Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Th opening of EV is quite clear that JPII is speaking as the heir of Petrus Sanctus, and so has the charism of ex cathedra infalibility as I understand it.
All the arguments therein are introduced as matters of faith and morals, and the clear gist is that “eye for eye” is superseded by “love your enemies, and pray for them that hate you”.
The arguments on DP for punishment are entirely divorced from any question of retribution or restoration of order. They are purely concerned with defence of society.
Thus concepts of justice are irrelevant to this argument.
That is the end of this argument on this particular point to anyone who respects the teaching of Mother Church.[/sign]JP II’s failure to mention points relating to justice in EV does not invalidate prior Church teaching on those points. Catholics do not selective proof-text in developing theology in a way that contradicts existing teaching. This is not the first time you have attempted to build up a false framework in this manner, so doing so again is simply not acceptable.

EV, Evangelium Vitae, the Gispel of Life, is presented as a teaching of the Church, by JPII, speaking in vicares of Petrus Sactus.
The section on capital punishment is also incorpoated into the CCC.
This is the bottom line.
It is a matter of faith and morals.
You reject it, then you reject the teaching of the Church.
Please be careful to understand though the difference between the judgement on faith and morals, which is that the DP should only be used where it is absolutely necessary to defend the society.
The prudential judgement is that all modern societies are capable or willing to take the harder option of using bloodless methods of defence. This latter point may be argued, the former point may not.
The former is a matter of faith and morals, the latter is an opinion.
EV does not skirt around the matters of justice, it covers the matter in possibly excessive detail. It is a somewhat heavy document, not easily compared with Mark.
In judging the DP, it goes back to the source, and cites the judgement of G_d upon Cain.
Cain is not struck dead by G_d, he is exhiled, but a protection is set upon him such that no man should take it upon himself to execute judgement upon him.
Those who still demand an eye for an eye, totally misunderstand the context.
This was never intended as the tarrif of the punishment, it was intended as the limit of the vengeance. It was intended as a control upon a savage people.
Thus Our Lord in denying the tarrif, is not negating the law, but explaining it.

End of part one

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Part two

[sign]Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
I fully accept that with the DP there is zero recidivism, but there is not deterrance, for the dead are not deterred, they are dead.

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
The problem with the deterrance argument, is that it is only effective against rational professional murderers. This is a very small population of professional ‘hit men’.
The most dangerous murderers are the disturbed and the incompetent. These people are troubled by the DP, but the presence or otherwise thereof has no place in their disturbed and incompetent minds.[/sign]
I would be very interested in seeing any science backing that claim up, as proving such a claim would lead to a revolution in the understanding of the criminal mind and invalidate decades of research on this subject. However, I’m predicting you have no research to cite, just as in all the other times you’ve made wild claims on this subject… Again, this is not acceptable.

I have given before, quite a list of links, which, for you, I will repeat. Viz:
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=167
huffingtonpost.com/cassy-stubbs/the-death-penalty-deterre_b_52622.html
soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence
religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm
I did look at the writings of Lott, but it is clear from his writings, and from the writings of honest people who have made a study of his work, that he is no more than a ranting mount-bank, who indulges in spouting what the right wing extremists wish to hear.
I believe that is also referred to as demogoguery.

[sign]Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Yes, this too is contrary to the teaching of Mother Church, but she cannot have it both ways.
This clipping almost hides the context.
Refer to the source.[/sign]
Considering the extent to which your position deliberately misrepresents both what is know about the criminal mind scientifically and the actual position of the Church, this type of declaration amounts to a nonsense statement as it is simply not believable even as a false dichotomy,

What I know of the criminal mind is derived from peer reviewed scientific studies, such as I have listed, not the rantings of a mount-bank.

[sign]Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
The Church offers only one satisfactory reason for employing the DP, and that is that there is no other effective way to protect society.
Again, you omit the context.
Refer to source.
[/sign]
This is quite simply not true, as you were quite aware of the full scope of Church teaching on this subject before making this post and chose to limit your material to just one source as if it was exhaustive while knowing it was not.

EV is clearly presented in the context of “Vox Petri”.
Take it or leave it.
It is not binding on Me as I am not Catholic, so you must therefore judge yourself according to this judgement.
I have made clear, what is, from the context, a matter of faith and morals, and what is opinion.
If you reject the former, you are in disobedience, if you reject the latter, you deny that DP countries are civilised.
This is the bottom line.

