From “Zola Levitt Ministries” “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” St. John Paul II (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
Tom Wolf, the newly elected Governor of Pennsylvania (for whom I did NOT vote), has done a fine thing: an executive order instituting a moratorium on the death penalty. Pennsylvania Bishops have applauded this act since it follows from a position put forth in 2001 against capital punishment.
Now, that last link would explain the Catholic position on the death penalty, along with statements by St. John Paul II, and I could let this post go at that (dear reader–please continue), but I would like to put my own spin on this, extrapolated in part from teachings in Fr. Nicanor Austriaco. O.P.’s book, Biomedicine and Beatitude, an Introduction to Catholic Bioethics.
WHEN IS KILLING NOT A SIN?
The King James version of the Fifth Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:17, Deut 5:17) and elsewhere, “do not slay the innocent and the righteous” (Ex 23:7). If one looks at the Hebrew
” The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.” Hebrew Lessons–10 Commandments.
Accordingly, the “thou shalt not kill” is not a universal prohibition. The Catholic Catechism recognizes that self-defense and defense of others may be justification for killing:
- “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.
- 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…
- 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…Catechism 2263-2265
Further on the Catechism specifically allows for capital punishment:
- “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.” [emphasis added] Catechism 2267
That capital punishment be allowed is qualified in the Catechism: it might be necessary only on extremely rare occasions.
DO THE GOOD EFFECTS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFY KILLING?
- deter criminal acts by others, by showing, as an example, the severity of punishment;
- prevent further criminal acts by the convicted criminal;
- satisfy the friends and relatives of victims of the convicted criminal.
Scholarly opinions (for whatever THEY might be worth) are mixed on the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrence to crime: do a Google search “Does the death penalty deter crime” or see Deterrence and the Death Penalty. There is not convincing evidence of a deterrent effect, particularly if one takes a historical perspective, when the death penalty was used more frequently and crime was not thereby diminished.
Execution of the criminal will certainly prevent him/her from carrying out further criminal acts. However, as the Catechism points out, there are almost always other ways of doing this (e.g. life imprisonment) than capital punishment. One question might be whether these other ways are always effective: for example, suppose prisoners are released by executive action to kill again (as has occurred for terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay). or suppose there is a prison break in which the killer escapes to kill again.
Benefit #3, retribution and satisfaction for relatives and friends of victims, is superficially met by the death of the criminal, but does this satisfaction meet Catholic standards? Are we not supposed to “forgive those who trespass against us”? Does this extreme punishment of the criminal serve a real purpose, any more than drawing and quartering, burning at the stake, or beheading did in earlier times (and now, for some terrorists)?
Some would argue that there is a “double effect” of both good and bad in capital punishment, and that the good outweighs the bad. The Principle of Double Effect that is used for example, in justifying killing someone in self-defense, would not apply to capital punishment. The requirement in that principle that a bad effect of an action not be intended even if it is foreseen, would clearly not apply to capital punishment. If capital punishment is to be applied, it is to kill the criminal.
There is one strong argument other than those given above against capital punishment: if the verdict of murder is mistaken, then execution will be a tragic error.
CRIMINALS WHO HAVE REPENTED AND CONVERTED
Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. St. John Paul II, (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
There are stories of killers who have converted to Catholicism–Alessandro Serenelli, the killer of St. Maria Goretti, possibly being the most notable. In this case, St. John Paul II’s argument applies, because it was only after some years and the vision of Maria Goretti, that Serenelli repented and achieved spiritual peace. Another is the story of Clayton Fountain, a vicious killer who repented and became a monk. Other stories of deathbed conversions (for example Dutch Schultz) are not relevant to this argument since there was a minimal time delay between sentencing and conversion; and perhaps Samuel Johnson’s quote applies: “When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” (or not).
29 thoughts on “The Fifth Commandment: Standing Firm on Capital Punishment”
This says better than I have why this article is wrong:
“Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 11/6/2003: It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. Direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. Capital punishment, on the other hand, is not necessarily evil in principle, but can become evil by a bad intention or by the circumstances. Let me explain further. The Church’s teaching on capital punishment is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church’s teaching on this matter remains fundamentally the same. The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, as you point out, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty *disproportionate* to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. And here is the specific point relevant to your question: if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable eveil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, it would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching.”
Bob this is a very insightful and well written article, thanks for sharing it!
As I commented on another post (Galileo Redux…), I’ve made a Lenten promise (broken on this post) not to reply to comments on any of my posts. Well, try again…so nothing until after Easter, if then.
