Abortion nay Capital Punishmant Yay? Hypocrasy

[blessedtoo]

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that suggest capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forgo apples or shy from murder).
msnbc.msn.com/id/19160965/

 

[DaughterSorrow]

guilty is a legal state however lets assume we are only discussing actual horrific killers. How to you know you saved lives? Who knows the future? and thus the reason is rarely is there criminal whose actions are so careless as to provide imminent danger to all around them, and thus warrant the death penalty I think this is the definition of vengeance?

Roofer is right.

Vengeance or justice is not the reason the church gives for allowing the death penalty. It has to do with protecting society. In this day and age, when people can be incarcerated for life without possibility of parole, there is no danger to soceity, therefore no need for a death penalty.

We must follow the church’s teachings and reasons for this, not our own logic in determining who we think “deserves” death. The church says while CP could be warranted in rare circumstances, in practicality it should be virtually non-existant. If we look at those who have been killed by society on death row, I doubt you can point to a danger of these folks getting back into society and committing another atrocity. Most are in solitary. So why the need?

In Peace,
DS

 

[Ray_Scheel]

In this day and age, when people can be incarcerated for life without possibility of parole, there is no danger to soceity, therefore no need for a death penalty.

The factual problems with this conclusion had been discussed at length in the other current DP thread before it got derailed. See the recent death of a correctional officer during an escape attempts in Texas, or what the Texas 7 did just a few years ago. Guards, volunteers, and other prisoners are part of society too. Further, some inmates have power that extends past the walls where they are not “safe” even in solitary.

Most are in solitary. So why the need?

Most inmates on Death Row nationwide are in solitary, but double bunks in a cell are common even in maximum security facilities.

Are you familiar with the moral guidance the Church as given on the basic rights of prisoners and the impact of applying that guidance to a decision to keep someone in solitary confinement?

 

[cpayne]

Roofer is right.

Vengeance or justice is not the reason the church gives for allowing the death penalty. It has to do with protecting society. In this day and age, when people can be incarcerated for life without possibility of parole, there is no danger to soceity, therefore no need for a death penalty.

We must follow the church’s teachings and reasons for this, not our own logic in determining who we think “deserves” death. The church says while CP could be warranted in rare circumstances, in practicality it should be virtually non-existant. If we look at those who have been killed by society on death row, I doubt you can point to a danger of these folks getting back into society and committing another atrocity. Most are in solitary. So why the need?

In Peace,
DS

I am not completely conversant with the CC’s teaching on capital punishment. However, I am almost willing to bet that the CC does not endorse or oppose capital punishment based on utilitarian grounds (protecting society). Of course “vengeance” is not a valid motivation, but justice is, and the CC does have teachings on justice. Anyone more knowledgeable on what is taught as binding?

 

[DaughterSorrow]

I am not completely conversant with the CC’s teaching on capital punishment. However, I am almost willing to bet that the CC does not endorse or oppose capital punishment based on utilitarian grounds (protecting society). Of course “vengeance” is not a valid motivation, but justice is, and the CC does have teachings on justice. Anyone more knowledgeable on what is taught as binding?

It’s about defending human lives (or protecting society a I put it).

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. **"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent

 

[cpayne]

CCC 2266 (right before the part you quoted) says, “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties **commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder **caused by the offense.” I’d still say the primary purpose of punishment is not protection, but justice.

However, the next paragraph does contain everything you quoted, and supports what you are arguing. I will think more upon this.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent

This is a scientific/technical judgment that is not directly a matter of faith and morals. Though the Church can legitimately (and should) offer guidance on how accepted technological capabilities should be applied, it does not have the authority to make a scientific declaration about what is possible where there is still debate within the relevant professional community (and certainly not in opposition tot he bulk of those professionals), or to order states to implement ideas that are not yet feasible from a resource distribution perspective. It is a paraphrase of a personal opinion JP II included in EV that multiple sources have indicated was a prudential judgment (citations posted here). That is, there is no obligation to agree with or act in obedience to since under Natural Law the authority to make that determination actually rests with the State, not the Church.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

CCC 2266 (right before the part you quoted) says, “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties **commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder **caused by the offense.” I’d still say the primary purpose of punishment is not protection, but justice.

However, the next paragraph does contain everything you quoted, and supports what you are arguing. I will think more upon this.

Please explain how capital punishment is the correct "redress the disorder " ?

Do we “redress the disorder” of theft by stealing from the theif? So why should we kill the killer?

 

[cpayne]

Murder and other capital crimes introduce disorder into society (actually, any crimes do). In order to maintain a just society, in which each member of society receives what is due them by society, crimes should be punished. The CCC says the punishment should be “commensurate with the crime.” What we’re arguing over is whether or not capital punishment is a commensurate punishment for first-degree murder (for example). Most people, including myself, see it as commensurate. It is not “killing a killer.” It is executing a murderer. If we lock away a kidnapper, is that kidnapping the kidnapper?

