Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Ender]

It is inherently a Church teaching because of its source.

Not at all. In addition to being the head of the Church the pope is also a private person and his opinions as such are just that, opinions, and they are not binding.

It is also widely accepted as such by the Princes of the Church.

Perhaps you should tell this to the USCCB as they don’t agree with you - as I have several times pointed out.

You reject a church teaching, fine, accept that. Why rehash Protestant Reformation? Or worse, try to undermine the inherent Primacy of the faith?

I reject it because it is not a Church teaching and I am free to form my own opinion. My understanding of this “teaching” is the same as Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB so I see no reason to doubt it.

Ender

 

[TMC]

I don’t know anything about the statistics as to whether or not the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime. But I seem to frequently come across news items wherein a paroled murderer has killed again. And I have known personally of families of murder victims who must make repeated trips to be present at parole hearings in order to testify against the parole of a murderer.

Very rarely does a life sentence actually mean life. Once a person is convicted, they come under the jurisdiction of the correctional system. (A system, which ironically, hardly ever “corrects” anything.)

The solution to this problem is to give life sentences without the possiblity of parole where the death penalty is currently applied. Several states have life without parole.

Father Benedict Groeschel has recommended for very serious offenses that the criminal be locked up 24/7.

The only problem is that the courts have held that criminals cannot be locked up 24/7. Further, they have access to visitors and to other prisoners and to the prison guards … and the really incorrigible prisoners attack the guards and other workers and volunteers. And they work through visitors to attack people on the outside.

So, what can you do to protect innocent people against criminals in prison who desire nothing more than to kill and maim as often as they can?

I guess I missed some court opinions, who says you can’t lock people up 24/7? I agree that violence in prisons is a real problem. I have always believed that an out of control maniac who cannot be stopped from killing even in a high security prison was the only situation that matches the current Church teaching that the death penalty is allowable only “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Catechism 2267. (I think that as a practical matter in the US today there is no situation that justifies the death penalty, but I will grant that there is a theoretical possibility.)

As far as costs goes, it sickens me to hear Catholics suggest that there is pricetag beyond which a human life loses its value. All humans are a reflection of God and born with the dignity of Christ. That dignity is inseparable from the human condition. How can it ever be appropriate to kill a person to save public funds?

 

[JimG]

The solution to this problem is to give life sentences without the possiblity of parole where the death penalty is currently applied. Several states have life without parole.

Yes. But for some reason this seems to be a very difficult thing to do. I know of one case where a person was convicted of four murders, and sentenced to four life sentences, to be served consecutively. One might think that with 4 consecutive life sentences a person would remain in jail for the rest of his life. Yet this inmate recently came up for a parole hearing—his 4th parole hearing, and will have further parole hearings in the future. Most juries don’t realize that life doesn’t mean life.

 

[TMC]

Yes. But for some reason this seems to be a very difficult thing to do. I know of one case where a person was convicted of four murders, and sentenced to four life sentences, to be served consecutively. One might think that with 4 consecutive life sentences a person would remain in jail for the rest of his life. Yet this inmate recently came up for a parole hearing—his 4th parole hearing, and will have further parole hearings in the future. Most juries don’t realize that life doesn’t mean life.

So the answer is to kill him? Our worldly government fails us in many ways. To address its failings by killing its citizens cannot be a moral choice.

 

[pnewton]

To address its failings by killing its citizens cannot be a moral choice.

It most definitely can be a moral choice, if it is society’s citizens it is protecting. Historically, the Church has always allowed the morality of the state’s legitimate use of the death penalty. Also, I do not know that one can say a murderer is the result of society’s failings. Unless one believes in a Utopian Brave New World, we will always have those who exercise their free will to do evil.

 

[JimG]

So the answer is to kill him? Our worldly government fails us in many ways. To address its failings by killing its citizens cannot be a moral choice.

I’m not advocating the death penalty. I’m advocating the protection of society from persons who will kill again. In many jurisdictions, once a verdict is rendered by a court, and sentence imposed, the inmate is entirely under the control of the Department of Corrections, which may decide on early release, the type of prison, and whether someone is released on parole, among other things.

