Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemency

[Hastrman]

I disagree with your second paragraph. We are discussing the necessity of all executions, in light of John Paul II’s statements and the current bishops in Florida calling for clemency. What stands out in this particular case that endangers society in such a way as to not be one of the very rare, if not non-existent, cases as John Paul identified the necessity, as opposed to commuting the sentence to life in prison allowing the conformity of human dignity as John Paul also identified by referring to the Catechism?

Because a life sentence is not a life sentence. It frankly boggles my mind that a man who lived through Nazism and Communism could be as politically naive as John Paul II was.

A life sentence, in America, far too often means nothing of the kind. We have lifers getting their sentences commuted for no good reason, and we also have idiots giving them the opportunity to escape, and commit more crimes. I can think of at least one case where a man serving a life sentence was, for some bizarre reason, placed on a furlough (which is designed to let non-lifers get re-acclimated to life “outside”). He escaped, broke into a couple’s house, and near-fatally stabbed the man and repeatedly raped the woman.

Not to even speak of the horrendous things that are done in our prisons: do we tell the people who are gang-raped and murdered, even if their sentences were far short of life (let alone death), that “our society has the means to protect against all such threats”? I think their families might feel different.

I hold, in all humility, that we cannot be sure—we can never be sure—that we have neutralized the threat a human being poses to his fellows, until he is dead and buried.

PS. When the Pope speaks of protecting “society” or “the community” he doesn’t mean that you can only execute those who pose a threat to your community’s existence (as Saddam Hussein most definitely posed a threat to the Iraqi democracy, hence his execution). He means protecting the community in the sense of protecting its members—a fundamental facet of his Personalism was that a community has no existence apart from its members. You can execute someone if you think they pose a threat to even one other person, if there is not an alternative. And as I have said, I am not sure there ever is an alternative.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because a life sentence is not a life sentence. It frankly boggles my mind that a man who lived through Nazism and Communism could be as politically naive as John Paul II was.

A life sentence, in America, far too often means nothing of the kind. We have lifers getting their sentences commuted for no good reason, and we also have idiots giving them the opportunity to escape, and commit more crimes. I can think of at least one case where a man serving a life sentence was, for some bizarre reason, placed on a furlough (which is designed to let non-lifers get re-acclimated to life “outside”). He escaped, broke into a couple’s house, and near-fatally stabbed the man and repeatedly raped the woman.

Not to even speak of the horrendous things that are done in our prisons: do we tell the people who are gang-raped and murdered, even if their sentences were far short of life (let alone death), that “our society has the means to protect against all such threats”? I think their families might feel different.

I hold, in all humility, that we cannot be sure—we can never be sure—that we have neutralized the threat a human being poses to his fellows, until he is dead and buried.

PS. When the Pope speaks of protecting “society” or “the community” he doesn’t mean that you can only execute those who pose a threat to your community’s existence (as Saddam Hussein most definitely posed a threat to the Iraqi democracy, hence his execution). He means protecting the community in the sense of protecting its members—a fundamental facet of his Personalism was that a community has no existence apart from its members. You can execute someone if you think they pose a threat to even one other person, if there is not an alternative. And as I have said, I am not sure there ever is an alternative.

It just so happens, in this particular case, the individual also has a few other sentences in conjunction with the sentence being discussed. Two of those sentences are 30 years each.

Before considering John Paul as naive, consider the fact that he forgave the ‘assassin’ that made an attempt on the Holy Father’s life. Not only did he forgive him, he had several face to face meetings, privately, with the individual. I attribute his reasons as more spiritual, than naive.

I don’t agree that this individual could not be kept from harming others in today’s penal system. Charles Manson makes a good example of a murderer being controlled in the modern system.

 

[Hastrman]

It just so happens, in this particular case, the individual also has a few other sentences in conjunction with the sentence being discussed. Two of those sentences are 30 years each.

Before considering John Paul as naive, consider the fact that he forgave the ‘assassin’ that made an attempt on the Holy Father’s life. Not only did he forgive him, he had several face to face meetings, privately, with the individual. I attribute his reasons as more spiritual, than naive.

