Capital punishment...again

[exnihilo]

I see a few problems. First, I don’t see how the pope has the competence to form such a universal judgment. The pope isn’t an expert in prison systems and certainly not of all the worlds. Second, since this is a prudential judgment then we must each be able to so judge the situation ourselves. The particular conditions that form the judgment could change in an instant. So without knowing how to judge the situation we can’t know when this judgment applies.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I see a few problems. First, I don’t see how the pope has the competence to form such a universal judgment. The pope isn’t an expert in prison systems and certainly not of all the worlds. Second, since this is a prudential judgment then we must each be able to so judge the situation ourselves. The particular conditions that form the judgment could change in an instant. So without knowing how to judge the situation we can’t know when this judgment applies.

The Pope has a far broader wealth regarding universal issues than an individual. That is the role of the various ponitifical commissions who invite theologians and other academics in every field to contribute to the Churchs understanding of how society is impacted by things. The Pontiff has the authority to guide us assisted by the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit, on moral laws and practices. Pontiff comes from the Latin ‘pontifex’ which means ‘bridge maker’. The trust the Pontiff to be the bridge between Gods Will and mans adherence to it.

 

[exnihilo]

The Pope has a far broader wealth regarding universal issues than an individual.

That would certainly depend on the issue. Then of course we have the principle of subsidiarity, which one can imagine would be important for this issue if it is in fact a prudential decision.

 

[Elf01]

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.

Would the prisoners initial crime have had him sentenced to death if he was in a death penalty state?

If so where would the deterrent be for his future crimes?

 

[pnewton]

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.

It is usually no known here what occupation we each have. I do not know if this is verifiable.

 

[pnewton]

I see a few problems. First, I don’t see how the pope has the competence to form such a universal judgment.

It is rather specific to Catholicism, I admit.

 

[otjm]

There are a lot of posts in this thread, so I will reiterate: the prisoner was doing life for murder. the death penalty was in effect at the time of the first murder, but he got life.

the second murder was the strangulation of a female prison guard in the prison chapel buy this fine, upstanding citizen. He was sentenced to death for the second murder; and the Washington Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional.

 

[Ender]

If something is conditional that means there are conditions where it may be harmful and therefore inadmissible.

We have all acknowledged cases where the use of capital punishment would be inappropriate, where it would be inadmissible, but if its use is in fact conditional then there would be circumstances where it would be appropriate, so what does it mean to call it inadmissible when there are situations when it is not?

 

[Ender]

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.

You recognize that Pope Francis’ statement is a prudential judgment so it isn’t valid to also hold this is any part of “defining doctrine”. Regarding the application of capital punishment it would seem the same rules would apply as those set for judging when to declare war.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy…

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

That is, it is the right and the responsibility of the State to determine what is best for the common good for which they are accountable.

 

[exnihilo]

That is, it is the right and the responsibility of the State to determine what is best for the common good for which they are accountable.

In democracies the entire people would have this right. In states where juries impose or recommend a death sentence then the individual, selected from the commen men, would have this right. And thus the individual would need instructions on how to judge the situation.

 

[Elf01]

There are a lot of posts in this thread, so I will reiterate: the prisoner was doing life for murder. the death penalty was in effect at the time of the first murder, but he got life.

the second murder was the strangulation of a female prison guard in the prison chapel buy this fine, upstanding citizen. He was sentenced to death for the second murder; and the Washington Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional.

That seems to make my point for me. The death penalty was (at least presumably) in the eyes of the prisoner an option and he still killed the guard so it did not act as a deterrent - and if he had originally been sentenced to death what would the deterrent have been?

 

[exnihilo]

That seems to make my point for me. The death penalty was (at least presumably) in the eyes of the prisoner an option and he still killed the guard so it did not act as a deterrent - and if he had originally been sentenced to death what would the deterrent have been?

I don’t think the death penalty justified based on deterrence. I think it justified on the grounds of justice. But simply because a penalty doesn’t deter one man doesn’t mean it isn’t a deterrence. And since we always have people violating all laws it would seem no punishment is a complete deterrence for any crime. So if we are going to say the death penalty isn’t a deterrence, and thus not warranted, then we would have to say no punishment is a deterrence and thus all punishments are not warranted.

However, I think most of us do know that the more something costs us the less likely we are to do something all other things being equal. So the more a crime costs the less likely we are to experience it.

 

[adgloriam]

the criminal population is becoming more civilized with time, with the worst offenders being less common, and the average aggressiveness dropping.

Hey @pnewton I just wanted to say I think your posts are lovely and also wish you a happy new year. Ok, and on the specific point you quoted I was reminded of a Johnny Cash video from back in the day and the prison population depicted in that video seems to be from an altogether more peaceful society and time then that we see today.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps you missed my comment above. I know it might not stop the crazies, but they won’t do it a third time.

