Capital punishment and protection from error

[SonCatcher]

The problem is, criminals are not sufficiently contained so that they don’t continue to commit crimes. Some crime bosses still run their crime operations from within the walls of prison. Some drug dealers still run their operations from within the walls of prison. Some gang leaders still command from within the walls of prison. And of course, those prone to violence continue to be a threat to guards, other staff (like nurses and doctors), and to other prisoners, raping and beating them. I don’t agree with the opinion that criminals are contained in prisons well enough to avoid capital punishment. However, I can understand why others think they’re sufficiently contained: out of sight, out of mind. But just because you can’t see them in your backyard doesn’t mean they’re not there, and operating their businesses as usual…

There are 3 major state prisons within short distance from me. So even though they are not immediately visible, I am conscious of them as being in my “backyard.”

Yes, I am aware that convicts are using cellphones to maintain their networks. Even death row inmates and notorious, high security inmates have been found with them. It is a technological race. However, I expect that there will eventually be a solution. Since indiscriminate jamming is apparently illegal, the nearby prisons will likely receive their own cell towers that permit only whitelisted phones (prison officials) and 911 calls. It’s hard to run a gang when you can only call the police.

Prison workers are aware of the danger they face. It’s similar to that faced by the military and police. They take their jobs to help protect society, not for their own health.

The most dangerous prisoners are isolated. That some less violent prisoners prey upon the general population is unfortunate but difficult to prevent. Hopefully, as prisons advance, we will be able to better regulate the prisoners. Maybe we can use some of the savings from stopping use of the death penalty toward other improvements.

 

[Ender]

Even death row inmates and notorious, high security inmates have been found with them. It is a technological race. However, I expect that there will eventually be a solution.

If your hope is that “eventually” there will be a solution, what are we to do in the mean time? The opposition to capital punishment is anchored on the assertion that prisons can adequately protect the public, but as you yourself note, that just isn’t the case yet. If it is true that the public cannot be adequately protected with prisons alone then doesn’t that argue that capital punishment is therefore not only appropriate but necessary?

Ender

 

[Brendan]

So who stoned St. Stephen?

The Jews, of course, but after Pilate was either under suspicion from Rome for having antogonized them by placing the golden shields at Herod’s palace, or having been recalled to Rome to explain himself (AD 35-37)

Either way, the prohibition against stoning was certainly in place at the time of Christ, with Pilate in a strong position to block any use of capital punishment.

And the devil can quote scripture etc., etc.

So what exactly, do you mean by that, that St. Thomas is somehow to be aquainted to Satan because he uses the reductio ad absurdum as a logical proof?

 

[SonCatcher]

If your hope is that “eventually” there will be a solution, what are we to do in the mean time? The opposition to capital punishment is anchored on the assertion that prisons can adequately protect the public, but as you yourself note, that just isn’t the case yet. If it is true that the public cannot be adequately protected with prisons alone then doesn’t that argue that capital punishment is therefore not only appropriate but necessary?

Ender

The capability to detain has been clearly demonstrated. The solution to the very recent problem of cellphones is underway. That is enough for the conclusion that the death penalty is unnecessary.

The vast majority of those causing trouble with cellphones are incarcerated for non-capital offences, anyway. Are you suggesting that we start executing drug dealers and gang members merely for their connections?

 

[triumphguy]

The Jews, of course, but after Pilate was either under suspicion from Rome for having antogonized them by placing the golden shields at Herod’s palace, or having been recalled to Rome to explain himself (AD 35-37)

Either way, the prohibition against stoning was certainly in place at the time of Christ, with Pilate in a strong position to block any use of capital punishment.

So what exactly, do you mean by that, that St. Thomas is somehow to be aquainted to Satan because he uses the reductio ad absurdum as a logical proof?

Don’t be silly.:yawn:

 

[triumphguy]

The capability to detain has been clearly demonstrated. The solution to the very recent problem of cellphones is underway. That is enough for the conclusion that the death penalty is unnecessary.

The vast majority of those causing trouble with cellphones are incarcerated for non-capital offences, anyway. Are you suggesting that we start executing drug dealers and gang members merely for their connections?

Take away the cell phone tower and cell phones cease to be a problem.

 

[SonCatcher]

Take away the cell phone tower and cell phones cease to be a problem.

