Americans Back Death Penalty by Gas or Electrocution If No Needle: Poll

[Kelt]

Are you suggesting that those who don’t doubt their faith and are not unsure about what it says are as bad as Islamic fundamentalists? This goes a good bit too far as it undoubtedly includes most of the clergy and all of those martyred for the faith. You don’t seem to have much doubt in the correctness of your position on this issue. Is that a sign of mindless intransigence or simply confidence?

I have studied this issue for a while now and have a very high level of confidence in my understanding of what the church has taught and teaches today. To be well read in a subject in no way makes one similar to an Islamic fundamentalist. If you are confident that your position is correct then engage in the debate, but it is not useful to disparage a person and simply dismiss his argument.

Ender

No of course being well-read in your subject does not make you similar to an Islamic fundamentalist. In any religion there are fundamentalists who don’t doubt their faith and are not unsure about what it says…and there lie the dangers. If being so sure that one’s right leads one to do cruel and violent things, then in my book I’m fairly confident that’s wrong. For many periods of time Christians and Muslims have lived peacefully side by side ( one of the teachings of Muhammed is to respect people of The Book). Then came an upsurge in an uncompromising strict version of one side or other and there was a breach of that peace. In times gone by there were Christian fanatics who thought the only good Muslim was a dead one and we had crusades. Now we have a cruel uncompromising section of Islamic faith coming to the fore. I think we should constantly question ourselves and not follow blindly - you said yourself that the church has never claimed all her doctrines were accurate. My example of burning heretics still stands - enough people in the church must have felt that it was wrong in order for it to change but you can bet there were some who clung to the old ways and produced theological backing for their arguments.
Yes, I suppose I do feel pretty sure about my position on THIS issue…altho’ others, no, I listen and read and think… (and I’m interested in what people say on this forum.)Why this issue? I’ve worked in special schools with kids whose lives have been chaotic and appalling and my father was a prison visitor for ‘lifers’ when I was growing up. Nothing’s black and white. Surely Jesus was there for the dispossessed…I thought the church should be too, but you make it sound clinical and judgemental. You believe a person will ultimately be judged- why the need for vengeance? I admit I have been really and truly shocked by some of the posts on this thread.
If the church said you must decide on this issue for yourself, what would you believe to be right? What I wonder about is why do you need someone else ( and I’m willing to bet there have been theological arguments in the church about this issue of punishment) to decide for you? Guide you, maybe, but dictate?
Is it possible that Pope Francis could change this ruling on capital punishment? I would have thought that he would council compassion always, but how do doctrines get changed?

 

[markomalley]

I was hoping that this would lead to the abolishment of the death penalty but of course it would seem that many Americans are too stubborn to change our ways.

A couple of things to think about:

Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II-46-2

Also, on the subject of avenging the wronged:

Man resists harm by defending himself against wrongs, lest they be inflicted on him, or he avenges those which have already been inflicted on him, with the intention, not of harming, but of removing the harm done. And this belongs to vengeance, for Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that by “vengeance we resist force, or wrong, and in general whatever is obscure” (i.e. derogatory), either by self-defense or by avenging it."

(And note the following)

Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances.

S. Th. II-II-108-2

Just something to consider…

 

[Ender]

Surely Jesus was there for the dispossessed…I thought the church should be too, but you make it sound clinical and judgmental.

I think most differences of opinion on this subject stem primarily from different beliefs about the purpose and meaning of punishment. It seems that the current understanding is that punishment itself is wrong, that modern societies have progressed beyond the need for it, and that it should be avoided if at all possible.

In contrast to this, the church teaches that it is a matter of justice, that crime (sin) deserves punishment as action leads to reaction. That this is seen as useless vengeance today shows not compassion but the loss of a sense of man’s responsibility for his actions and the concept of sin itself.

You believe a person will ultimately be judged- why the need for vengeance?

As there is a need for justice there is a need for retribution.*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas)

I admit I have been really and truly shocked by some of the posts on this thread.