Also, it seems that many prisons are under the effective control of the inmates. If society wishes to have effective control of prisons, I expect that we will need to send fewer people to prisons, not more.

 

[SoCalRC]

My understanding of this “teaching” is the same as Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB so I see no reason to doubt it.

I’m sorry, that is false. Then Cardinal Ratzinger asserted that disagreement with the Pope on some issues, including the death penalty, does not, in of itself, render you unworthy for communion.

In ellaborating on the point, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, acknowledged the Christian obligation of concience, but also reiterated both the concepts of primacy and obedience.

So far, you have asserted that the Catechism is wrong, that the Pope, in an encyclical, overstepped his authority, and that you are utterly free from the obligation of obedience. So it is probably not surprising that you are now asserting that you hold the one true interpretation of Church writings…

 

[SoCalRC]

After I read your post, I took a quich check of murder rates in Texas.

disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

It looks pretty significant to me. I guess everyone has to decide for themselves.

Well, the assertion by some researchers is that aggressive use of the death penalty brutilizes a culture, which is why Texas has horrific violent crime, while 10 of the 12 states without the death penalty have violent crime rates below the national average. Personally, I am not convinced. Genesis315 seems to have looked at more of the reserach. Of the 18 most recent studies I can find on the death penalties effect on violent crime, 12 conclude that there is no measurable effect at all. Of the remaining 6, 4 conclude that it increases violent crime, and 2 conclude that it serves as a deterent (only one claims that it is a significant deterent and that study was not able to be reproduced at either the University of Chicago or U.C. Davis).

I think that the most reasonable conclussion is that people committing crimes of passion are not thinking about consequences, and the broken minds that commit repeat attrocities are incapable of self regulation, so any effect that the death penalty has either way is so insignificant as to be effectively unmeasurable in current data.

However, you are very wise to be suspicious of statistics because they are so easily abused. Look at the original reference. In the opinion piece Lott asserts that the ABA claims racial bias but his data shows no “racial bias”. But look at his ‘blog’, where he elaborates:

The problem is that the gap between blacks and their share of executions and murders has gotten larger over time. This was originally in the op-ed, but got cut for space constraints. (The numbers before 1980 are pretty meaningless because even when an execution took place, there was only one execution a year.)

He even makes a chart of his data:

bp0.blogger.com/_2SW2_lbrxgY/RyuUcICPSZI/AAAAAAAAACQ/bSiKKe-485E/s1600-h/Picture+4.png

Now, statistics 101 would indicate that NO racial bias would mean that, within certain deviation, race is proportionally represented. But while he is claiming that his data disproves an assertion of racial bias, he is actually claiming that there is racial bias and it is getting ‘worse’. He is claiming that blacks are being ‘under executed’.

Now, there are some good reasons to assert that his comparison itself is altogether worthless, but let’s take it at face value. There is a racial bias, and it is getting worse. But what, exactly, is the bias? Most black homicides are fellow blacks, so does the data indicate that we seek the death penalty less often for black victims? That would seem to match the ABA survey data, which shows that we are far more inclined to seek the death penalty when the victim is white and of a higher socioeconomic status and dramatically more likely to seek the death penalty when the the perpetrator is black and the victim is white than vice versa.

But, regardless of a hypothesis, we still have a clear case where someone is pandering to a certain set of beliefs (and I think baser instincts) with bad data which shows the opposite of his assertion. This happens a lot, and since most people do not really have the training to distinguish statistics from bullistics, they tend to simply use statistics as arguments of convenience with no real belief in the underlying sciences or methodology. That is, ‘good’ statistics are statistics that agree with a pre-held believe, ‘bad’ statistics are any that disagree. Raw data, methodology, etc. are not even considered.

 

[TMC]

… Of the 18 most recent studies I can find on the death penalties effect on violent crime, 12 conclude that there is no measurable effect at all. Of the remaining 6, 4 conclude that it increases violent crime, and 2 conclude that it serves as a deterent (only one claims that it is a significant deterent and that study was not able to be reproduced at either the University of Chicago or U.C. Davis).

