Carrying out the death penalty

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are about a dozen good reasons to abolish the death penalty.
It doesn't deter murder.
There are too many false convictions.
It is racist.
It isn't even cheaper.
But the most important reason is, since it is a judicial method, that it should be unconstitutional (in the US). The preamble of the declaration of independence states that life should be an unalienable right. (It just hasn't been codified into law for 245 years.) "Unalienable" means that it can't be forfeited, sold or taken away by a judge and jury.
If you live in the US, realize that you don't have a right to live (like I do). If your government decides to kill you, it can do so without violating the constitution or the bill of rights. Are you OK with that?

Another reason might just be "the company you keep." Here are the countries around the world that still retain (and use) the death penalty. (There are some countries that haven't outlawed the death penalty, but in practice never use it.)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-death-penalty

 

[Glaurung]

But not God's justice.

The civil authority is appointed by God this authority includes the right to put grievous criminals to death. Ergo, the death penalty enjoys divine sanction.

Initially I think it was John Paul II who opposed the death penalty as reflected in the CCC. Justice Scalia openly opposed both and favored the death penalty.

John Paul II's teaching was a legitimate development of Church teaching on this matter. Affirming the state has the right to put criminals to death, he nonetheless taught that modern circumstances have rendered recourse to the death penalty undesirable in practice. This was a good compromise, taking into account modern circumstances while not running roughshod over the historical Catholic teaching.

Francis on the other hand has gone too far. I know that by using the world 'inadmissible' over 'intrinsically immoral' he has (on paper) avoided an outright denial of previous Catholic teaching, but IMO this is a distinction without a difference. The intended message is loud and clear, the death penalty is evil in principle. Previous teaching is to go down the memory hole because these days Catholic teaching is whatever the current pope says it is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The civil authority is appointed by God this authority includes the right to put grievous criminals to death. Ergo, the death penalty enjoys divine sanction.


John Paul II's teaching was a legitimate development of Church teaching on this matter. Affirming the state has the right to put criminals to death, he nonetheless taught that modern circumstances have rendered recourse to the death penalty undesirable in practice. This was a good compromise, taking into account modern circumstances while not running roughshod over the historical Catholic teaching.

Francis on the other hand has gone too far. I know that by using the world 'inadmissible' over 'intrinsically immoral' he has (on paper) avoided an outright denial of previous Catholic teaching, but IMO this is a distinction without a difference. The intended message is loud and clear, the death penalty is evil in principle. Previous teaching is to go down the memory hole because these days catholic teaching is whatever the current pope says it is.

The Church has been putting people to death for centuries. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[pearl]

Previous teaching is to go down the memory hole because these days Catholic teaching is whatever the current pope says it is.

So you prefer a church that is stagnant, frozen in its teachings for all time, sorry this is not the Catholic Church.

 

[Glaurung]

So you prefer a church that is stagnant, frozen in its teachings for all time, sorry this is not the Catholic Church.

I call St. John Paul II's teaching a legitimate development of doctrine on the matter, and yet you give me this. But it's easier to attack a strawman I guess.

Yes, circumstances change and how truth may be articulated isn't static. But moral truth itself is the same for all and for all times. It cannot be that what the Church taught as faith and morals in the past can now be 'developed' to teach the exact opposite. (Just because you happen to agree with the change doesn't make it right).

Truth cannot contradict truth. Legal diktats cannot change the fact that the Catholic Church authoritatively taught that the death penalty holds divine sanction. If the Church was wrong in the past then its claims to teaching authority in the now are incoherent.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, circumstances change and how truth may be articulated isn't static. But moral truth itself is the same for all and for all times. It cannot be that what the Church taught as faith and morals in the past can now be 'developed' to teach the exact opposite.

The laws of nature are (also*) true for all and at all times. Yet, we refine our understanding of them every day. The truth of the past was the best understanding at the time.

(* Universal morality is a questionable concept, I don't believe in it. But universal understanding of universal morality is even less probable.)

 

[pearl]

I call St. John Paul II's teaching a legitimate development of doctrine on the matter, and yet you give me this. But it's easier to attack a strawman I guess.

Yet you do not lend to Francis the same development of doctrine?
The body of revealed truth in the Scriptures and Tradition make up the 'Deposit of Faith', and is interpreted by the Magisterium, for what it means for the Church today.

But moral truth itself is the same for all and for all times.

Unless this 'truth' is found to actually be immoral.

Truth cannot contradict truth.

But is evolves with new understandings, because it is living.

