Is any famous catholic moral theologian support the death penalty? Thanks

-- Carmen (carmen_enhk@yahoo.fr), October 03, 2003

Answers

Marvel Attencry, the Nigerian cardinal is, at least according to Nigeria Daily from 23.4.2001 He is influenced by the ortodox Nigerian clergy.

-- Winella Boern (WinB22@aol.com), October 03, 2003.

St Paul.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.

But remember what the Church says. The death penalty is ok IF AND ONLY IF there is an extreme need for it. This would be like not being able to protect society from the murder because he/she keeps escaping from jail. Things of that nature. Nigeria might have trouble keeping society safe. St. Paul and St. Thomas might have had the same problems. But the US doesn't. We can lock them away. That is why we shouldn't have the death penalty.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.

I disagree with you, Scott, the US has a big problem keeping criminals locked up. People get released through mistakes in the system, as well as escaping. When you have repeat offenders in truly heinous crimes, is life in prison truly punishment? Not in the states it isn't.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 04, 2003.

In that case the lawyers who defend those who are found to be guilty should be given the same sentence for creating that situation. The flaws in the system is not an excuse when dealing with a human life.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

The Pope is approaching this question from the perspective of someone who witnessed World War 2 and 40 years of Communist "justice" which involved capital punishment in the form of summary execution.

He also comes to this as a priest - a man who must believe in the power of prayer and grace to convert a soul. We laymen perhaps loose sight of the fact that Jesus Christ has commanded us to visit those who are in prison - and that is in fact one of the works of mercy is it not?

He is also a Pope who has had eloquent things to say about soldiers and Polish freedom fighters - sure, there is a place for capital punishment is defensive wars, in defense of active unjust armed agression against defenseless civilians where negotiation and diplomacy is impossible.

But in the case of a man who has been subdued and disarmed by the power of the modern state... thus rendered incapable of harming civilians, there is no strict "clear and present danger" in keeping them locked up.

That's the key proviso: if the frothing at the mouth psychopath is likely to escape (as was the case before the modern prison system was developed) then capital punishment was seen as true defense of society against a dangerous aggressor.

But practically such psychopaths who are locked up in maximum security are no threat to "society" - and if isolated from further ocassions of sin could be converted and thus their immortal souls saved from hell.

I understand the arguments for capital punishment...but I also have looked at this from the viewpoint of saving souls. And unless you take the time to see things from the Pope's perspective, I fear you will simply fail to see the real argument.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2003.

But not all murderers, rapists, etc. are frothing at the mouth psychopaths.... As long as they are alive, they are still a danger to society.

What would be the difference between the state lawfully applying the death penalty as opposed to someone fighting for their own life and killing in self-defense? The state is just doing what an able-bodied person would do, except after the fact, which in turn prevents more victims.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 07, 2003.

Joe,

Its' not like someone is executed the day after the death sentence is given. The average stay is over 10 years. There have been many people that have converted on death row. It doesn't mean a soul will be lost because the state has executed a prisoner.

Luke 23:39-43 records a deathbed conversion. After admitting his guilt, one of the thieves crucified with Christ asks Jesus to "rember me when thou comest into the kingdom." Christ responds, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Christ did not take the thief down from the cross. The thief was still held accountable for his crimes in this life even though he had properley prepared for the next one in the preceding moment.

Sometimes a judge or exectutioner can impose or carryout a death sentence with love, respect, and compassion Joe. In enforcing the law, they may take comfort in believing that death is not the final evil: they may pray and hope that the convict will attain eternl life with God.

The relationship of the State to the criminal is not the same as that of a victim to an assailant. Governors and judges are responsble for mainting a just public order. Their primary obligation is toward justice, but under certain conditions they may exercise clemency. In a careful discussion of this matter Pius XII concluded that the State ought NOT to issue pardons except when it is morally certain that the ends of punishment have been achieved.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 07, 2003.

