Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Ray_Scheel]

You have to remember that much of this teaching is framed in the context of ‘mores Romana’.

Since you are not Catholic, I think it bears stressing that we believe that truth itself does not change. If the Church as consistently taught that the protection of society is the responsibility of the State under the Divine plan, then the door has been effectively shut on adding surgical exceptions to that understanding later based on interpretations of tangential comments. It is very relevant that JP II made no effort to nullify the consistent prior teaching about the rights and responsibilities of the State to ensure the common good, as he COULD NOT do so. He can certainly give his opinion as to how the state should go about that, but the Church still teaches that the authority to make that decision belongs to the State and the State alone. Not even the author of the comment at the core of this debate proposed making a radical change in the fundamentals of the Church’s teaching about the role of civil government in the divine plan.

 

[pnewton]

The Divine Right of Kings to rule is a simple extension of the theory that governments are licenced by G_d to bring wrath on to evil-doers.
One falls with the other.

I do not think the following verse supports the divine right of kings.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing

. But I do support this verse.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I do not think the following verse supports the divine right of kings.

. But I do support this verse.

I thank you for your text reference.
It is clearly a prudential observation, but when you remember that in Charlie’s time, the king was the personification of the state, then such support as Paul gives to the power of the state, he, in the same measure, gives to the king.
Thus Charles was by the authority of Paul, justified in defying Cromwell.

 

[pnewton]

I thank you for your text reference.

Thus Charles was by the authority of Paul, justified in defying Cromwell.

Perhaps, but that is not something I would say is necessary to the verse. Paul is specifically referring to the enforcement of right and wrong, punishment for criminal behavior, ir you will. That is different than say the king is God’s regent. It would be better to say the king is God’s tool. Like all good mechanics, God can switch over and use a Cromwell wrench instead of his Charlie pliers to keep evil doers in line. Our current president may think he is God’s man, but it would be more accurate to say that God uses him and the rest of the Executive Branch to maintain order.

 

[Ender]

It is clearly a prudential observation …

Paul’s statement is “clearly prudential”? I don’t think you have any basis at all to support that claim. The Church certainly doesn’t take it as merely Paul’s personal opinion.

such support as Paul gives to the power of the state, he, in the same measure, gives to the king.

Yes; the king is the head of state.

Thus Charles was by the authority of Paul, justified in defying Cromwell.

No. There is no assumption that whatever the head of state does is justified simply because he is the head of state. A king is not justified in being a tyrant simply because he is king.

The state has powers and responsibilities that are not granted to the individual - such as the right and obligation of imposing punishment on criminals, but just as with individuals, rulers can abuse their power.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Paul’s statement is “clearly prudential”? I don’t think you have any basis at all to support that claim. The Church certainly doesn’t take it as merely Paul’s personal opinion.

‘Prudential’ means ‘wise’, or ‘with wisdom’. It was a judgement made in keeping with the mores of the time. It is not a judgement to be lightltly set aside, but it is a judgement to be seen in the modern context.
For instance, we no longer stone adulterers, neither do we amputate the hands of thieves, nor burn witches. These punishments, though in the mores of the time seemed appropriate, but now we see them as barbaric.
So we now judge the state to be the instrument of G_d provided that it is not barbaric. Barbaric regimes may be legally changed, at least according to the gospel of GWB.

Yes; the king is the head of state. No. There is no assumption that whatever the head of state does is justified simply because he is the head of state. A king is not justified in being a tyrant simply because he is king.

Actually, Charlie claimed, and with good logic, contrary to your judgement, because the king was the personification of the state, then as whatsoever the state did was involuntarily according to the the will of G_d, then whatsoever the king did was also involuntarily so according.
An evil state or an evil king was the wrath of G_d expressed upon an evil people.
As I said, this theory fell with Charlie’s head. But it takes with it the unjustified authority of the state. State authority must now be justified by its degree of civlization. A barbaric state cannot be justified.

The state has powers and responsibilities that are not granted to the individual - such as the right and obligation of imposing punishment on criminals, but just as with individuals, rulers can abuse their power.

Ender

Remember the mores that Paul was speaking from: it was death to deny that Caesar was the personification of Rome.

 

[Ender]

‘Prudential’ means ‘wise’, or ‘with wisdom’. It was a judgement made in keeping with the mores of the time. It is not a judgement to be lightltly set aside, but it is a judgement to be seen in the modern context.