I think there is a significant flaw in the growing tendency toward an absolute prohibition of capital punishment. Consider this segment of the essay:
“. . . the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’ [emphasis added] Catechism 2267
That capital punishment be allowed is qualified in the Catechism: it might be necessary only on extremely rare occasions.
As for the “good effects of capital punishment” to justify killing, I don’t think any of those three reasons given are good enough, so I’m in agreement with the main direction of the essay.
However, there is a special case that meets the “absolute necessity” standard: When a vicious criminal in prison kills another weaker prisoner, it amounts to an attack upon the entire society. Any functioning government has to maintain a prison system, and the terms of operating such a system include having a criminal receive the penalty that is meted out to him by a jury and judge. When such a prisoner subsequently suffers the death penalty (at the hands of some other inmate), that’s a great injustice. The society has failed in its responsibility to maintain its own standards of civilized government.
In states where there is no death penalty, vicious criminals who are serving “life without parole” are free to kill other prisoners with impunity — there is nothing more that can be done to them. Such individuals will only be stopped when a consortium of other inmates declares that enough is enough, and metes out the death penalty to that killer. That’s an example of “vigilante justice,” and the exercise of it is carried out by incarcerated criminals. Such an arrangement is NOT what we desire in an organized society!
By always having the possibility of the death penalty, keeping it in abeyance (or perhaps, holding it over the head of criminals in prison), there remains one essential factor discouraging the killing of other prisoners. I assert that it is “absolutely necessary” to retain that option. Indeed this is “very rare,” as per the words of Pope JP2.
I don’t think any of the many critics of the death penalty have thought about that at all. They’re more focused on the “murder one” cases that come up before juries in the normal course of events on the outside, not inside the penitentiary system.
If I were governor of a state, I’d like to have the option to exercise clemency, but I’d still want to have as an option the enforcement tool of the death penalty.
I agree with your general thrust but thoroughly read St. John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae. It’s odd is perhaps the kindest way to put it. He does an extended piece on God sparing Cain after Cain murdered Abel…seeing that immunity as iconic for us. But he never mentions that that same God shortly later instituted a death penalty for murder for both Jews and Gentiles as that God was about to bring about the first government in Genesis 10:8 under Nimrod. In short God protected Cain from vigilantes but mandated a death penalty for Cain’s type of offense once the first government was instituted by His Providence.
John Paul saw the apposite God ordered death penalty in Gen.9:5-6 because he removes the death penalty from Gen.9:5-6 since he was averse to it and he then quotes the other pieces of Gen.9:5-6 in section 39 of Evangelium Vitae without ever showing the reader that he has removed a God ordered death penalty for Gentiles and has used its other fragments to argue subtly against man deciding who dies. The catechism article 2267 is equally flawed. The writer of that article is purely imagining the low murder rates and orderly prisons of places within Europe. Go to the two largest Catholic populations, Brazil and Mexico, and you have prisons characterized by chaos. A Mexican justice official stated several years ago that cartels control 60% of Mexico’s prisons. Go to youtube and type in Mexican prison murder. You will see two white shirted cartel members enter a prison, scare the three guards into leaving the area, open a cell with the guard’s key and then more cartel members appear and fire uzis…tech9’s …etc. into a cell filled with rival cartel members….all on video from the prison. After you watch that tape…read ccc 2267 and you’ll see the Euro centric nature of ccc 2267. Brazil likewise has prisons that are chaotic and often gang run. Catholicism does not believe in pan infallibility of either Popes or catechism articles but Catholic writing often implies both because the more a Catholic writer flatters magisterial writings, the lnger he’ll get paid for articles etc.
I think there is a significant flaw in the growing tendency toward an absolute prohibition of capital punishment. Consider this segment of the essay:
“. . . the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’ [emphasis added] Catechism 2267
That capital punishment be allowed is qualified in the Catechism: it might be necessary only on extremely rare occasions.
As for the “good effects of capital punishment” to justify killing, I don’t think any of those three reasons given are good enough, so I’m in agreement with the main direction of the essay.
However, there is a special case that meets the “absolute necessity” standard: When a vicious criminal in prison kills another weaker prisoner, it amounts to an attack upon the entire society. Any functioning government has to maintain a prison system, and the terms of operating such a system include having a criminal receive the penalty that is meted out to him by a jury and judge. When such a prisoner subsequently suffers the death penalty (at the hands of some other inmate), that’s a great injustice. The society has failed in its responsibility to maintain its own standards of civilized government.