If you assume those posters are miserable, vindictive people it would be easy to dismiss their opinions. If, however, you assume they are, like yourself, trying to do the right thing then the worst you can think of them is that they are mistaken, but it puts their comments in an entirely different light. Attack the arguments, not the people who make them.

If the church said you must decide on this issue for yourself, what would you believe to be right?

If the church took no position then I would assume this was an entirely political issue, to be decided on purely practical grounds, and devoid of any moral choices.

What I wonder about is why do you need someone else ( and I’m willing to bet there have been theological arguments in the church about this issue of punishment) to decide for you? Guide you, maybe, but dictate?

If I am free to make my own moral choices then the concept of morality is a sham. Either a moral code objectively exists beyond my personal opinion or it doesn’t exist at all, but it cannot be dependent in any way on what I believe to be true.

Is it possible that Pope Francis could change this ruling on capital punishment?

No, no more so that it was possible for JPII to have changed it (it can develop but it cannot reverse itself).

I would have thought that he would council compassion always…

This goes back to my comments on the nature and need of punishment. It is a mistake to believe that compassion and mercy trump justice. These are all virtues and one virtue cannot cancel out another.

… but how do doctrines get changed?

That’s a topic for another thread.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I think most differences of opinion on this subject stem primarily from different beliefs about the purpose and meaning of punishment. It seems that the current understanding is that punishment itself is wrong, that modern societies have progressed beyond the need for it, and that it should be avoided if at all possible.

That’s a load of rubbish. No country in the world has abolished punishment and never will. That’s the strawman you constantly rely on. They have abolished the death penalty because as St John Paul said… it is ‘cruel and unnecessary’. Punishment remains in every one of those countries who have got rid of the death penalty. Your silly argument is like saying food is necessary for life. Chocolate is food therefore chocolate is necessary for life. It’s a logical fallacy.

 

[Ender]

That’s a load of rubbish. No country in the world has abolished punishment and never will. That’s the strawman you constantly rely on.

That you could possibly believe this is my argument I think demonstrates that your anger at me has inhibited your ability to understand what I’m actually saying.

Ender

 

[Bklynguy]

I agree! It’s so sad that we are one of the few remaining “civilized” counties with the death penalty. There is no humane way to end a life. These criminals still have a constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Cruel and unusual? The convict who was executed in Oklahoma was convicted of forcible oral sodomy, rape, murder in the first degree, assault, kidnapping, and burglary. Him taking 30-minutes to expire after his injection is HARDLY cruel and unusual.

 

[LongingSoul]

That you could possibly believe this is my argument I think demonstrates that your anger at me has inhibited your ability to understand what I’m actually saying.

Ender

Ha ha. I think that I’ve read enough of your posts to know more than I ever wanted to know about what you are saying. Years and years of it.

You said… I think most differences of opinion on this subject stem primarily from different beliefs about the purpose and meaning of punishment. It seems that the current understanding is that punishment itself is wrong, that modern societies have progressed beyond the need for it, and that it should be avoided if at all possible.

Your opinion is wrong. The differences of opinion stem from a type of fundamentalism that won’t accept that the strong discomfort with ‘killing someone in the name of God’, is a movement of the Holy Spirit in mens hearts in the war against the culture of death… not a movement of ‘ignorant moderns.’

The last 4 Popes including Paul VI who removed the death penalty from Vatican penal law, have expressed this movement of the Holy Spirit against using death as a penalty, emphatically.

The Catechism teaching was not a sudden inclusion of limitations to resorting to the death penalty that arose from Papal ‘opinion’…Human prudence with use of death as a penalty has been part of penal law since time began. The Catechism teaching reminds us of this in the age of modern fundamentalism.

 

[Ender]

You said… “I think most differences of opinion on this subject stem primarily from different beliefs about the purpose and meaning of punishment. It seems that the current understanding is that punishment itself is wrong, that modern societies have progressed beyond the need for it, and that it should be avoided if at all possible.”

