I don't LOVE Feser as he seems to thrive on being contrary rather than actually holding a point, but his citing of a recent jail block murder as a reason for the admissibility of the death penalty is solid.

I err on the side that the death penalty is usually not prudent in this day and age considering modern technology, but have believed that there has to be some instances where it is warranted.

This case in question further advances that argument. What role do multiple life sentences play in deterring crime OR in administering justice to a wrong doer? Vengeance is certainly God's purview and not ours, but society does have a moral responsibility to assign temporal punishments based on crimes. Stacking on additional life sentences to an inmate who already has no possibility of parole with a life sentence does nothing.

Also, what about the lives of the other inmates? Often the arguments revolve around the inability to harm society while incarcerated, but clearly other inmates can be killed. A child molester is hardly a sympathetic case (as in this case) but the details hardly matter in the moral question of, would it have been prudent to execute this murderer before he killed this guy? Is it prudent to do it now that there's a pattern of jailhouse murder?

What a farce. Naturally, a “new and separate” life sentence is meaningless to an offender who is already serving a life sentence. Hence, without capital punishment as a deterrent, those already imprisoned for life have much less incentive not to murder fellow prisoners. Some will… https://t.co/z5k540j7LR

— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) June 20, 2026

Gonna disagree here for a couple reasons.

There is no valid Christian argument for the death penalty.

There is almost no valid reason you can give that a government won't corrupt to kill its own citizenry that disagrees with it.

I can understand the injustice of being bordered
Murdered but there are certain people (outliers usually involving children) I'm not going to find any sympathy for and be willing to change my stance for their sake.

There are still punishments you can give lifers. Like solitary confinement

Aggrad08 said:

---

There are still punishments you can give lifers. Like solitary confinement

---

Would still likely be at least somewhat of a threat to guards, although I would argue that their jobs accept a minimum of risk .

Unless you're in a country where prisons aren't secure, it seems very hard to justify the death penalty

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

I can understand people having qualms about the possibility of accidentally sentencing an innocent person to death.

But it just seems disgustingly hypocritical to me to ban the death penalty for convicted criminals while this country allows the slaughter of over 2000 innocent unborn every day.

---

It is hypocritical unless you oppose both based on the same principle: the inherent dignity of each human person by virtue of their being created in the image and likeness of God.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Very interesting.

I am sympathetic to your take. Feser is much smarter than me and I won't pretend to be able to offer a nuanced answer to his critique. Having said that, isn't the gist of the Church's argument based on the inherent dignity of every person, regardless of their sordid actions? That feels like a trump card in this game.

---

The dignity of the individual can only be used as a reason in modern times because the assumption is the death penalty is no longer needed to protect others. The individuals dignity does not trump the state's duty to protect it's citizens.

The problem with this is that prisoners inside of prison also have human dignity, and it is being violated by those who are not being executed (in certain, and rare cases). You also have the issue of gang leaders still calling shots on the outside from his prison cell, still leading to deaths of people outside of prison.

A blanket ban on the death penalty is a prudential judgement that can be amended to consider these rare cases. If guys are going to continue killing, even if it is other guilty people, why not be open to the death penalty then? Some one mentioned solitary confinement, which is tantamount to ongoing torturous punishment, I would see that as a graver violation of human dignity (it is not good for man to be alone) than the death penalty. At least in the latter case, the criminal has a very specific date in which he knows there is a point of no return. If that doesn't move someone to repentance, what will?

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Very interesting.

I am sympathetic to your take. Feser is much smarter than me and I won't pretend to be able to offer a nuanced answer to his critique. Having said that, isn't the gist of the Church's argument based on the inherent dignity of every person, regardless of their sordid actions? That feels like a trump card in this game.

---

The dignity of the individual can only be used as a reason in modern times because the assumption is the death penalty is no longer needed to protect others. The individuals dignity does not trump the state's duty to protect it's citizens.

The problem with this is that prisoners inside of prison also have human dignity, and it is being violated by those who are not being executed (in certain, and rare cases). You also have the issue of gang leaders still calling shots on the outside from his prison cell, still leading to deaths of people outside of prison.

A blanket ban on the death penalty is a prudential judgement that can be amended to consider these rare cases. If guys are going to continue killing, even if it is other guilty people, why not be open to the death penalty then? Some one mentioned solitary confinement, which is tantamount to ongoing torturous punishment, I would see that as a graver violation of human dignity (it is not good for man to be alone) than the death penalty. At least in the latter case, the criminal has a very specific date in which he knows there is a point of no return. If that doesn't move someone to repentance, what will?

---

Let me be clear, I am very sympathetic to this position.

" The dignity of the individual can only be used as a reason in modern times because the assumption is the death penalty is no longer needed to protect others."

That's not the ONLY reason.

Death penalty should not be needed and prisoners should be safe in prison.
I assume someone in the past has stated it better, but a possible reason to support the death penalty is the formality of a date to bring about or encourage repentance of sins, possibly saving souls.