Arizona Catholic Conference Bishops’ Statement Opposing the Death Penalty

[JaredM]

I support the death penalty.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I support the death penalty.

I believe that there are narrow situations where the death penalty is justified, but outside those, imprisonment needs be the norm.

 

[starshiptrooper]

…We hold that capital punishment – when other
means are available to keep society safe from dangerous criminals – denies the intrinsic
dignity and sanctity of human life. …

Punishments usually deprive the offender of something valuable. Thus, by executing criminals, we imply that life is valuable.

So, how does capital punishment devalue human life?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Punishments usually deprive the offender of something valuable. Thus, by executing criminals, we imply that life is valuable.

So, how does capital punishment devalue human life?

Because it puts the condemned at the level of an animal that can be slaughtered, as I see it. Just because some elements in the Church considered it hunky-dory hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean that it is right today. The clock won’t turn back. Mankind and the Church will no longer tolerate such barbarity.

 

[Ender]

Because it puts the condemned at the level of an animal that can be slaughtered, as I see it. Just because some elements in the Church considered it hunky-dory hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean that it is right today. The clock won’t turn back. Mankind and the Church will no longer tolerate such barbarity.

Actually, this perspective is backwards. As for your perception that what was right hundreds of years ago isn’t necessarily right today, the Church teaches that morality does not change with the times, so if the death penalty was just in the past it is um… just as just today. It is not when used as the just punishment for a crime that capital punishment ignores the intrinsic dignity of life but when it is used to obtain safety for the community that it does so.

The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment **must **be commensurate with the severity of the crime (CCC 2266). When a murderer forfeits his own life for his crime there is a twofold reference to the dignity of life: the sanctity of the victim’s life is recognized (by calling for such a terrible punishment) as is the value of the criminal’s life, for if his life was not of value then losing it would not expiate his crime, yet we know (because the Church teaches this) that if he accepts his death his sin is expiated by his punishment.

Someone who is executed to safeguard the community, however, is treated quite literally like a dangerous animal, who’s elimination is not based on sin and atonement - which are moral concerns - but on safety. It’s the same way we treat dogs and wild animals that harm a community; we don’t so much punish them as we exterminate them to eliminate the threat they pose.

Which reason for execution seems more justifiable: the one that treats a man as a responsible moral agent and holds him accountable for his actions … or the one that treats him as disposable when he is perceived to be dangerous?

Ender

 

[lynx]

Punishments usually deprive the offender of something valuable. Thus, by executing criminals, we imply that life is valuable.

So, how does capital punishment devalue human life?

Considering that we’re flawed creatures and put people to death wrongly, I think we should never put people to death. Is it justice to kill a million guilty men if one innocent man has to die? Do you have the right to revoke life, after all you’re not supposed to commit murder right? So what’s the justification for the death penalty that life in prison does not address? Capital punishment was instituted as just that, a punishment, but its effectiveness compared to the consequences do not justify the act.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Actually, this perspective is backwards. As for your perception that what was right hundreds of years ago isn’t necessarily right today, the Church teaches that morality does not change with the times, so if the death penalty was just in the past it is um… just as just today.

Just, in only narrow circumstances.

Anyone who thinks that the Church is going to go back to the days when the death penalty was freely administered is fooling himself. The Church is not so set in the past that it is unable to change with the times. I can’t conceive of any Pope saying that we ought to starting the killing again. Regardless what theologians said several hundred years ago, the Church lives and functions in the 21st century now.

 

[Ender]

The Church is not so set in the past that it is unable to change with the times.

The Church is set in the truth which does not change with the times.

Regardless what theologians said several hundred years ago, the Church lives and functions in the 21st century now.

It may be a while before the Church again acknowledges that capital punishment is not only the just punishment for murder but the practical one as well, but it is solely as a practical expedient that it is opposed today. I am struck by your comfort with the concept that morality can change over time. It is not a question of what a random group of “theologians” held to be true in some unenlightened age prior to our own, it is about whether the Church can in fact carry out her task of authentically interpreting the word of God. You apparently feel that she has failed as regards this issue.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Considering that we’re flawed creatures and put people to death wrongly, I think we should never put people to death. Is it justice to kill a million guilty men if one innocent man has to die?