Your opinion is wrong.

Then again, maybe not…For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved* by sin**;* (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

Ha ha. I think that I’ve read enough of your posts to know more than I ever wanted to know about what you are saying. Years and years of it.

Then you should have remembered that I rarely assert something without having a citation to support it.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Then again, maybe not…For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved** by sin**; (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

You again, as always, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, endlessly looped, etcetera etcetera… misrepresent StJP in regards his stance on the death penalty.

I quote him regarding the death penalty here…

*“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” *(Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

*“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” *(Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

 

[Ender]

You again, as always, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, endlessly looped, etcetera etcetera… misrepresent StJP in regards his stance on the death penalty.

Please, at least deal with the particular point being discussed, which in this instance was not the death penalty but societies’ understanding of the nature of punishment. On that issue, what JPII said was directly relevant and my citation of his comment can hardly be called misrepresentation.

You have let your dislike for me get the better of you. Your comments are unpleasant and largely irrelevant; if what I say offends you so much why not just hide my comments and ignore them?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Please, at least deal with the particular point being discussed, which in this instance was not the death penalty but societies’ understanding of the nature of punishment. On that issue, what JPII said was directly relevant and my citation of his comment can hardly be called misrepresentation.

You have let your dislike for me get the better of you. Your comments are unpleasant and largely irrelevant; if what I say offends you so much why not just hide my comments and ignore them?

Ender

Have your discussion about punishment in a thread dedicated to punishment in general and not a thread treating of the ending of the death penalty. If someone begins a thread to discuss the flaws in overindulging in chocolate and there is a contributor endlessly banging on about how food is a necessary part of the diet … implying that chocolate should never disappear from the diet because it is food… the good and moral message about the negative impact of the unreasonable use of chocolate, is sabotaged. Why would someone want to do that I ask myself. I can only think that the poor sod is trapped in addiction by the lust for chocolate.

No one who is on any of these death penalty threads believes punishment in general is cruel and unnecessary. No one believes that justice can exist without punishment for crime. Punishment is not the issue here and citing STJP when he clearly was emphatic about ending the death penalty in the world, is completely irrelevant to anything.

 

[adawgj]

It makes no sense to me that there’d be a shortage of the lethal drug. Truly? How many people are being sentenced to the death-penalty every year?

From what I heard it’s more about how the drug is injected that makes the death more torturous than quick.

 

[Ender]

Have your discussion about punishment in a thread dedicated to punishment in general and not a thread treating of the ending of the death penalty.

Unless one understands the justification for punishment it isn’t possible to reach a valid conclusion about the use of capital … um, punishment. Most people, for example, still do not recognize that the primary objective of all punishment is retribution, not protection. Without that understanding how is someone to make an informed decision about whether a particular punishment is appropriate? One cannot have an intelligent conversation about capital punishment in particular without understanding punishment in general.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Unless one understands the justification for punishment it isn’t possible to reach a valid conclusion about the use of capital … um, punishment. Most people, for example, still do not recognize that the primary objective of all punishment is retribution, not protection. Without that understanding how is someone to make an informed decision about whether a particular punishment is appropriate? One cannot have an intelligent conversation about capital punishment in particular without understanding punishment in general.

Ender

Of course people understand the nature of punishment. Most of us older people have raised a bunch of kids into adulthood having faithfully trusted in the role of punishment for wrongdoing, in the development of a well rounded person. Your inability to accept the teachings of the Church in the business of eliminating the death penalty, leads you to believe people must be dumb dumb fools. The death penalty is a type of punishment just like chocolate is a type of food. It’s use is conditional upon the specific purpose it serves to the common good and its best left out of the diet if it causes more harm than good.

 

[Ender]

Your inability to accept the teachings of the Church in the business of eliminating the death penalty…

I accept all of the doctrines of the church on this issue. What I regularly dispute are arguments suggesting that those doctrines are opposed to the use of capital punishment. As I keep pointing out, the current opposition is prudential, not doctrinal.