We really have no basis for a discussion since we have no basis of agreement from which we can start. The basis for my opinions is what the Church teaches so you can appeal to Church documents or cite Church teaching to refute my position but there is no authority available to me to refute yours. Whatever you believe, for you, is true because you believe it; you are your own ultimate authority.

Remember the mores that Paul was speaking from: it was death to deny that Caesar was the personification of Rome.

I am unclear why you quote Paul as an authority on anything or even bother with the bible. If you are self-justified in your interpretation of what scripture means you are equally self-justified in creating your ethics out of whole cloth without any reference to scripture at all.

The only reason for me to comment on your statements would be to inform the unwary Catholic that, despite the self assurance with which you make your claims, your positions are not those of our Church.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

We really have no basis for a discussion since we have no basis of agreement from which we can start. The basis for my opinions is what the Church teaches so you can appeal to Church documents or cite Church teaching to refute my position but there is no authority available to me to refute yours. Whatever you believe, for you, is true because you believe it; you are your own ultimate authority.

Dear Ender,
I accept your position, and its basis, which I believe is the co-equality of Gospel, The rest of the NT, the OT, and Tradition.
I also accept that my basis differs from this, being hierarchical.
My basis, which, though you do not share, I expect you to respect, is that the hierarchy is as follows:-
1/ The Gospel, specifically the well attested words of Our Lord.
2/ Commentary found in the Gospel.
3/ The witness of Paul to the behaviour of Christians, and the mores of the time.
4/ The OT where quoted by Our Lord.
5/ The rest of the OT as background reading.
6/ The guidance and judgement of Church Fathers.
7/ The Traditions of Mother Church.
8/ The traditions of Mother Church.
The principle of the hierarchy is that all lower items in the hierarchy are to be understood in the context of the higher hierarchy, and definitely not vice versa.

I am unclear why you quote Paul as an authority on anything or even bother with the bible. If you are self-justified in your interpretation of what scripture means you are equally self-justified in creating your ethics out of whole cloth without any reference to scripture at all.

From the above, you can see clearly where I fit the witness of Paul, and the weight I give to it.
Yes, the hierarchy I follow is of my own device, but I believe you can see the logic therein, even if you do not follow it.

The only reason for me to comment on your statements would be to inform the unwary Catholic that, despite the self assurance with which you make your claims, your positions are not those of our Church.

Ender

In my profile, I admit to heresy, and all who read my profile should be so warned.
Were I not a heretic, I would of course be a Catholic!

 

[dudleysharp]

In as much as the judgement by JPII that the so-called civilised goverment of the US is sufficiently advanced as to not require the death penalty, is now seen to be prudential,

There is no doubt that PJPII position on the death penalty qualifies as a prudential judgement. However, it was also unreasoned and was improperly used to affect the Catechism.

PJPII argued that the death penalty was not needed for a defense of society. However, he never looked at the risk to innocents without the death penalty. Innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live. Therefore, the defense of society should call for more executions.

PJPII’s position spares guilty murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents, a position totally at odds with fundamental Catholic principles.

NOTE: Because innocents are at risk of executions, some wrongly presume that innocents are better protectedimplementing a life without parole sentence, instead.
*
Whatmany forget to do is weigh the risk to innocents within a life sentence. When doing that, we find that innocents are more at risk with a life sentence.
*
First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.*
*
Secondly, no knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, it is logically conclusive, thatactual innocents are more likely to be sentenced tolife imprisonmentand more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
*
Thirdly, 15 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. Somebelieve that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t.*Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
*
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it,some havechosen to put more innocents at risk.

 

[Ender]

I once read that opposition to the death penalty increases in societies as they become more secular. I think this conclusion is based largely on what happened in Europe and there may be no actual correlation between the two phenomena, but it’s an interesting suggestion.

At first you would think that, if there was a correlation, it would be the other way around: the more religious a community was the more it would oppose capital punishment, but I think there are reasonable explanations for why the reverse may be true.

First, Christian communities believe in individual sin and individual responsibility whereas in secular, it-takes-a-village communities the feeling is that when an individual screws up it is the community’s fault, therefore there is much more reluctance to hold an individual accountable for his actions.

Second, secularists often reject the notion that much of anything outside of science can be known and are more prone to agonize over anything not known with scientific certainty: “was the verdict correct?”; “might he repent?”; “was he an abused child?”

I am not asserting that the correlation does exist but it makes for interesting speculation.

