Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[SpiritMeadow]

The Holy Father stood on our country’s soil and called for an end to the death penalty. This is the stance that I agree with. Ban it. Now.

Others call for a continuation or even an increase in the death penalty in America. That is their right. I stand with the Pope and the American bishops in calling for it to be abolished.

You wrote of those who claim that criminals will take over the justice system if we heed the call of our Catholic leaders and abolish the death penalty. History, fact, and logic do not support them. The European Union provides an excellent example. Dozens of other countries have banned the death penalty, and I know of none of them in which the result has been criminals taking over the justice system.

I agree wholeheartedly. What is worse, is that we have volumes of evidence that our criminal justice system is flawed to the point that hundreds of people are imprisoned for crimes that they did not commit. In Texas that great bastion of state murder, 17 men have been released after serving sometimes as much as 20 years after it was discovered that the Dallas prosecutor there had systematically held back and hidden exculpatory evidence from defendents. When innocents are executed because of a faulty system, the blood is on everyone’s hands.

One seldom hears of any inmate murdering a guard. I’m sure it can and does happen, but I also rather suspect that it happens seldom enough that one has a greater chance of being killed randomly on the outside. The Pope’s stance was clear: there must be no way to effectively protect the citizenry, and he pointed out that most penal systems today cannot make that claim. They are secure, especially so for those that are the most heinous criminals.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree wholeheartedly. What is worse, is that we have volumes of evidence that our criminal justice system is flawed to the point that hundreds of people are imprisoned for crimes that they did not commit. In Texas that great bastion of state murder, 17 men have been released after serving sometimes as much as 20 years after it was discovered that the Dallas prosecutor there had systematically held back and hidden exculpatory evidence from defendents. When innocents are executed because of a faulty system, the blood is on everyone’s hands.

One seldom hears of any inmate murdering a guard. I’m sure it can and does happen, but I also rather suspect that it happens seldom enough that one has a greater chance of being killed randomly on the outside. The Pope’s stance was clear: there must be no way to effectively protect the citizenry, and he pointed out that most penal systems today cannot make that claim. They are secure, especially so for those that are the most heinous criminals.

That is an indictment of the legal profession. Who prosecutes these innocent people? Lawyers.

Who fails to adequately defend them? Lawyers.

Who presides over the trials, and fails to ensure they are fair and just? Lawyers.

 

[whatevergirl]

The Holy Father stood on our country’s soil and called for an end to the death penalty. This is the stance that I agree with. Ban it. Now.

Others call for a continuation or even an increase in the death penalty in America. That is their right. I stand with the Pope and the American bishops in calling for it to be abolished.

You wrote of those who claim that criminals will take over the justice system if we heed the call of our Catholic leaders and abolish the death penalty. History, fact, and logic do not support them. The European Union provides an excellent example. Dozens of other countries have banned the death penalty, and I know of none of them in which the result has been criminals taking over the justice system.

I didn’t say that, vern did.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I didn’t say that, vern did.

In point of fact, there are countries – including countries in the EU where criminal syndicates are able to control or successfully battle the legal system – Italy, especially Sicily, is one example. In the south of France, around Marseilles the Union Corse controls the system.

The United States is not the European Union – our problems are not their problems, and we have some especially vicious criminal elements. We must be able to maintain the integrity of our legal system in the face of such gangs.

 

[frankadams]

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*The Holy Father stood on our country’s soil and called for an end to the death penalty. This is the stance that I agree with. Ban it. Now. *

*Others call for a continuation or even an increase in the death penalty in America. That is their right. I stand with the Pope and the American bishops in calling for it to be abolished. *

You wrote of those who claim that criminals will take over the justice system if we heed the call of our Catholic leaders and abolish the death penalty. History, fact, and logic do not support them. The European Union provides an excellent example. Dozens of other countries have banned the death penalty, and I know of none of them in which the result has been criminals taking over the justice system.

I didn’t say that, vern did.

Understood. Pardon my lack of clarity. I repeat: I know of no country in which the result of abolishing the death penalty has been criminals taking over the justice system. I believe I said as much above.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Understood. Pardon my lack of clarity. I repeat: I know of no country in which the result of abolishing the death penalty has been criminals taking over the justice system. I believe I said as much above.

How many Italian judges have been killed attempting to prosecute the Sicilian Mafia?