Joe,

After re-reading your post I don't quite understand? You understand the arguments for C.P. But you said, " you are looking at this from the viewpoint of saving souls"

I don't think any human can take another hunans'soul. Lets be honest here, if someone sits on death row, than[at least] 10 years is more than enough time to repent, and save your soul.[Through Gods' Grace]

Its the poor soul that was raped and murdered that never was given the chance to have years thinking and make a Confession about what they have done wrong in the past.

I just don't see how you're "saving souls" can come into play here. What would stop someone from killing again in prison if they would get 20[more] years(added on to their life sentence)? Prisons arn't perfect. The Catholic priest that molested those boys was recentley killed in prison, and he was locked in a protective custody unit.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 07, 2003.

Capital punishment works - as a deterent when the unjust aggressor is cut down in a hail of bullets while actually attempting mayhem. The immediate gratification of his crime therefore looses strength because said crime would be literally "suicide". But if the man is captured, tried, and sent to prison... for all practical purposes he is no longer a threat to society (i.e. civilians). He may still be ferocious and evil. But all the more reason to work on his conversion.

We can't allow revenge to get involved in the debate. Killing the subdued and shackled prisoner won't somehow restore the tranquilitas ordinis broken by his violent crime.

It's like war time: if the enemy has a weaon at the ready and is shooting at you, you are morally allowed to shoot back - in effect, acting as executioner of capital punishment for the crime of attacking one's nation, etc. But the moment the enemy combantant drops his weapon and surrenders, you must capture, not kill him.

No one thinks POWs are instantly harmless - that's why they're guarded. But precisely because they are rendered unarmed, they are no longer the clear and active threat to life and limb they once were.

If you simply kill the murderer or rapist after a swift trial - you'd run the risk of sending a good majority of unrepentant sinners to hell. If you keep them in prison for 20 years, you run a good chance of them repenting of their sin and crime, and converting.

Finally, the Pope is concerned about something else... if civil society accepts capital punishment again... it won't be long before otherwise law abiding Catholics are marched back out in front of the firing squad for "crimes against humanity" including begging to differ with the homosexuals, the abortionists, and the other pagans.

How many bishops, priests, nuns, seminarians, and lay men have been shot this past century by states who unilaterally declared them "enemies of the state" or "criminials"?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

It isn't a revenge issue, Joe. It is a way to permanently remove a dangerouse person from society, and who says how long it can take to be converted?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 08, 2003.

"If you simply kill the murderer or rapist after a swift trial-you run the risk of sending a good majority of unrepentant sinners to hell. If you keep them in prison for 20 years, you run a good chance of them repenting of their sin and crime, and converting."

Joe, You sound as if you re talking of the wild, wild west. Again, rember these convicted murderers where convicted (usually) by a jury of good standing people who believe in the system. If they can't afford a lawyer then the state will pay for a lawyer for them.

Know one is taken from the Courthouse and hung out back, Joe after a "swift trial". It usually takes over a year to get to trial after one is charged with a crime of this nature. The average stay on death row is 11.76 years in the U.S. The Appealls cost millions of dollars for these convicted murderers which the state is paying for this to make sure they are given every last right entitled to them.

Its not about revenge Joe. Sending someone to prison guarantees nothing.As Catholics we know this life is not the end. It is the begining.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 08, 2003.

Exactly. This life is the beginning of eternity. That's the point: convert the sinner - so long as he is convertible (and he's a lot more convertable in prison than loose or on the scaffold.) If he's coming at you or your wife with a knife, the Catholic moral position is: blow him off at the knee caps with a 12 gauge (after yelling "stop").

If he draws a gun, aim for the belt buckle...

But if he drops the knife, drops the gun, kneels down and pleads for mercy...you as a Catholic and as an American can't just shoot him "cause he's still a potential threat"!

Once you have the evil-doer locked up and out of action, and thus he is no longer a threat to society, execution is ENTIRELY about revenge: you solve nothing by killing him. If his gang of robbers violently assault the jail with the intent on freeing their leader who has sworn revenge and further assaults, then obviously a jailor may be in a moral position to further incapacitate him or kill him and his henchmen... but that's not what we're talking about in most cases.

