Against the death penalty? Give me your alternative...

[Trelow]

JSmitty2005:

In case you didn’t know this, I have every right to believe what I want on this issue. The Church says that it’s up to each individual’s conscience. I’d prefer to side with the Church’s traditional teaching, that’s all.

Only if your conscience is formed with the Church. It’s kinda a Catch-22

 

[JSmitty2005]

IMHO, the only thing more valuable than the life of a human being (even a criminal’s) is the life of two human beings or three or four. So I think that if a violent criminal is elimanated altogether then this would be better off than him killing fellow prisoners or getting parole and murdering more people. I think that I remember Christ saying something about a millstone around the neck…

 

[JSmitty2005]

Trelow:

Only if your conscience is formed with the Church.

You’re right, but it’s not a Catch-22. Don’t judge my conscience. Check this link out. I know that this guy is a sedevecantist goofball, but I totally agree with his take on the death penalty.

cathinsight.com/apologetics/capital.htm

As recently as 1952, Pope Pius XII reiterated the constant Catholic doctrine:

“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.”

Are you raising John Paul II above Pius XII?

“Although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful” St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica

I’d say that my opinion/conscience is in line with the teachings of the Church.

 

[nico1089]

Hi–I do understand you in that you want to punish. If someone laid a hand on one of my kids in a manner that you describe, I would probably kill them myself and go to confession. But in the case where it is someone else, I would follow the teaching of the church. I guess that makes me two faced in a way, I admit it. Maybe that’s why priests are unmarried. I wonder what a priest would do if his daughter was raped and killed. Probably the same as me?–nicolo
This is what the church says:

1. But God cannot leave the crime unpunished: from the ground on which it has been spilt, the blood of the one murdered demands that God should render justice (cf. Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From this text the Church has taken the name of the “sins which cry to God for justice”, and, first among them, she has included wilful murder. 12 For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of antiquity, blood is the source of life. Indeed “the blood is the life” (Dt 12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself.

Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4:11-12). He is punished: he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes man’s environment. From being the “garden of Eden” (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of friendship with God, the earth becomes “the land of Nod” (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will be “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will follow him forever.

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: “Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”.13

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Evangelium vitae
To the Bishops
Priests and Deacons
Men and Women religious
lay Faithful
and all People of Good Will
on the Value and Inviolability
of Human Life

1995.03.25

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

and my point is only that this lack of respect has its genesis in the moral conviction of the citizenry that it would be wrong to impose the death penalty in many instances; if, however, you simply socialized that conviction out of your populace, there would be no more ethical apprehension and all kinds of respect for the law.

The evidence is that you cannot socialize it out of society – even Medieval England failed at that.
john doran:

and, if you like utilitarian calculi, the net benefit of such socialization would, at least facially, seem far to outsrip the costs.

so why not do it?

Because A, you can’t do it, and B, the cost of simply trying it would be far too great.
john doran:

the judge was soft.

Like most humans.
john doran:

no. i mean, if crime was radically reduced as a result, then why not go for it?

Because you reach the point of diminishing returns long before you get to shoplifting, of course.
john doran:

it’s where utilitarianism takes you, if you are unflinchingly consistent (i.e. non-arbitrary) in its application.

Why should one be forced to accept a particular philosophy?
john doran:

sigh. what would you say if a nazi asked you, “how do we avoid our duty to protect the citizenry without killing a few jews and blacks and so on”?

By saying, “You do not protect the citizenry through racism” of course!!
john doran:

cart before the horse: since all punitive consequences are post facto, penal law is necessarily the law of the skydiver, in any society.

No – penalties per se may be post facto of a particular crime. But we can pass laws today that prevent crimes tomorrow. We can incarcerate or execute a vicious killer today and prevent a murder tomorrow.
john doran:

anyway, trying to determine if it’s moral to execute criminals by asking if killing criminals will prevent some other murders or rapes or whatever, is to engage in the central utilitarian conceit: to identify morality with outcomes.

Read what the CCC says:

[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. (My emphasis.)