 

[dudleysharp]

There seems to be some misunderstandings.

First, there ar 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, that find for death penalty deterrence. Irrational, emotional emotional folks are included as those who are deterred. So far, these studies have not been contradicted. The various studies find that from 3 to 75 murders are prevented, per execution. In other words, while many innocents are spared, many are not.

A significant deterrent effect only needs to be effective in a relatively small percentage of all possible cases to be hugely significant.

Secondly, no one should be surprised that the death penalty deters. All prospects for a negative outcome deter some people. There are no exceptions.

Thirdly, the evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that life is preferred over death and that death is feared more than life.

Fourth, had Pope John Paul II properly reviewed his “defense of society” doctrine more carefull, he would have concluded that the death penalty is a more significant protector of the innocent than is incarceration. Because his review was very incomplete, he reached an unreasoned conclusion that contradicted the facts.

What is the risk to innocents within a life sentence and absent the death penalty? The evidence is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

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.

This is a truism.

No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

That is. logically, conclusive.

16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.

Is this a surprise? No.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they couldn’t measure those deterred.

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. Yet, the evidence is compelling and un refuted that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it’s a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.

Reality paints a very different picture.

What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.

What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.

This is not, even remotely, in dispute.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

Furthermore, history tells us that “lifers” have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc…

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

---

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?

Unlikely.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

 

[dudleysharp]

These 8 references provide a thorough refutations of current and official Roman Catholic teaching on the death penalty

REFERENCES

(1)“The Death Penalty”, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,

NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.

domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007

(2) “Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty”, A partial review of many great biblical thinkers at
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

(3) “Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective” at
sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm

(4) “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

(5) “MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?”, KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

(6) “THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS’ MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS” , KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, Nov. 22, 2005
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp

(7) “God’s Justice and Ours” by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022

(8) “Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says”, Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. A thorough, very detailed biblical review of the death penalty.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I have given before, quite a list of links, which, for you, I will repeat. Viz:

Not one of those studies involved separate study of “professional murders” versus “the disturbed and the incompetent”. Not one. That is probably because you made up the categories ont eh spot a couple of posts ago and once again hoped that no one would call you on presenting fantasy as fact. You have no basis for your claim; talking about peer reviewed studies does not help you when what you are claiming isn’t addressed by the studies you are supposedly basing you position on.
%between%

It is not binding on Me as I am not Catholic, so you must therefore judge yourself according to this judgement.
I have made clear, what is, from the context, a matter of faith and morals, and what is opinion.
If you reject the former, you are in disobedience, if you reject the latter, you deny that DP countries are civilised.
This is the bottom line.

The “bottom line”, if there is one here, is that you are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of Catholic teaching, in particular that prior teaching cannot be repealed, and appear to have no interest in ceasing to do so as that seems to be the only “hammer” in your arsenal beyond dropping attack lines (e.g. calling those countries not seeing it your way “uncivilized”).

Prior teachings can be expanded on, but not revoked, and our Vatican I Council formally proclaimed (as a teaching of the bishops united with the pope) that any attempt to repeal such teaching by any pontiff then or in the future would automatically render such statements as not carrying the weight of the Holy See. No matter how you personally choose to exclude legitimate sources of Catholic teaching to try to build a straw man case, those teachings remain, and you have no authority whatsoever to declare entire ecumenical councils irrelevant to a topic just because doing so is inconvenient.

 

[Ender]

Th opening of EV is quite clear that JPII is speaking as the heir of Petrus Sanctus, and so has the charism of ex cathedra infalibility as I understand it.

Your understanding is inaccurate. Of all the encyclicals, letters, books, etc that JPII produced, only one statement was considered infallible: that only men may be ordained to the priesthood. If you are interested in learning about infallibility read section 25 of Lumen Gentium.

All the arguments therein are introduced as matters of faith and morals, and the clear gist is that “eye for eye” is superseded by “love your enemies, and pray for them that hate you”.

A pope is no more free to change Church doctrine than a physicist is to invent new laws of planetary motion. It is the Church’s job to teach the moral law as it has been handed down to her, not create new law based on the opinions of her leaders. People seem to have an inordinately difficult time accepting what the Church herself says: that she has no authority to change the laws of God.