I think that the most reasonable conclussion is that people committing crimes of passion are not thinking about consequences, and the broken minds that commit repeat attrocities are incapable of self regulation, so any effect that the death penalty has either way is so insignificant as to be effectively unmeasurable in current data. …

Now, statistics 101 would indicate that NO racial bias would mean that, within certain deviation, race is proportionally represented. But while he is claiming that his data disproves an assertion of racial bias, he is actually claiming that there is racial bias and it is getting ‘worse’. He is claiming that blacks are being ‘under executed’.

I think that most criminals are undeterred by the prospect of the death penalty. I also think that the racial bias presents as bias about the race of the victim. That is, the death penalty is more likely to be applied when the victim is perceived to be of more value to society (which often leads to the death penalty when the victim is white).

These are good **secular **arguments against the death penalty, as is the fact that many on death row have later been exonerated. But Catholics should only need the fact that all human life is sacred from conception to natural death.

 

[pnewton]

Well, the assertion by some researchers is that aggressive use of the death penalty brutilizes a culture, which is why Texas has horrific violent crime, while 10 of the 12 states without the death penalty have violent crime rates below the national average…

You calim to understand why I am skeptical of statistics but continue to throw out more statements. What is the difference between you and Lott. If you claim he only considers that which supports his belief, is that not what you are doing. I looked at the 2005 homicide rate by state. Texas is doing fine, hardly “horrific”. I would expect that more rural states would have a lower rate, more urban states a higher rate.

The stuff I linked does not compare apples to oranges but was a linear study of one place.

 

[Ender]

So far, you have asserted that …

It is acceptable to disagree with my position; it is something less than acceptable to misrepresent it.

… the Catechism is wrong

No. I have said that section 2267 is the prudential opinion of JPII and that I disagree with his opinion.

… the Pope, in an encyclical, overstepped his authority

No. I have said nothing at all about this. You made this charge in an earlier post and are now citing yourself. This is pure invention.

… you are utterly free from the obligation of obedience.

No. Obedience does not oblige us to accept someone’s opinion even if that someone is pope.

… you are now asserting that you hold the one true interpretation of Church writings

No. I have quoted documents from cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB and have accepted their explanations.

All four of your assertions are wrong. Good thing this wasn’t an exam.

Ender

 

[TMC]

No. I have said that section 2267 is the prudential opinion of JPII and that I disagree with his opinion.

Ok, excuse my ignorance if I am wrong, but JPII did not write the catechism, did he? I thought it was written by an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops over several years time, or maybe it was a commision appointed by the Synod? Either way it certainly can’t be reduced to JPII’s personal opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Obedience is not an issue in this instance. Most laity have not taken a vow of obedience, nor is this an ecclesial issue. There has been no declaration that discussion is to end, as in the case of women priest. Obedience is moot.

 

[fix]

I’m sorry, that is false. Then Cardinal Ratzinger asserted that disagreement with the Pope on some issues, including the death penalty, does not, in of itself, render you unworthy for communion.

And why would that be? Because it is not objectively sinful and it would not be a source of scandal.

In ellaborating on the point, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, acknowledged the Christian obligation of concience, but also reiterated both the concepts of primacy and obedience.

Please show us where this can be found? Why would cardinal Ratzinger say a Catholic is bound by a culpably erroneous conscience when they have recourse to true teaching?

 

[melensdad]

Ok, excuse my ignorance if I am wrong, but JPII did not write the catechism, did he? I thought it was written by an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops over several years time, or maybe it was a commision appointed by the Synod? Either way it certainly can’t be reduced to JPII’s personal opinion.

The cover of my copy of the CCC states: “revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II”

The inside cover sleeve in part reads:
. . .* The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith . . .

The Catechism of the Catholic Church came about as a result of a proposal at a Synod of Bishops in 1985. It appeared first in French in 1992 . . . *

 

[Ender]

Ok, excuse my ignorance if I am wrong, but JPII did not write the catechism, did he? I thought it was written by an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops over several years time, or maybe it was a commision appointed by the Synod? Either way it certainly can’t be reduced to JPII’s personal opinion.

