Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[SoCalRC]

However, if John Lott’s argument, as quoted in the first post of this thread, is correct, then it seems very clear that the Church may want to reconsider its considered position.

Why? We have strong statistical evidence to suggest that ready access to birth control reduces abortion rates world wide. Should we change our position on that?

For that matter, abortion appears to have a measurable impact on crime. Should we change our position on that?

Reading the CCC, it seems that the purpose of the Church’s general opposition to the modern application of the death penalty is because there are other ways to preserve the safety of the state. But it may be that the Church has used incorrect data to come to that conclusion. If so, then it really would be valid for the Church to reconsider its position.

I’d suggest more reading. EVANGELIUM VITAE and several of JPII’s books would be a good start. Then look at the first centuries of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, I was not being abudantly clear. What I meant was that Catholics are only free to support the death penalty under the conditions listed in 2, not that they may not ever support the use of the death penalty.
.

Fair enough. Then do you understand that it is under this condition 2 that some of us differ with opinions from individual clergy. I am not so arrogant as to think my opinion is more important and rely on others in most areas. In this one area though, I believe I have spent more time in close contact to these rare exceptions than any of the church leaders issuing statements. I believe my prudential judgement is of some value.

 

[dudleysharp]

There have been many extensive studies on this for nearly 100 years. There is no good statistical basis for claiming that the death penalty acts as a deterent to crime. In fact, one has to cherry pick, as Mr. Lott appears to have done, to even create the illusion of a statistical correllation.

Actually, there have been 12 recent studies, inclusive of their strong defenses, showing strong statistical support for the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

This should not be surprising, as all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There are no exceptions.

 

[dudleysharp]

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is quite clear. It is wrong in just about every case.

Actually, a just death penalty is not wrong or a sin. The Catholic teaching on this is based upon prudential judgement. Individual Catholics are free to use their own conscience in support or rejection of the death penalty.

Furthermore, based upon PJPII’s defense of society proposition, The Church should be calling for more executions.

Please review:

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors

homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

If it can be reasonably shown that the Death Penalty does save lives, then are we wrong to support it?

Pope John Paul II’s defending society position never even considered the reality that the death penalty was a greater defender of society than lesser sentences. The Pope’s position results in sparing murderers lives at the cost of more innocents murdered.

In reality, a defending society position calls for more imposition of the death penalty, not less.

We know that living murderers murder and harm again: They murder in prison, they murder after release, and they murder after escape. Executed murderers never murder again.

We can speculate about the possibility of innocent people being executed, but there is no proof of that having happened in the U.S. since 1900. In contrast, we know many people have been murdered by known murderers who we’ve allowed to live.

The death penalty also serves as a deterrent. 12 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, confirm this.

Anecdotally, virtually all of those convicted of capital murder seek a life sentence rather than death. While they were not deterrered, it does tell us that murderers fear death more than life. If nearly 100% of that group fears death more than life, it is no stretch to contemplate that potential murderers may also fear death more than life and are therefore more likely to be deterred by a death sentence than a life one.

Some speculate that a life sentence is more severe than a death sentence. I understand that sentiment, but, those who know best, those facing the prospect of receiving the death penalty or those already sentenced to death, tell us that death is much more feared than life.

 

[TMC]

Fair enough. Then do you understand that it is under this condition 2 that some of us differ with opinions from individual clergy. I am not so arrogant as to think my opinion is more important and rely on others in most areas. In this one area though, I believe I have spent more time in close contact to these rare exceptions than any of the church leaders issuing statements. I believe my prudential judgement is of some value.

I’ll grant that there is room for disagreement on when the death penalty is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” But I can not back away from the catechism’s statement that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

So, yes, the extent to which the death penalty needs to be used to protect human life is open to debate. Personally, I agree with the catechism that it is rarely, if ever, required.

Using the death penalty as a punishment, to extract vengence, or to reduce the costs of administering the criminal justice system is not moral. Killing for cost reduction is no more moral in the criminal context then in the medical context. Killing as an act of vengence or punishment is arguably even worse.

 

[Ender]

However, if John Lott’s argument, as quoted in the first post of this thread, is correct, then it seems very clear that the Church may want to reconsider its considered position.

