person kills while trying to escape.
I say this not because death is wrong for some crimes, but rather that I think a culture of life is a good thing. I tell liberal friends, end abortion, and I would agree to end the death penalty. Life in prison to some people may not be all the punishment they deserve, but it is the sign of a civilized society that it threat those who do it wrong, better than they deserve.
Scott+
Scott – I am not “married to” the death penalty, and the deal you propose is one that I *would* go along with, actually. I’d do that, save the far larger number of absolute innocents.
Your “escape” clause – would you extend that to violent felons, who on parole, if paroled at all, again commit murders / rapes / etc?
Your “escape” clause – would you extend that to violent felons, who on parole, if paroled at all, again commit murders / rapes / etc?
I do not know for sure.
Your “escape” clause – would you extend that to violent felons, who on parole, if paroled at all, again commit murders / rapes / etc?
After some thinking, if on parole, which means they really still could be in prison, yes. If they have “served their time” I am thinking no.
Now, murder is often a life sentence so this would mostly be a moot difference when it comes to murder. But it is a difference which I think is at one level important. I think that punishment must have an end in most cases.
Prior history is admissible in court because it “points to a pattern of behavior.” As an academic and a Christian, I am against the death penalty – however if anyone deserves it, it is a repeat violent offender or sexual predator. As a former police officer, however, I recognize that the “culture of life” is a joke to people who are in and out of the prison system. They aren’t rational, they often aren’t educated and they care not even for their own life, let alone the lives of others.
Authority in any fashion is a punchline to them, and thet encourage more arrests and convictions, because that is how gang membership and thug culture increases.
As to God protecting us from scum, my experience tells me “yes,” however evil still exists through the permissive will of God and authentically faithful Christians still are victims of crime. So, I chose to still carry a weapon regularly to help God help me help myself.
The following is a paper from a very close Latin Rite Catholic friend of mine(If you call him Roman he might just pull your tongue out), He has been an apologist on the topic of the Death penalty for as long as he has been Catholic(3 years), which is actually the same time i officially came in to the Anglican communion.
Christian Moral Principal
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.