I don’t agree that this individual could not be kept from harming others in today’s penal system. Charles Manson makes a good example of a murderer being controlled in the modern system.

In this particular guy’s case, I would not necessarily have a problem with sparing his life, though I don’t know all the particulars. The state of Florida does know all of them, and they’ve decided otherwise—and that is an end of the matter. It’s not my job, nor for that matter is it the Florida bishops’ job, to see to it that the people of Florida are protected. That is the job of Florida’s law enforcement and corrections officials.

The famous quote from “A Few Good Men” vis-a-vis “the blanket of the very freedom I provide” seems, to me, to come into play here.

The Pope’s clemency toward his own assassin is not remotely relevant; it behooves a monarch to show mercy in such a case, whether or not he’s also a bishop. The rule is “forgive wrongs against you, but never those against your people”.

And Manson is a terrible example. Just the amount of fanmail he gets, all by itself, is a colossal embarrassment and scandal to our society.

 

[Ender]

It’s not my job, nor for that matter is it the Florida bishops’ job, to see to it that the people of Florida are protected. That is the job of Florida’s law enforcement and corrections officials.

Florida officials are responsible for the safety of their communities. They also have a duty to impose just punishments on those who commit crimes and we really need to get past the idea that security is the primary objective of punishment. It isn’t. The primary objective is retributive justice, and the need to satisfy that objective should determine the nature of the punishment.

The Pope’s clemency toward his own assassin is not remotely relevant; it behooves a monarch to show mercy in such a case, whether or not he’s also a bishop. The rule is “forgive wrongs against you, but never those against your people”.

Very good point. It is the individual, not the state, who’s duty it is to forgive. The State has the duty to punish.

And Manson is a terrible example. Just the amount of fanmail he gets, all by itself, is a colossal embarrassment and scandal to our society.

This may be the perfect example to highlight the wrongfulness of conceiving that what is needed for protection is more important than what is needed for justice.

Ender

 

[Owlpride]

Did tbe guy in Florida that this thread is supposedly about get the chamber yet?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Did tbe guy in Florida that this thread is supposedly about get the chamber yet?

He is scheduled for September 6.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Florida officials are responsible for the safety of their communities. They also have a duty to impose just punishments on those who commit crimes and we really need to get past the idea that security is the primary objective of punishment. It isn’t. The primary objective is retributive justice, and the need to satisfy that objective should determine the nature of the punishment.
Very good point. It is the individual, not the state, who’s duty it is to forgive. The State has the duty to punish.
This may be the perfect example to highlight the wrongfulness of conceiving that what is needed for protection is more important than what is needed for justice.

Ender

Now we rely on the state’s responsibility and duty? The state says abortion is legal.

 

[Owlpride]

He is scheduled for September 6.

thanks. I’ve gone from midly supporting the death penalty to totally supporting it. I even called our govenor and left a message for him. Yay democracy!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

thanks. I’ve gone from midly supporting the death penalty to totally supporting it. I even called our govenor and left a message for him. Yay democracy!

Where does Christ, or our Church, teach to be exuberant over another person’s death?

 

[Owlpride]

Where does Christ, or our Church, teach to be exuberant over another person’s death?

Where does it teach we have to let MURDERERS get off and not pay what they owe?

I came to this forum to get a better grasp of my faith. I didnt know being Catholic meant you have to be so left wing on so much. I feel like a man without a church.

Your not helping Proddy…count me out of this socialist stuff.

 

[louis91766]

Where does it teach we have to let MURDERERS get off and not pay what they owe?

I came to this forum to get a better grasp of my faith. I didnt know being Catholic meant you have to be so left wing on so much. I feel like a man without a church.

Your not helping Proddy…count me out of this socialist stuff.

The Catholic bishops say they should pay with incarceration but not capital punishment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where does it teach we have to let MURDERERS get off and not pay what they owe?

