Capital punishment...again

[exnihilo]

The Inquisition applied to Catholics. It wasn’t about forcing conversions.

The modern focus on salvation being possibly more widely available doesn’t mean those in the past thought pagans had no dignity.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The Inquisition applied to Catholics. It wasn’t about forcing conversions.

That wasn’t the context of the discussion. My comment refers to how our increasing awareness about the dignity of man has changed the focus of Church teaching.

The modern focus on salvation being possibly more widely available doesn’t mean those in the past thought pagans had no dignity.

That wasn’t the context of my point. The Church acknowledges that the reformulation of the wording of the doctrine “outside of the Church there is no salvation” is to recognise Gods active relationship with all people including those who are invincibly ignorant of the Good News.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I find these two arguments disturbing. I have a real problem accepting that for 2000 years, no Father or Doctor of the Church and indeed no pope (including BXVI and JPII) fully understood the true nature of man’s dignity.

No person alive will ever ’ fully understood the true nature of man’s dignity.’

1 Cor 13 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

CCC 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

 

[Ender]

No person alive will ever ’ fully understood the true nature of man’s dignity.’

This seems a bit of a quibble. If this new assertion is true then no one prior to this year correctly understood man’s dignity. It’s quite an indictment of the church to suggest that for 200 years she supported something that was contrary to man’s dignity and was therefore never justifiable. I mentioned this before, but how do we get from the point where it was a heresy to believe the State did not have the right to apply capital punishment to the point where it would appear to be a heresy now to believe it does?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

No person alive will ever ’ fully understood the true nature of man’s dignity.’

This seems a bit of a quibble. If this new assertion is true then no one prior to this year correctly understood man’s dignity. It’s quite an indictment of the church to suggest that for 200 years she supported something that was contrary to man’s dignity and was therefore never justifiable. I mentioned this before, but how do we get from the point where it was a heresy to believe the State did not have the right to apply capital punishment to the point where it would appear to be a heresy now to believe it does?

It has always been heresy to call capital punishment intrinsically evil, not to disagree with the States right to apply it, which was always implicitly conditional. Aquinas addressed that distinction.

ST II II 64 2 Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

 

[Elf01]

The prisoners in for life as a whole are not going around committing murder, just as the vast majority of the population in you town (and mine) are not committing murder

.
Your comment is a non sequitur.

Did I misinterpret the comment I replied to? I thought you were saying that Capital Punishment is necessary as a deterrent to inmates sentanced to life. In that case pointing out that there is no deterrent to death row inmates seems very relevant.

 

[otjm]

No, it may be a little more subtle than that.

I have no question, and history bears this out, that the great majority of lifers are not going to attempt, let alone succeed in murdering another inmate or a guard. And this has been true across the board - states with and without the death penalty.

There are, however, a small group within lifers who are high risk to murder again while doing life. Will the death penalty “deter” them from doing so? Perhaps it may with part of the at risk subset of lifers.

As noted, in the Washington case, this was at least his second murder, and it was in what is at least allegedly a controlled situation. In this particular case (because until his second murder conviction and sentence to death was appealed) it did not have a deterrent effect.

Had he been put to death, it definitely would deter a third murder.

I am a firm believer in the Just War theory. And in combat, one often has no time to sit down and consciously intend to kill the enemy; but if you shoot one and wound him, and he goes back to returning fire, you shoot again. And if necessary, again. That killing is justified; and I see the same issue here.

Many will disagree with me. Many of those have never been in combat. I have.

And I can appreciate the Pope’s decision to tighten up the issue; and you can talk all day to me about it, and I will maintain that in certain and limited circumstances, I would back the death penalty. John Paul’s comment about modern prison systems and the ability to contain the rage/hatred/insanity which drives certain murderers was not absolute, and this case is a prime example of it.

I am an absolute believer in the inherent right to self defense. To say that the State does not have that inherent right (as the State is not some disembodied figment of law, but rather the people within it) to self defense appears to be an oxymoron.

 

[pnewton]

Because obsequium is demanded by the nature of this exercise of the Petrine ministry by the Vicar of Christ, I’m really at a loss to understand why The Catholic Answers Forum is allowing itself to be used to, in any way, encourage what is actually dissent from the doctrine of Church teaching

This is not a matter that is any longer open to any debate on the part of Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium

Don Roggero, it is good to hear from you. I can answer this question a little from my own experience, though perhaps I do not understand all that is happening here. As a seminary trained Southern Baptist, I had deep areas of misunderstanding, dissent if you will, when I became Catholic. Much of what I learned came from this Catholic Answers and other similar places, though I did not believe all the Church taught that I was supposed to. It was through argument that I was able to more fully understand the mind of the Church.

Perhaps the issue is not with the debate, but with those who come here with a single-minded agenda to turn people away from what the Church teaches, or is teaching, in this case. That is above my pay grade. But honest argument, where one recognizes one’s own limitations, is a valuable tool for those who will use it, and who need it. Yes, Pope Francis gave us a real gift in this teaching. However, some may still need to read the instruction manual first, something men do not like to do. In the end, I will trust that the intelligence of the Holy Father is sufficient to the task for those who need a little more, and are sincerely open of heart to learn what Mother is teaching.

 

[Elf01]

As noted, in the Washington case, this was at least his second murder, and it was in what is at least allegedly a controlled situation. In this particular case (because until his second murder conviction and sentence to death was appealed) it did not have a deterrent effect.

Had he been put to death, it definitely would deter a third murder.