Actually, by building a cell tower in the jail, all the cellphones inside will connect to it and not the tower on the hill. Only approved phones can make calls through the tower. Unapproved phones can only call 911. It allows them to effectively block cell phone use without a jammer. The controversial thing about the plan is that the cell tower will be paid for by the company that provides payphones to the prison (payphones are monitored so it would be more difficult for them to run their gangs and networks).

 

[triumphguy]

If your hope is that “eventually” there will be a solution, what are we to do in the mean time? The opposition to capital punishment is anchored on the assertion that prisons can adequately protect the public, but as you yourself note, that just isn’t the case yet. If it is true that the public cannot be adequately protected with prisons alone then doesn’t that argue that capital punishment is therefore not only appropriate but necessary?

Ender

Since there are vary rarely any homicides in Canadian prisons would you say that the public is adequately protected?

For instance there has not been a murder in the Quebec prison system for the last 10 years, and 6 in Canada as a whole.

In the US the murder rate in prison is 1/3 that of the national rate. Does that mean you are 3 times safer in prison than on the streets?

In 1985 a New York study showed that there were 19 cases of serious violence against guards, and there were 24,000 guards in the system at the time.

I’ve worked in prisons as a Catholic Chaplain, and worked out with murderers and rapists, sat naked in a sweat lodge with native inmates, taken native inmates to their reserves for funerals (where I was the only white guy in a very remote reserve), played soccer with inmates, had inmates confess crimes like murder and rape to me knowing that I would inform the authorities. I was daily on maximum security units by myself (with no guard nearby) and went into prisoners’ cells out of view of the camera daily.

For 3 years I put on programs for drug and sex offenders, again in a locked room with no guard or camera present.

I went down into administrative segregation (where the dangerous inmates were housed 23 hours a day in solitary, with no furniture, bed sheets, books, TV, radio etc, and who’s only clothing was a fireproof blanket called a baby-doll) and arm wrestled with them through the bars in order to gain trust.

Of course being 6’ and weighing 250lbs and built like a brick outhouse helped of course, but my size and build also meant that sometimes I could be viewed as a threat, so I could not bully my way around either.

From my experience prison violence is overblown by the media.

There is a very high rate of suicide attempts in prison and suicides are of course reported as part of the death rate in prison, but sometimes little care is taken to differentiate.

 

[Ender]

Since there are vary rarely any homicides in Canadian prisons would you say that the public is adequately protected?

It is certainly appropriate to raise the issue of what constitutes adequate protection since the opposition to capital punishment is based on the assumption that this is what modern penal systems provide. Since no one has even attempted to define what that would mean it’s not clear how we would know if we had it or not.

Regarding your question: no, you cannot make the assumption that the public outside of prisons is protected because the murder rate within prisons is negligible. We do know that in the US there are people inside of maximum security prisons who have ordered the murders of people outside the system. Does that mean the public is inadequately protected? There is no way to know since the phrase “adequate protection” has no particular meaning. We also know, however, that recidivist killers - those imprisoned for homicide and released - kill again at a rate of 2-3%. Not counting murders within prisons, there will be 45-50 innocent people killed each year by people who have already killed before. Does that represent inadequate protection? Again, since the phrase is undefined … who knows?

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

So, in your view how do you make the decision to end - or to start - capital punishment?

There are a lot of variables:

Cost, and whether the money spent in the execution process could be spent elsewhere and achieve better results - eg., through education
Demographic questions, and whether the system is fair
You know the list yourself…

So who chooses? Who is the arbiter?

Does the evidence have to satisfy a social conservative?

If we choose democratically but the Vatican says “No, on the balance of the evidence we believe that Capital Punishment is unjust in this particular State” then what?

 

[Ender]

So, in your view how do you make the decision to end - or to start - capital punishment?

I don’t base the determination to use capital punishment on whether or not it is necessary for protection. I base it on whether or not it is necessary to satisfy the obligation of justice, which is after all the primary objective of all punishment.

There are a lot of variables:

I consider it a moral question, not a practical one. There are prudential reasons that may temporarily affect its use but in general I don’t think there is any practical reason against it.

So who chooses? Who is the arbiter?

Prudential issue of this sort are the responsibility of the State to make. This doesn’t justify any choice they may make, nonetheless it is their choice and they have to make it. It is as true of capital punishment as it is of war.These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)

Does the evidence have to satisfy a social conservative?

No.

