- Status
M
MarysLurker
Guest
I think I’ll have a small bowl with some milk and call it a night. Thanks for the suggestion.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Just chiming in. I believe a Catholic still can for two reasons: one, the Catechism passage can be changed and changed again. It’s not binding.
And two, not everything in an encyclical is infallible. Plus, he did say the encyclical was more for reflection.
And two, not everything in an encyclical is infallible. Plus, he did say the encyclical was more for reflection.
R
Rau
Guest
It could well be that the community these days judges the harm done through CP to be greater than it judged it to be in the past. That would underpin a trend to abolition of CP if more now see the harm done to exceed the good done. But that trend does not obligate everyone to judge the balance in that way.
It may be in time that a similar trend will emerge in respect of abortion, but I don’t think the two need to come together.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
The kind of incarceration or rehabilitation that would theoretically prevent these scenarios would require violation of human and civil rights by giving states very scary powers. For example, to stop escape via falsified evidence you would have to ban habeas corpus. This is far worse than capital punishment.
That’s where I’m coming from. Pope St JPII was a big picture thinker and in defining a ‘culture of death’ confirms how abortion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s taking license from a sinful mentality. It reminds me of the words of Jesus as per Luke 16:10 when He is speaking about the dishonest manager.MarysLurker:
It could well be that the community these days judges the harm done through CP to be greater than it judged it to be in the past. That would underpin a trend to abolition of CP if more now see the harm done to exceed the good done. But that trend does not obligate everyone to judge the balance in that way.
It may be in time that a similar trend will emerge in respect of abortion, but I don’t think the two need to come together.
“Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much."
We are a society that gives an indifferent pass to say racism, greed and dishonest business and the like, but don’t connect this mentality with greater sins.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
I fail to see how any of these issues are related to capital punishment.
If anything, executing a white supremacist serial killer or mob boss serves to ameliorate these evils, not make them worse.
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
I might personally prefer this to abortions, euthanasia, assisted suicide, eugenics… We are not so enlightened.
Can’t believe this thread is still going on. The sheer confusion should be a sign that something is wrong…
There are many reasons for the liceity and goodness of CP. Deterrence, retribution, reparation, protection, and even conversion. Moses knew this - as did the apostles, saints, etc. It’s from God.
Recommended reading (other than Prof. Feser’s book - which is mandatory!)… St. Catherine’s letter about the execution she assisted at. Notice what she does not say. And notice how it occasioned the young man’s deeper conversion. There is another story I know, of Cardinal Keeler and a famous serial killer in Baltimore. He converted him by reading him John 6. He became a Catholic - because his mind was then concentrated on eternal things… much unlike “life in prison” would do, which often does just the opposite (though it could still be appropriate as a punishment). The story of Achan is another example - in Joshua - albeit it is a bit different.
Last edited:
I’m not interested in reading about why the dp served the good in the past. I already know that. My interest is more what the motive behind those fighting against abolition is today. It seems to be a uniquely US thing because all other Christian countries that abandoned the death penalty long ago didn’t have much debate about it at all. The ‘sheer’ confusion is limited to a small but loud section of Americans only.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
That is because Europe was swept by socialism after WW2, not because they were making some kind of moral advance. Rather, the rise of Labour was contemporate with a huge decline in Christianity in these countries. You will be hard pressed to identify any “Christian countries” in Europe today save a handful in the East.
This is not my opinion. Read the article below please.
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
The case against abolition in practice is distinct from the critical doctrinal issue at stake which is about a principle.
R
Rau
Guest
I imagine the case against abolition is along the lines of:
- The worst murderers deserve death
- it’s just
- it should cost the community less than life imprisonment
- a view it does more good than harm
- it may feed our baser instincts
- mistakes are made
- it may promote a more brutal society
- compelled death of any person is itself regrettable
M
MarysLurker
Guest
This one is not a good argument in favor of the death penalty because capital prosecution is VERY expensive. In the American system, most of that expense is the state paying for the defendant’s lawyers and defense team. (Did you know that the government has to pay for the whole defense if the defendant can’t afford to do so?)