If he was a POW, and you kill him while in captivity, "to keep him from eventually going back to the other side" most everyone would cry foul. I fail to see the real difference between an enemy combatant taken prisoner and a murderer taken prisoner - both are disarmed, incapacitated and serving time...

From a CATHOLIC perspective, the cost of keeping him locked up should not have anything to do with the moral judgement about post- incarceration execution. No one is calling for convicted murderers to be cared for in five star resort conditions. And the Church has taught that spartan conditions (no frills, no perks, no comfort) is just punishment, provided the convicts are not treated like animals.

Catholics can morally stop an unjust armed agressor with deadly force - but we can't as easily justify the execution of the same man after he's safely behind bars - because society is not directly threatened (which was the justification for the use of deadly force to begin with).

Otherwise, your argument in favor of societal retribution, justice, and revenge, could easily be turned in favor of pre-emptive social "justice" - rounding up people and killing them before they commit more heinous crimes. And many societies tried that - they either executed or deported ALL felons... but amazingly didn't make society a safer place.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

POWs cannot in any way be compared to common criminals. Soldiers are part of an organized unit in usually an organized (declared) conflict. There are rules for these armed conflicts. Ordinarily they would be home minding their own business and not hurting people, even if they are career soldiers as opposed to being drafted.

Criminals, on the other hand, well, they intend to hurt people from the start. And no, they don't often beg for mercy, etc., etc. These people are dangerous and to say they need "time" to convert is nonsense. If you want to convert, you can, in an instant, if you don't, all the time in the world isn't going to help. Last time I checked, prisoners always have access to chaplains, up to and including the last moments before the death penalty is carried out.

In a more equal world, everyone would be physically able to overcome an attacker and kill him/her. Unfortunately, that is not the case--criminals don't as a rule go after someone stronger than they are. So the role of the State, imho, is to take the place of that able-bodied person except after the fact.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 08, 2003.

"If he draws a gun aim for the belt buckle."

What? Come on Joe get real. When something like this happens, it happens so quick that most people don't have a chance to aim at a "belt buckle". What if its dark and you can't see to well? To give yourself and you're family the best chance you are to aim right in the middle of chest. I am considered an expert in self defence, and have worked with training swat team officers in no knock warrants. If they start aiming for a belt buckle, than they are preparing to get killed, or have there family killed.

"...Certainly, the intrinstic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self- defense... legitimate defense can not only be a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for anothers life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to rendor the aggresor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason." Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE.

May St. Gabriel Possenti..... The Patron Saint of Handgunners pray for us sinners.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 08, 2003.

First some reminders: John the Baptist was executed. Jesus Christ was put to death "in capital punishment" - even though he was not a threat to either Rome or Jerusalem. Deicide cannot be excused.

Peter was supposed to be executed before being rescued by his angel. Paul was supposed to be executed before he appealed to Rome... Both were eventually put to death by Nero as "criminals".

Secondly, David I mean no disrespect but if you're an expert in self- defense and yet can't see how a person can aim a shotgun or side arm either low or slightly high, then I'd suggest you stick with sticks and stones. Human life is not something to fool around with. This is serious business.

If I can nail someone's leg or belt buckel in paint-ball at 30 yards (running around in a fogged up mask while being shot at from all sides), then I'm sure someone with 5 seconds warning can aim low at point blank range!

What we are dealing with is the principle of ethics and its application.

In Catholic moral discourse there are 3 factors which all have to be met for some action or inaction to be morally good: Intention, the act itself, and the circumstances.

This is why, though killing a human being is always a natural evil (because life is a natural good), there is a moral difference between manslaughter, homicide, and murder.

Two soldiers meeting on the battlefield and each believing to be defending their homeland may be involved with manslaughter so long as they're shooting from a distance. Should you disarm your enemy and then kill him...that is murder. Military justice is clear about this.

In Catholic moral doctrine it is unethical to do evil so that good may come. The ends can not justify the means. That's the principle.