The arguments on DP for punishment are entirely divorced from any question of retribution or restoration of order. They are purely concerned with defence of society.
Thus concepts of justice are irrelevant to this argument.

It is surely true that the only argument used refers to the defense of society but this is precisely what makes the argument untenable. All punishments - execution, imprisonment, fines, even sending a child to his room - are morally valid only if they are just. The catechism states this in the paragraph immediately prior to the one on the death penalty: “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (this is the requirement of justice.) The primary objective of punishment is not the defense of society, it is justice, and any argument that ignores this cannot be considered accurate.

We all accept that executing killers protects society from the killers you have executed, but it actually serves no other purpose in a civilised society.

This makes my point better than anything I could say: since protecting society is (incorrectly used as) the sole justification for the death penalty and since you just admitted that executing killers protects society, by this logic we should execute them all, and include rapists for good measure. Having jettisoned the concept of justice you cannot now object that such punishment would be unjust.

Ender

 

[AliciaCL]

Some food for thought for everyone on all sides of the issue of the appropriateness of the death penalty. Read John Grisham’s “An Innocent Man.” This is Grisham’s first non-fictional work about a real case.

 

[dudleysharp]

Some food for thought for everyone on all sides of the issue of the appropriateness of the death penalty. Read John Grisham’s “An Innocent Man.” This is Grisham’s first non-fictional work about a real case.

There seems to be some question regarding the “non-ficiton” part.

joshmarquis.blogspot.com/2006/10/review-of-john-grishams-innocent-man.html

Furthermore, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

 

[AliciaCL]

I am surprised at the Wall Street Journal’s commentary. I’ll concede that Grisham may be anti-death penalty. So what? But that doesn’t undercut the story or what it illustrates. It wasn’t Grisham who issued the order to release the convicted murder. It was a federal judge whose reputation is anything but pro-defense. I think the point of the story is how misguided juries can be. The “evidence” relied upon was unbelievably thin for our jurisprudential system. And the failures of the defense attorney indeed reached beyond what we constitutionally guarantee people in getting a minimally decent defense. That’s why he was set free. Even if the guy was actually guilty (which I personally doubt) you can’t let juries and judges convict on evidence which doesn’t meet the standard. The evidence against OJ Simpson was overwhelming yet a jury let him go— for similar reason, their prejudices, same as in this case. That’s the point.

 

[dudleysharp]

The prosecution must prevail in 60 out of 60 issues, or 100%, to secure a death sentence.

The defense needs to prevail in 1 out of 60 issues, or 1.67%, to avoid a death sentence.

The prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or say a 90-95% confidence level for all 12 jurors.

The defense only needs to have one juror have a 5-10% doubt in confidence to prevail.

DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES

There are at least 28 procedures necessary in reaching a death sentence. They are: (1) The crime must be one listed as a capital crime in the penal code; (2) a suspect must be identified and arrested; (3) Beginning with the Bill of Rights, the Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rules, U.S. criminal defendants and those convicted have, by far, the most extensive protections ever devised and implemented; (4) in Harris County (Houston), Texas a panel of district attorneys determines if the case merits the death penalty as prescribed by the Penal Code (See 12-19); (5) a grand jury must indict the suspect for capital murder; (6) the suspect is presumed innocent; (7) the prosecution must prove to the judge that the evidence, upon which the prosecution will rely, is admissible; (8) the defendant is assigned two attorneys, specifically instructed in death penalty defense. County funds are provided to defense counsel for investigation and trial; (9) it takes 3-12 weeks to select a jury; (10) trial is conducted; (11) the burden of proof is on the state; (12) all 12 jury members must find for guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases, the jury knows nothing of the defendant’s previous criminal acts, at this stage. If found guilty, then, the punishment phase of the trial begins; (13) the prosecution presents additional damning evidence against the murderer, i.e., other crimes, victims, victims’ or survivors’ testimony, police reports, etc; (14) In order to find for death, the issues to be resolved by the jury are {a}(14) did the defendant not only act willfully in causing the death, but act deliberately, as well, {b}(15) does the evidence show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a likelihood that the defendant will be dangerous in the future, {c}(16) if there was provocation on the part of the victim, were the defendant’s actions unreasonable in response to the provocations and {d}(17) is there something about the defendant that diminishes moral responsibility or in some way mitigates against the imposition of death for the defendant in this case, whereby, (18) the defense presents all mitigating circumstance, which may lesson the probability of the jury imposing death , i.e., family problems, substance abuse, age, no prior criminal record, mental disability, parental abuse, poverty, etc. Witnesses, such as family, friends, co-workers, etc., are presented to speak and offer the positive qualities of the defendant; (19) the jury must take into consideration those mitigating circumstances (Penry decision) and, if only 1 juror believes that the perpetrator deserves leniency because of any mitigating circumstances, then the jury cannot impose the death penalty; and (20) when the death sentence is imposed, the perpetrator receives an automatic appeal. (21& 22) the death row inmate is provided an attorney, or attorneys, to handle the direct appeal, at county expense, through both the state and federal courts; (23 & 24) the state pays attorneys for the inmate’s habeas corpus appeals, at both the state and federal level; (25 & 26) death row inmates may be granted a hearing, in both state and federal court, to present post conviction claims of innocence. The burden of proof for these claims of innocence mirrors that used by the Federal courts; and (27 & 28) Convictions and sentences are subject to pardon or sentence reduction through the executive branch of government, at both the state level (Governor) and federal level (President).