I really don’t think what I said is all that complicated: section 2267 of the Catechism reflects the opinion of JPII. This is not at all the same as saying the entire Catechism is nothing more than JPII’s personal opinion. Let’s at least be precise on that much.

This is not a position I pulled out of thin air. The clearest explanation of the nature of 2267 was given by Cardinal Avery Dulles in 2001 in an article titled Catholicism and Capital Punishment where he wrote:

*“Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. 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.”

*There it is - this teaching is not doctrine. It is a prudential conclusion, an opinion. The doctrine is unchanged.

Ender

 

[DaveBj]

I suppose.
I am just curious: who should throw the first stone?

The properly constituted government authorities. They are the ones who are charged with administering God’s wrath on evil-doers, according to Romans 13.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I really don’t think what I said is all that complicated: section 2267 of the Catechism reflects the opinion of JPII. This is not at all the same as saying the entire Catechism is nothing more than JPII’s personal opinion. Let’s at least be precise on that much.

This is not a position I pulled out of thin air. The clearest explanation of the nature of 2267 was given by Cardinal Avery Dulles in 2001 in an article titled Catholicism and Capital Punishment where he wrote:

"Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. 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."

Hi Ender,
Can it be that Cardinal Avery Dulles is stating in different words, that which I have been asserting, namely:
The death penalty may be applied where it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, then the infliction thereof is a breach of faith and morals.
The judgement of whether it is necessary in some ‘advanced’ societies though is a matter of prudential judgement, and clearly, the judgement is, that those countries that still use the death penalty would seem to be less than advanced, and perhaps even primitive.
The implication of the first part is that necessity does not imply any requirement for the state to impliment the wrath of G_d. The necessity is purely a matter of protecting the population from a dangerous creature. It is clear from the item, that implimenting the wrath of G_d is no longer seen as a requirement, further, it is seen as contrary to faith and morals.
It is not for Man to impliment the wrath of G_d. That is entirely the privilige of G_d.
Keeping the population safe from a dangerous creature though is a different matter.
A rabid dog needs to be safely confined until the prognosis can be established. Then when it is decided that there is no cure, and that further confinement will only cause greater suffering, then the rabid dog is given a merciful release.
It is a matter of grave judgement whether a dangerous creature, which used to be a human being, is still human, thus whether euthanasia would be appropriate.

There it is - this teaching is not doctrine. It is a prudential conclusion, an opinion. The doctrine is unchanged.

Ender

The teaching is in two parts.
The first part, which states that the death penalty should not be applied when not absolutely necessary, is a matter of faith and morals.
The second part, which endeavours to judge whether it is actually necessary, is a matter of prudential judgement.

 

[TMC]

Obedience is not an issue in this instance. Most laity have not taken a vow of obedience, nor is this an ecclesial issue. There has been no declaration that discussion is to end, as in the case of women priest. Obedience is moot.

I agree that Catholics whose well-formed conscience leads them to dissent from a teaching of the Church are bound thereby to dissent from that teaching. The issue is in pretending they are not dissenting.

 

[TMC]

I really don’t think what I said is all that complicated: section 2267 of the Catechism reflects the opinion of JPII. This is not at all the same as saying the entire Catechism is nothing more than JPII’s personal opinion. Let’s at least be precise on that much.

This is not a position I pulled out of thin air. The clearest explanation of the nature of 2267 was given by Cardinal Avery Dulles in 2001 in an article titled Catholicism and Capital Punishment where he wrote:

*"**Like the Pope, the bishops ***do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. 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."

There it is - this teaching is not doctrine. It is a prudential conclusion, an opinion. The doctrine is unchanged.

Ender

What Dulles clearly said was that this is not just the Pope’s opinion but also the opinion of the Bishops. It is a prudential conclusion concerning faith and morals. Which makes it similar in nature to the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception, or gay rights. Or, if you prefer something slightly less emotional, the belief in monogenism, or any other issue contained in the catechism but not infallibly declared.