Take your thought a little bit further. The prohibition on the death penalty in the catechism is based solely on the claim that it is not needed to protect society but, as your question suggests, what if we find that in fact the reverse is true? What if we find that society is better protected by more executions, not fewer? Given that protecting society is now the sole measure controlling their use, if more executions provide better protection then how could the Church not reverse her position?

If morality is unchanging in all places and all times then you cannot go from allowing executions then to disallowing them and then back again, therefore the consideration of public safety only cannot be a sufficient guide to answer the moral question of capital punishment. The problem here is that a decision to execute or not depending on which approach provides society with better protection is not a moral issue at all; it is a merely practical one.

You don’t have to change your opinion on executions to see that the basis given in the catechism for eliminating them is flawed.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Actually, a just death penalty is not wrong or a sin. The Catholic teaching on this is based upon prudential judgement. Individual Catholics are free to use their own conscience in support or rejection of the death penalty.

Furthermore, based upon PJPII’s defense of society proposition, The Church should be calling for more executions.

Please review:

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors

homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

I think Catholics can use their conscience in deciding whether or not to follow any Catholic teachings. But to remain in concert with the Church’s teachings on the respect to be afforded to human life, the death penalty may only be used when there is no other means of protecting human life. I think both the synod that developed the catechism, and John Paul who approved it under his Apostolic Authority, were well educated and aware of what they were saying, and of the societal import of the catechism’s teaching.

 

[melensdad]

But to remain in concert with the Church’s teachings on the respect to be afforded to human life, the death penalty may only be used when there is no other means of protecting human life.

And this is exactly what I am questioning with this thread, because if John Lott is correct, then we would be protecting human life by enforcing the death penalty.

There are studies that “prove” both sides of the death penalty argument. Professor Lott, with his newest statements dated this month, seems to take into account newer research than many of the anti-death penalty studies that I can find. So there is some reason to consider his argument that putting selected prisoners to death may actually have a deterrent effect on other criminals and thus, protect innocent life.

Further, if you consider the total US prison population, I think it could be argued that the death penalty is only used in the very rare circumstance, which is not too far out of line with the CCC.

The prohibition on the death penalty in the catechism is based solely on the claim that it is not needed to protect society but, as your question suggests, what if we find that in fact the reverse is true? What if we find that society is better protected by more executions, not fewer? Given that protecting society is now the sole measure controlling their use, if more executions provide better protection then how could the Church not reverse her position?

And those questions are exactly why I started this thread.

 

[RSulli]

He is a highly respected professor, considered one of the foremost experts in criminal studies, testifies before Congress, and is widely published. I think he probably has a reasonable grasp on reality.

What would be your source for this broad claim? And while I realize that there are plenty of them, how easily can they be refuted?

Lott said that the ABA claims there is a racial bias. The ABA says there is a racial bias. I believe you misunderstood what he wrote because after citing the ABA the then went on to cite other sources.

Why would you call him a nitwit? Name calling seems less than charitable.

Where did I turn my back on the church? I simply asked questions based on his writings.

For the record, I oppose the death penalty and have for many years. I’ve stated that fact here on CAF many times. You seem to be jumping to conclusions and making more broad stroke claims without much justification.

I simply want to know if my position opposing the death penalty is a mistake. There appears to be some relational evidence to suggest that the death penalty may save lives. If so, then I would wonder if supporting a ban is actually a good intention with bad consequences for society.

I appreciate this thread. I often think that The Catholic Church, with all of it’s credible and authoritative sources of guidance, is caught up in the “life issues”, incuding the death penalty, since the heinous acts of abortion are so prevalent. I often hear from the pulpit the phrase; " defend life in all of its stages and untoward circumstances. Are the unborn held hostage to the concept?

 

[Ender]

And those questions are exactly why I started this thread.

If the use of the death penalty depends solely on its usefulness in protecting society then you must recognize that this is not a moral question but a prudential one. If the argument about the extent of the protection provided by capital punishment has to wait to be decided by studies and surveys then we are not dealing with a moral issue.