In some jurisdictions, the defense must prove mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence and the prosecution must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a huge advantage for the defendant and a major disadvantage for the prosecution.

To punish with death, each one of the 12 jurors must agree with the prosecution in each of five specific areas ( 12, 14, (a)14, (b)15, (c)16, and (d)17 (with 18 & 19). A death sentence requires that the prosecution must prevail in 60 out of those 60 considerations, or 100%.

To avoid death, the defendant must prevail in only 1 out of those 60 considerations, or 1.67%. If convicted and sentenced to death, the inmate may then begin an appeals process that could extend through 23 years, 60 appeals and over 200 individual judicial and executive reviews of the inmates claims.

 

[AliciaCL]

Well I guess you are a lawyer. Me too. So what that the system has incorporated many many protections. They haven’t been enough. I’m no great fam of Barry Scheck but he has proven people have been convicted on insubstantial evidence. People sit on the jury. People aren’t scientific in screening out their prejudices. They system only TRIES its best to do that. That’s all a human system of justice can do. It cannot be guaranteed.

Regardless of whether someone is actually guilty of a heinous crime, the question is, will the death penalty deter others from similar crimes. I say it doesn’t. These heinous crimes are most often crimes in the heat of passion, hatred, anger, etc. where the perpetrator isn’t calculating his future defense. If we’re talking the kind of premeditated murderers in Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood”, then yes, the argument may fly that the death penalty would cause some country boy yahooos to think twice about going on a killing spree. If most heinous murders were the In Cold Blood type, I might agree, society would need the death penalty measure to protect itself. But it doesn’t need that. It needs to punish the perpetrators, and keep them in jail for life.

In my experience most pro death penalty people are heavily swayed by the feeling that the criminals DESERVE death for their crime. Retribution. I think that part isn’t up to human beings. Some people think so. But, in any case, that’s only half of the philosophical reasoning to justify the death penalty. Does society truly NEED the criminal to die? In extremely heinous mass political murderers I think you can make the case. A Hitler, a Saddam Hussein, etc. because if they live, their followers would carry on the murderous rampage.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
Th opening of EV is quite clear that JPII is speaking as the heir of Petrus Sanctus, and so has the charism of ex cathedra infalibility as I understand it.[/sign]Your understanding is inaccurate. Of all the encyclicals, letters, books, etc that JPII produced, only one statement was considered infallible: that only men may be ordained to the priesthood. If you are interested in learning about infallibility read section 25 of Lumen Gentium.

I understand your objection, and accept that it is technically correct. However, in his introduction, JPII is clear that he is speaking in Vox Petri.
This then is surely the highest authority, short of excathedra infalibility, if you wish to be picky. It is not to be lightly set aside.

