For Supporters of Capital Punishment

Hardline Pakistan cleric offers reward to kill Christian woman
Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:41pm

By Faris Ali

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - A hardline, pro-Taliban Pakistani Muslim cleric Friday offered a reward for anyone who kills a Christian woman sentenced to death by a court on charges of insulting Islam.

The sentence against Asia Bibi has renewed debate about Pakistan’s blasphemy law which critics say is used to persecute religious minorities, fan religious extremism and settle personal scores. Non-Muslim minorities account roughly 4 percent of Pakistan’s about 170 million population.

Maulana Yousef Qureshi, the imam of a major mosque in the northwestern city of Peshawar, offered a $5,800 (3,700 pounds) reward and warned the government against any move to abolish or change the blasphemy law.

So because a country is still stuck in the Dark Ages and is killing religious minorities I should change my opinion on how we should deal with serial killers, rapists, ect?

No, I’ll stick to my opinion that the death penalty moves too slowly. Not saying it should be the cure all to the prison population, but it should be avaiable everywhere so that the threat of death is always present. The idea or rehabilitating a psychopath is just absurd to me…

What exactly is your point Mr. Gray?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

My heart breaks for this woman, it doesn’t break for serial killers and rapists on death row.

The point is clear I believe.

If you believe that state governments should be allowed to use Capital Punishment as a means to render justice or punishment, well - this is what it looks like. Universally you can’t pick and choose who gets it and who doesn’t - it is even worse in China. 2,000 years ago our Savior Jesus Christ got it a dose of Capital Punishment, and for some reason we still have Christians who think it is ok to kill a child God for being a sinner rather than loving the Jesus in them. We would rather kill people in prison than visit them in prison . . .

These are just a few of my thoughts - more fully elucidated upon here: davidlgray.info/a3capitalpunishment.html

Are you kidding me?

Of course you can “pick and choose” who gets it! That’s why someone stealing an bag of Cheetos doesn’t get it and someone who has killed 39 people does get it!

China? Your right-it’s bad in China. North Korea too. America isn’t either one of them. Political prisoners don’t get the death penalty in America.

There are good reasons against the death penalty. You haven’t mentioned any of them.

Just MHO, God gave governments the right to execute criminals ever since the times of the Judges in Israel. As Christians, we should always be praying for the condemned and take the side of mercy. Sometimes, hangings not too good for them, and thats not our call. Its the call of the judge and jury that they appear in front of.

There is a difference between a just and an unjust law. In the case of the woman in Pakistan, we can say that this is an unjust law and is evil in all respects. I will pray for her, and I hope you do the same. But remember that the Church does not call capital punishment a moral evil, in fact, it does not call the death penalty an evil at all, as long as it is done in justice. St. Thomas says that “the essential character of justice consists in rendering to another his due.” (Summa Theologica II-II, LXXX, I)

Pax et bonum,
Joseph

Joseph, I think the recent California Bishop’s statement informs you that you are on the wrong side of where the Church is headed on this issue. The Divine Mercy of God is moving us towards seeing the face of Christ on EVERYONE. Most people who support the Death Penalty will never pull the switch themselves. Most people who now support the death penalty would desire the opposite for themselves if they were to fall into such a sin that society says demands it. If you want to know what the death penalty looks like just look to Jesus on the Cross.

CCC Statement on Ending the Use of the Death Penalty
Tuesday, 28 September 2010 19:21

The California Catholic Conference issued this statement in September 2010, just days before a subsequent execution that was later cancelled.

Most Reverend Gerald Wilkerson, Auxiliary Bishop for the San Fernando Pastoral Region of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and President of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement today expressing strong support for an end to the use of the death penalty in California and asking for clemency for any individual scheduled for execution.

The California Catholic Conference strongly supports an end to the use of the death penalty and affirms the 2005 statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, which launched the U.S. Bishops Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.

In light of the fact that California has scheduled the September 29, 2010 execution of Albert Greenwood Brown for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl, Susan Jordan, in 1980, we implore all Californians to ask themselves what good comes of state-sanctioned killing. We recognize the profound pain of those who lost a loved one to violence and offer them our prayers and our consolation. However, nothing can undo what was done—even taking the life of the convicted killer. The infliction of the death penalty does not make for a more just society.
As Catholic bishops, we teach and preach the Gospel vision of a “culture of life.” We believe that each human person is created in God’s image. We are compelled to teach a consistent ethic of life and to speak publicly that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life, does not promote human dignity, and does not reduce violence in our society.

We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty—especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In addition, of particular concern to us is the fact that the application of the death penalty is deeply flawed—with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects.