In states where there is no death penalty, vicious criminals who are serving “life without parole” are free to kill other prisoners with impunity — there is nothing more that can be done to them. Such individuals will only be stopped when a consortium of other inmates declares that enough is enough, and metes out the death penalty to that killer. That’s an example of “vigilante justice,” and the exercise of it is carried out by incarcerated criminals. Such an arrangement is NOT what we desire in an organized society!
By always having the possibility of the death penalty, keeping it in abeyance (or perhaps, holding it over the head of criminals in prison), there remains one essential factor discouraging the killing of other prisoners. I assert that it is “absolutely necessary” to retain that option. Indeed this is “very rare,” as per the words of Pope JP2.
I don’t think any of the many critics of the death penalty have thought about that at all. They’re more focused on the “murder one” cases that come up before juries in the normal course of events on the outside, not inside the penitentiary system.
If I were governor of a state, I’d like to have the option to exercise clemency, but I’d still want to have as an option the enforcement tool of the death penalty.
None of the commentators have addressed St. John Paul II’s argument against capital punishment, that allowing imprisonment, rather than execution gives the criminal time to reform, as in the case of St. Maria Goretti’s killer.
Nor have any addressed one of my objections to capital punishment: suppose a mistake is made in the verdict of guilty, and an innocent person is condemned to death.
As far as the argument of double effect goes, as pointed out in the post, that’s valid for self-defense and defense of others, but not for capital punishment. In those instances you can foresee that the criminal might be killed but you don’t intend to kill him. That condition does not apply for capital punishment.
I’ll address them. The crucifixion as to the two who were crucified next to Christ had a fifty percent salvation rate….minimum. I can’t imagine hanging around for decades in prison being a better motivator toward repentance than death. The repentant criminal on the cross even skipped purgatory…. ” this day you will be with me in paradise”. Timothy McVeigh repented moments before execution and received Extreme Unction precisely because eecution gets one’s attention like prison does not.
Are you saying that life in prison has that same rate of salvation even though many inmates join gangs and then are ordered to do things which are sinful. What if life sentences bring only ten percent to salvation but timely executions bring fifty percent and you find that out after death? Solution? Follow Romans 13:4 like Aquinas and all Popes from 1253 AD til 1952 did. Then you won’t have to guess. Who among us given a criminal lifestyle would not have major impetus to make perfect amends with God under a death penalty while we might more likely dilly dally if we think we’ll live much longer?
Let’s take masturbation in prison. If the man with a life sentence masturbates in prison for decades, why is that any less likely than his repenting. Why didn’t the Pope even address such problems as joining gangs, masturbation, street fighting and murders within prison? Why don’t you address them?
Next…the person might be innocent.
but that was true under the Sinai covenant wherein God commanded over 30 death penalties of the Jews but required two or three witnesses. What if those witnesses lied? Does that make God responsible because no system is faultless in criminal matters…even His system of two or three witnesses.
But there are crystal clear murders in public that are on video or which whole crowds witness in a Mc Donalds or on a Manhattan train….or both crowd witness plus video. Do you have doubts about who shot Gabby Giffords? No…you don’t but you don’t want the guilty executed either because you think they’ll maybe repent in prison rather than masturbate or join gangs and follow sinful orders from gangs.
Elijah fan, in your long screed, you have addressed the two points, but you have not, in my opinion successfully rebutted them. You have not shown why the examples of Serenelli or Fountain are not relevant to the idea of allowing time for the criminal to repent. And as for cases of innocent persons being convicted or executed, I suggest you do a Google search “examples of innocent men being convicted to death”–there are too many to list here. But thank you for commenting and showing another point of view.
The insult “screed” in this rebuttal of yours is what Christ called …not so good….” of every idle word that men utter, shall they give an account.” …don’t be afraid of commenters who actually read the encyclicals, Church history and Scripture….all three. Fear makes us all nasty.
Most murderers in the US never face the death penalty at all and you know that…so the repentant among them will always be a Serenelli phenomenon. But to make that your entire juridical system despite Romans 13:4 from the Holy Spirit is to murder future murder victims if the 1976 note of the US Supreme Court was correct as that Court halted its own suspension of the death penalty after it studied both anti death penalty studies and pro execution deterrence studies wherein it concluded that executions do not stop spousal or passion murders but do stop pre meditated murders…the kind that permeate Mexico…the second largest Catholic population on earth. Their opinion was later affirmed by many economists using regessional analysis like Joanna Sheperd in the Michigan Law Review. She found after studying the diverse studies…that executions increase murders if done rarely (oddly enough) and decrease murders if done reasonably frequent vis a vis the murder problem of an area. Abolition of the death penalty gets murder victims murdered in the long run. These last three Popes therefore are unwittingly getting victims killed.
