V
Vincent
Guest
You seem to be equating the death penalty with murder. Could you provide your reasons for your conclusion?
- Status
Q
quasimodo
Guest
Chris C.:
Quasimodo’s problem with capital punishment is that it degrades society unnecessarily. Once upon a time it was perhaps the best option available and the net effect on society was positive. I do not believe that is the case today. Having said that, there are cases when I weaken in my opposition…all the more reason to oppose it when I feel myself wanting blood.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
I’ve never really been fully pro-death penalty.
My position used to be:
“Death penalty is wrong because falsely convicted persons will be put to death.”
My position now is:
“Death penalty is wrong, particularly in a civilized society (such as the USA), because the truly guilty of the crimes may not be given the time God intended them to have to make a true conversion to the faith since their mortal souls are in jeopardy of damnation.”
I’ve felt this way ever since they executed Tim McVeigh.
My position used to be:
“Death penalty is wrong because falsely convicted persons will be put to death.”
My position now is:
“Death penalty is wrong, particularly in a civilized society (such as the USA), because the truly guilty of the crimes may not be given the time God intended them to have to make a true conversion to the faith since their mortal souls are in jeopardy of damnation.”
I’ve felt this way ever since they executed Tim McVeigh.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
wow that is a leap of faith
V
Vincent
Guest
I’m not sure if this is accurate, but the report says, “McVeigh changed mind and was given last rites”.
S
Southernrich
Guest
Amen!wow that is a leap of faith
V
Vincent
Guest
“Timothy McVeigh: Where Is He Now?” by Opus Dei priest and EWTN host Father John McCloskey
C
Cindy
Guest
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to mention that Karl’s March 2, 2004 E-Letter (“Must Catholics Oppose Capital Punishment?”) addresses this topic.
Here’s the link:
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
God bless!
Cindy
Just wanted to mention that Karl’s March 2, 2004 E-Letter (“Must Catholics Oppose Capital Punishment?”) addresses this topic.
Here’s the link:
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
God bless!
Cindy
C
Chris_C
Guest
Quasimodo, you wrote:
“There are innocent people being released from death row all to[o] often.”
Would you rather they weren’t released? Anyway, name 5. Name 3.
“What if you were sitting innocently on death row?”
I would surely harbor misgivings about the skills of the legal practioners who put me there, but that would have no bearing on the morality of the death penalty. Moreover, if I were put to death for a crime I did not commit and the prosecuters and police had done their jobs and made an honest error, they would not be cupable for murder.
“You could say that our whole penal system should be abolished because an innocent man might be accidently incarcerated. Again the reasoning seems faulty to this humble ringer of bells. Our society has a means to at least partially recompense the innocent for incarceration.”
Because a system of justice is imperfectly administered, we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Many marriages end in divorce, but I still think people should get married.
“Moral?” Really? Is that the word the church has used?"
Well, things are either immoral or they are moral. And the Death penalty is not immoral. So what does that leave?
“A life sentence is also punishment of the guilty and in obedience to the commandment.”
Maybe. But the catechism makes no mention of life sentences.
" A life sentence gives the guilty a chance to repent."
So does time on death row. Indeed. We are interested in the quality of the time not the quantity.
" An unrepentant killer was just put to death this week."
Where? Who?
Chris C.
“There are innocent people being released from death row all to[o] often.”
Would you rather they weren’t released? Anyway, name 5. Name 3.
“What if you were sitting innocently on death row?”
I would surely harbor misgivings about the skills of the legal practioners who put me there, but that would have no bearing on the morality of the death penalty. Moreover, if I were put to death for a crime I did not commit and the prosecuters and police had done their jobs and made an honest error, they would not be cupable for murder.
“You could say that our whole penal system should be abolished because an innocent man might be accidently incarcerated. Again the reasoning seems faulty to this humble ringer of bells. Our society has a means to at least partially recompense the innocent for incarceration.”
Because a system of justice is imperfectly administered, we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Many marriages end in divorce, but I still think people should get married.
“Moral?” Really? Is that the word the church has used?"
Well, things are either immoral or they are moral. And the Death penalty is not immoral. So what does that leave?
“A life sentence is also punishment of the guilty and in obedience to the commandment.”
Maybe. But the catechism makes no mention of life sentences.
