He should receive the death penalty!

But this points to ZGr. Morello’s comment – the whole death penalty issue is just a lever to get people to accept 1 doctrinal change by PF, so that he can have his precedent, and chsnge a whole bunch of others. It’s the way of Herr Kasper.

The death penalty has been around since the time of Jesus Christ.

The death penalty has a long history dating back to the 16th Century BC.

Many embrace the death penalty based on the 'eye for an eye'

The original profession of faith drawn up by Pope Innocent III in 1208 made no reference to capital punishment (see note to Denz.-H, 795). The following article, however, was added in 1210:

thesis how this is a world issue, Topics: Law, Tags: death penalty,�.

The above-mentioned findings suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is present and should not be neglected. If the killing of one criminal can prevent at least three, or fourteen deaths, by different calculations, this opportunity has to be exploited. We cannot forgo an opportunity to save the lives of honest, innocent, law-abiding citizens. Although any human life is precious, the efforts of the society have always been directed mostly at maintaining the well-being of those who live by its rules. They are getting more economic benefits that anti-social elements and can enjoy a more secure future. Thus, these people have to be protected by the law in the first place.

Do I need to write a thesis statement?

Another paper exploring the relationship between crime rates and death penalty is “State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder” by Paul R. Zimmerman uses U.S. state-level data over the years 1978-1997 to find out if capital punishment indeed has a deterrent effect. The paper, in evaluating the deterrent effect of capital punishment, adjusts the data for the influence of simultaneity and therefore comes up with estimates of a deterrent effect that greatly those of previous findings. Zimmermann has found that “the estimates imply that a state execution deters approximately fourteen murders per year on average” Zimmerman 2004:163). Besides, he has established that it is the announcement of death penalty that drives the effect.

Do you support the death penalty?

With regard to popes of the patristic period, it is true that Pope Innocent I (r. 401–407), in a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse, gives permission for civil officials to carry out judicial tortures or capital punishment. However, he also states: “About these things we read nothing definitive from the forefathers” ( VI, c. 3, n. 8). This statement is significant because it shows that nothing had been handed down in the deposit of faith on the issues of judicial torture or capital punishment. The judgment of Innocent I, therefore, was not definitive. In fact, his successor, Pope St. Nicholas I (r. 858–867), in his responses to the Bulgarians (Nov. 13, 866), condemns judicial torture (Denz.-H, 648). On the subject of capital punishment, Pope St. Nicholas tells the Bulgarians: “….without hesitation and in every possible circumstance, save the life of the body and soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul” ( 97, cap. 25). Here we see a Pope appealing to Christian principles—not prudential ones—to argue the death penalty. Feser’s claim of a unanimous consent of the Church Fathers on capital punishment is mistaken. His claim of a 2,000 year old Catholic tradition in support of the death penalty is overblown.

The Constitution itself indicates that the death penalty can be used.

Death penalty, however improper it may seem from the point of view of defending criminals' interests, is “a guarantee of no repeat crime” (NCWC). Evidence of repeat offenders returning to normal life is scarce, and instances of recidivism are abundant. Once again, the solution depends on the main goal set for the legal system: is it to defend the interests of everybody alike or is it designed to support those who spend their lives without harming each other? If we side with those who believe that the system should in the first place support those who are law-abiding, the focus will be on prevention of deaths though murders as the greatest evil generated by crime. Despite the above-mentioned deterrent effect, we cannot effectively prevent crimes by first-time offenders. It is much easier to prevent those by repeat offenders.

In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes.

There was no universal consensus of the Church Fathers in favor of the death penalty. I agree with Prof. Bromberg (cited above) that the testimony of early Christians as a whole “embodies a strong aversion to the state inflicting death on its subjects” (p. 132). Jesus did not leave his apostles a legal code to follow for the secular sphere. Instead, He provided his words and deeds as an example to follow. In light of this, many Church Fathers such as St. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165), Athenagoras (133–190), Tertullian (160–220), Lactantius (220–320), St. Cyprian (200–258), and St. Ambrose (340–397) spoke out against Christian involvement with the death penalty or urged it to be used. Professors Feser and Bessette, however, try to downplay these examples by arguing that, although these Church Fathers might have been opposed to capital punishment , they did not oppose it (cf. pages 111–118 of their book).