Now how is this applied in real life? That's the application problem we have. The Church (from the time of St Paul on) have tried to graple with this dilemna: Jesus Christ taught us that we can't do evil so that good may come of it, but we also know from the OT and Epistles that the state or those with authority must protect innocent life from unjust aggression.

This calls for the virtue of prudence and fine distinctions.

Killing someone is a natural evil - if you do so unadvertently (say, the low aimed blast rose and took out his stomach instead of his knee caps), then that's not the same moral thing as intentionally pointing at his face and letting lead fly. Your INTENT was to stop an unjust aggressor - the CIRCUMSTANCES (surprise, shock, terror, outrage) may lessen your moral culpability should the ACT result in the immediate death of the attacker.

But in the case in question: Capital punishment dealt by the State in the CIRCUMSTANCES of a captured and incarcerated unjust aggressor means that the INTENT is to kill him, the ACT is nothing but to kill him. It's not like executioners aim low but accidentally hit high because they're under stress, haze, and taking return fire...

In this CASE, the use of direct, deadly force is not the only way to stop him from doing harm to society.

If you're in a police action and can stop a bank robber by shooting him with a bean bag gun or stun gun or by shooting him in the head with a pump-action Mossberg... each one completely within your power to do so...then the moral issue is clear: you can stop the crime by applying non-lethal force and so are morally obligated to do so.

The Church therefore doesn't teach in her moral theology that self- defense is always immoral or that war is always immoral: sometimes circumstances will make the action of using deadly force the only option - but again, only insofar as your intent is not to kill for the sake of killing but is to "stop the unjust aggressor by all available means" - including wounding him, shooting warning shots, etc.

A non-Christian military like Sun Tzu would agree: the best general is he who obtains his political objective without using military force, or with the minimum of force. His perspective was pragmatic, but it is to be expected that the moral thing to do would also be the smartest thing to do!

Finally, if you are going to acquire a deadly weapon then you have a moral responsibility to take the necessary training to use it wisely and not indescriminately. (First of all by learning how to point the dangerous thing and discharge it correctly).

For the same reason, if you are going to buy a weapon for "home defense" then you'd better also buy solid doors and an alarm system too - because you want to deter potential aggressors BEFORE the "last resort" is needed while giving yourself enough time to a) react rationally, call the cops or neighbors, gather your children and spouse into the safest place and unlock or load and aim...

Jesus did not command us to kill evil doers - and he himself converted one of them on the cross.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

" Jesus did not command us to kill evil doers - and he himself converted one of them on the cross."

Which is exactly why there are chaplains in prisons, but there was nothing said about the penalty itself being wrong....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 08, 2003.

It is a matter of what is better: to kill the convicted criminal or to keep him locked up for life? You suggest it's morally better to kill him. The Pope argues that it's morally better to keep him locked up for life.

As Catholics the best option of course is the conversion of the sinner, not his death.

Capital punishment was approved of by the Church when the prison system did not exist and dangerous criminals were an immediate threat to society. But now that the circumstances have changed for the better, our moral judgment must also change.

If you're woken at night by a masked axe murderer looming over your bed, frothing at the mouth and in the process of raising his axe over your wife... you would be excused if your hastily aimed shotgun blast took off his head.

But if the circumstance changes - and you calmly inject a lethal dose of poison into a man's wrist while he is strapped to a table... the moral culpability of the act changes as well.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

There were prisons even way back when in Jesus' time and before. Still didn't remove the need for the death penalty.

"Capital punishment was approved of by the Church when the prison system did not exist and dangerous criminals were an immediate threat to society. But now that the circumstances have changed for the better, our moral judgment must also change."

The only circumstance that has changed for the better, and that only for the criminal, mind you, is that in many states he dies relatively painlessly, unlike his victims. And today's prisons are hardly "punishment", if they were there wouldn't be so many repeat visitors.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 08, 2003.

Your comments have no affect on the central issue over whether or not capital punishment in the 21st century is still ethical.

Your assertions about the comfort level in prisons is only an appeal to emotion, not germane about whether it is ethical to kill someone who has been rendered harmless by steel shackles, bars, and walls.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 08, 2003.

