March 22, 2005
American Bishops and the Death Penalty
As you may have noticed, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have decided to increase their fight against the death penalty in the U.S. I think it's important to note why this is - it provides an interesting insight into the "Catholic mind" in the US, so to speak.
Catholics often use the term "Culture of Life" which refers directly to a culture that respects life and gives persons the dignity they deserve. Encapsulated in this thought are the issues of abortion and euthansia (which is what people often see as the "Culture of Life" issues) along with the death penalty. The Bible does not say the death penalty is evil and the Church does not teach this. However, the Church's mission is to save souls - and those most lost are just as important as those living as God asks.
So we look at the "ends" of the death penalty. Primarily the death penalty functions to serve justice by taking the life of a person. This effectively ends this persons ability to reconcile with God and beg forgiveness for their sins. In other words, this may condemn a man who would have eventually come back to God after years in prison.
Does the Church recommend absolute leniency in death penalty cases? No, not in any way. The point is that we can now incarcerate a man for life, thus punishing him for his crimes. However, this punishment still allows for the possibility of forgiveness from God should the criminal seek it. The death penalty removes this possibility.
In addition, over the last few years we've seen several cases where DNA evidence has overturned a death penalty verdict. In other words, an innocent man was about to be executed. These men were released, but how many other innocents were wrongly convicted? Again, by simply incarcerating them for life you have the option of releasing them should new evidence come to light. If they had been executed earlier, there would have been no chance to overturn their wrongful conviction.
The argument I've always heard for the death penalty (and the one I personally used for years) is that it provides a deterrent to crime - particularly violent crime. Studies, however, do not agree with this notion. In fact, adding the death penalty does not reduce violent crimes in any noticeable amount. Interestingly enough, those on death row are much more likely to be African-american even though African-americans only make up about 12% of the US population. This factoid doesn't prove anything, but certainly suggests there is an inherent bias against African-americans within the system.
Personally, when I see certain stories - for example the rapist/murderer in Florida - it is easy to say "He should get the death penalty." However, even the worst offenders in our society should have the option of repenting. And I believe that ultimately "justice" can only be served by a merciful God. Thus, a culture of life respects human life to the point where even the state won't take it.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I believe that the American justice system is unable at the current time to administer the death penalty fairly, nor does it seem able to deal well with false positives (convicting the wrong person). For this reason, I do oppose the death penalty as it is instituted today.
However, God did institute the death penalty. He stated that, when man sheds man's blood wrongly, the murder's blood is to be shed by man. The death penalty is part of God's system of justice for mankind. I am just not sure how one can balance the need for justice with the need for being absolutely right.
Posted by: Kentucky Packrat at March 22, 2005 01:56 PMJay,
I think that if you look at it, it is much easier to make yourself right with God when you know the end is coming soon, than to do so when you are merely incarcerated and awaiting a natural death. Also these individuals usually are incarcerated for many years before being put to death, it is not as if the individuals are taken out and killed right away after conviction, they have plenty of time to think about what they did and prepare themselves to meet their maker. Your argument that the death penalty removes the possibility of repentance is just not true.
I agree with your argument that the death penalty does not deter. However, that has never been the primary reason for it. There was a reason why God granted government the authority of the sword. For me it has always been about seeing God's justice served, and no other reason. The Church is asking that the government not exercise its God given function. Unfortunately God never granted the Church authority over this matter, and I believe at the minimum the Church is over stepping its bounds here. This is one area where the Church has catered to the evolving standards of the day.
In Christ,
Thomas
I am opposed to people being killed by the state.
Our justice system is filled with far too many loopholes to be able to determine in a court of law with certainty whether a person killed someone or not, and the possibility of unjustly killing just one person is too high a price to pay in my opinion.
I wish for two things--
1. That if we are to have executions, that they be televised. If we as a society are to condone executions, we should be able to watch people being executed and be willing to take responsibility for our part in killing a human being.
2. That family members of the murdered person or people be allowed to be the ones who administer death to the accused, if they so desire.
If we as a society are to condone executions, we should have the opportunity to view them and to participate if we are affected.
Posted by: Kathy, mom to Steven and Sean at March 24, 2005 03:31 AMLook, at what point in time, at what point in Church history has the death penalty ever been given "fairly."
The death penalty is not "fair" but it can be correct. After all, God suffering for OUR sins could hardly be called fair, but it was correct, and even just in the mind of God.
How can it be correct? First, the felon that is killed will be prevented from committing another crime. He's broken and desiring a Satanic life. Thus, let us render him to Satan (1 Cor). Second, we can barely afford important social programs that represent essential factors in maintaining a civilized society. Thus, we CANNOT incarcerate every dangerous individual for life, nor would it be humane to do so if we did it for a decent budget. Finally, the deterrent comes from an effective, public execution and/or a sudden inescapable punishment that INSPIRES FEAR. The process now is so drawn out one could hardly call it efficient for making people fear.
Things to remember
1. We should not kill for vengeance, nor to repay a person for their crimes. IMO, we all deserve death, these people just serve as examples to us of what it means to be excessively carnal and dangerous. They are paradigms of what we could be, a means of self-mortification as a society.
2. If they come to faith, is living in punishment for their sins more cruel than dying in sudden ecstasy with the Lord? I think not. Sometimes, death is the foundation of better lives.
3. Since it is obvious from Paul's writings that the government is given the sword to work the wrath of God, why is the Church getting involved, when it has nought to do with their ministry?
This seems like the best place to ask a question that I am currently struggling with.
What right do lay catholics have to adopt moral positions at odds with the Magisterium? Jay outlines the John Paul II's position against capital punishment in excellent fashion. But the Catholic Legate affirms that the Pope's position falls under the "universal and ordinary" Magisterium but then dismisses it as "naive" and rejects it in the same article! Catholic answers does not even have an article on the subject even though it deals with contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. Is this behavior acceptable for a catholic apologist let alone an ordinary catholic?
Now on to my struggle. Some priests (such as Father Frank Pavone) advocate the use of graphic images to expose the evil of abortion (claiming it brings the light of truth to bear on current evils) and some priests condemn it. I found Father Pavone's arguments convincing. But now that my bishop has spoken and declared the action immoral, does he speak with the authority of the universal and ordinary Magisterium? To what extent does this bind the conscience of Catholics?
I'm at a bit of a loss here because usually reliable sources such as Catholic Answers and Catholic Legate have come up rather impotent and lame in my judgement. They callously disgregard the authority of the universal and ordinary magisterium (the Pope) and yet still present themselves as defenders of the faith. And yet here I am seriously contemplating following in their footsteps on a distinct yet similar issue...
Lord have mercy on me, I'm very confused on this one.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at February 15, 2007 01:08 PM