You have answered your question by acknowledging that it has to be asked.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Please review:

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors

Here are some additional articles regarding the nature of the teaching on the death penalty.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=15

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7186

Ender
%between%

 

[dudleysharp]

I think Catholics can use their conscience in deciding whether or not to follow any Catholic teachings. But to remain in concert with the Church’s teachings on the respect to be afforded to human life, the death penalty may only be used when there is no other means of protecting human life. I think both the synod that developed the catechism, and John Paul who approved it under his Apostolic Authority, were well educated and aware of what they were saying, and of the societal import of the catechism’s teaching.

Catholics are not free to use their own conscience with regard to many things, IF they wish to remain Catholics in good standing. However, Catholic teachings based upon prudential judgement are those which Catholics are free to develop their own moral judgement on and are free to disagree with the Church.

There seems to be no evidence to support your claim that the Synod or the Pope were aware that stopping executions both spared guilty murderers and sacrificed innocent vicitms. It is inconceivable that they would have gone down that path had they known it. I appears as if they never considered it.

Pope John Paul II’s teachings on capital punishment do not appear prudent or well informed and because of that most certainly should not have been used to amend the Catechism.

At the end of the “Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors” essay, there are ten references.

Please review them, starting with the first, which was written by a Catholic Vatican insider.

domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

---

Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors

homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

 

[TMC]

Take your thought a little bit further. The prohibition on the death penalty in the catechism is based solely on the claim that it is not needed to protect society but, as your question suggests, what if we find that in fact the reverse is true? What if we find that society is better protected by more executions, not fewer? Given that protecting society is now the sole measure controlling their use, if more executions provide better protection then how could the Church not reverse her position?

And this is exactly what I am questioning with this thread, because if John Lott is correct, then we would be protecting human life by enforcing the death penalty.

There are studies that “prove” both sides of the death penalty argument. Professor Lott, with his newest statements dated this month, seems to take into account newer research than many of the anti-death penalty studies that I can find. So there is some reason to consider his argument that putting selected prisoners to death may actually have a deterrent effect on other criminals and thus, protect innocent life.

Further, if you consider the total US prison population, I think it could be argued that the death penalty is only used in the very rare circumstance, which is not too far out of line with the CCC.

And those questions are exactly why I started this thread.

If the use of the death penalty depends solely on its usefulness in protecting society then you must recognize that this is not a moral question but a prudential one. If the argument about the extent of the protection provided by capital punishment has to wait to be decided by studies and surveys then we are not dealing with a moral issue.

You have answered your question by acknowledging that it has to be asked.

Ender

Each of these arguments fails because it gets the Catholic position exactly backwards. The prohibition on the death penalty is not based on its perceived lack of usefulness. There is a general prohibition on all intentional killing of human beings. There are some very limited exceptions to this prohibition. **All **of the exceptions are based on self defense and defense of others, which includes by extension a legitimate government’s right to defend its citizens.

So the death penalty is not “prohibited” only if it is not working well. It is “allowed” only if it is absolutely necessary. The default switch is set the other way, which makes a big difference. The big difference is that it does not matter if it works unless it is the only thing that will work.

You are allowed to prevent your neighbor from stealing your lawn mower. You can’t wack him to accomplish this just because that would be effective – there are ways to do it without killing him. The same exact principle applies here.

As long as there are ways to protect people without killing humans, we must use those means. There is some argument that the non-fatal means used today don’t work well. That doesn’t really matter unless there is no way to accomplish the goal with killing.

 

[melensdad]

Each of these arguments fails because it gets the Catholic position exactly backwards. The prohibition on the death penalty is not based on its perceived lack of usefulness. There is a general prohibition on all intentional killing of human beings. There are some very limited exceptions to this prohibition. **All **of the exceptions are based on self defense and defense of others, which includes by extension a legitimate government’s right to defend its citizens.

So the death penalty is not “prohibited” only if it is not working well. It is “allowed” only if it is absolutely necessary. The default switch is set the other way, which makes a big difference. The big difference is that it does not matter if it works unless it is the only thing that will work.

You are allowed to prevent your neighbor from stealing your lawn mower. You can’t wack him to accomplish this just because that would be effective – there are ways to do it without killing him. The same exact principle applies here.