Joe,

"Your comments have no affect on the central issue over whether or not capital punishment in the 21st century isstill ethical."

Your moving you're target Joe. You at first thought that someone wouldn't have time to repent. After you were shown how much time a death row inmate gets to repent, now you are the one with no affect as to how this soul can't be saved.

If capital punishment in the 21st century isn't ethical than how come the Vatican City State had the death penalty as a mandatory sentence for anyone that attempted to kill the Pope up until the late 1960's? Oh thats right, you think prisons are perfect now right Joe?

Because you said,"...about whether it is ethical to kill someone who has been rendered harmless by steel schackles, bars and walls"

How come Joseph Druce wasn't rendered harmless by steel schackles, bars and walls? You know who he is Joe. He is the [convicted murderer] that broke into the protective custody unit and strangled the priest John Geoghan to death a few months ago.

He sure sounds like he has been rendered harmless by steel schackles, bars and walls, Joe. Tell that to the Geoghan family after they hears he was strangled with a sheet.

What prison is tougher than Alcatraz? Don't buy into that myth that prisoners are rendered helpless. Wake up and smell the cofee, Joe!

-- . (David@excite.com), October 08, 2003.

Joe,

I just seen on the TV that Hugo Selenski escaped from prison in Kingstion PA.(nt to far fron Philly)

Hugo is suspected of killing at least the 5 people that were found burried in his backyard, and found in trash bags at his house. He also is being investigated for the murder of 12 other people.

It doesn't appear that the schackles and concrete walls render people as helpless as you think Joe! He climbed down 7 floors with bedsheets from the Luzerne correctional facility. There is a massive man-hunt underway now for the murderer.

-- (David@excite.com), October 11, 2003.

David , Which TV-station ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 11, 2003.

Occasionally the guilty may escape - either escape conviction or escape incarceration. Occasionally the guilty are convicted and incarcerated. The system isn't perfect. But an escaped convict can be re-captured, and an mistekenly convicted innocent man can be released, having wasted years of his life serving time for a crime he didn't commit. Of course if he has already been put to death when his innocence is discovered there isn't much that can be done. On the other hand, a person who actually has committed a brutal crime can pay for that act in two ways - first, by spending fifty or more years in prison, or secondly by receiving an injection of medicine which allows him to painlessly drift off to sleep, never to awake. Which sounds more like a fitting punishment, given that the family of his victim has no choice but to suffer for the rest of their lives? Maybe we should offer THEM the option of having their suffering ended, instead of the murderer! But wait, I'm talking about justice here, and the death penalty has nothing to do with justice. It is driven by economics and revenge, nothing more.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2003.

"But wait, I'm talking about justice here, and the death penalty has nothing to do with justice. It is driven by economics and revenge, nothing more."

I disagree. It has to do with getting dangerous people permanently out of society, so they can't hurt or kill someone else. Revenge has little, if anything to do with it. And, if anyone thinks that prison is punishment, again, if it were, why do so many keep going back? In Oregon, they can get cable TV now--gee, real punishment.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 11, 2003.

Life imprisonment without parole gets dangerous people out of society permanently, without committing the same kind of barbaric atrocity the criminal committed. But, it's expensive. If it isn't about revenge, why does the family of the victim get to watch the legalized slaughter of the criminal?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2003.

To make certain that justice was carried out? That's the only reason I can see. I'm sure a lot of people feel sorry for the criminal too, but you make your choices, you accept the consequences.

As opposed to expensive, it wouldn't be that expensive to keep people in prison for life sentences if 1). they were working without pay, and perhaps were doing things necessary for society (I don't buy the union garbage about "they're taking honest jobs away"), i.e. what used to be referred to as "hard labor". 2) they didn't have all the amenities in prison. Sitting around all day watching TV, getting 3 square meals and working out in the weight room is not punishment. Even Alcatraz in its heyday was not much more restrictive than boot camp (if you ever tour the island you can buy a copy of the official prison rules and see for yourself).