[sign]
All the arguments therein are introduced as matters of faith and morals, and the clear gist is that “eye for eye” is superseded by “love your enemies, and pray for them that hate you”.[/sign]
A pope is no more free to change Church doctrine than a physicist is to invent new laws of planetary motion. It is the Church’s job to teach the moral law as it has been handed down to her, not create new law based on the opinions of her leaders. People seem to have an inordinately difficult time accepting what the Church herself says: that she has no authority to change the laws of God.

No-one here is changing the laws of G_d. Our Lord did not change the laws of G_d.
What Our Lord was saying was that the concept of ‘eye for eye’ was not setting the tarrif for punishment, but setting a limit upon the vengeance demanded by a savage people. Our Lord’s words were ‘because of the hardness of your hearts’ (Douay translation).
Thus it was always in the gift of the offendee to forgive the offendor, at least to some extent.
This is what Our Lord was asserting, this is what JPII was reminding us.

[sign]
The arguments on DP for punishment are entirely divorced from any question of retribution or restoration of order. They are purely concerned with defence of society.
Thus concepts of justice are irrelevant to this argument.[/sign]
It is surely true that the only argument used refers to the defense of society but this is precisely what makes the argument untenable. All punishments - execution, imprisonment, fines, even sending a child to his room - are morally valid only if they are just. The catechism states this in the paragraph immediately prior to the one on the death penalty: “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (this is the requirement of justice.) The primary objective of punishment is not the defense of society, it is justice, and any argument that ignores this cannot be considered accurate.

This then is the point where you find difficulty with what is now church teaching, but in a highly authoritative encyclical, uttered in the name of Peter, and the Bible Belt concept of vengeance in judgement.
Mother Church has decided that incarceration for whole life is effectively equivalent to the exhile which G_d imposed upon Cain, and is then a satisfactory Earthly punishment for willful slaying of an innocent human.
This is a legitimate change of emphasis. Heretics and witches are no longer burned at the stake. It is not a chang to the law of G_d.
I have to say, that given the choice between whole life in an American ‘penitentiary’, and death, I would with no hesitation, choose the latter, as indeed quite a few already have, by not pursuing appeal procedure.

[sign]
We all accept that executing killers protects society from the killers you have executed, but it actually serves no other purpose in a civilised society.[/sign]
This makes my point better than anything I could say: since protecting society is (incorrectly used as) the sole justification for the death penalty and since you just admitted that executing killers protects society, by this logic we should execute them all, and include rapists for good measure. Having jettisoned the concept of justice you cannot now object that such punishment would be unjust.

Ender

I can see how your conclusion, though not a world away from
mine, is though based on retribution, and the false premise of effective deterrence.
You consider the termination of wicked lives to be just, I consider the termination of dangerous lives to be necessary in some cases, and to be, if necessary, seen as merciful release from inhumane incarceration. I would actually institute permissive suicide for whole life prisoners. This in itself would make incarceration much more humane, as much of the inhumane observation would thereby become redundant.
The Gospel of Christ, and the Gospel of Life both call for mercy, even for the unworthy.
Vengeance has no place in any Christian heart, whether Catholic, catholic, or any other shade of Christianity.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I understand your objection, and accept that it is technically correct. However, in his introduction, JPII is clear that he is speaking in Vox Petri.
This then is surely the highest authority, short of excathedra infalibility, if you wish to be picky. It is not to be lightly set aside.

As far as the levels of Catholic teaching, you are speaking gibberish. One infallibly declared teaching cannot be deliberately interpreted to conflict with another, especially by deliberately excluding the other teachings from consideration when trying to interpret a document. You may continue to pretend this kind of arbitrary limitation is possible within your own mind, but if you continue to do so here the only presumption left for the rest of us is that you have come to a Catholic forum with a deliberate intent to twist Catholic teaching into a straw man instead of trying to gain a better understanding of the teachings as a whole.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
I have given before, quite a list of links, which, for you, I will repeat. Viz:[/sign]
Not one of those studies involved separate study of “professional murders” versus “the disturbed and the incompetent”. Not one. That is probably because you made up the categories on the spot a couple of posts ago and once again hoped that no one would call you on presenting fantasy as fact.

You are in effect calling me a liar. That is ad hominim, and unfit for use on this forum.

You have no basis for your claim; talking about peer reviewed studies does not help you when what you are claiming isn’t addressed by the studies you are supposedly basing you position on.
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=167

When I was preparing the reply, I only scanned through the links. I thought that one of the links included such a reference, though indeed, I cannot find it now.