No matter whether executions are increased or eliminated, innocent people will die. While it seems that claims are grossly exaggerated regarding how many innocent people have been wrongly executed, I certainly admit the possibility that some innocent people have been executed and that some may be in the future. Against that, however, are the much larger numbers of innocents killed by those who have killed before but not executed. In fact, if your concern is primarily the protection of the innocent then you should support a greater application of capital punishment.

Do you have the right to revoke life, after all you’re not supposed to commit murder right?

I notice that you identify yourself as an atheist so I’m not sure how to answer this question in a form that would matter to you. I can certainly point out, however, that capital punishment, while it is killing, is not murder. Let’s at least stick to the common meaning of words.

So what’s the justification for the death penalty that life in prison does not address?

What do you believe are the proper objectives of punishment and what is its primary objective?

Capital punishment was instituted as just that, a punishment, but its effectiveness compared to the consequences do not justify the act.

I don’t understand your point here. As a hint to answering the previous question, one of the objectives of punishment is protection and executions are 100% effective in achieving that goal.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The Church is set in the truth which does not change with the times.

Capital punishment is not a dogma of the Church, promulgated infallibly.

It may be a while before the Church again acknowledges that capital punishment is not only the just punishment for murder but the practical one as well, but it is solely as a practical expedient that it is opposed today.

And will be opposed in saecula seculorum.

it is about whether the Church can in fact carry out her task of authentically interpreting the word of God.

I see no insistence by Christ that capital punishment be the order of the day. Sorry.

You apparently feel that she has failed as regards this issue.

The Church has not failed. It has done the right thing. Capital punishment is the hobbyhorse that you are riding. It is you who is fixated by the belief that the death penalty ought to be a routine punishment. The Church is well beyond that notion.

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment is not a dogma of the Church, promulgated infallibly.

True enough. Of course this is also true of almost all Church doctrine; very little is promulgated infallibly. What it is is taught infallibly.

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles)

The Church has not failed. It has done the right thing. Capital punishment is the hobbyhorse that you are riding. It is you who is fixated by the belief that the death penalty ought to be a routine punishment. The Church is well beyond that notion.

If I was merely giving you my opinion this comment would be applicable, but what I have done is cite Church teaching on the matter … which you routinely dismiss as irrelevant because it is old. The Church holds the concept of Sacred Tradition in more esteem, considering it on a par with Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Morality is eternal and is not a notion one can get beyond.

Ender

 

[JackyB]

As I have said, nothing posted so far convinces me that capital punishment should not be carried out. Arizona, 22 deaths since '76 where would anyone asume, with figures such as this, that it is being used as the order of the day, who mentioned that it is a form of punishment that should be a routine?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If I was merely giving you my opinion this comment would be applicable, but what I have done is cite Church teaching on the matter … which you routinely dismiss as irrelevant because it is old.

I don’t deny that there are narrow circumstances under which the death penalty may be appropriate. The Church admits so. That doesn’t mean that the penalty ought to be used except in narrow cases. If Capital Punishment were to be abolished worldwide, there would be no violation of Catholic teaching as the Church nowhere mandates its use.

Morality is eternal and is not a notion one can get beyond.

That the death penalty may be morally acceptable doesn’t mean that it needs be applied. I would hope that it will go the way of the instruments of the Inquisition.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I don’t deny that there are narrow circumstances under which the death penalty may be appropriate. The Church admits so. That doesn’t mean that the penalty ought to be used except in narrow cases. If Capital Punishment were to be abolished worldwide, there would be no violation of Catholic teaching as the Church nowhere mandates its use.

In #2266 of the CCC, we learn that punishment should be equal to the crime. Do you really believe that a prison sentence is equal to the crime of murder? If so, you equate the victim’s life with the murderer’s liberty. Why are murderer’s lives more valuable than the lives of their victims?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

In #2266 of the CCC, we learn that punishment should be equal to the crime. Do you really believe that a prison sentence is equal to the crime of murder? If so, you equate the victim’s life with the murderer’s liberty. Why are murderer’s lives more valuable than the lives of their victims?

Yes, I really believe that a life term is sufficient punishment for the crime of murder. I believe that the maximum sentence is up to the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed, and if that is 25 to life, or 40 to life or life without parole, I will support that.

I do not believe in the Lex Talionis, and see no reason to compound the tragedy of one death with another death. All life is valuable.

 

[lynx]

No matter whether executions are increased or eliminated, innocent people will die. While it seems that claims are grossly exaggerated regarding how many innocent people have been wrongly executed, I certainly admit the possibility that some innocent people have been executed and that some may be in the future.