As long as there are ways to protect people without killing humans, we must use those means. There is some argument that the non-fatal means used today don’t work well. That doesn’t really matter unless there is no way to accomplish the goal with killing.

First off, I do not support the death penalty but I am ASKING a lot of questions about it, the way you quoted me makes it look like I defend the practice. I do not, but I do question it.

Second, your analogy with the neighbor and the lawnmower is silly and non-applicable.

A better analogy would be your neighbor comes to your house to kill your wife/child and you kill him in defense. This is clearly allowed under the CCC!

However, the question still remains, and you cleanly side-stepped it.

As long as there are ways to protect people without killing humans, we must use those means. There is some argument that the non-fatal means used today don’t work well. That doesn’t really matter unless there is no way to accomplish the goal with killing.

IF PUTTING TO DEATH A GUILTY PERSON IS PROVEN TO MAKE SOCIETY SAFER, THROUGH A COMBINATION OF DETERRENCE AND DIRECT ACTION, **and if simply keeping them locked up for their natural life proves to spawn future criminals, then have we actually harmed society and acted contrary to the intent of the teachings Church? **

Bear in mind our current CCC is a modified version has only been around in the current interpretation for about a dozen years.

 

[TMC]

First off, I do not support the death penalty but I am ASKING a lot of questions about it, the way you quoted me makes it look like I defend the practice. I do not, but I do question it.

Second, your analogy with the neighbor and the lawnmower is silly and non-applicable.

A better analogy would be your neighbor comes to your house to kill your wife/child and you kill him in defense. This is clearly allowed under the CCC!

However, the question still remains, and you cleanly side-stepped it.

IF PUTTING TO DEATH A GUILTY PERSON IS PROVEN TO MAKE SOCIETY SAFER, THROUGH A COMBINATION OF DETERRENCE AND DIRECT ACTION, **and if simply keeping them locked up for their natural life proves to spawn future criminals, then have we actually harmed society and acted contrary to the intent of the teachings Church? **

Bear in mind our current CCC is a modified version has only been around in the current interpretation for about a dozen years.

I’m sorry if I miscontstrued your opinion. If you find the lawnmower analogy inapt - here are two others.

1. A trusted mutual friend tells you that your neighbor is plotting to kill you and will likely try to do so in a few days time. He has evidence of this and you are absolutely convinced it is true. Can you kill him first?
2. You are a healthy fit young man, a sick and crazed 90 yr old lady is attacking you with her bare hands. She really wants to kill you. Do you kill her?

If you believe the answer to both of these is “no”, then I think we are pretty close in principle. Death can not be applied merely because is stops other killings. It has to be the way we reasonable believe is required, not just an effective way.

So to not sidestep this question:

IF PUTTING TO DEATH A GUILTY PERSON IS PROVEN TO MAKE SOCIETY SAFER, THROUGH A COMBINATION OF DETERRENCE AND DIRECT ACTION, **and if simply keeping them locked up for their natural life proves to spawn future criminals, then have we actually harmed society and acted contrary to the intent of the teachings Church? **

My short answer would be no. I think it is way too speculative that by locking up murderers for life we may be encouraging other, different murderers. If we knew that was true with certainty, which we don’t, then I think we would have to really ponder if the death penalty can be used. After all, your question seems to suggest killing person A, to keep from encouraging person B from committing crimes. That is troubling to me.

But we have no such evidence. We don’t know that for a fact.

But that’s not why we have the death penalty in this country is it, really? Motives and intentions matter, I think. And it is my firmly held belief that the death penalty thrives in this country, despite being abolished in most western nations, because so many Americans simply believe that criminals lives are not worth anything. That its not worth the cost of feeding them. How often have you heard that? Do you really think that executions in this country are based on a fear of recidivisim? I don’t.

So if a Catholic really, truly, after thought and introspection believes that applying the death penalty as it is applied in this country is the only way to prevent future killings and protect others, then, for him, supporting it is in accord with the catechism. Please believe me when I say I am not trying to question anyone’s personal integrity. But given what I know about the death penalty in America, that is just not a reasonable position.

 

[pnewton]

But that’s not why we have the death penalty in this country is it, really? Motives and intentions matter, I think.