Ender

 

[Al_Masetti]

The death penalty used to be very commonly used. Over time, it was almost totally abolished in Western society.

However, in Communist countries, execution was commonly used to kill and eliminate thousands and hundreds of thousands of political prisoners who might pose a potential for opposition to the radical Communist policies. [Read “The Black Book of Communism”]

In Western countries, particularly in the United States, some very high profile criminals and increasing crime rates led to partial and very limited restoration of the death penalty in some locations.

It is important, for a sense of honesty and truth, to recognize the history of the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

The death penalty used to be very commonly used. Over time, it was almost totally abolished in Western society.

True, but the ban has been, mostly, undemocratic.

This, from the French daily Le Monde, December 2006 (1):

Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:**
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46%
USA: 82%

We are led to believe there isn’t death penalty support in England or Europe. European governments won’t allow executions when their populations support it: they’re anti democratic. (2)

(1) The recent results of a poll conducted by Novatris/Harris for the French daily Le Monde on the death penalty shocked the editors and writers at Germany’s left-leaning SPIEGEL ONLINE (Dec. 22, 2006). When asked whether they favored the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, a majority of respondents in Germany, France and Spain responded in the affirmative.

(2)An excellent article, “Death in Venice: Europe’s Death-penalty Elitism", details this anti democratic position (The New Republic,* by Joshua Micah Marshall, 7/31/2000). Another situation reflects this same mentality. "(Pres. Mandela says ‘no’ to reinstating the death penalty in South Africa - Nelson Mandela against death penalty though 93% of public favors it, according to poll. "(JET, 10/14/96). Pres. Mandela explained that “. . . it was necessary to inform the people about other strategies the government was using to combat crime.” As if the people didn’t understand. South Africa has had some of the highest crime rates in the world in the ten years, since Mandela’s comments. “The number of murders committed each year in the country is as high as 47,000, according to Interpol statistics.” As of 2006, 72% of South Africans want the death penalty back. (“South Africans Support Death Penalty”,*5/14/2006, Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research).

 

[Ender]

An excellent article, “Death in Venice: Europe’s Death-penalty Elitism"

“Death penalty elitism” … that sort of fits in with my earlier observation about the relationship between opposition to the death penalty and secularism; I’m quite sure the latter is much more firmly entrenched among the “elites”. Have you seen an article that discusses a possible relationship between the two?

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

There is no doubt that PJPII position on the death penalty qualifies as a prudential judgement. However, it was also unreasoned and was improperly used to affect the Catechism.

This requires a response. The more I see of the postings that follow that to which I now respond, the clearer is this need.
His Holiness’s rejection of un-necessary executions was a matter of Faith and Morals.
What may be prudential was his judgement of what is necessary.
He was not rolling out the Old Testament, to call for ‘an eye for an eye’, indeed he seemingly rejected any theological requirement for capital punishment.
He was basing necessity purely upon the requirement of defence of the population.

PJPII argued that the death penalty was not needed for a defense of society. However, he never looked at the risk to innocents without the death penalty. Innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live. Therefore, the defense of society should call for more executions.

This indeed was a prudential judgement, which seemingly is in error.
Some so-called civilised nations still prefer to live in the judicial dark-ages.
Thus his Holiness incorrectly judged certain countries to be civilised.
That was his prudential error.

PJPII’s position spares guilty murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents, a position totally at odds with fundamental Catholic principles.

NOTE: Because innocents are at risk of executions, some wrongly presume that innocents are better protectedimplementing a life without parole sentence, instead.
*
Whatmany forget to do is weigh the risk to innocents within a life sentence. When doing that, we find that innocents are more at risk with a life sentence.
*
First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.*
*
Secondly, no knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, it is logically conclusive, thatactual innocents are more likely to be sentenced tolife imprisonmentand more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
*
Thirdly, 15 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. Somebelieve that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t.*Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
*
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it,some havechosen to put more innocents at risk.

I do not pretend that the answer is simple.
I accept that it may be necessary to permantly disable certain individuals from ever re-entering free society, and that under these circumstances, euthanasia makes sense. A rabid dog is not shot out of hatred, or because it has bitten, and so condemned a human to a vile death, but it is euthanased,
1/ because it is lethally dangerous, and,
2/ because if allowed to live out its diseased natural life it will suffer unbearably.