As David pointed out, look at what happened to the priest--who kept him safe? And, people do get out to commit more crimes, or come back after the people who put them in prison.

Certain crimes are beyond the power of prisons to help the person to reform or to contain the person.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 11, 2003.

"Life imprisonment wihout parole gets dangerous people out of society permanently, with out committing the same kind of barbaric atrocity the criminal committed."

Paul it doesn't stop the same kind of "barbaric act". Joeseph Druce was serving a life sentence with no parole. He was still able to break into the pc unit while serving his life sentence and strangle the priest Father Geoghan to death.

"But its expensive"

Not as expensive as going through all the appealls that the convicted murder gets. The cheaper way is life Paul. But, its not about the money.

", why does the family of the victim get to watch the legalized slaughter og the criminal?If its not about revenge?"

Paul, its not the family members of the victim[s] that had anything to do with the sentence being given. They are allowed to write a victim impact statement, but usually this is it.[unless they are witnesses].The family members don't hand out this sentence.

Why shouldn't they be allowed there? It might help bring some closure to this 15 year battle going to Court and watching all these appealls. They have sat in Court for years and listened to what a good guy this murderer is.

If it where someone in my family that was killed, I would be there watching and looking at the murder right in his eyes as he drew his last breath. The murderer is allowed to have his family and relegious friends there. I would feel I owe this to my murderd family member.

But how can a family member not want this. If you're wife was raped and cut into pieces wouldn't you want to be at all Court hearings, and trials, and appealls?

But you wouldn't be the one sentencing someone to death. So you can't blame revenge on family members.

Lets pray that Hugo Selenski is captured before he kills more. The State sure did make a BLUNDER not keeping a eye on him. Nothing is guaranteed in life Paul.

Was the Vatican revengeful up until 1968?

-- . (David@excite.com), October 11, 2003.

Laurent,

I am not sure what station I saw this on. I just read a article about it on line too.

Take care,

-- . (David@excite.com), October 11, 2003.

"Joeseph Druce was serving a life sentence with no parole. He was still able to break into the pc unit while serving his life sentence and strangle the priest Father Geoghan to death"

A: Yes he was able to do so. And I certainly agree that he would not have murdered Father Goeghan if the state had murdered him first. Is that the way to run a civilized state? Is legalized murder of supposed criminals justifiable as a substitute for proper prison security? If we just killed them all, we could be certain that none of them would ever kill one another.

"Not as expensive as going through all the appealls that the convicted murder gets. The cheaper way is life Paul"

A; This is a myth propagated by the pro-death camp. A convicted criminal has the right to appeal, and will appeal whether he is sentenced to life imprisonment or to death. So the cost of appeals is unrelated to the sentence given - with one exception. Once a prisoner is killed, the cost of further appeals is avoided, along with the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, medical care, and other basic human rights, as well as the staggering cost of proper supervision. The monetary cost of ten years of incarceration and appeals followed by execution are not comparable to the costs of sixty years of incarceration and appeals, any way you cut it.

"They are allowed to write a victim impact statement, but usually this is it.[unless they are witnesses].The family members don't hand out this sentence."

A: I didn't say the family members hand out the sentence. I said they are allowed to satisfy their desire for revenge by watching the gruesome spectacle of a legalized murder carried out for their benefit by the state.

"Why shouldn't they be allowed there? It might help bring some closure. If it where someone in my family that was killed, I would be there watching and looking at the murder right in his eyes as he drew his last breath"

A: Well closure is a very good thing, but the end doesn't justify the means. Closure at the cost of a human life is not justifiable. If it were someone in my family that was killed, I would be standing outside the death chamber holding a large sign which reads THOU SHALT NOT KILL. God sees no difference between the life of the accused and the life on my family members. Either all human life is sacred, or none is.

"If you're wife was raped and cut into pieces wouldn't you want to be at all Court hearings, and trials, and appealls?"

A: Yes I would. I would do everything in my power to ensure that the perpetrator was justly and severely punished, every day of his natural life, and the more days the better.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 11, 2003.