At this moment in time, we entreat Californians to ponder carefully whether the use of the death penalty makes our society safer. A moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not.

we implore all Californians to ask themselves what good comes of state-sanctioned killing. … However, nothing can undo what was done—even taking the life of the convicted killer. (California bishops)

Those who oppose the use of capital punishment should find it disturbing that the arguments presented against it are so poor. “Nothing can undo what was done”??? This is just silly: no punishment can undo what was done? Are we to assume therefore that murderers should not be punished?

The infliction of the death penalty does not make for a more just society.

This actually is the heart of the issue but the bishops give no clue whatever as to what makes this view correct. A just society is one that metes out justice, which, in regard to punishment, means the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, and there is very good reason to believe that, for the crime of murder, the only appropriate punishment is the life of the killer.

As Catholic bishops, we teach and preach the Gospel vision of a “culture of life.” We believe that each human person is created in God’s image.

What is striking about this comment is that the knowledge that we are created in God’s image is communicated to us as the explanation of why murderers are to be executed (Gen 9:6). That is, the bishops, in attempting to support their own position, undermine it by citing the very passage defining the required punishment for murder: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed.”

We are compelled to teach a consistent ethic of life and to speak publicly that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life, does not promote human dignity, and does not reduce violence in our society.

This proclamation is made without any evidence to support it and is in direct opposition to the position taken by the bishops responsible for preparing the Catechism of Trent, who took the opposite position and stated that, in the section on the Remedies Agains the Violation of This Commandment {Fifth} wrote: Of these remedies the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. To that end they declared (regarding executions) that *The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty—especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

That’s all well and good but the protection of society is a secondary aim of punishment. The primary objective is retribution - justice. All in all, this really is a poorly presented argument against capital punishment.

Ender

I am a supporter of capital punishment. Though I am not for its use as much as i used to be since becoming Catholic. I do see it as only needed in extreme cases. I believe that a pope (dont know which one) said that its use should be extremely rare. Only in cases where the safety of humanity couldn’t be assured. I believe that fits into my “extreme circumstances” bit.

God bless,
Jesse

In addition, of particular concern to us is the fact that the application of the death penalty is deeply flawed—with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects.

So what are we supposed to do about it? Execute rich white people so that we can meet some silly racial quota? Perhaps poor people and minorities commit more crimes than the general population? This would explain why they are more often executed for crimes.

We are compelled to teach a consistent ethic of life

In the abortion debate, the pro-lifers insist that proper term is not pro-choice but pro-abortion. I think I’ll start insisting on a similar standard for anti-death penalty activists. Instead of using deceptive phrases like “a consistent ethic of life,” anti-death penalty activists should admit that they believe in keeping murderers alive on the victims’ families’ tax dollars.

That is far more accurate, even it is less attractive sounding than the consistent ethic of life.

Ender, I always enjoy reading your instructive and intelligent arguments for capital punishment. They have shaped my opinion on capital punishment.

No it doesnt’

Universally you can’t pick and choose who gets it and who doesn’t -

Yes, you can.

I find your title and supposition to be absolutely beyond belief. I also believe in imprisoning rapist. That does not mean I have to support imprisonment for children, political dissenters, clergy for their religious belief, or any other absurd thing that can be thought.

A person can support the death penatly for someone who has murdered and constitutes on on-going threat to the lives of others, and reject the death penalty for this woman (or anyone else). To think otherwise is nonsensical.

Probably like everyone else here I reckon that title is a little baiting. I am in complete opposition to the death penalty, for all crimes, in all circumstances, its just not justifiable. Ever.

But to almost hint that people who support the execution of rapists and murderers after fair process would find some kind of enjoyment or support for a woman who is exercising her God given right to freedom of religion who is now facing death at the hands of sick minded terrorists and vigilantees is just repugnant.

Interestingly, capital punishment is not an option for rapists who don’t kill their victims.

Pax,
OA

I agree with this sentiment. God doesn’t ask us to be just. God asks us to be merciful. Justice is a human creation…but God came to us to show us mercy. That is why when we choose to be merciful, we are following God’s law…not humanity’s law.

Convicts serving life sentences for first degree murder can and do run prison gangs and control drug distribution, extortion, murder, assaults both in prison and out on the street. That’s enough reason to execute them.

That’s a pretty broad brush you’re painting with. Better to say “Some convicts serving life sentences…”, methinks.

I am wholly uncomfortable with the idea of executing a human being before he or she has had a chance to repent and confess and meet their salvation, it is sending them to Hell without possibility of redemption. I just don’t think God would want that.

If the idea of going to Hell doesn’t scare somebody into repenting, what will? Besides, those who are executed have enough time to get ready. This is a blessing their victims probably didn’t have.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.