Capital punishment and protection from error

[Ender]

We may disagree on this, but I’m going to argue that the burden of proof is simply re-establishing a reasonable doubt.

We’re not debating the level of proof required to render a verdict; we are discussing what is necessary to justify the claim that innocent people have been executed and for that claim to be true someone needs to prove that a prisoner who was executed was in fact innocent.

And even eight, one every five years, is still way too many.

The choice is not between the death of one innocent person every five years or no deaths at all but between one death every five years from mistaken executions or multiple deaths per year because killers who were not executed (or otherwise deterred) kill again.

No matter which choice you make there may be innocent deaths. The difference is that there will probably be many more of them from eliminating capital punishment than from expanding its use.

Ender

 

[Lujack]

We’re not debating the level of proof required to render a verdict; we are discussing what is necessary to justify the claim that innocent people have been executed and for that claim to be true someone needs to prove that a prisoner who was executed was in fact innocent.

Okay, that’s fair. But my concern is that we have executed people who may have been innocent. If a man’s blood is on society’s hands, society needs to be absolutely sure that he is guilty.

The choice is not between the death of one innocent person every five years or no deaths at all but between one death every five years from mistaken executions or multiple deaths per year because killers who were not executed (or otherwise deterred) kill again.

No matter which choice you make there may be innocent deaths. The difference is that there will probably be many more of them from eliminating capital punishment than from expanding its use.

Ender

You have no proof of that, first of all; we don’t have any statistical measure of deterrence, and the murder rate in prisons has been pointed out as being lower than in society in general.

Secondly, the key difference is that if you eliminate the death penalty, the blood of potentially innocent men is not on society’s hands. This is the trolley problem, isn’t it? Accepting the deaths of innocents as a “small price to pay” for preventing the deaths of others?

Except that in the trolley problem, you’re certain of the numbers; when it comes to the death penalty, you’re accepting the deaths of potentially innocent men for indeterminate effect.

 

[Ender]

Okay, that’s fair. But my concern is that we have executed people who may have been innocent. If a man’s blood is on society’s hands, society needs to be absolutely sure that he is guilty.

Perfection is not attainable and is not a requirement.

You have no proof of that, first of all; we don’t have any statistical measure of deterrence, and the murder rate in prisons has been pointed out as being lower than in society in general.

OK, at this point we are arguing statistics, something neither of us can accurately cite, but it should be imminently clear that what we are not discussing is morality. That is, the decision to execute prisoners now hangs on which approach leads to fewer innocent deaths, which is a purely statistical calculation.

Secondly, the key difference is that if you eliminate the death penalty, the blood of potentially innocent men is not on society’s hands. This is the trolley problem, isn’t it?

I have to say I’ve never found the trolley problem that difficult to decide. I see it as nothing more than asking “Which is preferable: that one should die or that many should die?” It is a fiction to believe that one has no responsibility for an outcome as long as he takes no overt action. Once we are in the position where we control the outcome, we become responsible for it whether our action causes outcome A or our inaction causes outcome B.

Accepting the deaths of innocents as a “small price to pay” for preventing the deaths of others?

As you said, it’s the trolley problem. There is no choice where no one dies.

Except that in the trolley problem, you’re certain of the numbers; when it comes to the death penalty, you’re accepting the deaths of potentially innocent men for indeterminate effect.

No, I’m accepting the probability that more innocent people will die at the hands of recidivist killers than will be wrongfully executed by the State.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Question: What constitutes “sufficient protection”?
Answer: Option A protects more lives than Option B where both options are moral.

Since I wasn’t challenged on that definition and since no one has suggested an alternative that’s the definition I’m working with. As I pointed out in the previous post this is a purely statistical determination and, should it turn out that executions provide greater security, the logic of 2267 would require us to increase the number of executions, not eliminate them. This is what happens when we mistake prudential choices for moral ones; when conditions change - or when our perception of what is factually true changes - our position has to change, which is easy for prudential choices but impossible for moral ones.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, if you contend that an innocent man has been executed you have to prove that the assertion is true. Given that the men in question were all found guilty at their trials the burden of proof shifts to those who claim they were innocent.

Ender

There is a case I am aware of where a man was executed primarily on testimony of an “expert witness.” A subsequent examination of the physical facts and development of scientific analysis of the same type of evidence demonstrated that the expert testimony was faulty (it was an arson case - the expert testified that an accelerant was used and subsequent research determined that identical burn patterns could occur in an accidental fire). Even the expert who gave the testimony vacated it. No expert today would look at the same evidence and give the convicting testimony due to the more correct understanding of the facts.

Every attempt at appeal and retrial was denied because there was no “new” evidence (what was presented was an alternative interpretation of the evidence used to convict). Yet, there is no way the prosecution could convict him at the time of his execution.

Question: What constitutes “sufficient protection”?
Answer: Option A protects more lives than Option B where both options are moral.