 

[cpayne]

But I agree with what was argued earlier: This is a prudential judgment, and different people may legitimately differ on this. Although I disagree with you on this, it is not something I’d use as a “Christian litmus test” or any such thing. You may be right; I may be wrong. But at this point, I still don’t think so.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is a scientific/technical judgment that is not directly a matter of faith and morals. Though the Church can legitimately (and should) offer guidance on how accepted technological capabilities should be applied, it does not have the authority to make a scientific declaration about what is possible where there is still debate within the relevant professional community (and certainly not in opposition tot he bulk of those professionals), or to order states to implement ideas that are not yet feasible from a resource distribution perspective. ***It is a paraphrase of a personal opinion JP II included in EV that multiple sources have indicated was a prudential judgment ***(citations posted here). That is, there is no obligation to agree with or act in obedience to since under Natural Law the authority to make that determination actually rests with the State, not the Church.

Actually no church document has yet been provided, to date personal opinions are all we have seen. The catechism should be the point of reference not the cited writting of JPII

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But I agree with what was argued earlier: *** This is a prudential judgment***, and different people may legitimately differ on this. Although I disagree with you on this, it is not something I’d use as a “Christian litmus test” or any such thing. You may be right; I may be wrong. But at this point, I still don’t think so.

Is “this” the catechism? Could you show a Church document which shows or calls the teaching a “prudential judgment”, thank you?

 

[DaughterSorrow]

This is a scientific/technical judgment that is not directly a matter of faith and morals. Though the Church can legitimately (and should) offer guidance on how accepted technological capabilities should be applied, it does not have the authority to make a scientific declaration about what is possible where there is still debate within the relevant professional community (and certainly not in opposition tot he bulk of those professionals), or to order states to implement ideas that are not yet feasible from a resource distribution perspective. It is a paraphrase of a personal opinion JP II included in EV that multiple sources have indicated was a prudential judgment (citations posted here). That is, there is no obligation to agree with or act in obedience to since under Natural Law the authority to make that determination actually rests with the State, not the Church.

I agree that what is up to scientific judgment is whether or not pursuing capital punishment is what is needed to protect lives.

The general statement in the catechism referring to commesurate punishment for the crime was general. I am assuming that becaue the faithful would be led to believe that a commesurate punishment for 1st degree murder would be death, the Church had the wisdom to CLARIFY that general statement with what it said on capital punishment (what I previously quoted.)

(I don’t want to go back to the “eye for an eye,” for goodness sakes!)

In other words, the capital punishment section of the catechism supercedes the general punishment section with regards to CP.

In Peace,
DS

 

[cpayne]

Actually no church document has yet been provided, to date personal opinions are all we have seen. The catechism should be the point of reference not the cited writting of JPII

Not to get confusing, but I thought the cited writing of JPII was what was quoted in the Catechism at 2267. Am I wrong on that?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not to get confusing, but I thought the cited writing of JPII was what was quoted in the Catechism at 2267. Am I wrong on that?

I can not reconcile this comment. Is the catechism prudential or not? if so where is the church source which lists this teaching as prudential?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Not to get confusing, but I thought the cited writing of JPII was what was quoted in the Catechism at 2267. Am I wrong on that?

You are not wrong, the footnote for that section cites JP II’s EV. The original text in EV is, if anything, even more clearly prudential in nature than what was ultimately included in the CCC.

 

[cpayne]

I can not reconcile this comment. Is the catechism prudential or not? if so where is the church source which lists this teaching as prudential?

It is prudential because the CCC very clearly ALLOWS FOR capital punishment, but says the necessity for it may be rare, “if not non-existent.” This means it is an option, but perhaps a rare option. The necessity or non-necessity for it in any particular case would depend on prudential judgment.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is prudential because the CCC very clearly ALLOWS FOR capital punishment, but says the necessity for it may be rare, “if not non-existent.” This means it is an option, but perhaps a rare option. The necessity or non-necessity for it in any particular case would depend on prudential judgment.

So let us be clear

Is meeting the standard required by the catechism “prudential”?
or
Is the catechism “prudential”?

 

[cpayne]

So let us be clear

Is meeting the standard required by the catechism “prudential”?
or
Is the catechism “prudential”?

Well, I’ll make an attempt here. The CCC says that capital punishment may be justified occasionally. That is NOT a prudential judgment, so I guess I’m saying “No” to the second question, if I understand the question correctly. However, figuring out when capital punishment may be justified would require prudential judgment, so I guess my answer to the first question (if I understand it correctly) would be “Yes.”

 

[Ender]

The general statement in the catechism referring to commesurate punishment for the crime was general.

The statement that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime is a statement of the requirements of justice and must be applied to every situation where either reward or punishment is due. It is not some vague objective but a concrete obligation.

I am assuming that becaue the faithful would be led to believe that a commesurate punishment for 1st degree murder would be death, the Church had the wisdom to CLARIFY that general statement with what it said on capital punishment

Unfortunately the catechism dealing with the death penalty doesn’t even mention the requirement of justice or what a commensurate punishment would be for wholesale murder so it is wrong to say this issue has been clarified. It has been ignored, not resolved.

the capital punishment section of the catechism supercedes the general punishment section with regards to CP.

No part of the truth supersedes another part of the truth. They must be reconciled; you cannot simply choose one and ignore the other.

Ender