… leads you to believe people must be dumb dumb fools.

No, actually I would consider it a sin against charity to believe that.

The death penalty is a type of punishment just like chocolate is a type of food. It’s use is conditional upon the specific purpose it serves to the common good and its best left out of the diet if it causes more harm than good.

This is as good an explanation of the prudential nature of the opposition to capital punishment as one could want. It perfectly accords with what Cardinal Dulles said and what I also believe:The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I accept all of the doctrines of the church on this issue. What I regularly dispute are arguments suggesting that those doctrines are opposed to the use of capital punishment. As I keep pointing out, the current opposition is prudential, not doctrinal.
No, actually I would consider it a sin against charity to believe that.
This is as good an explanation of the prudential nature of the opposition to capital punishment as one could want. It perfectly accords with what Cardinal Dulles said and what I also believe:The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *
Ender

The death penalty has been gone from the diet of loads of countries for a long, long time without need for the Church to step in and make any ‘prudential judgements’. A decision about its value to society comes from a different place than the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If it weren’t for crazy Catholics ranting that ‘the death penalty is ours I tell you. God gave it to our Father Noah and said this must never be taken away from My children. It’s your precious gift to wield so you be like Me!’… the Church wouldn’t even need to be saying anything on the matter.

The Church has never been against the abolition of the death penalty and if you need your American cardinals to break it to you gently with their prudential judgement explanations, that’s not because the rest of us need that level of pandering to. People are just naturally against the death penalty because it is cruel and unnecessary and we have better ways of doing justice. End of story.

 

[Ender]

People are just naturally against the death penalty because it is cruel …

This is a good illustration of one of those arguments I said earlier I disputed because it goes beyond prudential opposition. If capital punishment is indeed cruel then why does the church (at least theoretically) allow it and why has she always recognized the right of states to employ it? There are only two possibilities: either the church supports cruelty or your assertion is mistaken.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is a good illustration of one of those arguments I said earlier I disputed because it goes beyond prudential opposition. If capital punishment is indeed cruel then why does the church (at least theoretically) allow it and why has she always recognized the right of states to employ it? There are only two possibilities: either the church supports cruelty or your assertion is mistaken.

Ender

Seriously, this has always been a problem in you, not with anyone else. In the current threads on gun control there is this problem some are having with distinguishing inalienable rights from auxilliary rights. The right to bear arms as taken from the English Bill of Rights is described as an auxilliary right. That is, it serves a greater good and is conditional upon the quality of its service. That is what the right of the states to use capital punishment is. An auxilliary right. They have a right to use it if it serves the common good and they have a right to abolish it if it is detrimental to the common good.

Chocolate serves a lovely purpose in the diet… but to some people, those who get migranes or have diabetes say, it is unhealthy and sickening. To my little spaniel it is downright lethal. Chocolate is a type of food that serves a type of purpose. It is not a staple and it can be eliminated from the diet without any loss of nutrition.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP People are just naturally against the death penalty because it is cruel and unnecessary and we have better ways of doing justice. End of story.

The opposite is the case.

86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim’s Family Members Support Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

 

[Ender]

Seriously, this has always been a problem in you, not with anyone else. In the current threads on gun control there is this problem some are having with distinguishing inalienable rights from auxilliary rights.

If you wish to argue that it is bad policy to use capital punishment then that is a reasonable position, but when you go beyond that to condemn the act itself as cruel then you are no longer distinguishing when it may be right to use it but condemning it in all circumstances, which is a good bit further than the church has gone.

We are told one may never do evil that good may come of it, yet if you are right that capital punishment is cruel, how is it that the church allows it even theoretically? How can she acknowledge the right of states to commit evil, or are you suggesting that cruelty is not evil? Be content with asserting that capital punishment should not be used because it is a mistake to do so. You cannot assert that it is evil without contradicting church doctrine.

Ender