Since I wasn’t challenged on that definition and since no one has suggested an alternative that’s the definition I’m working with. As I pointed out in the previous post this is a purely statistical determination and, should it turn out that executions provide greater security, the logic of 2267 would require us to increase the number of executions, not eliminate them. This is what happens when we mistake prudential choices for moral ones; when conditions change - or when our perception of what is factually true changes - our position has to change, which is easy for prudential choices but impossible for moral ones.

Ender

You have not demonstrated that capital punishment protects more lives than otherwise. It is impossible for you to do so since capital punishment has been used throughout history and is still being used today. There is insufficient history of alternative means of punishment to make any judgement.

 

[Ender]

You have not demonstrated that capital punishment protects more lives than otherwise. It is impossible for you to do so since capital punishment has been used throughout history and is still being used today. There is insufficient history of alternative means of punishment to make any judgement.

If your claim here is correct then it would also mean that there is insufficient evidence to prove the counter-claim - that capital punishment does not protect better. The problem of course is that this is exactly what is being claimed by 2267. I’m willing to admit that opinions will differ as to which position better reflects reality but what I’m not willing to admit is that we’re dealing with doctrine and not opinion.

I’ll point out (again) the position this leaves you in. If over time evidence is accumulated and techniques are developed that allow that question to be answered, if it turns out that capital punishment does in fact protect better than imprisonment then the logic of 2267 means its opposition would have to turn to advocacy. Assuredly, a peculiar moral position.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

If your claim here is correct then it would also mean that there is insufficient evidence to prove the counter-claim - that capital punishment does not protect better. The problem of course is that this is exactly what is being claimed by 2267. I’m willing to admit that opinions will differ as to which position better reflects reality but what I’m not willing to admit is that we’re dealing with doctrine and not opinion.

I’ll point out (again) the position this leaves you in. If over time evidence is accumulated and techniques are developed that allow that question to be answered, if it turns out that capital punishment does in fact protect better than imprisonment then the logic of 2267 means its opposition would have to turn to advocacy. Assuredly, a peculiar moral position.

Ender

It is amusing that you call the position I advance “peculiar” but then wrap that term in a conditional. Would you then agree, then, that if the condition is determined in time to be the reverse of what you suppose then your own position would be forced to bear the mantle of “peculiar”?

BTW - for the record, my position is exactly this:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are** more in conformity to the dignity of the human person**.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

 

[Ender]

It is amusing that you call the position I advance “peculiar” but then wrap that term in a conditional. Would you then agree, then, that if the condition is determined in time to be the reverse of what you suppose then your own position would be forced to bear the mantle of “peculiar”?

That wasn’t what I addressed the term to. It is peculiar to assert that a moral position is determined conditionally by the findings of statisticians.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

That wasn’t what I addressed the term to. It is peculiar to assert that a moral position is determined conditionally by the findings of statisticians.

Ender

You are the one who introduced the conditional.

 

[wes144]

Jesus clarified the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment this way,“Thou shalt do no murder” Matthew 19:18

For the state to put a heinous murderer to death does not make the executioner as bad as the criminal that is being executed. It is in the case of most states, putting them to sleep with injections. They are given an opportunity, in fact many opportunities to make their peace with God, the family of their victims, as well as their own families before death.

It is true that some have been put to death unjustly. The dark ages reveals that millions of people were executed for believing contrary to the church in power.

God will make righteous judgment of all those that have been accused and killed. He will also judge those that presumed to kill innocent people that disagreed with them!

Ge 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

God said it, I believe it and that settles it for me.

I don’t need a current politician or clergyman to tell me that something is okay or not, especially when "they speak not according to the Law and the testimony because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20

 

[mrphyjammusashi]

Jesus was an innocent who was executed by the state. Worldwide, for thousands of years, many, many, many innocent people have been executed by the state. Do you think our Lord, who knows the horror of being executed first hand, might have a problem with us executing people? Do you think? I’ve never understood this blood lust by so-called followers of the Prince of Peace–“Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Do you who are in favor of the death penalty wear a crucifix? What if the image of our Lord hung not from your neck on a cross but rather sat in an electric chair or lay upon a lethal injection table? Would you get it then?

 

[wes144]

It has nothing to do with having lust for blood. It is rather to stop those that do!

If you have a rabid dog, and most that make it to death row are possessed animals, you put them out of their misery and society’s.

The Prince of Peace also gave the command to kill the wicked as a surgical removal to avoid the spread. The wages of sin are death! Romans 3:23

When He returns to this earth the Second time it will be with the Wrath of the Lamb!
Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

2Thessalonians 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Do not mistake meekness for weakness! He is the Prince of Peace and the Righteous Judge that will destroy the wicked!

 

[Ender]

Do you think our Lord, who knows the horror of being executed first hand, might have a problem with us executing people?

Inasmuch as the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute people for serious crimes and that she claims to teach the word of God I would have to say no,

I’ve never understood this blood lust

Why would you assume something so uncharitable? Do you assume blood lust on the part of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who accepted this type of punishment?

“Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

First, forgiveness is an obligation of the individual, but the obligation of the State is to punish. Second, forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment; punishment and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive.

Ender

 

[mrphyjammusashi]

Inasmuch as the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute people for serious crimes and that she claims to teach the word of God I would have to say no,
Why would you assume something so uncharitable? Do you assume blood lust on the part of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who accepted this type of punishment?
First, forgiveness is an obligation of the individual, but the obligation of the State is to punish. Second, forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment; punishment and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive.

Ender

My words are uncharitable? Sending innocent people to their death has to be the extreme of uncharitable? LOL! Again, do you who argue for the death penalty and claim to be Christians not realize that the cross on your wall or that hangs around your neck is an instrument of execution, an instrument that murdered our LORD. The Doctors’ of the Church, the Fathers’ of the Church? Christ and almost all of his apostles went to their deaths humbly accepting the legal authority of the State and its self serving BLOOD LUST. Your arguments are akin to the “redneck” slogan, “Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.” No one said that forgiveness is mutually exclusive to punishment. I’m saying that you are not infallible, and that States are run by people like you, therefore you should not assume the right to execute your brothers and sisters, until you are sure you do not execute innocent people. And even if guilt is assured, are you without sin? If so, then pick up the first stone and cast it. Those that surrounded the adulteress were within their legal rights to stone her, so throw the rock, pull the switch, drop the pellet, squeeze the trigger, or inject the poison, but boys you better duck after that…for if you have committed one sin you have committed them all. That is Christ’s LAW. Oh and then there the other fallacious argument put forth here by those who support the death penalty: some innocent persons must be sacrificed to the death penalty for the greater good of the whole. The State of China makes the same argument for forced abortions. Enough said…except, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

 

[Ender]

My words are uncharitable?

Your assumption that people who support capital punishment do so out of a lust for blood is uncharitable. Beyond that it is irrelevant to the arguments presented.

Sending innocent people to their death has to be the extreme of uncharitable?

The discussion is really about the proper punishment for the guilty.

Your arguments are akin to the “redneck” slogan, “Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out.”

My arguments are whatever I present. Deal with them if you can but don’t invent your own and attribute them to me.

I’m saying that you are not infallible, and that States are run by people like you, therefore you should not assume the right to execute your brothers and sisters, until you are sure you do not execute innocent people.

So then do you support the execution of people known without doubt to be guilty?

Those that surrounded the adulteress were within their legal rights to stone her,

No, they weren’t. That right was denied them by Roman law. Besides, that incident wasn’t about capital punishment per se (nor did Jesus deny the penalty prescribed by Jewish law) and the Church has never referred to this passage in the context of capital punishment.

Oh and then there the other fallacious argument put forth here by those who support the death penalty: some innocent persons must be sacrificed to the death penalty for the greater good of the whole.

I assume since you find it necessary to twist a person’s position it is because you’re having difficulty rebutting the arguments they actually make.

Ender

 

[mrphyjammusashi]

Your assumption that people who support capital punishment do so out of a lust for blood is uncharitable. Beyond that it is irrelevant to the arguments presented.
The discussion is really about the proper punishment for the guilty.
My arguments are whatever I present. Deal with them if you can but don’t invent your own and attribute them to me.
So then do you support the execution of people known without doubt to be guilty?
No, they weren’t. That right was denied them by Roman law. Besides, that incident wasn’t about capital punishment per se (nor did Jesus deny the penalty prescribed by Jewish law) and the Church has never referred to this passage in the context of capital punishment.
I assume since you find it necessary to twist a person’s position it is because you’re having difficulty rebutting the arguments they actually make.

Ender

You are not difficult to argue against, especially since you only clarify my point. Jesus did not deny the penalty prescribed by Jewish law, he denied self righteous sinners who are as guilty as those they condemn.

 

[Ender]

Jesus did not deny the penalty prescribed by Jewish law, he denied self righteous sinners who are as guilty as those they condemn.

Not exactly. If your impression of capital punishment is right then the Church has been wrong for 2000 years since the Church even today recognizes the moral right of a State to execute criminals. If Jesus was actually condemning capital punishment as you contend then how do you explain the Church’s position?

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

Your assumption that people who support capital punishment do so out of a lust for blood is uncharitable.

Actually, a major part of your argument has been to point out passages prescribing capital punishment. Those passages could indeed be interpreted as though God has a lust for blood.

 

[Ender]

Actually, a major part of your argument has been to point out passages prescribing capital punishment. Those passages could indeed be interpreted as though God has a lust for blood.

If you believe that God sanctioned capital punishment because of a lust for blood then it is reasonable to assume the same of me. If you’re not willing to make that assumption about God then you shouldn’t assume it about me either. In fact my support of capital punishment is based on my understanding of justice … which is formed according to what the Church has taught about it.*
*God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

No, they weren’t. That right was denied them by Roman law.

For being “denied the right” to execute by Roman law, they didn’t seem to have much trouble stoning Stephen.