This is clearly a utilitarian concept – the death penalty is acceptable if we can’t protect people any other way.
john doran:

and if you accept that methodology, then there’s no reason simply to institute a regime of moral pedagogy that makes people accepting of capital punishment for even the smallest misdemeanor. if you really want to keep people from doing wrong, you make it clear that they’ll get executed for doing wrong, summarily and without appeal…

Pedagogy means “teaching children.” What do we do about adults?

As I have pointed out, A, you can’t do it, and B, the cost is greater than we can pay.
john doran:

ignoing them can’t be any easier than killing them.

Actually it is – because by ignoring we also kill. We kill those subjected to brutality in prison, and we kill those victimized by people who ought to be incapacitated but who are not.
john doran:

in fact, i would say it’s much harder,since, as you yourself are so quick to point out, “ignoring” the problem often leads to further harm and sorrow.

But if it doesn’t happen to you, you can ignore it and feel no consequences.
john doran:

and that’s the hard part about doing the right thing: realizing that you and others can go on suffering as a result of doing it.

Which is why we are so willing to ignore and go blythely on.
john doran:

i would rather that no one be guilty of the murder of a child-murderer and live with the possibility that he’ll murder someone else, than live with another guaranteed murder: the murder of the criminal.

As I said, that’s an old Abbot and Costello routine – Abbot is trying to get Costello to do something dangerous, and Costello says, “But I might be killed.”

And Abbot says, “That’s a risk I’m willing to take.”

You’re willing to take it because you don’t believe it will be your child that is murdered.

 

[JSmitty2005]

“Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Genesis 9:6).

 

[JSmitty2005]

nico1089:

Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4:11-12). He is punished: he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes man’s environment. From being the “garden of Eden” (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of friendship with God, the earth becomes “the land of Nod” (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will be “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will follow him forever.

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: “Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”.13

I already saw that one coming. Read this refutation from the website I posted above.

Objection: “In the book of Genesis, Cain kills Abel, but God puts a mark on Cain so that nobody will kill him. This shows God does not approve of capital punishment.”

Any argument that suggests that God does not approve of capital punishment as such is ridiculous because of God’s clear instructions to punish by death certain criminals, as evidenced in chapter 22 of the book of Exodus. God cannot positively command something that is intrinsically evil, for that would contradict His divine perfection and benevolence. Hence, capital punishment is a proper from of punishment in the eyes of God. Now, it is true that in Genesis 4, God shields Cain from being killed by putting a mark on him: “Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one therefore that findeth me, shall kill me. And the Lord said to him [Cain]: No, it shall not so be: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him. And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth at the east side of Eden” (Genesis 4:14-16; italics added).

So, what do we make of this? Whoever would kill Cain would be punished sevenfold. Does this not sound like a complete opposition to capital punishment on God’s part, for even a severe a crime as murder? No, it cannot, as I already suggested, because God would not later sanction that which is evil: “He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:12). Here God decrees the death penalty. The death penalty therefore cannot be intrinsically wrong or else God, who is all-good and all-holy, could not command it. It is true that in the case of Cain, God specifically wanted men not to kill him, but it seems to me that the reason why is a mystery which will not be revealed until the Coming of the Lord.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I don’t have a problem with people that are opposed to Capital Punishment, but don’t you dare tell me that I am not allowed to believe that it is justifiable just because JP2 was against it. If anyone is straying from tradition, it wouldn’t be me, that’s for sure.

 

[Lazerlike42]

When God administers the death penalty, He does so infallibly, knowing for certain that he whom He is punishing is guilty. We can never do the same.

Two police are chasing after a suspect in the woods. The two are seperated. Suddenly, the first officer sees a bush rustling about and hears someone behind it. The person in the bush may very well be a guilty man, but he may not be. Does the police officer shoot the at the bush, not having total confidence that it is truly the guilty man in there?