At a minimum, the state must pay for three sets of lawyers (trial, appellate, and habeas). The state must also pay for the defense investigators, including a mitigation specialist whose job it is to make a dissertation on the defendant’s life story, in order to find any mitigating evidence that the defendant could present as reducing his moral blameworthiness. If that is not enough, the state must also pay for defense expert witnesses. What sort of experts will be needed depends on the facts of the case, but multiple psychological experts are almost always required.
This is in addition to all of the expenses of the prosecution!
The costs are typically in the millions per case.
On the other hand, the high cost ensures that the death penalty is reserved for the most exceptional cases.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I guess on that basis, they could be similar expenses. Surely there must be death penalty cases where the certainty of guilt is so comprehensively & properly established that no appeal could raise the interest of the appeal court? I suppose if mental incapacitation comes into the equation, it might go on a bit…
M
MarysLurker
Guest
As a matter of course, a prosecutor is not going to seek death on a case that isn’t water tight on the guilt of the defendant. Pursuing death means that the defense will have much better resources than in a non-capital case, where, if the client is indigent, there is generally only one or two defense lawyers and necessary experts appointed. (See Ake v. Oklahoma for what experts are appointed in a non capital case. In capital cases additional experts are available for mitigation, etc. of the death sentence, and as a matter of course, all the experts will have more money available to do their work for the defense in a death case).
Even though capital murder cases are based on strong evidence, capital defense attorneys are the best of the best, and will throw everything but the kitchen sink at the prosecution. Even if the prosecution doesn’t think the identity of the offender is an issue, the defense will likely try to raise it anyway, even if there is no evidence that anyone else was the murderer. One way to do this is to try to impeach the eyewitnesses and other evidence establishing the defendant’s presence. However, whether to do so is a strategic call of the defense, which the habeas lawyers may challenge later.
And yes, mental health evidence is always an issue. Some states allow it to be raised as evidence against the intent element of the murder itself. And it is always raised in the punishment phase as mitigating evidence that the defendant doesn’t deserve death.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Here is a case that could warrant the death penalty but for the fact that France doesn’t have it on the books anymore.
www.ncregister.com
Holy martyrs, pray for us.
Three Dead in Terrorist Attack at French Basilica
Christian Estrosi, Nice’s mayor, said that the perpetrator, who was armed with a knife, was shot and arrested by the municipal police.
www.ncregister.com
Holy martyrs, pray for us.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Here is another one. The “experts” said he posed no risk the last time he was arrested.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It isn’t clear to me that this clarification works. To be inadmissible based on it being “evil in its circumstance” implies that circumstances all over the earth are such that no circumstances exist anywhere that could possibly justify its use.
I get that you are trying to distinguish intrinsically evil (which the death penalty cannot be since the Church has approved it in the past and so has Scripture) and “evil in its circumstance.” Yet how could anyone know with certainty that no circumstances permitting the death penalty exist anywhere on the earth today? Seems to stretch credulity.
The Church should have stuck with its more nuanced version from JPII in the former version.
The “deposit of faith” has taught for two millennia that capital punishment is permissible though not without proper justification. That position is the received Tradition of the Church. It cannot change.
CCC 86
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
As do I. My post is in line with JPII’s development of the teaching that allows capital punishment (CP).
The state’s right to execute has always been conditional, that is, based on circumstances. The tradition teaches that the execution of a person whose identity and guilt have not been fully determined is always evil.
As penal security technology has developed, JPII develops the teaching to include the circumstance that “bloodless” means must also be determined inadequate to protect society from the criminal. As such, the teaching does not contradict received Tradition.
In order to good, a human act must be good in all three of its sources of morality, i.e., object, intent and circumstance. Circumstances can be such that they change the very species of the human act. An act evil in its circumstance is always an evil act.
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t think JPII contradicted doctrine, although your interpretation of his comments might, but I think this point is now moot. What of the update Francis made? If capital punishment is now “inadmissible” then what does it matter whether society cannot be protected? Francis did not include any caveat that makes it admissible depending on circumstances. Why do you refer to JPII’s comments when they have been superseded by Francis?
This appears to be incorrect:
CCC 1754 Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…
- Status