So knowing that it is within your power to imprison people for life, including innocent people, you would rather they be killed and their threat negated completely, even innocent people. This is a dangerous way to think. You’re main reasoning here is to kill someone if they’re a threat. So should all convicted sexual offenders be put to death? They could serve their time, rape and kill someone. Should all DUIs come with the death penalty? Someone’s drinking and driving could kill someone if they did it again. There needs to be more to the death penalty than just the threat of death.

Against that, however, are the much larger numbers of innocents killed by those who have killed before but not executed. In fact, if your concern is primarily the protection of the innocent then you should support a greater application of capital punishment.

I won’t argue with the numbers as all I know is that innocent people have been put to death and murderers have walked out of jail. My concern is for the innocent, which life in prison justifies. There are precautions you can take if you feel someone in prison is a threat to themselves or others. Bradley Manning knows all about it.

I notice that you identify yourself as an atheist so I’m not sure how to answer this question in a form that would matter to you.

As an atheist, life, this life in particular, matters the most to me. Which is why I hold life in a high regard, and don’t take actions such as capital punishment lightly.

I can certainly point out, however, that capital punishment, while it is killing, is not murder. Let’s at least stick to the common meaning of words.
What do you believe are the proper objectives of punishment and what is its primary objective?

The objectives of any punishment are to correct a negative behavior and serve as a deterrent to others to not commit the negative behavior. Capital punishment and life in prison addresses both of these, but only one allows innocent people to not be dead at the end of the day. Additionally, with programs like scared-straight, life in prison inmates can still work towards bettering society.

I don’t understand your point here. As a hint to answering the previous question, one of the objectives of punishment is protection and executions are 100% effective in achieving that goal.

With the exception of the innocent people killed it works just fine.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I really believe that a life term is sufficient punishment for the crime of murder. I believe that the maximum sentence is up to the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed, and if that is 25 to life, or 40 to life or life without parole, I will support that.

I do not believe in the Lex Talionis, and see no reason to compound the tragedy of one death with another death. All life is valuable.

Agreed. I’ve never understood the attitude that the way we teach people that life is sacred is by taking life

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Agreed. I’ve never understood the attitude that the way we teach people that life is sacred is by taking life

Indeed. The notion that killing a murderer somehow demonstrates that his life as well as his victim’s life are both valuable has always been a “puzzlement” and a nonsense to me.

 

[Ender]

So knowing that it is within your power to imprison people for life, including innocent people, you would rather they be killed and their threat negated completely, even innocent people. This is a dangerous way to think.

I don’t think you understood what I said. Employing capital punishment runs the risk of executing an innocent person, but not employing capital punishment also leads to the death of innocent people and in fact causes significantly more innocent deaths. If your primary concern is for the safety of innocent people then you should support the use of capital punishment, not oppose it.

You’re main reasoning here is to kill someone if they’re a threat.

It is not my reasoning, main or otherwise. Although it is the reasoning contained in 2267.

I won’t argue with the numbers as all I know is that innocent people have been put to death and murderers have walked out of jail. My concern is for the innocent,

As I said, more innocent people die because capital punishment is not used than will be executed in error. Significantly more.

The objectives of any punishment are to correct a negative behavior and serve as a deterrent to others to not commit the negative behavior.

The primary objective of punishment is retribution - justice. People who commit crimes earn the punishment they receive and the degree of that punishment, in order that it be just, must be of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime. Deterrence (along with rehabilitation and safety) are all valid objectives, but they are also all secondary.

Additionally, with programs like scared-straight, life in prison inmates can still work towards bettering society.

You have a rather inflated opinion of the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. The figures show that over half of all felons are back in prison within three years of their release.

With the exception of the innocent people killed it works just fine.

You keep mentioning this as if this was a major concern. In fact there are very few examples where even the possibility exists that an innocent person has been executed and there have been zero cases proven since 1976 when capital punishment was reintroduced in the US.

Ender

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes, I really believe that a life term is sufficient punishment for the crime of murder. I believe that the maximum sentence is up to the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed, and if that is 25 to life, or 40 to life or life without parole, I will support that.

I do not believe in the Lex Talionis, and see no reason to compound the tragedy of one death with another death. All life is valuable.

As I pointed out, by setencing a murderer to prison, you have just equated the victim’s life with his murderer’s liberty. It seems then that your position is that all lives are valuable but some are more valuable than others.