Unless we can have total confidence that a man is guilty, we must never administer the death penalty. I suggest that regardless of how much evidence is present, we can never have the certainty necessary to take a life. God alone has that total and complete infallibility necessary. Especially in our current age, where it is proven that prosecutors try men they know to be innocent just so that they can try somebody and protect their careers.

 

[Jehoevah]

Proelium Frater:

What is the worst punishment you are willing to mete out to a criminal?

I’m glad you asked. I think about this all the time. One thing for sure: it would involve copious amounts of the Carson Daly show. If possible, I would liquify the essence of Carson Daly and inject it directly into the criminal’s blood stream, much the way the potassium is directly injected into those on Death Row. Only now it’s called Daly Row. And they don’t die. They start seeing Carson Daly everywhere and they can’t stop his awkward silences and terrible jokes no matter how many times they bash their heads against the wall.

This would be followed by banana treatment. This would of course involve bananas. Many effective punishments can be served with the deliciousness of the banana. Imagine being covered in ooey gooey banana sauce? Now imagine the song “Barbie Girl” playing at 100 decibals. “Come on Barbie, let’s go Party!” Remember, Carson Daly is still streaming through their veins.

GG criminal.

 

[Pontius_Pilate]

Jehoevah:

I’m glad you asked. I think about this all the time. One thing for sure: it would involve copious amounts of the Carson Daly show. If possible, I would liquify the essence of Carson Daly and inject it directly into the criminal’s blood stream, much the way the potassium is directly injected into those on Death Row. Only now it’s called Daly Row. And they don’t die. They start seeing Carson Daly everywhere and they can’t stop his awkward silences and terrible jokes no matter how many times they bash their heads against the wall.

This would be followed by banana treatment. This would of course involve bananas. Many effective punishments can be served with the deliciousness of the banana. Imagine being covered in ooey gooey banana sauce? Now imagine the song “Barbie Girl” playing at 100 decibals. “Come on Barbie, let’s go Party!” Remember, Carson Daly is still streaming through their veins.

GG criminal.

Sonds HAWR, is there any boobsecks or buttsecks involved?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Lazerlike42:

We can never do the same.

I’d say that we can do the same because God commanded us to like I posted earlier. He wouldn’t command us to do something that we “can never do.”

Lazerlike42:

Unless we can have total confidence that a man is guilty, we must never administer the death penalty. I suggest that regardless of how much evidence is present, we can never have the certainty necessary to take a life.

I agree that no one should be put to death unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. However, I obviously disagree with you on the fact that we can know if someone is guilty or not. People on death row rarely get there by accident. Many have an indisputable amount of blood on their hands and even admit to the crime. Capital punishment is only justifiable when absolutely sure that the suspect is truly the criminal - nonetheless, it’s still justifiable. St. Dismas even admitted this as he hung on his cross next to Christ’s. Notice that Jesus didn’t point out how unjust Dismas’s punishment was despite the fact that he allowed him into heaven.

 

[Lazerlike42]

JSmitty2005:

I agree that no one should be put to death unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. However, I obviously disagree with you on the fact that we can know if someone is guilty or not. People on death row rarely get there by accident. Many have an indisputable amount of blood on their hands and even admit to the crime. Capital punishment is only justifiable when absolutely sure that the suspect is truly the criminal - nonetheless, it’s still justifiable. St. Dismas even admitted this as he hung on his cross next to Christ’s. Notice that Jesus didn’t point out how unjust Dismas’s punishment was despite the fact that he allowed him into heaven.

The truth is that people on death row are set free every day because new evidence proves their innocence. Folks confess to crimes all the time because they are coerced. As I said, Prosecutors try innocent people just for the sake of avoiding the embarrassment of not having anyone to hold accountable for a crime, and just to fulfill political promises and to get elected once more.

Even 100 witnesses can be lying. I look at it this way: If there were a case with 1000 witnesses all of whom claimed to have seen the crime committed, the probability that they were all lying would be completely outrageous. However, if even a chance exists that the man on trial may be innocent, even a chance so small as that of 1000 priests all lying on the stand, it is too great a chance to condemn one innocent man to death.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.