" A life sentence gives the guilty a chance to repent."
So does time on death row. Indeed. We are interested in the quality of the time not the quantity.
" An unrepentant killer was just put to death this week."
Where? Who?
Chris C.
S
Southernrich
Guest
Chris C.:
Correct. But, it needs not be used, and the Pope has given ample reasons why it should not be.
Nor does it speak of paroles, of term-of-years sentences, of probation, etc. So what?
G
GeorgeCooney
Guest
Under the present lack of a true “system of justice” in the United States, I must remain in favor of capital punishment. I do not view the criminal justice system as a system for punishment or for rehabilitation. My view is that it should be a system first and foremost as a system to protect the citizens of the state. Punishment and/or rehabilitation can be considered as long as is does not weaken the the system of “protection.”
When we say that the “punishment” should fit the crime, do we mean the following? To allow everybody to park their car anywhere, anytime, for any length of time could be damaging to the rights of other citizens. Therefore, we have parking regulations and consequences if they are not obeyed. First we must consider how much of a problem and an infringement illegal parking can be. Is it necessary, in the balance, to try to totally eliminate all parking violations in the U.S.? If that is so, then I suggest the death penalty for parking violations. I am willing to bet that those violations will be greatly reduced. However, as a society parking is not that important, so we should look for a fine that may not eliminate it, but reduce it to a tolerable level. Do you think a $1.00 fine would reduce parking violations, especially when a parking lot is charging $15.00? To decide on the fine, the logical thing to do is to raise that $1.00 up until the illegal parking problem is restrained to a tolerable level.
The death penalty is imposed in the U.S. upon a person whom the public believes to be unfit ever to walk among them again. I do not believe in an eye for an eye. Revenge belongs to God alone. We cannot balance a life lost with a life taken. However, we can use the best intelligence that God gave us to determine if there is a higher than normal probability that a criminal act of taking a life might be repeated on someone else in society. We are not God. We **cannot know ** what is in the mind and heart of another. Most of the time we have great difficulty in knowing what is in, or potentially in, our own hearts. We do have a God-given right to protect ourselves (society) from likely danger.
Along this thought, I have never understood the “not guilty because of insanity” verdict. Anyone who loses control through insanity, temporary or permanent, is a much greater danger to us than a person who has killed one isolated person for one isolated reason. (I am not for setting either of them free.) I agree the insane should not be “punished,” but I want them removed from society forever for society’s protection. That to me is the only legitimate purpose of a “criminal justice system.” If a person falls once, the probability of falling again has grown many points.
I do believe with the pope that we have the means to protect society without the death penalty, but it would require a major Constitutional Amendment. Under this amendment I propose the following:
The States would continue to have jurisdiction over the arrest and trial of criminals. When the penalty is life imprisonment, it must mean life. Those convicts would be placed in federal prisons built excusively for lifers. While no torture other than their separation from societal life should be imposed, they should not be given country-club treatment. Adequate food and medical care should be provided. They should be protected from the elements and other inmates. They should be allowed separated physical activity to the extent necessary for health. However, more for security’s sake than any other, they should never have visitors. Phone calls should be monitored. All letters, inbound and outbound, should be thoroughly reviewed by the staff. There should be no appeals allowed on the basis of errors in procedures, unless those errors change the controlling facts which convinced the jury of the guilt. There must be no pardons allowed of any type from any level (governors, presidents). There must be no parol. Either the outside representatives of that person, already convicted, proves that he/she did not do the crime or that person stays put for life.
That, if legislated, ratified, and totally enforced, would be a means and a reason to eliminate the death penalty in my opinion. However, I would not accept anything less than a very detailed and clear Constitutional Ammendment without any fudge room.
When we say that the “punishment” should fit the crime, do we mean the following? To allow everybody to park their car anywhere, anytime, for any length of time could be damaging to the rights of other citizens. Therefore, we have parking regulations and consequences if they are not obeyed. First we must consider how much of a problem and an infringement illegal parking can be. Is it necessary, in the balance, to try to totally eliminate all parking violations in the U.S.? If that is so, then I suggest the death penalty for parking violations. I am willing to bet that those violations will be greatly reduced. However, as a society parking is not that important, so we should look for a fine that may not eliminate it, but reduce it to a tolerable level. Do you think a $1.00 fine would reduce parking violations, especially when a parking lot is charging $15.00? To decide on the fine, the logical thing to do is to raise that $1.00 up until the illegal parking problem is restrained to a tolerable level.