What we do have though, and this is from the first link I gave, is a strong conclusion that there is no proven linkage, one way of another, where the significance of any data is significant, because of the small size of the sample available.
This conclusion is from a presenter who presents data which initially seems to counter indicate deterrence, or even economical advantage. This is compared with the mount-banking of proponents of deterrence, using phrases like ‘of course it is obvious’.
So I give you three more links.
Executing the Monstrous: Consolidating the Rhetoric of the Death Penalty
Yuriy Mikhalevskiy:
stanford.edu/~njbuff/conference_fall05/papers/Yuriy_Mikhalevskiy.htm
An Economic Analysis of the Death Penalty
Martin Kasten
econ.ilstu.edu/uauje/PDF’s/issue1996/Death_Penalty.pdf
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association: News flash:
Capital punishment 1972:
bccla.org/positions/dueprocess/72capital.html
I accept that you might consider the third link to be somewhat ‘liberal’, but even if you reject the tone of the author, at least read his references. This writer at least raises the point on professional criminals, showing that the concept is not a germ of my imagination.

[sign] Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
It is not binding on Me as I am not Catholic, so you must therefore judge yourself according to this judgement.
I have made clear, what is, from the context, a matter of faith and morals, and what is opinion.
If you reject the former, you are in disobedience, if you reject the latter, you deny that DP countries are civilised.
This is the bottom line.
[/sign]
The “bottom line”, if there is one here, is that you are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of Catholic teaching, in particular that prior teaching cannot be repealed, and appear to have no interest in ceasing to do so as that seems to be the only “hammer” in your arsenal beyond dropping attack lines (e.g. calling those countries not seeing it your way “uncivilized”).

Prior teachings can be expanded on, but not revoked, and our Vatican I Council formally proclaimed (as a teaching of the bishops united with the pope) that any attempt to repeal such teaching by any pontiff then or in the future would automatically render such statements as not carrying the weight of the Holy See. No matter how you personally choose to exclude legitimate sources of Catholic teaching to try to build a straw man case, those teachings remain, and you have no authority whatsoever to declare entire ecumenical councils irrelevant to a topic just because doing so is inconvenient.

I have emphasised over, and over, that this is not a revocation of any law, but rather the illumination of misunderstandings.
Thus it is a clarification.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

As far as the levels of Catholic teaching, you are speaking gibberish. One infallibly declared teaching cannot be deliberately interpreted to conflict with another, especially by deliberately excluding the other teachings from consideration when trying to interpret a document. You may continue to pretend this kind of arbitrary limitation is possible within your own mind, but if you continue to do so here the only presumption left for the rest of us is that you have come to a Catholic forum with a deliberate intent to twist Catholic teaching into a straw man instead of trying to gain a better understanding of the teachings as a whole.

I think that I as a non Catholic, have a greater respect for your late Holy Father than you have.
I think that spaeks volumes.
I think further discourse with you is a vanity.
Ave et vale.

 

[pnewton]

I am surprised at the Wall Street Journal’s commentary. I’ll concede that Grisham may be anti-death penalty. So what?

So what? It is the very reason why we should not look to novelist, Hollywood or celebrities for expertise outside their field.

I will concede that no system can be 100%. But if we apply that as a reason not to punish someone, then no one should ever be punished. Ever. After all, we can not return ten years of life taken anymore than we can return the life taken in its entirity. Should we lock someone up for decades until natural death by mistake, would that not too be tragic?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You are in effect calling me a liar. That is ad hominim, and unfit for use on this forum.

An intentional misstatement of fact is a logical fallacy in its own right thus pointing out such an error is always permissible. If you would refrain from making claims that have no basis in fact, you would not so frequently be exposed as doing so.

The moderators here have made it clear that it is quite acceptable to point out statements have no basis in fact or when someone is persisting in a false claim even after it had been appropriately challenged. That is what you did when you posted multiple citations that all failed to address the actual claim of yours that was questions, if only one had failed to mention it I might have cut you some slack, but there is no plausible excuse for none of them to even mention the distinction.

You are right though, there really is only one word that succintly describes someone who repeatedly makes and attempts to excuse statements any reasonable person would suspect to be false, though I’m not sure that you realized just how much your feigned offense in frustration at not being allowed to get away with those misrepresentations serves as a de facto admission of guilt.