How long is it typically between a person being sentanced to death and being executed?

 

[pnewton]

I have no question, and history bears this out, that the great majority of lifers are not going to attempt, let alone succeed in murdering another inmate or a guard. And this has been true across the board - states with and without the death penalty.

There are, however, a small group within lifers who are high risk to murder again while doing life. Will the death penalty “deter” them from doing so? Perhaps it may with part of the at risk subset of lifers.

I can only address how my own understanding on this has evolved. It is this “small number” that I see as the balance to the totality of the pro-life message. I have always known that we cannot safely incarcerate everyone. I accept that, all things being equal, there might be some cases where a death penalty can be justified for safety reasons. However, it is the rarity of these cases that makes recourse to the death penalty inadmissible. The message of the value of life, on balance is of greater value than a couple of cases a year (and which ones are debatable).

Speaking from my own experience, and I know mileage may vary, the criminal population is becoming more civilized with time, with the worst offenders being less common, and the average aggressiveness dropping. I have no statistics on this and only speak from my own experience, but it is a phenomena my peers have noticed as well.

 

[otjm]

For open and shut cases, way, way, way too long.

And again, as I have said, I am most generally against the death penalty. I am also pro self defense; but I am not thereby saying that if one’s life is in danger and one shoots the attacker, that one thereby should continue shooting once the threat has been stopped. There is a difference between shooting to stop an aggressor, and going to a different intent, to become the aggressor’s executioner. However, shooting to center of mass is likely to kill the aggressor.

Too many murder cases do not begin with the aggressor being caught in the act, and there are sufficient cases overturned well after sentencing to indicate we do not have a foolproof system of justice. The case I refer to had no question of guilt, no reasonable possibility of a miscarriage of justice, and given what occurred, the guards are at high risk of another attempt. I have not stayed up on the laws concerning incarceration, but I am not convinced that the State of Washington can keep him in isolation.

 

[exnihilo]

However, it is the rarity of these cases that makes recourse to the death penalty inadmissible. The message of the value of life, on balance is of greater value than a couple of cases a year (and which ones are debatable).

At the same time in the past when they executed people for murder and even rape they thought in so doing they were protecting the value of life. They thought that capital punishment was fitting for violating the sanctity of life.

 

[Ender]

It has always been heresy to call capital punishment intrinsically evil, not to disagree with the States right to apply it, which was always implicitly conditional. Aquinas addressed that distinction.

OK, but if we agree that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and that its use is conditional, what has changed? If its use is conditional then what does it mean to call its use inadmissible?

 

[otjm]

We are in a theoretical discussion, as the decision on capital punishment is not going to be made by the Church, but rather by either the voting population or the appellate court system. I agree with most of what you say; but "your comment concerning “the message of the value of life, on balance is greater than a couple of cases a year” doesn’t sit particularly well with me, given that my son-in-law is one of those who might be the victim of “a couple of cases”. The life of the guards as well as other prisoners has at least equal value as the one to be executed, and the second murder as far as I am concerned changes the equation. The murderer’s life has intrinsic value, but the protection of innocent life trumps the right of the murderer to live until natural death. And as to the issue of the individual not being able to come to terms with God, I go to the wag who said “Nothing sharpens the mind so much as knowing one is to be hanged at dawn”.

What we seem to find distasteful is the inordinate amount of time between the second murder and the execution; the same is not applied to the loss of life of an aggressor in a self-defense case.

Had someone been able to intervene in the chapel with the murderer and had that intervention caused his death, I doubt many would be long lamenting the intervention.

 

[exnihilo]

I agree with most of what you say; but "your comment concerning “the message of the value of life, on balance is greater than a couple of cases a year” doesn’t sit particularly well with me, given that my son-in-law is one of those who might be the victim of “a couple of cases”.

I strongly agree with this. The people expressing the idea that capital punishment is never warranted aren’t typically, so far as I know, the men who have to guard them. And for that matter the convicts fellow prisoners lives have value too.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

It has always been heresy to call capital punishment intrinsically evil, not to disagree with the States right to apply it, which was always implicitly conditional. Aquinas addressed that distinction.

OK, but if we agree that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and that its use is conditional, what has changed? If its use is conditional then what does it mean to call its use inadmissible?

Not sure about your confusion? If something is conditional that means there are conditions where it may be harmful and therefore inadmissible.

 

[exnihilo]

Aren’t things that are conditional spelled out so that people can make the prudential decision themselves?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Aren’t things that are conditional spelled out so that people can make the prudential decision themselves?

Individuals aren’t in a position to make ‘prudential judgements’ about laws. Catholics are required to submit to Church teaching and we are all required to submit to State laws. In this discussion, the prudential judgements referenced are those of the authorities having that power.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not sure I follow. At least in the US we are a democratic republic where we vote on who represents us and our representatives are themselves citizens. So in the US citizens need to be able to make prudential judgments.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I’m not sure I follow. At least in the US we are a democratic republic where we vote on who represents us and our representatives are themselves citizens. So in the US citizens need to be able to make prudential judgments.

When reference is made to a prudential judgement in capital punishment debates, it is to explain the Popes teaching in the context of todays world. His decision to teach that it is now inadmissible, is authoritative and based on prudence in considering all the aspects that have informed the teaching. As individuals, we haven’t got the authority or resources that our teacher the Church has in defining doctrine for the faithful. It wouldn’t really be considered prudent to reject Church teaching as if we have a better authority.