The death penalty is imposed in the U.S. upon a person whom the public believes to be unfit ever to walk among them again. I do not believe in an eye for an eye. Revenge belongs to God alone. We cannot balance a life lost with a life taken. However, we can use the best intelligence that God gave us to determine if there is a higher than normal probability that a criminal act of taking a life might be repeated on someone else in society. We are not God. We **cannot know ** what is in the mind and heart of another. Most of the time we have great difficulty in knowing what is in, or potentially in, our own hearts. We do have a God-given right to protect ourselves (society) from likely danger.
Along this thought, I have never understood the “not guilty because of insanity” verdict. Anyone who loses control through insanity, temporary or permanent, is a much greater danger to us than a person who has killed one isolated person for one isolated reason. (I am not for setting either of them free.) I agree the insane should not be “punished,” but I want them removed from society forever for society’s protection. That to me is the only legitimate purpose of a “criminal justice system.” If a person falls once, the probability of falling again has grown many points.
I do believe with the pope that we have the means to protect society without the death penalty, but it would require a major Constitutional Amendment. Under this amendment I propose the following:
The States would continue to have jurisdiction over the arrest and trial of criminals. When the penalty is life imprisonment, it must mean life. Those convicts would be placed in federal prisons built excusively for lifers. While no torture other than their separation from societal life should be imposed, they should not be given country-club treatment. Adequate food and medical care should be provided. They should be protected from the elements and other inmates. They should be allowed separated physical activity to the extent necessary for health. However, more for security’s sake than any other, they should never have visitors. Phone calls should be monitored. All letters, inbound and outbound, should be thoroughly reviewed by the staff. There should be no appeals allowed on the basis of errors in procedures, unless those errors change the controlling facts which convinced the jury of the guilt. There must be no pardons allowed of any type from any level (governors, presidents). There must be no parol. Either the outside representatives of that person, already convicted, proves that he/she did not do the crime or that person stays put for life.
That, if legislated, ratified, and totally enforced, would be a means and a reason to eliminate the death penalty in my opinion. However, I would not accept anything less than a very detailed and clear Constitutional Ammendment without any fudge room.
C
Chris_C
Guest
Thanks Cindy–I had not seen this and the piece by Dunnigan is excellent. Karl makes the important distinction between support for the death penalty (or opposition to it) in political terms, and holding that it is immoral, which would be contrary to Church teaching.
Chris C.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Chris C.:
"The 13 men freed from Death Row since 1977 have been exonerated for various reasons, including new DNA evidence and recanted testimony by prosecution witnesses. In five cases – marked by an asterisk – jailhouse-informant testimony was used to convict or condemn the defendant.
Perry Cobb: Acquitted by a judge at his fifth trial.
Initially convicted: 1979 Freed/exonerated: 1987.
Darby Tillis: Cobb’s co-defendant, he also was acquitted at his fifth trial.
Initially convicted: 1979 Freed/exonerated: 1987.
*Joseph Burrows: Freed after two prosecution witnesses recanted their testimony.
Initially convicted: 1989 Freed/exonerated: 1994.
*Rolando Cruz: Acquitted by a judge at his third trial after a sheriff’s lieutenant recanted his testimony.
Initially convicted: 1985 Freed/exonerated: 1995.
Alejandro Hernandez: Cruz’s co-defendant, he had charges dropped after Cruz’s acquittal.
Initially convicted: 1985 Freed/exonerated: 1995.
Verneal Jimerson: A Ford Heights 4 member, he was freed after DNA evidence exonerated him.
Initially convicted: 1985 Freed/exonerated: 1996
*Dennis Williams: A Ford Heights 4 member, he was freed after DNA evidence exonerated him.
Initially convicted: 1978 Freed/exonerated: 1996
*Gary Gauger: Charges were dropped by prosecutors. Others have since been implicated.
Initially convicted: 1993 Freed/exonerated: 1996
Carl Lawson: Acquitted at his third trial by a jury.
Initially convicted: 1990 Freed/exonerated: 1996
Anthony Porter: Released after another man confessed to the murders.
