Archbishop Chaput urges end to capital punishment

[JimG]

Me, too.

However, I want complete assurances that the replacement will be life in prison without possibility of parole.

And that type of conviction is almost as difficult to obtain as a death sentence. There are a lot of life sentences handed out. I’ve even seen a murderer given four consecutive life sentences, and they still come up for parole. To change that would require wholesale overhaul of criminal laws by state legislatures.

 

[Glennford]

Another one bows to the Zeitgeist.

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t know why anyone would listen to random folks on the internet when Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Popes have been telling us the same thing:

enough with the executions already!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t know why anyone would listen to random folks on the internet when Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Popes have been telling us the same thing:

enough with the executions already!

 

[Ender]

I don’t know why anyone would listen to random folks on the internet when Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Popes have been telling us the same thing:

enough with the executions already!

Even random folks have access to Church teaching. If you are comfortable you can defend your position you shouldn’t be so eager to avoid debating it.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Why would I argue against Church teaching?

 

[Ender]

Why would I argue against Church teaching?

You would first have to understand Church teaching before you could sustain an argument about it and, on this topic, I don’t believe you do. The Church has always taught, and does so today, that the death penalty is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

You would first have to understand Church teaching before you could sustain an argument about it and, on this topic,** I don’t believe you do**. The Church has always taught, and does so today, that the death penalty is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.

Ender

Way to bait the hook Ender

 

[JMJSHJ]

Ender has nailed it perfectly when he accurately rebuts Archbishop Chaput’s argument about “violence with violence”. Its one thing to be against capital punishment but when pass moral judgment on others who according to the teachings of the Holy Catholic faith then you have crossed a line and made erroneous statements. One doesn’t need a degree in theology for that.

 

[Franciscanguy]

Love Chaput. A few things:

1. You can pick up the actual statement here. It’s interesting to see how the News Agency spun it.
2. I think the final word on this is the CCC so I’m going to quote the whole paragraph, lest people think I am cherry-picking.

CCC 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

I love it when JPII makes the argument for me.

We have the means to restrain the murderer from society. We choose to not exercise that power to the fullest. Because we choose not to do what we aught do does not mean that we should do what we want to do.

1. There is a theological issue here. By killing someone via death penalty we are taking away their chance at conversion. We are choosing to decide their salvation by not allowing God to work in His time.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

IFor myself, I don’t think I could ever be an executioner, so maybe that’s one reason I don’t want to ask someone else to do it either.

I may be wrong about this, but I recall reading that a man cannot become a Catholic priest if he’s been an executioner.

 

[triumphguy]

I may be wrong about this, but I recall reading that a man cannot become a Catholic priest if he’s been an executioner.

You’re right.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

If we *moderns" have secure prisons, killing them is not proportional to the threat that they pose to the community. In almost all cases the death penalty is not needed.

prison gangs operate narcotics distribution organizations on the outside, with all the expected attendant crimes: murder, extortion, money laundering, prostitution. they do this from the inside of prison.

so the narco convict doing life instead of death is still a menace to the public.

Westerby

 

[Franciscanguy]

prison gangs operate narcotics distribution organizations on the outside, with all the expected attendant crimes: murder, extortion, money laundering, prostitution. they do this from the inside of prison.

so the narco convict doing life instead of death is still a menace to the public.

Westerby

That’s all another issue. If we are to take what you are saying and relate it to the current discussion it seems as though the logical conclusion would be to execute all the “menaces to the public” too.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That’s all another issue. If we are to take what you are saying and relate it to the current discussion it seems as though the logical conclusion would be to execute all the “menaces to the public” too.

Or simply allow them supervised contact with the outside.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Or simply allow them supervised contact with the outside.

contact is already supervised. but there’s a constitutional right to an attorney, and communications between attorney and client, even a convict, are privileged – private to some extent even given the circumstances. and there are other ways around that too, using other convicts and their counsel as go-betweens.

and, of course, prison gangs also operate inside the prison, and the the leadership is responsible for drug distribution, assaults, killings…

Westerby.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

contact is already supervised. but there’s a constitutional right to an attorney, and communications between attorney and client, even a convict, are privileged – private to some extent even given the circumstances. and there are other ways around that too, using other convicts and their counsel as go-betweens.

and, of course, prison gangs also operate inside the prison, and the the leadership is responsible for drug distribution, assaults, killings…

Westerby.

This is true. I would certainly supervise all phone calls that are not client-attorney

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

That’s all another issue. If we are to take what you are saying and relate it to the current discussion it seems as though the logical conclusion would be to execute all the “menaces to the public” too.

I’m not sure who “we” are, but there’s no need for “you” to misrepresent my argument.

la eMe, also known as the mexican mafia, a prison gang, runs extortion, narcotics trafficking, contract killings, inside and outside prison. the FBI’s report discusses who they are, what they do and how they operate in detail. its not happy reading, but you seem to have a mistaken – one might say naive-- belief in who these people are.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

people like that who have committed DP eligible crimes should be put to death because its a plain fact that the prison system cannot protect people’s safety.

this is an instance where the CCC would not and should not disallow the DP.

Westerby

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

This is true. I would certainly supervise all phone calls that are not client-attorney

there’s something called Special Administrative Measures used to monitor attorney-client contact in federal prison, for very rare cases. you might look up Lynn Stewart for an attorney who went afoul of the law. invading the attorney-client privilege is a huge problem.

Westerby

 

[JimG]

…We have the means to restrain the murderer from society. We choose to not exercise that power to the fullest. Because we choose not to do what we aught do does not mean that we should do what we want to do.

1. There is a theological issue here. By killing someone via death penalty we are taking away their chance at conversion. We are choosing to decide their salvation by not allowing God to work in His time.

There seems to be an assumption made in the current thinking about eliminating the death penalty that we have the means to restrain the murderer from society.

That’s simple to say, not so simple to do. Ask any prosecutor what factors go into seeking a capital murder prosecution instead of a first or second degree murder prosecution or a manslaughter prosecution. Each type of conviction allows for different kinds of sentencing. In some states, a jury must first convict a person of capital murder before having the option of either assigning the death penalty or life without parole. Eliminating capital murder as a possible prosecution would also eliminate the certainty of life without parole.

A simple first degree murder conviction can indeed result in a life sentence, even several consecutive life sentences. But once given, the times at which a convict comes up for parole, even on a life sentence, are automatic, and are overseen by the corrections system, not the justice system.

And I doubt that even a death penalty would take away a person’s chance at conversion. Having received a death sentence, the convict knows there are several rounds of appeals to complete, and the death penalty, if ever actually carried out, will take at least ten years and likely more to get to that point.