Paul,

"This is a myth created by pro-deathpenalty camps."

Well lets do a little math. The average dollar spent is 2,300,000 before a death sentence is carried out. The average cost of the initial trial is well over 200.000 for the state.

The average cost to keping a inmate is around 35,000 year.[could be cheaper depending on what State] If the average[convited capital murderer] inmate is incarcerated for 30 years after being locked up, than this is 1,050,000 spent to keep this inmate locked up.[providing he doesn't break out and kill again]

But if he was executed after the average dollar spent defending him stays at close to 2,300,000 than it costs on average of one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars more to execute the murderer.

Its pretty simple math Paul. It doesn't take a scientist:-) to see this. As a matter of fact you are the only person I ever saw to try and say otherwise.

Most people will talk of the expense involved in a capital murder case, and talk of the millions saved by keeping them in jail with a life with no parole sentence.

Please research a little. This part is basic.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 11, 2003.

You're both dodging the central ethical question to go off "ad hominem" towards emotional "what ifs" that have little to do with the question at hand: is executing a criminal that is locked up the only way to defend society? Shall the state *(and us Catholic Christians) condone and lobby in favor of bloodshed rather than incarceration and more effective means of prison ministry?

You both just avoid the whole meat and potato issue at hand!

Shall evil be done so that good may come of it? Does the end justify the means?

So far you evoke emotion but no scripture or Church father or Pope to back up your arguments. Nor do you use logic and definitions. I find that odd.

If capital punishment is always and everywhere and in all circumstances a moral option...then you'd find lots of Catholic writings about the topic if only to justify our faith in light of worldly opposition.

You suggest prisons are too lenient on hardened criminals. I agree. But that isn't a good reason to just shoot them! That's only a good reason to stiffen the prison system!

You suggest prisons are too easy to escape from, so conclude we should execute criminals quicker. But again, that premise only proves the need to have tighter security, not to kill prisoners.

If it was routine for insane murderers to escape jail and wreak havoc on a town (as it was in the 1400's), then capital punishment would be more intelligible and arguably moral - as a means of defending the common weal from harm.

In the time of war when POWs get restless and try to rush their guards, military justice accepts the idea that the guards can use deadly force - but again only if in immediate danger.

I don't think any of you can truly argue though that the Church has tried but failed to convert hardened criminals. I think we haven't tried very hard at all.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 13, 2003.

Joe, and you're forgetting that the death penalty was in the Bible, unless Catholics aren't supposed to read the Bible anymore.... Also, that there was one "death penalty" Jesus apparently disapproved of, which was the stoning of the woman for adultery. But He did forgive the criminal next to him at the end.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 13, 2003.

Joe,

"You're both dodging the central ethical question and go off"ad hominem" towards emotional "what ifs"

John Geoghan is dead. This is not a "what if". The Priest was murdered in prison by a convited murderer. Also Hugo Selenski escaped from prison. He was suspected in multiple murders. I was showing you how your statements were false about prisons "rendering inmates as helpless".

"Shall evil be done so tat good may come of it?"

The death penalty isn't evil Joe. The Church has never said this and never will. The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of he death penaly. There is no official statement that denies the state the right to execute prisoners at least in certain extreme cases.

"So far you evoke emotion but no scripture..."

(Genesis 9:6)-"Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" The Old Testament specifies no less than 36 capital offences calling for execution!

In His debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparentley harsh commandment, "He who speaks evil of father or Mother, let him sureley die"(Matthew 15:4;Mark 7:10, refering to Exodus 21:17;cf. Leviticus 20:9).

"..or Church Father or Pope.."

How about the Catechism Joe? The Catechism states"...the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitmate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity, the death penalty."(2266)

"You suggest prisons are to easy to escape from, so conclude we should execute criminals quicker.."

You concluded wrong Joe! I am saying sometimes in the extreme case (like the Catchism teaches)a prsoner should be put to death. This is not evil. This is taught in the newer Catchism, and has been taught by the Church for thousands of years.