When I was preparing the reply, I only scanned through the links. I thought that one of the links included such a reference, though indeed, I cannot find it now.

This is not the first time (or even the fifth) that it has been made painfully obvious that you have not actually read the citations you provide to see whether or not they support what you claim they do. In fact, the majority of the sources you list end up being washouts. This is yet another habit I would encourage you to rectify.

I have emphasised over, and over, that this is not a revocation of any law, but rather the illumination of misunderstandings.
Thus it is a clarification.

If it is not a revocation, then you admit that the Church has not at all altered the authority of the State to decide for itself when the Death Penalty is necessary, in which case you’ve ceded the rest of the points you were trying to make. To address something you said later, I personally find it very disrespectful of JP II to insinuate that his statements were written with the intent to be interpreted in a way that excluded complimentary and related infallible teachings of the Church as the spin you have attempted to place so frequently does.

 

[Ender]

I understand your objection, and accept that it is technically correct. However, in his introduction, JPII is clear that he is speaking in Vox Petri.

This statement has no meaning. No one in the Church accepts the death penalty statements in this encyclical as dogma and it should be clear that it is not even a new doctrine, a point explicitly made by Cardinal Dulles. So, if the teaching is new but it’s neither dogma nor doctrine, what is it? As I have explained several times, it is a prudential judgment.

This then is surely the highest authority, short of excathedra infalibility, if you wish to be picky. It is not to be lightly set aside.

True, his words should be given careful consideration; but we are not obliged to assent to them.

No-one here is changing the laws of G_d. Our Lord did not change the laws of G_d.

JPII’s statement on the death penalty is most surely a change from the way the Church has interpreted the appropriateness of the death penalty. Although, as Dulles stated, it is not a doctrinal change; the doctrine remains what it has always been: the state has the moral right to execute criminals.

I can see how your conclusion, though not a world away from mine, is though based on retribution, and the false premise of effective deterrence.

You equate justice with retribution. As you have rejected retribution you have also rejected justice. Since the Church considers justice one of the four cardinal virtues, you can be sure she doesn’t share your opinions on the subject. Deterrence is irrelevant to my argument.

You consider the termination of wicked lives to be just

Not exactly. The Church holds that it is just for the state to execute criminals in certain circumstances. I agree with that even as I disagree with JPII’s limit on the circumstances.

The Gospel of Christ, and the Gospel of Life both call for mercy, even for the unworthy.

For the unworthy yes, but not for the unrepentant.

Vengeance has no place in any Christian heart, whether Catholic, catholic, or any other shade of Christianity.

For you, justice is inseparable from vengeance. Doesn’t it sound strange to you to say “Justice has no place in any Christian heart”?

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Ender,
I was very careful with my use of words.
You have neglected this care, and so made nonsense of my statements.
I equated JUDGEMENT with vengeance and retribution, not JUSTICE.
Judgement and justice are NOT the same.
In the Gospel justice is sometimes uses as a synonym for alms-giving generosity.
We are urged to be just, but commanded not to judge.[sign]
JPII’s statement on the death penalty is most surely a change from the way the Church has interpreted the appropriateness of the death penalty. Although, as Dulles stated, it is not a doctrinal change; the doctrine remains what it has always been: the state has the moral right to execute criminals.[/sign]
Yes, this is indeed true, I dispute it not.
The state has indeed a duty to protect society, thus a duty to impost judgement with justice.
It has thus the right, where necessary to impose the death penalty where it finds no effective alternative.
However, the Church does not require the use of the death penalty for any other purpose than to protect society, and then only where no effective alternative is available.

 

[Ender]

I equated JUDGEMENT with vengeance and retribution, not JUSTICE. Judgement and justice are NOT the same. In the Gospel justice is sometimes uses as a synonym for alms-giving generosity. We are urged to be just, but commanded not to judge.

We are not commanded not to judge; we are commanded to judge fairly: (1807) “in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

(Aquinas II/II 60-2) *“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice.” *What we are forbidden is judgment *"**which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart." *It is a mistake, however, to assume that a severe punishment cannot be just but must be the result of “bitterness of heart.” Once judged, justice demands punishment commensurate with the severity of the sin.

Ender