If we choose democratically but the Vatican says “No, on the balance of the evidence we believe that Capital Punishment is unjust in this particular State” then what?

The Vatican never has and never will make such a statement. Think back to the Troy Davis execution just last year. The Vatican asked that his sentence be commuted but they never said it was unjust.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

Prudential issue of this sort are the responsibility of the State to make. This doesn’t justify any choice they may make, nonetheless it is their choice and they have to make it. It is as true of capital punishment as it is of war.These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)

So then, you would agree that it is within the right of the State to determine that justice can be satisfied without capital punishment?

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t base the determination to use capital punishment on whether or not it is necessary for protection. I base it on whether or not it is necessary to satisfy the obligation of justice, which is after all the primary objective of all punishment.
I consider it a moral question, not a practical one. There are prudential reasons that may temporarily affect its use but in general I don’t think there is any practical reason against it.
Prudential issue of this sort are the responsibility of the State to make. This doesn’t justify any choice they may make, nonetheless it is their choice and they have to make it. It is as true of capital punishment as it is of war.These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)
No.
The Vatican never has and never will make such a statement. Think back to the Troy Davis execution just last year. The Vatican asked that his sentence be commuted but they never said it was unjust.

Ender

I’m slowly getting an idea of what you do believe:

You believe that capital punishment is “necessary to satisfy the obligation of justice, which is after all the primary objective of all punishment.”

You believe it is a moral issue and that practical considerations have no part to play in the right of a state (in the eyes of the Church) to execute criminals.

The state has the right to make these decisions.

The Church will never say that capital punishment is unjust.

When JPII and BXVI taught about capital punishment they could not change Church teaching, therefore they were only able to offer an opinion which no Catholic has to accept.

Am I reading you right?

 

[Ender]

So then, you would agree that it is within the right of the State to determine that justice can be satisfied without capital punishment?

No. I said it was the State’s right and duty to make the prudential judgments about the use of capital punishment, but justice is a moral obligation, not a prudential one and the opinions of States have no bearing on what is or is not a just punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You believe that capital punishment is “necessary to satisfy the obligation of justice, which is after all the primary objective of all punishment.”

Yes (at least for the crime of murder).

You believe it is a moral issue and that practical considerations have no part to play in the right of a state (in the eyes of the Church) to execute criminals.

No, there may be extenuating circumstances - practical considerations - that make it preferable not to execute a criminal.

The state has the right to make these decisions.

On extenuating circumstances, yes.

The Church will never say that capital punishment is unjust.

True, that simply isn’t a possiblity.*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)

When JPII and BXVI taught about capital punishment they could not change Church teaching, therefore they were only able to offer an opinion which no Catholic has to accept.

Pretty much. They cannot change Church teaching because what the Church teaches isn’t simply the opinion of the latest pope, it is revealed truth and is therefore unchangeable.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

No. I said it was the State’s right and duty to make the prudential judgments about the use of capital punishment, but justice is a moral obligation, not a prudential one and the opinions of States have no bearing on what is or is not a just punishment.

Ender

So is it within the rights of the State to determine that execution is an imprudent punishment for any crime?

 

[Ender]

So is it within the rights of the State to determine that execution is an imprudent punishment for any crime?

Any particular crime (as opposed to a class of crimes) yes, that seems reasonable. That doesn’t make any specific decision correct simply because it is theirs to make but I agree to the principle.

Ender

 

[Lujack]

We do know that in the US there are people inside of maximum security prisons who have ordered the murders of people outside the system. Does that mean the public is inadequately protected?

This seems to be a misleading question, since crime bosses who would be plotting murders like that rarely get their hands dirty with a direct killing, and so are rarely on death row right now.

 

[Ender]

This seems to be a misleading question, since crime bosses who would be plotting murders like that rarely get their hands dirty with a direct killing, and so are rarely on death row right now.

This doesn’t change the fact that gang leaders from within the maximum security prison at Pelican Bay ordered murders outside of prison. We also know that the so-called “Blind Sheik” - Omar Abdel-Rahman - even though he was serving a life sentence in a US prison contacted his terrorist cell in Egypt which led to the massacre of 58 tourists in Luxor. It is appropriate to ask: what constitutes “sufficient protection”?

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

You could either cut off his head or cut off his cell phone

And when you can cut off his cell phone there’s no need to cut off his head.