Likewise, any ‘rabid’ human should be either euthanased, or given the opportunity to sacrifice his/her life in a useful manner.
The euthanasia should not be carried out with the pomp of a vengeful execution, but in quiet calm mutual consent, using the method found in Holland and Switzerland, a drink containing a powerful anesthetic cocktail.
Strapping the victim to a crucifix, and inserting needles and drips insults both medicine and the Cross.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Some so-called civilised nations still prefer to live in the judicial dark-ages.
Thus his Holiness incorrectly judged certain countries to be civilised.
That was his prudential error.

~ If you cannot avoid dramatically misstating the issue, perhaps you should refrain from acting as if your intent is a reasonable discussion. I know I’ve asked you directly where the money would come from when financing the means to accomplish what JP II was already in place would financially break most countries if done in a way that also me actual Catholic teaching on the fundamental rights of prisoners. Money cannot be printed as if resources grew on printing presses instead of on the backs of the citizenry.

As far as the “dark ages”, there is also the matter that actual criminal justice science actually shows that the death penalty has a deterrent effect that preserves innocent lives overall, despite what is claimed but never proven the “feels right” emotionally charged posturing of the anti-DP “politically correct” position.

Of course, your suggested alternate solutions totally disregard those much more sure Catholic teachings as well, which makes me wonder why you are so adamant about picking and choosing what we Catholics should pay attention to…

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

~ If you cannot avoid dramatically misstating the issue, perhaps you should refrain from acting as if your intent is a reasonable discussion. I know I’ve asked you directly where the money would come from when financing the means to accomplish what JP II was already in place would financially break most countries if done in a way that also me actual Catholic teaching on the fundamental rights of prisoners. Money cannot be printed as if resources grew on printing presses instead of on the backs of the citizenry.

So this is what it all comes down to:
You set a price upon a person’s life.
This is the worship of Mammon.
This justifies the accusation: Satanic Empire!

As far as the “dark ages”, there is also the matter that actual criminal justice science actually shows that the death penalty has a deterrent effect that preserves innocent lives overall, despite what is claimed but never proven the “feels right” emotionally charged posturing of the anti-DP “politically correct” position.

There is clearly something grossly wrong with the US prison system.
It is so inhumane that inmates will take desperate risks to escape.
Prison is not about confining humans in conditions in which you would not be permitted to keep animals, it is about keeping villains off the streets, and persuading them that another future is open to them.

Of course, your suggested alternate solutions totally disregard those much more sure Catholic teachings as well, which makes me wonder why you are so adamant about picking and choosing what we Catholics should pay attention to…

Not actually. If the decision has been made that they are not fit to live, then the decision has already been made that these creatures are less than human, and no better than beasts.
Under these conditions, euthanasia is completely in order with the Catholic Church,

 

[pnewton]

So this is what it all comes down to:
You set a price upon a person’s life.
This is the worship of Mammon.
This justifies the accusation: Satanic Empire!

The poster to whom you are responding so strongly to is only pointing out economic reality. Every resource used in one spot removes that resource from another. This is Economics 101. Name-calling and misrepresentaion does not change the amount of resources available and amounts only to empty rhetoric.

 

[pnewton]

There is clearly something grossly wrong with the US prison system.
It is so inhumane that inmates will take desperate risks to escape.

I disagree. We have nuanced the concept of cruel and unusual punishment to where prison is far too accommadating to criminals. One could expand your reasoning to the *far *more logical conclusion that prison is so easy it is not much of a deterent to crime, and thus the rise in inmate population.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The poster to whom you are responding so strongly to is only pointing out economic reality. Every resource used in one spot removes that resource from another. This is Economics 101. Name-calling and misrepresentaion does not change the amount of resources available and amounts only to empty rhetoric.

Sorry that you take this as other than plain talk.
Yes I used language that was provocative.
It is all however in very strict accordance with the case.
Life is being measured against money.
You call it ecconomics, I call it Mammon.
It is others who call Mammon Satan.
To me, what they both have in common is error.

 

[pnewton]

You call it ecconomics, I call it Mammon.

Why? The two are hardly synonymous. Money is not evil. Trying to evaluate proper use of money, especially in the service of life is not evil. It is the love of money and the pursuit of money as an end and not a means that is evil.

For example, it is surely not Satanic to see feeding the hungry, housing the poor and improving the lot of the innocent as a greater good than making prisons a plush environment. I am saying that you are doing so, just that all economic choices have consequences.