Elijah fan, if you feel the term “screed” is insulting, I apologize. Here’s the Oxford dictionary definition: “a long piece of speech or writing, typically one regarded as tedious.” And I do regard as irrelevant and tedious an extended discussion of masturbation in prison. As I said before, you have not countered the two examples I gave of Serenelli or Fountain. Nor the numerous examples of wrongly executed persons.
Moreover, the examples you give of Latin American countries might be appropriate, if other economic and social factors were not important.
So I will not further discuss this with you, because your mind seems set. Also, I’ve violated a Lenten vow to not reply to comments on blogs.
But again thank you for entering the discussion and giving another point of view.
When God gave Romans 13:4 within the Roman Empire, He gave it within a culture like Mexico with great rich poor social problems. Apparently you and God would not agree.
Don’t site Mexico or Brazil as these “Catholic” countries are in a constant state
of low grade military revolution and extreme poverty that breeds drug violence.
The massive cartels who control the stuff are perpetrating most killings that are of an inter gang nature. Their execution of each other makes the majority of the murders a wash. Japan’s culture is highly civilized compared to a continent that has had Christianity forced on it. Cortez roasted the natives over slow fires to convert them and this after many centuries of human sacrifice and tribal war.
So if a black guy robs your mom ( I fought one two years ago), you’ll excuse it in light of slavery even though the thug never worked five straight weeks in his life at Wendy’s let alone picked cotton n the heat. LOL. East Asia as hundreds of millions of poor who had drugs forced on them in the 19th century by Catholic France inter alia during the two Opium wars. They recovered. Cortez was 5 centuries ago.
Most commentators on double effect take this section from the Summa as Thomas’ starting point on the principle:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7
Thus: “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention,…”
It is the Catechism itself which puts Capital Punishment under the principle of defense (which St Thomas actually did not – he held the state could directly kill.) Thus it is under the principle of double effect as is self-defense or any other form of defense where the death of the aggressor, while not directly intended, can be clearly foreseen.
Given this, I believe my argument is valid. Not one against JP II, but one consistent with the history of Catholic Moral Theology.
The problem with saying one must choose beatitude and thus the death penalty is excluded is simply false. This can be seen in the case of removal of a cancerous uterus when the woman is pregnant. Double effect teaches that one may remove the cancerous uterus even though it results in the death of the unborn child. Is one not in beatitude when one does this? Of course this would be a false conclusion. One is merely intending the good action (preserving the life of the mother) and not the evil effect. In a different case, is the policeman who shoots a criminal to defend another not practicing beatitude? Again, of course not. Such a conclusion that defending another is not in accord with beatitude has no place in the history of Catholic teaching.
The same can be said in capital punishment when the proper circumstances apply.
Bravo…excellent. Elijah killed a minimum of 552 enemies and God visited him outside the cave, fed him by ravens, and listened to him in his prayer for rain….and picked him to return prior to Christ’s second coming…and sent a fiery chariot for him to be taken up to the lower heavens. God picked no other person, no other saint for that purpose. Four Popes executed 500 criminals from 1796 to 1850. Google: Bugatti papal executioner. Read about it. John Paul II did not look into Catholic countries outside of Europe when he imagined perfectly efficient prisons which the ccc 2267 assumes. The current catechism leaves certain problems unaddressed: why are six Catholic countries with no death penalty in the top 25 worst murder rate countries on earth?…and the two largest Catholic populations…Brazil and Mexico…have no death penalty and murder rates 20 times that of all of East Asia which also has hundreds of millions of poor people. How can you hope to convert Japan to Catholicism when Japan has a murder rate of .3 per 100,000 while both Brazil and Mexico are both over 20 per 100,000. A Catholic family traveling in Japan are 60 times safer from murder there than they are in the two largest Catholic populations.
Philip the example you cited is often discussed in the context of the double effect. The death of the fetus is foreseen, but not intended when the cancerous uterus is removed.
You cannot say that the death of the convicted criminal is not intended, so the Principle of Double Effect does not apply. The post made this point.. i’ll repeat it. Moreover, nowhere in the post or in the catechism that was cited was the point made that defending another violates moral principle.
Taking the life of the criminal is not intended. Defending society is. Just as in the hysterectomy the removal of the uterus is intended while the death of the fetus is not. If the death of the fetus was part of the intention, it would not be licit. It is still in the context of double effect.