Heres what one of you're favorite saints said about it Joe."if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is PRAISEWORTHY and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good." St. Thomas Aquinas.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 13, 2003.

Look, I never claimed that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, and neither has the Pope. We both have said that in the case of immediate danger to society, the state has the moral responsibility to defend the common good - including the use of deadly force.

But the issue is what is "extreme danger" consists of. A man on the loose such as that murderer (who has been captured peacefully and who didn't kill anyone while out), may be considered dangerous - but the police didn't shoot on sight.... the escaped man wasn't on a rampage, he was with his girlfriend.

You are putting words in my mouth because you refuse to look at the basic ethical issues and keep going to "what ifs" that are emotional rather than principled.

The Bible respects the right of people to self defense, and there are some crimes in the OT which had death as a consequence - in order to save the whole people from moral corruption and social decay. They were a nomadic or small villiage people. They didn't have prisons or large jails... so in the absence of such things, punishment had to be swift and physical.

In the NT we don't see many teachings about killing done in the name of and in protection of the state. The Epistles mention the just authority of kings and rulers to protect society from criminals and we do have the case of Saphiras and Annanias who lied to the Holy Spirit and thus were struck dead, but that was a Divine intervention, not anything Peter or the Church did.

Thus Biblically, there is not a whole lot of texts that deal with capital punishment. So we have to go to philosophical ethics: what is at stake here? There is the right of life balanced with the right of social harmony and peace. If a man becomes an unjust aggressor, others have the right to defend their lives or the lives of those they are responsible for...

But once the would-be murderer or murderer is captured.... then we have a whole different ball game. He may still be dangerous, but he's caged and physically restricted from harming "society".

You seem to not see the essential difference of circumstances.

Yet in Catholic ethics we must ALWAYS include reference to intent, act, and circumstances in deciding what is moral or not.

If a man is in prison he's less a danger to society than when he was at large. So the Christian concludes that removing freedom of movement from the convict is a morally licit thing to do because the right to life of potential victims trumps all other rights.

However to say that the murderer who is subdued and detained should also be killed...that he can't be converted, that he can't be changed... is to despair of the power of God and the freedom of man.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

When did your opponents say that the subdued murderer "can't be converted, can't be changed" prior to his execution? They didn't say that. They don't "despair of the power of God and the freedom of man." You have a mental block about this. Some of arguments are going right over your head and/or you are ignoring some of them, because you have you answer.

-- (Solitary@Without.Parole), October 16, 2003.

Lemme try that again.

When did your opponents say that the subdued murderer "can't be converted, can't be changed" prior to his execution? They didn't say that. They don't "despair of the power of God and the freedom of man."

You have a mental block about this. Some of your opponents' arguments are going right over your head and/or you are ignoring some of them, because you have no answer for them.

-- (Solitary@Without.Parole), October 16, 2003.

Joe,

How are you? you said:

"...A man on the loose such as that muderer(who has been captured peacefuly and who didn't who didn't kill anyone while out).."

By Gods' grace

",may be considered dangerous"

There AIN'T no [may] about it bro! How many bodies were found in trash bag[s] around his house?

"..the escaped man wasn't on a rampage, he was with his girlfriend."

What does this have to do with the high price of fish in China? He could of been sitting on Santa's lap, but the fact is he escaped from prison. The prison couldn't contain him, and "render him harmless" like you said they do.

"..They didn't have prisons or large jails...so in the absense of such things, punishment had to be swift and physical."

But they had big jail[s] in the 1960's when the Vatican City State had the death penalty as a sentence. They had big jail[s] in the 1997 when the newer Catechism was revised, right?

"Thus Biblically, there is not a whole lot oftexts that deal with capital punishment. So we have have to go to philosophical ethics."

No we don't! We just have to go to the Catechism like I posted to you earlier in this thread. "...The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity, the death penalty."...(2266)

"You are putting words in my mouth."

Thats Joloney! But you last paragraph shows you put words in my mouth. [Like someone else pointed out to you]. This shows me something.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 16, 2003.