It may interest you to know that in Texas, even with our reputation, actually use a similar guideline as the Catholic Church. Namely, after a finding of guilt in a capital case, one can only receive the death penalty if there is reason to believe that one would continue to be a threat to society if sentenced to life. I have disagreed with the findings in some cases, but at least the principle is in place.

 

[melensdad]

I’m sorry if I miscontstrued your opinion. If you find the lawnmower analogy inapt - here are two others.

1. A trusted mutual friend tells you that your neighbor is plotting to kill you and will likely try to do so in a few days time. He has evidence of this and you are absolutely convinced it is true. Can you kill him first?
2. You are a healthy fit young man, a sick and crazed 90 yr old lady is attacking you with her bare hands. She really wants to kill you. Do you kill her?

For point 1, the answer is clearly NO. For point two, the answer is clearly YES. The CCC says so. You would not intentionally set out to defend your life by killing her, but if it was a consequence of your self defense that she was somehow killed while you were defending yourself then you would clearly be justified. For example you pushed her away and she tripped and hit her head on a rock. You were defending yourself with reasonable and just force, the death of the violent old woman was an unintended consequence but is still considered by the CCC to be legitimate defense.

So to not sidestep this question:

My short answer would be no. I think it is way too speculative that by locking up murderers for life we may be encouraging other, different murderers. If we knew that was true with certainty, which we don’t, then I think we would have to really ponder if the death penalty can be used. After all, your question seems to suggest killing person A, to keep from encouraging person B from committing crimes. That is troubling to me.

But we have no such evidence. We don’t know that for a fact.

Are you sure? Honestly are you sure that John Lott is wrong? Can you prove he is wrong? If he is not wrong then he is right. If he is right, then we do have proof.

if a Catholic really, truly, after thought and introspection believes that applying the death penalty as it is applied in this country is the only way to prevent future killings and protect others, then, for him, supporting it is in accord with the catechism.

And this brings us back to Professor Lott and his conclusions and it also is why I asked the questions. What it now seems to boil down to is that if he is correct, then, in accordance with the CCC, the “rare” instances of the application might be very similar to those instances where the death penalty is applied here in the US, and the use of the death penalty is then moral and justified. Especially true if the death penalty is applied as per the following:

pnewton:

in Texas, even with our reputation, actually use a similar guideline as the Catholic Church. Namely, after a finding of guilt in a capital case, one can only receive the death penalty if there is reason to believe that one would continue to be a threat to society if sentenced to life.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Many of these arguments seem to ignore the issue of “proportionality”.

If somebody steals your lawnmower, just get your blood pressure back down under control. If you have to, call the police and file a complaint, whether you know who did it or not.

Then “turn the other cheek”. Get on with you life. Buy some sheep or goats to eat your grass.

Clearly killing someone over stealing a lawnmower is not “proportional”. [That’s only ONE of the aspects of the discussion.]

If you learn that someone is going to kill you, then you have the opportunity to flee. Leave the area. No matter what. Go away.

One of my priest-friends said that he used to be a chaplain for the police. Served in the police auxiliary. Had the uniform and everything. One day a perp went nuts and attacked him; starting beating him to death. The priest said to himself that the only way he could stop the guy was to shoot him, but as a priest he could not do that. So he resigned himself to being killed. Out of nowhere a car came along and struck and killed the assailant.

So the issue is far more “sophisticated” or “nuanced” or “complex” or “faceted” than the surface premises of the argument.

 

[Marina14]

Hey, all I can say on this is that if it weren’t for the Death Penalty there is no way that any of us could be saved. Jesus was killed via the Death Penalty for the eternal benefit of all our souls. Since Jesus obviously is not against the Death Penalty, why should I be?
Now most people put to death, in this day & age with DNA convictions, are guilty (unlike Our Lord) and it only helps society! If people knew for a fact that they were going to be killed if they kill, if they rape, if they child molest…they would be less likely to do it & if the death penalty did not deter them, then spending a few years in jail certainly won’t change their hearts/actions either!
Our problem in the United States is that it is not the only punishment for particular crimes and that it takes too long from the convict to the actual death penalty being inforced. Most people on death row die a natural death in prison.