As you point out, defending another, as in capital punishment, does not violate any moral principle.
Though Pope Francis has said life imprisonment is immoral. When faced with such a dilemma, one must choose what is licit and not what is illicit. Therefore one must, in certain circumstances, choose the death penalty, which is licit, over life imprisonment which is not.
As Aquinas notes in the Summa T….. ” granted one absurdity, others must needs follow”. I like Francis viscerally but he is bonkers in saying life sentences are slow death penalties. Firstly none of the last three
popes have mentioned Romans 13:4 from the Holy Spirit through Paul which affirms the sword being used for ” wrath”… God’s wrath through government agency….and Francis never will. It’s called cafeteria bible reading….the clergy form of buffet choice.
This is definitely food for thought.
“…bioethics should be the pursuit of beatitude, of growing in holiness.”
This is nothing to be celebrated.
This is a governor saying, in effect, “I cannot review the details of each of these crimes and find it within me on behalf of the state to partially remit the penalties that these criminals have earned. It’s much easier to pretend that no one is really made in the image of God to be capable of making moral decisions important enough that they merit death.”
That is not the authentically Catholic approach. That is the shoddy approach of priests who abuse the provision for general absolution of groups because it is easier for both the lazy priest and the impenitent sinner. The authentically Catholic position is to insist that yes, just as there are mortal sins that merit eternal death, there are capital crimes that merit the death of the body — but there are also mercy and forgiveness that come without diminishing the seriousness of the crime.
The belief that a long-term incarceration penalty is somehow preferable to the death penalty is a cheap and lazy answer to the problem of protecting the innocent from extremely violent, murderous felons.
I don’t see the anti-death penalty snobs offering to serve a couple of years as prison guards to the confined. Prison guards receive a great deal of physical insult and psychological stress. Their families also share second-hand in that stress; guard families suffer higher rates of family stress, problems with children and marriage, and more frequent family breakup. Few people think about how the violent incarcerated continue to damage innocent people even while in prison. The common attitude is as if guards are less than human, that the prison guards who keep violent felons separated from The Good People are disposable men. Wake up people, prison guards and other prison workers are innocent people too and they also deserve protection from the violent.
I have given the death penalty much thought over the years, starting from my days as a student at a Catholic parochial school located within sight of the walls of one of America’s most notorious prisons.
Pingback: TUESDAY MORNING EDITION - BigPulpit.com
“ You are worth many sparrows” Jesus said. Many, is by no means all of them. Unlike, Sodom
where Abraham bargained God down to 10 righteous out of a whole city of sinners, His plan
for mankind’s food was protein that did not have to be slaughtered. Then, God changed His mind,
abruptly and said to Noah “ … The fear and dread of you shall be upon all the wild animals of the
earth …every creature that moves and lives shall be food for you …” Quite a stark take for One
who later lovingly relates to know “ every sparrow that falls.” My point i? In some older religions
killing for food is thought to be associated with war; that every life has spiritual weight and once that measure has reached the spiritual number of a single person, cosmic scales are set to balance.
Hence: mankind will experience war until the equivalent of life killed has been satisfied. Someone
should run some calculations.
Since the S Ct reinstated the death penalty-how many have been executed? 2000 + or – ? When they are executing 3800 + or – a day here, then capital punishment will be above abortion on my radar screen; actually when they are without a doubt beheading 3800 who are totally innocent in court-madated executions, then I will get on this liberal bandwagon. Guy McClung San Antonio
I completely and totally oppose the death penalty in every conceivable situation. I simply can’t see how it’s necessary, and being that the last 3 Popes have spoken against it, I’d love to see it’s allowance just taken out.
The last three Popes were unconsciously trying to befriend the Euro Union on the death penalty because they were trying to win the Euro Union over on abortion.
Four Popes from 1796 til 1850 executed 500 criminals in the papal states. Google: Bugatti papal executioner wiki.
So who is right? Them or the last three? Read Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II. He cites Genesis 9:5-6 several times in section 39 and he edits out the death penalty mandate contained in that Scriptural couplet. No reader notices the omission unless they have Genesis 9:5-6 by rote memory. And he subtly uses his edited parts of Gen.9:5-6 to argue that God alone decides life and death….while never showing the reader that he voided part of the original passage to get to his headstrong idea….and the part he hides from the viewer mandates to both Jews and non Jews execution for murder and God gives as His reason….the fact that the victim is made in the image of God.