 

[whatevergirl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*The Holy Father stood on our country’s soil and called for an end to the death penalty. This is the stance that I agree with. Ban it. Now. *

*Others call for a continuation or even an increase in the death penalty in America. That is their right. I stand with the Pope and the American bishops in calling for it to be abolished. *

You wrote of those who claim that criminals will take over the justice system if we heed the call of our Catholic leaders and abolish the death penalty. History, fact, and logic do not support them. The European Union provides an excellent example. Dozens of other countries have banned the death penalty, and I know of none of them in which the result has been criminals taking over the justice system.

Understood. Pardon my lack of clarity. I repeat: I know of no country in which the result of abolishing the death penalty has been criminals taking over the justice system. I believe I said as much above.

I am not for the DP, except in rare circumstances where no other restraints would be possible…and I think it’s a hard case to build, unless someone escaped and murdered again, perhaps. But, I’m actually for the abolition of the DP…I am not sure why you keep addressing this to me?

 

[vern_humphrey]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Falcone

Giovanni Falcone (May 18, 1939 – May 23, 1992) was an Italian magistrate who specialised in prosecuting the Sicilian Cosa Nostra. He was killed by the Mafia, together with his wife and three of his bodyguards, by a 350-kg dynamite explosion placed beneath the motorway from Palermo Airport to Palermo at the town of Capaci.

His life story is quite similar to that of his closest friend Paolo Borsellino. Both shared provenance from a rather poor area of Palermo, had careers as Antimafia magistrates, and equally sad fates: both were killed (less than two months apart) in particularly audacious bomb attacks in 1992

Falcone and Borsellino are still dead. And the Mafia still rules Sicily.

 

[frankadams]

criminals taking over the justice system? lol I understand what you’re driving at, but that just seems extreme.

I’ll go further than you. Claiming that abolishing the death penalty leads to criminals taking over the justice system is more than “extreme.” It is flat-out wrong and not supported by history, reason, or logic.

No one has been able to point to a situation in which a country abolished the death penalty and, as a result, criminals took over the justice system. In fact, we have dozens upon dozens of countriest that have abolished the death penalty, and if you look at what happened to those countries after they abolished it, you will see that none of them had criminals take over the justice system as a result of the death penalty being abolished.

Our Holy Father came to our shores and called for us to abolish the death penalty. I stand with him.

 

[Ender]

Others call for a continuation or even an increase in the death penalty in America. That is their right. I stand with the Pope and the American bishops in calling for it to be abolished.

I am one of those who supports the death penalty, fully aware that the Pope and the bishops oppose it, because I believe that their opposition is based not on the belief that it is immoral but on their perception that it unwise and does more harm than good.

I personally think the opposite is true, but regardless of my opinion on its effectiveness I think it is morally obligatory. It is a requirement of justice that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is also necessary for the salvation of his soul that the criminal make full restitution for his crime.

Aquinas - ST II/II 62
*- (2) "Augustine says: "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. “Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly.”

• (2 ad 1) “Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible”*

I could perhaps accept that the death penalty does more harm than good if someone could explain how the demands of justice and salvation are met by the application of a penalty that is not commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

I am one of those who supports the death penalty, fully aware that the Pope and the bishops oppose it, because I believe that their opposition is based not on the belief that it is immoral but on their perception that it unwise and does more harm than good.

I personally think the opposite is true, but regardless of my opinion on its effectiveness I think it is morally obligatory. It is a requirement of justice that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is also necessary for the salvation of his soul that the criminal make full restitution for his crime.

Aquinas - ST II/II 62
- (2) "Augustine says: "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. “Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly.”
- (2 ad 1) “Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible”

I could perhaps accept that the death penalty does more harm than good if someone could explain how the demands of justice and salvation are met by the application of a penalty that is not commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

You make a case as to why you feel the death penalty is “morally obligatory.” You provide some evidence to support your position. You quote the Summa as part of this evidence. I feel that the Holy Father, the Vatican, and the American bishops are familiar with the Summa, perhaps even more than you or I, and they have reached an opposite conclusion.

In this matter, I will choose the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB over Ender.

 

[Margarite]

HEY! My dad is a GOOD lawyer, one of the few, so I am correcting what you said

That is an indictment of the legal profession. Who prosecutes these innocent people? **BAD **Lawyers.