Further, those on death row are not in general population, and guards handle them a bit differently - as in, the prisoner will not be in chapel with a female guard.

So had he been on death row for the first murder, he would not have been in a position and place to commit the second one. And once executed, he won’t commit any more. As I noted, I am not up on what the ACLU has done for lifers in terms of isolation, but my understanding is they go into the general population. Those on death row don’t.

I think it borders on insanity that a murderer doing life is essentially given no sentence (at least of any meaning) with the second murder within the prison walls. He now has carte blanche.

There have been numerous studies showing that the death penalty has little deterrence to a murder; but once they are executed, society is safe. And society is not just those outside the walls; it includes other inmates and the guards. The penalty has never slowed down mass killers, and I doubt it has any impact on a full blown sociopath or psychopath (DSM-5 treats them the same).

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

If something is conditional that means there are conditions where it may be harmful and therefore inadmissible.

We have all acknowledged cases where the use of capital punishment would be inappropriate, where it would be inadmissible, but if its use is in fact conditional then there would be circumstances where it would be appropriate, so what does it mean to call it inadmissible when there are situations when it is not?

Acknowledging in accordance with Aquinas, that the welfare of the community dictates whether it is inadmissible or not, explains why the current cultural conditions which are further from Christian now, warrant the abolition of capital punishment. When the general understanding of the States right to kill is flawed, it is damaging to the dignity of human beings.

 

[Emeraldlady]

You recognize that Pope Francis’ statement is a prudential judgment so it isn’t valid to also hold this is any part of “defining doctrine”.

It certainly refers to the application of doctrine. In the past when the Church defended the States right to use capital punishment against the accusation that it was intrinsically evil, that was also a Popes ‘prudential judgement’. An example of what the Church means by addressing the ‘culture of death’ was in 2011 when Bin Laden was killed. Bishop Barron reports Pope Benedicts comments on seeing the rejoicing in the US and the Vatican issued a statement the next day.

Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose.

Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-statement-on-bin-ladens-death

Regarding the application of capital punishment it would seem the same rules would apply as those set for judging when to declare war.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy…

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good .

Evangelium Vitae addresses those situations together.

Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

 

[Richca]

When the general understanding of the States right to kill is flawed, it is damaging to the dignity of human beings.

From the point of view of murder victims, it is irreparably damaging to the human dignity of one’s sole life on earth when it is taken by a murderer as well as to the human dignity of the common good or community at large. Of course, I’m not suggesting that murderers or criminals cannot repent and be forgiven by God for I know that I myself have constant need of his infinite mercy and that there are various degrees of the culpability of murder too according to various circumstances and intentions. But, the fact remains that human beings are allotted by God only one life on earth in this present state of things upon which follows the immediate judgement and the eternal destiny of every soul.

 

[pnewton]

That is why I prefaced my remark with “Speaking from my own experience, and I know mileage may vary,…” It could also just be a Texas thing. And thank you, both for your kind words and a Johnny Cash nod. I used to own that album.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I’m not questioning the gravity of sin and crime that murder is. The issue is that the punishment of execution when a murderer can be safely kept out of society and when execution is not fully understood in the Christian sense but becomes a symbol of civil revenge and rejoicing, can actually do more harm than good to society. That is what the Church is stating now against the ideology that execution should always be permitted regardless of any cultural conditions.

 

[Richca]

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-statement-on-bin-ladens-death

Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose.

Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”

On the one hand, it is written:
“Do not court death by your erring way of life,
nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.
Because God did not make death,
nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.
For he fashioned all things that they might have being,
and the creatures of the world are wholesome”(Wisdom 1: 12-14).

And again:
“Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11).

It is in this sense that a Christian does not rejoice in the death of anyone, namely, death and punishment as such which, however, is an effect of God’s justice which as such is good.

On the other hand, it is written:
“For thou art not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not sojourn with thee.
The boastful may not stand before thy eyes; thou hatest all evildoers” (Psalm 5: 4-5).

And in Proverbs 8:13, , Wisdom says:
“The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate”.

In Proverbs 6: 6-19:
“There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers”.

And further, Psalm 58: 10:
“The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance”.
And Proverbs 21:15:
“When justice is done it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers”.
And Psalm 11:7:
“For the Lord is just, and hath loved justice”.

Accordingly, though christians do not rejoice in punishment or death as such, they do rejoice in that all just punishment (namely vengeance which is a virtue, a part of justice, and assuming here that Bin Laden’s death was just) is an effect of justice and justice is good, it is a virtue and that such just vengeance prevents further harm to human beings and especially do they rejoice in the justice of God in which all true human justice is a participation of. Punishment that stops short of capital punishment and death has the hope of being corrective and medicinal in nature for the repentance and conversion of sinners and in this way too punishment effected by justice can be a cause of rejoicing in a way for christians, “Rejoicing in hope” (Romans 12:12). Such ‘true’ justice and hope springs from charity which is the love of God and of our neighbor.