Initially convicted: 1983 Freed/exonerated: 1999
Steven Smith: Illinois Supreme Court vacated his conviction for insufficient evidence.
Initially convicted: 1986 Freed/exonerated: 1999
Ronald Jones: Charges dropped after he was exonerated by DNA evidence.
Initially convicted: 1989 Freed/exonerated: 1999
*Steve Manning: Charges dropped after Illinois Supreme Court ruled that improper evidence was used to convict him.
Initially convicted: 1993 Freed/exonerated: 2000"
Now I’m not arguing these are perfectly innocent or morally righteous men, but they all would be dead now or sometime soon…
"The 13 men freed from Death Row since 1977 have been exonerated for various reasons, including new DNA evidence and recanted testimony by prosecution witnesses. In five cases – marked by an asterisk – jailhouse-informant testimony was used to convict or condemn the defendant.
Perry Cobb: Acquitted by a judge at his fifth trial.
Initially convicted: 1979 Freed/exonerated: 1987.
Darby Tillis: Cobb’s co-defendant, he also was acquitted at his fifth trial.
Initially convicted: 1979 Freed/exonerated: 1987.
*Joseph Burrows: Freed after two prosecution witnesses recanted their testimony.
Initially convicted: 1989 Freed/exonerated: 1994.
*Rolando Cruz: Acquitted by a judge at his third trial after a sheriff’s lieutenant recanted his testimony.
Initially convicted: 1985 Freed/exonerated: 1995.
Alejandro Hernandez: Cruz’s co-defendant, he had charges dropped after Cruz’s acquittal.
Initially convicted: 1985 Freed/exonerated: 1995.
Verneal Jimerson: A Ford Heights 4 member, he was freed after DNA evidence exonerated him.
Initially convicted: 1985 Freed/exonerated: 1996
*Dennis Williams: A Ford Heights 4 member, he was freed after DNA evidence exonerated him.
Initially convicted: 1978 Freed/exonerated: 1996
*Gary Gauger: Charges were dropped by prosecutors. Others have since been implicated.
Initially convicted: 1993 Freed/exonerated: 1996
Carl Lawson: Acquitted at his third trial by a jury.
Initially convicted: 1990 Freed/exonerated: 1996
Anthony Porter: Released after another man confessed to the murders.
Initially convicted: 1983 Freed/exonerated: 1999
Steven Smith: Illinois Supreme Court vacated his conviction for insufficient evidence.
Initially convicted: 1986 Freed/exonerated: 1999
Ronald Jones: Charges dropped after he was exonerated by DNA evidence.
Initially convicted: 1989 Freed/exonerated: 1999
*Steve Manning: Charges dropped after Illinois Supreme Court ruled that improper evidence was used to convict him.
Initially convicted: 1993 Freed/exonerated: 2000"
C
Chris_C
Guest
Jennifer, Quasimodo–
Touche!
(But I’m not changing my mind on the moral merits of the Death Penalty!)
Chris
Touche!
(But I’m not changing my mind on the moral merits of the Death Penalty!)
Chris
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Thanks all on Tim McVeigh’s situation. I truly pray he chose the Lord.
This doesn’t really change my view on the matter though (although I’m not sure you were trying to influence me in that manner anyway).
I seem to have a problem with human beings determining when any soul is to meet the Lord.
The only exception I can see is in a war situation where if you don’t kill others even more lives will be lost if one doesn’t act.
This doesn’t really change my view on the matter though (although I’m not sure you were trying to influence me in that manner anyway).
I seem to have a problem with human beings determining when any soul is to meet the Lord.
The only exception I can see is in a war situation where if you don’t kill others even more lives will be lost if one doesn’t act.
S
Southernrich
Guest
As you said, “in your opinion,” so I won’t argue with you. I, myself believe that most states do have sufficient maximum security facilities to make a life sentence a life sentence. Indeed, many countries which have no death penalty whatsoever are able to insure the permanent incarceration of those given life sentences.
C
Chris_C
Guest
Southernrich and George Cooney
I do encourage you to read Karl’s write up that Cindy linked to. Retribution (not revenge) is the first reason for punishing the guilty. Protecting society is not the primary reason for the death penalty, though it may be a good one, and one we may well call on in the future should chaos rule our land.
Chris C.