Who fails to adequately defend them? **BAD **Lawyers.

Who presides over the trials, and fails to ensure they are fair and just? **BAD **Lawyers.

 

[Ender]

In this matter, I will choose the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB over Ender.

This is pretty much the extent of the argument against the death penalty: in the opinion of JPII and the US bishops we shouldn’t have it. It would be more interesting if someone would try to defend that position based on what the Church has continuously taught for the past 2000 years but I can understand the difficulty: there is nothing prior to Evangelium vitae in 1995 that supports it.

Is this debate to be nothing more than hurling popes at one another? You exult that you are on the side of JPII. I respond that I am on the side of Innocent I, Innocent III, Pius IV, Pius V, Pius X, and Pius XII. You raise by throwing in the USCCB; I call your bet and re-raise with Saints Augustine, Aquinas, and Boromeo. So - are we all done? Have we advanced the debate any? Let me know when you want to take a different approach.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

This is pretty much the extent of the argument against the death penalty: in the opinion of JPII and the US bishops we shouldn’t have it. It would be more interesting if someone would try to defend that position based on what the Church has continuously taught for the past 2000 years but I can understand the difficulty: there is nothing prior to Evangelium vitae in 1995 that supports it.

Is this debate to be nothing more than hurling popes at one another? You exult that you are on the side of JPII. I respond that I am on the side of Innocent I, Innocent III, Pius IV, Pius V, Pius X, and Pius XII. You raise by throwing in the USCCB; I call your bet and re-raise with Saints Augustine, Aquinas, and Boromeo. So - are we all done? Have we advanced the debate any? Let me know when you want to take a different approach.

Ender

You help prove my very point. The Church has deepened in its understanding of the issues related to the death penalty over the centuries and has now reached the point in which the Vicar of Christ comes to our shores and calls for us to abolish it.

I am not taking issue with your assertion that you can defend your position by citing previous popes and saints. In fact, you could defend your position on a host of issues by citing previous popes and saints. These issues include…

-slavery
-freedom of religion
-the damnation of unborn children
-armed response to heresy
-when abortion is licit

I would consider a Catholic who defends slavery on the basis of previous popes, saints, etc. to be mistaken. Likewise with these other issues. As Mother Church moves through time, she comes to a greater and deeper understanding of God’s revelation.

Many Church leaders in the past recommended the death penalty for reasons of justice and punishment. The Church now realizes that such reasons were incompatible with the sanctity of human life. As such, we have altered our teaching on the death penalty.

You look to our current leadership and Catechism and see a misstep in our path toward a fuller understanding of revealed Truth. I, however, believes that the Holy Spirit guides our Church through time toward a fuller understanding of revealed Truth. As such, I join with the successor of Peter on the death penalty. If you choose to call that “hurling Popes at one another,” you are free to do so. I call it having faith in the Holy Spirit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll go further than you. Claiming that abolishing the death penalty leads to criminals taking over the justice system is more than “extreme.” It is flat-out wrong and not supported by history, reason, or logic.

No one has been able to point to a situation in which a country abolished the death penalty and, as a result, criminals took over the justice system. In fact, we have dozens upon dozens of countriest that have abolished the death penalty, and if you look at what happened to those countries after they abolished it, you will see that none of them had criminals take over the justice system as a result of the death penalty being abolished.

Our Holy Father came to our shores and called for us to abolish the death penalty. I stand with him.

You’re obviously arguing with yourself.

I never claimed that without the death penalty criminals would take over – I pointed out that, if they were vicious and depraved enough, they could take over. Therefore we can justly keep in reserve the weapon we need to prevent that.

In response to the rest of your post:

www.stratfor.com
May 14, 2008
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

Mexico’s long and violent drug cartel war has recently intensified. The past week witnessed the killings of no fewer than six senior police officials. One of those killed was Edgar Millan Gomez, acting head of the Mexican federal police and the highest-ranking federal cop in Mexico. Millan Gomez was shot to death May 8 just after entering his home in Mexico City.

Within the past few days, six suspects have been arrested in connection with his murder. One of the ringleaders is said to be a former federal highway police officer. The suspects appear to have ties to the Sinaloa cartel. In fact, Millan Gomez was responsible for a police operation in January that led to the arrest of Alfredo Beltran Leyva, the cartel’s second-in-command. Mexican police believe Beltran Leyva’s brother Arturo (who is also a significant player in the Sinaloa cartel structure) commissioned the hit.