I came to this forum to get a better grasp of my faith. I didnt know being Catholic meant you have to be so left wing on so much. I feel like a man without a church.

Your not helping Proddy…count me out of this socialist stuff.

I was only trying to get you to see that we shouldn’t ‘rejoice’ over the death of anyone. What is this person has never repented?

BTW, I am a Catholic and feel like I am in agreement with Pope John Paul II, and the bishops in Florida. Your term is offensive and against the rules of these forums. :tsktsk:

 

[Owlpride]

The Catholic bishops say they should pay with incarceration but not capital punishment.

thank you, but I get the feeling in twenty years they’ll be saying that murderers deserve three more chances and a group hug.

 

[Owlpride]

I was only trying to get you to see that we shouldn’t ‘rejoice’ over the death of anyone. What is this person has never repented?

BTW, I am a Catholic and feel like I am in agreement with Pope John Paul II, and the bishops in Florida. Your term is offensive and against the rules of these forums. :tsktsk:

are you kidding me? what did I say that was possibly offensive? are you that sensitive?!

seriously?

 

[Ender]

Now we rely on the state’s responsibility and duty? The state says abortion is legal.

The Church recognizes the duty of the State to punish criminals and its moral right to employ the death penalty. The Church does not recognize the moral right of a State to legalize abortion.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church recognizes the duty of the State to punish criminals and its moral right to employ the death penalty. The Church does not recognize the moral right of a State to legalize abortion.

Ender

That argument seems to contradict in my opinion. Use the duties of the state to support particular views, while denying the state’s right to legislate laws. I agree that abortion is an unjust law, but I believe there are several, to many, unjust laws that some don’t recognize for some reason.

 

[Ender]

That argument seems to contradict in my opinion. Use the duties of the state to support particular views, while denying the state’s right to legislate laws.

Not at all. The State does have certain duties which the Church recognizes. The State also has certain rights but the Church does not recognize all that a State may legally do as being moral. It’s not that complicated. A State has a legal right to permit abortion but not a moral right to do so, but a State has both a legal and a moral right to employ capital punishment. Moreover, the Church recognizes that a State has an obligation to employ just punishments against criminals … and since she explicitly recognizes the authority of the State to use capital punishment, it can only be because she judges it to be a just punishment.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not at all. The State does have certain duties which the Church recognizes. The State also has certain rights but the Church does not recognize all that a State may legally do as being moral. It’s not that complicated. A State has a legal right to permit abortion but not a moral right to do so, but a State has both a legal and a moral right to employ capital punishment. Moreover, the Church recognizes that a State has an obligation to employ just punishments against criminals … and since she explicitly recognizes the authority of the State to use capital punishment, it can only be because she judges it to be a just punishment.

Ender

Even though with today’s penal systems the occasion that one needs to execute a prisoner is very rare, if not non-existent?

 

[Ender]

Even though with today’s penal systems the occasion that one needs to execute a prisoner is very rare, if not non-existent?

This does not address the issue I’ve raised. Even if security was the primary objective of punishment (but it isn’t) and even if society could be adequately protected without capital punishment (which is very debatable) we would still have to talk about justice. Are we concerned about justice or not? If we are then we have to acknowledge that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime - whether or not it is necessary for protection.

Protection is a secondary objective. Justice is a mandatory obligation.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

My brain hurts when I read through Prodigal’s arguments. When Ender provides 20+ statements from past popes and catechisms illustrating the Church’s support for capital punishment (which Prodigal dismisses as Ender’s private (mis)interpretation), Ender is accused by Prodigal of cherry picking. But that would only make sense if Prodigal could then at least be able to provide at least a handful, say 5 or so, statements from popes and catechisms throughout Church history supporting his view. The point being that the only statements that support Prodigal’s position have only been made recently in the scope of church history, which is what the problem is. Church teaching regarding faith and morals cannot change. And it appears now that even Prodigal understands that this is a change in teaching, which is why Prodigal is challenging whether the Church’s position on the death penalty even constitutes doctrine at all.