 

[metis]

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

As I am as well as there's a huge element of hypocrisy with the "religious right" that are also supported by the Pubs by only putting the label "pro-life" on bing against abortion while ignoring other pro-life issues with one of them being against capital punishment.

BTW, fyi, the Catholic Church has taken the official position as found in a revision of the Catechism as teaching that capital punishment is an evil, as there are alternative ways to protect society short of killing more people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Today, just after 6 in the evening, Missouri executed prisoner Ernest Lee Johnson, who is intellectually challenged. (This has led many people to presume that the execution is unconstitutional, although SCOTUS declined to grant a stay). Members of Congress and the Pope requested that he not be put to death, though he did murder three people during a 1994 robbery.

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

Debate or don't, I don't care. Americans tire me out.

The guy killed three people.

I say let the families of those murdered decide if it's time to put people like that down. . We need to pay more attention to the victims for a change.

 

[Glaurung]

Yet you do not lend to Francis the same development of doctrine?
The body of revealed truth in the Scriptures and Tradition make up the 'Deposit of Faith', and is interpreted by the Magisterium, for what it means for the Church today.

The issue for me is not the Church's opposition to the death penalty in the here and now. The issue is that by calling the death penalty an inadmissible violation of human dignity the current pope's teaching implies that the Catholic Church taught moral error by its previous support of it. I deny the assertion that revealed truth can be contrary to what it was in the past.

Unless this 'truth' is found to actually be immoral.

Just because a teaching does not align with the values of secular modernity does not mean the teaching is erroneous, yet alone immoral. As much as Pope Francis' words imply it he was careful to avoid the words 'intrinsically evil/immoral' opting for 'inadmissible' instead. As to outright say the death penalty is in and of itself evil would be heresy. It would be accusing God of evil as a reading of the Pentateuch reveals that God not only sanctioned it, he commanded it under the Mosaic Law.

But is evolves with new understandings, because it is living.

No, truth is set. Truth neither evolves or changes. It is the same in all times, in all places and for all people. Our understanding of revealed truth may develop, but in no instance can this understanding 'evolve' to contradict what was previously established as revealed truth. Of course, there is the possibility that Catholicism isn't true and none of it was revealed; in which case it doesn't matter what the pope teaches whether it contradicts previous teaching or not.

But assuming Catholicism is true, I have said twice now that the pope's wording doesn't actually contradict previous teaching. The pope does not teach the Church taught evil by its support of the death penalty. But the Church was already clear that it did not support the modern application of the death penalty, so the most recent change to the catechism was unnecessary. My position is that as far as the death penalty issue was concerned, it was a clear case of better to have left well enough alone.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The guy killed three people.

I say let the families of those murdered decide if it's time to put people like that down. . We need to pay more attention to the victims for a change.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I could never share it (and I'm entitled to that, too).

I know that if someone killed someone that I loved, seeing them executed would neither bring my loved one back, nor give me satisfaction, nor peace. In fact it would only make me more miserable -- one more useless death (and I do mean USELESS, because it accomplishes nothing whatever of real use to anyone).

Part of my philosophy is concerned with what can we, as humans, do to improve our own human nature. I don't mean "re-evolve," or anything like that. But I know that we can adopt new tools and techniques (like fire and clothing) that makes life better for everyone, all round. And I am convinced down to my very core that vengeance is not one of those useful tools or techniques.

While forgiveness might very well be.

 

[Kooky]

Previous teaching is to go down the memory hole because these days Catholic teaching is whatever the current pope says it is.

That has never been the case and still isn't.

 

[Estro Felino]

The guy killed three people.

I say let the families of those murdered decide if it's time to put people like that down. . We need to pay more attention to the victims for a change.

I do believe some people are just evil.
And hopelessly irredeemable.
Criminologists have been studying these subjects for decades. Criminologists are psychiatrists and psychologists mostly...they need to study these subjects to see how we can prevent crimes by seeing common patterns in other people who develop similar/identical characteristics.

So there is the necessity of keeping these people alive, to study them.
I do empathize with the victims.

 

[Brinne]

Our love of punitive justice as a society doesn’t get us anywhere. And I feel that continuation of the death penalty just sort of cements the feelings of revenge-based justice. Which in the long run doesn’t really solve many of our root issues.

From a faith-based perspective I don’t consider it compatible with my ideals.

 

[metis]

The issue is that by calling the death penalty an inadmissible violation of human dignity the current pope's teaching implies that the Catholic Church taught moral error by its previous support of it.

That's not what happened, which was that in more recent times all countries have jails and prisons, thus c.p. isn't necessary to protect societies.