During the same time period, violence from the cartel war has visited the family of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, the Sinaloa cartel leader who has the distinction of being Mexico’s most-wanted drug kingpin. On May 8, Guzman Loera’s son Edgar Guzman Beltran and two companions were killed by a large-scale ambush as they left a shopping mall in Culiacan, Sinaloa.

Do you think it impossible that this could spill over into the US?

 

[vern_humphrey]

HEY! My dad is a GOOD lawyer, one of the few, so I am correcting what you said

One of the few.

 

[Ender]

Many Church leaders in the past recommended the death penalty for reasons of justice and punishment. The Church now realizes that such reasons were incompatible with the sanctity of human life. As such, we have altered our teaching on the death penalty.

Not at all. The teachings on justice and punishment remain what they have always been, nor were these two issues even alluded to in the new restriction on capital punishment. The teaching on the death penalty in 2267 is incompatible with the teaching on punishment in 2266. If the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the crime (2266) then that must be addressed first whether or not it is necessary to protect the public (2267). Saying that this is merely “growth” in the Church’s understanding is meaningless unless you can show how the two paragraphs can be reconciled. Again, if it was an extension of what the Church always taught you should be able to connect it with something from past teachings … and not even JPII made any connection with the past.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

Not at all. The teachings on justice and punishment remain what they have always been, nor were these two issues even alluded to in the new restriction on capital punishment. The teaching on the death penalty in 2267 is incompatible with the teaching on punishment in 2266. If the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the crime (2266) then that must be addressed first whether or not it is necessary to protect the public (2267). Saying that this is merely “growth” in the Church’s understanding is meaningless unless you can show how the two paragraphs can be reconciled. Again, if it was an extension of what the Church always taught you should be able to connect it with something from past teachings … and not even JPII made any connection with the past.

Ender

You wrote that “The teaching on the death penalty in 2267 is incompatible with the teaching on punishment in 2266.” I disagree.

The Church does state that penalties should be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime” in 2266. Based on this alone, one could see the death penalty as being “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

However, 2267 makes a special exception for the death penalty. The death penalty, and no other penalty whatsoever, is singled out. For the death penalty, being “commensurate” is no longer enough. For the death penalty, a state can only use it when “bloodless means are (not) sufficient to defend human lives against an aggessor.”

I think it is clear that the Church believes that punishments should be commensurate, but that being “commensurate” does not justify the death penalty as it is the one penalty which willfully exterminates human life. I don’t believe, as you suggest, that the Catechism is contradicting itself.

 

[vz71]

You help prove my very point. The Church has deepened in its understanding of the issues related to the death penalty over the centuries and has now reached the point in which the Vicar of Christ comes to our shores and calls for us to abolish it.

Were it really the case that the church has deepened its understanding and now wishes the death penalty abolished, the CCC would reflect this.

The CCC, however, does not.

I am forced to conclude that God himself has not wished the church to make that move.

 

[frankadams]

The teaching on the death penalty in 2267 is incompatible with the teaching on punishment in 2266. Ender

Were it really the case that the church has deepened its understanding and now wishes the death penalty abolished, the CCC would reflect this.

The CCC, however, does not.

I am forced to conclude that God himself has not wished the church to make that move.

I’m not sure I follow. First, you tell me that the Catechism contradicts itself. Then, you say that the you do not see abolishment in the CCC, so it is clear that the Church doesn’t want it abolished.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your first assertion. I described in an earlier post how both sections are wholly compatible. I have enough faith in Mother Church’s theologians to believe they did not make such an egregious error in composing the Catechism! I think the more likely error is in your understanding of what they wrote.

I agree with your second point that the Church does not all for abolition in the Catechism. It does not. What the Church **does **do is call for it to be restricted only to situations in which we are unable to protect society from the aggressor using “bloodless means.” The Catechism goes on to say that these situations are “rare if not practically nonexistent.”

It is clear that short of anarchy (Somalia?) or similar situations, “bloodless means” are available in most countries. That is why the Catechism uses the phrase “rare if not practically nonexistent.” That is why the Pope came to our shores and called for an end to the death penalty in America. That is why the American bishops have echoed his call. I trust their judgment over yours. You do not.