Malloy McGreevy
In Class Essay
¨The taking of even one life is a momentous event.¨ (Bernardin, The Consistent Ethic of Life). The consistent ethic of life is founded on the belief that all life is sacred and worth protecting, while the reasons for capital punishment may seem similar-- retaliation for a life lost-- the death penalty directly goes against everything the consistent ethic of life teaches. As proven through these presentations, capital punishment cases are often inaccurate and biased, while the act of the Death Penalty has proven to be painful with many examples of botched executions. Not only is killing immoral, but how can we go through with these executions when evidence has shown the death penalty can be inefficient and some
…show more content…
Even during the Early church, when death was much more common, some Catholics fought against the death penalty; one such example the Athenagoras of Athens written in 133 A.D claims “we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. . . . We, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put a man to death?.” However, many Catholic leaders have supported the death penalty, St. Thomas Aquinas himself stated “The death penalty was not merely permitted by God: for certain crimes it was required by God.” Nevertheless, over the years the Church has become more and more uncompromising in its beliefs against the Death Penalty. Starting with Pope John Paul II a Catholic Pope who served from the late 70’s to early 2000’s creating the Evangelium Vitae which asserts ¨that [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.¨ In this doctrine, Pope John Paul II clearly and definitively makes the Catholic Church’s negative response …show more content…
. . we have a duty to protect and foster it [human life], from conception to natural death, and in all circumstances. Because we acknowledge that human life is also social, society must protect and foster it.¨ (Bernardin) In this one passage the Consistent Ethic of Life creates an unbreakable argument against the death penalty. It leaves no room for loop holes or circumstance, human life is to be protected until natural death no matter what, no ifs or buts. This belief that the death penalty is wrong does not only go against Catholic teaching but most Christian denominations teachings as well, with Christians making up 70% of all Americans -- Catholics making up 22%-- how are there currently 32 states that continue to practice the death penalty? (Death Penalty in The U.S) If Christian teaching and the Consistent Ethic of Life directly go against the death penalty how do 64% of all states in America actively use the Death Penalty? Cardinal Bernardin spoke in his speech on C.E.L saying ¨A consistent ethic of life must be held by a constituency to be effective. The building of such a constituency is precisely the task before the Church and the nation.¨ Catholics need to rise to this call of constituency and actively speak out against what we hold to be wrong and unjust. Only through a large
Although traditionally also a supporter of capital punishment, the Roman Catholic Church now oppose the death penalty. In addition, most Protestant denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ, oppose the death penalty. During the 1960s, religious activists worked to abolish the death penalty, and continue to do so today.
Capital punishment is a sentence that is given to someone that has committed a capital crime. This is a subject of great debate; some people agree and some do not. There are times when a crime is so heinous that the majority would seek capital punishment. Susan Gissendaner received this sentence for plotting to kill her husband, although her boyfriend actually killed her husband. Since being in prison, Susan has undergone a conversion and transformation. She is now a model prisoner. Due to Susan’s transformation, they are trying to have her sentence changed. Should Susan’s sentence be commuted to life in prison is the question being asked? This paper will answer the question by providing a moral judgment viewed by two non-consequentialist theories. The strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be assessed. Whether I agree or disagree will be answered and explained.
Ernest Van den Haag strongly contends the need for capital punishment in our society in his article. Van den Haag provides a substantial amount of convincing facts and information to support “The Ultimate Punishment”. Van den Haag discusses such topics as maldistribution, deterrence to society, miscarriages of the penalty, and incidental and political issues (cost, relative suffering, and brutalization). The death penalty is indeed the harshest/ultimate punishment a convicted criminal can receive in our society. I agree with Van den Haag’s article. I am in favor of the death penalty system in the United States. Through capital punishment’s determent process, I feel it is a
The Pope also said that the death penalty should be gone. He said that all lives are sacred and that killing people is “inhumane” and “unacceptable”. I also read a book called “The Most Dangerous Game” it talks about how some lives are more valuable than others. In the story the main character's name is Rainsford he thinks that all lives are equal and that no man should
Religion plays a big role in some people 's lives and can influence their opinion on capital punishment. In the U.S. the two largest religions are Christianity and Judaism, within both of those religions some people are for capital punishment and some are against capital punishment. Several christian groups in the late 1970s formalized their religious and moral reasons against the imposition of the death penalty. “Among them was, capital punishment: violated the command by Jesus to employ the ethic of love, perpetuated the evil of retaliation, ignored the guilt that the society may have had in the causation of the crime, and prevented the possibility of any kind of rehabilitation of the criminal” (Flamehorse).
Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. In this
The United States Bishops have gone on to say the following on their views against the use of capital punishment, which mirrors the views of the Vatican. The U.S Catholic bishops have voiced strong opposition to the death penalty. The rationale for the bishops' position against capital punishment is "in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." The U.S Bishops went on record saying that the abolition of capital punishment would reaffirm the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, as a creature made in the image and likeness of God. The abolition of capital punishment would underscore the conviction that God is the Lord of life, and would remove any ambiguity as to the Church's affirmation of the sanctity of human life in all its stages, including the unborn, the aged and the infirm. It would be in accordance with the example of Jesus, who both taught and practiced forgiveness. And also emphasize that the best means for promoting a just society are intelligence and compassion, not power and vengeance (CACP, 585204). More recently, in their Nov. 2000 statement
Various religions also have varied responses to capital punishment. Even a particular denomination or religious group may not have a unified stand regarding capital punishment. Religious sentiments do play a significant part in the views of people regarding capital punishment. The Bible is replete with various passages that may seem to support or condemn capital punishment. The Old Testament, particularly, is based upon a morality of “teeth against teeth” and “life for life.” The books of laws of the Old Testament actually prescribe stoning to death the persons who commit serious crimes against God and against the community. A number of biblical scholars have considered the part of the Ten Commandments that say “You shall not kill” as a prohibition against individual cases of murder (The Ryrie Study Bible, Exodus 20:13). In the first place, the Christian faith believes that humans are created in the image of God. As such, a serious crime against another person is also a crime against God. In the Old Testament, premeditated murder was sufficient reason for the death penalty (Numbers 35:31, 33). Moreover, in Genesis 9:6, it can be read that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”. St. Thomas Aquinas also published his thoughts regarding capital
Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.
The death penalty has been a huge part of many political debates for the past few decades. There are two sides, those for and those against its continued use and both have logical arguments. My research question is if it is ethical and or beneficial for the U.S. government to continue using the death penalty? To gain the attention of my audience, I am going to share two stories that my sources have on those with experience in the debate. The Forbes article, “Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work,” is an anti-death penalty piece explaining how an innocent man was on death row and his opinion on whether or not it should be used. He said in the piece that living out a life sentence without parole is worse than being executed.
On one end of the argument is the belief that all human lives are of equal merit, because they are humans it gives them equal merit. Therefore no human should ever take the life of another, even if that individual has taken other lives. This argument is mostly favored by people of religious faith, but there are some sensible individuals who also adhere to this as an ethical position. At the other end of the spectrum is an argument in favor of the death penalty because of its ability to get rid of a problematic human so that they will be able to do no more harm. This is a very utilitarianism-like perspective of the death penalty. To examine this perplexing ethical dilemma one must first figure out their stance on what death is, like Socrates would.
Pope Francis specifically decided that the Catholic Church has the duty to involve themselves in the hot topic of death penalty and take a stance against it. This idea of “duty,” is clearly stated in the quote by Pope Francis saying that the issue “touch(es) directly on the dignity of human person,” and therefore the Catholic Church must become involved. Of course, the death penalty is just one issue, of many others, that the Church and specifically Pope Francis have spoken out about. Particularly the idea of the Catholic Church feeling a sense of duty to position itself in issues that concern human dignity is an echo reached to the followers of that Church, Catholics in the country and abroad—this idea could prove to be a little
Ever since the dawn of man’s search for justice, the death penalty, has been a consequence for particularly heinous crimes. Over the years society has debated whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. People who oppose of the death penalty view supporters as gun-slinging "rednecks" who live in the backwoods of America. Likewise, supporters view those who oppose the death penalty as uptight "suits" who live in mansions and believes that every person, no matter their crime, deserves to live. Those who oppose the death penalty argue that life in prison is a preferable solution to the death penalty. The supporters of the death penalty argue that Hammurabi’s code, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, is an
“January 1999 - Pope John Paul II visits St. Louis, Missouri, and calls for an end to the death penalty” (Death Penalty Information Center). The Death Penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. In many states this punishment is legal, the rest of the 18 states eliminated this punishment and it's currently illegal. The race of the perpetrator, lifestyle, and certain people can determine ,or change, the way the criminal is sentenced. I think we should keep this punishment in the states, however some say it gives the government too much power, giving them ability to take lives. Why should the heartless criminal get to live when they, themselves, killed someone? This punishment gives closure
Capital punishment: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for crime. In the United States, there is a distinct line between matters of Church and State; capital punishment falls under the territory of the State. But, in 1974, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the USCCB, made the decision to publically announce the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to capital punishment after a former president of the USCCB called the issue of capital punishment not only a “profound legal and political question” but also an “important moral and religious issue.” But, even this sagacious group of Church officials had a difficult time pin-pointing the Church’s exact reasoning for their defensive against capital punishment. Throughout the article, the bishops try to make sense of many twisting questions, including: in the eyes of the Church, what circumstances, if any, make capital punishment acceptable? Although the 1980 article was released by the USCCB in attempts to help the people of the Church understand this contradictory issue, it fell short due to the fact that even the accredited statements run in circles.