I do encourage you to read Karl’s write up that Cindy linked to. Retribution (not revenge) is the first reason for punishing the guilty. Protecting society is not the primary reason for the death penalty, though it may be a good one, and one we may well call on in the future should chaos rule our land.
Chris C.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Chris C.:
O
otm
Guest
The death penalty is an area of law in which there is much more heat than light. A tremendous amount of th rhetoric on both sides of the issue is driven by emotion, not logic.
The nun who was the source of Dead Man Walking kept in contat with the parents of one of the victims of the original crime spree (rape and murder). They (the parents) continued to show up at executions of other individuals not involved in the crime which killed their daughter. Their attitude towards execution was “the more the merrier”; they were stuck in a spiral of hate for the perpetrator of the crime against their daughter, unable to forgive. There have been other studies whcih suggest that others in similar circumstances have had the same results; unable to forgive the perpetrator, they maintain an attitude of anger, and continue to see justice as requiring the death penalty.
There have been too many studies done to argue with the fact that justice is not pure; it is at best haphazard and altogether too much determined by one’s ability to hire adequate counsel. The vast majority of individuals executed are indigent, and end up with grossly inadequate counsel. If our system allows two people, guilty of similar crimes, to be adjudicated unequally, then something is wrong with our system.
Those in this thread who are pro death penalty need to carefully read JPII. I do not read it as an appeal to mercy so much as to justice. One of the primary objectives of the death penalty is the safety of society; modern prisons remove the death penalty as the necessary means of safety in most circumstances.
The other major consideration of the death penalty is retribution; JPII indicates that a consistent ethic of life will rule this out; in other words, the Gospel calls us to forgiveness, not retribution. And given the fact that at least several individuals in the last few years have cut off their appeals process and requested that their sentance be imposed should give some pause; they indicated that imprisonment for the rest of their natural life was more than they could deal with, and as they were going to die in prison anyway, they might as well get it over with.
Many proponents of the death penalty presume that life without parole means living in the general prison population, with freedom of movement throughtout much of the day, TV, etc. It doesn’t; those on life without parole are much more restricted. It is life in an 8 by 12 cell, with little or no freedom from that (one hour a day). It is hard time, the hard way. In many ways, it is a greater punishment.
And in almost every circumstance, it is way cheaper, too.
The nun who was the source of Dead Man Walking kept in contat with the parents of one of the victims of the original crime spree (rape and murder). They (the parents) continued to show up at executions of other individuals not involved in the crime which killed their daughter. Their attitude towards execution was “the more the merrier”; they were stuck in a spiral of hate for the perpetrator of the crime against their daughter, unable to forgive. There have been other studies whcih suggest that others in similar circumstances have had the same results; unable to forgive the perpetrator, they maintain an attitude of anger, and continue to see justice as requiring the death penalty.
There have been too many studies done to argue with the fact that justice is not pure; it is at best haphazard and altogether too much determined by one’s ability to hire adequate counsel. The vast majority of individuals executed are indigent, and end up with grossly inadequate counsel. If our system allows two people, guilty of similar crimes, to be adjudicated unequally, then something is wrong with our system.
Those in this thread who are pro death penalty need to carefully read JPII. I do not read it as an appeal to mercy so much as to justice. One of the primary objectives of the death penalty is the safety of society; modern prisons remove the death penalty as the necessary means of safety in most circumstances.
The other major consideration of the death penalty is retribution; JPII indicates that a consistent ethic of life will rule this out; in other words, the Gospel calls us to forgiveness, not retribution. And given the fact that at least several individuals in the last few years have cut off their appeals process and requested that their sentance be imposed should give some pause; they indicated that imprisonment for the rest of their natural life was more than they could deal with, and as they were going to die in prison anyway, they might as well get it over with.
Many proponents of the death penalty presume that life without parole means living in the general prison population, with freedom of movement throughtout much of the day, TV, etc. It doesn’t; those on life without parole are much more restricted. It is life in an 8 by 12 cell, with little or no freedom from that (one hour a day). It is hard time, the hard way. In many ways, it is a greater punishment.
And in almost every circumstance, it is way cheaper, too.
S
Southernrich
Guest
Chris C.:
Good for Karl, but I’ll stick to what the Pope has said, if you don’t mind. The death penalty, even if moral, is obsolete.
- Status