Capital Punishment is Pro-life

[camerong]

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is anything but clear; it is in fact a complete muddle. As I said, if you’re only familiar with 2267, it might seem straightforward, but if you’re familiar with the previous 2000 years of teaching you get a very different impression. If you doubt this see if you can find a single statement the Church has ever made that supports what 2267 teaches.

Ender

2267 is straightforward, it does not merely seem that way. It is impossible to conceive how it could be clearer. The fact that the Church’s approach to this area historically was different does not affect the clear language.

You’re correct about how the Church has typically supported the death penalty. But the statement in 2267 is merely that, in the current world, execution is virtually never necessary to protect the convict from causing more harm. If the Church had a different opinion in 800 AD, its because that was not true in 800 AD. Heck, it probably wasn’t true in 1850 AD. But it is true today. That is a much easier and more believable explanation for the apparent shift in approach then to say that the Church is simply incoherent–or worse, self-contradictory–in this teaching, which is what you’re asserting.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Ender - not sure about the cause of your misunderstanding so can’t help you.
The purpose of punishment are as expounded before - retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, denunciation.
What I mean to say is that punishment doesn’t serve the ends of Justice in all cases, where the LAW is not in line with the natural law eg breaking the law to help Jews in Nazi Germany. There’s some interesting legal analyses of so-called “grudge cases”, where the spouses of Germans in Nazi Germany informed on them for minor crimes of criticising the Nazi regime when they knew their spouse would get the death sentence.
My definition of justice comes from Osborn’s Legal Dictionary.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Many people murder while in prison. It’s a rare thing, but it happens from time to time: that someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to interact with other inmates, guards, medical staff, etc. In this case, the execution, short of a permanent drugged state, disfigurement, or some other extreme measure would be the only act of self defense for the prison community.

Likewise, in many developing nations, the prisons are not as they are in the U.S., the U.K., and other regions.

Rare executions as a measure of societal self defense in the face of honestly appraised dangerousness and as a last resort is a perfectly coherent position for the Church to take. It’s almost like just war theory, but on a smaller scale.

Fair points.

 

[tafan]

This statement is simply incorrect. It was never part of Church teaching that capital punishment was limited by whether or not it was necessary for protection. In fact the Church had always based her support of capital punishment on God’s covenant with Noah, where God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, because man is made in the image of God.” (Gen 9:6) The concept of protection was never used to justify the death penalty.

This seems exactly backwards. It is precisely because of man’s dignity - because he is made in the image of God - that the punishment for murder is nothing less than the life of the murderer. This is why the Catechism of Trent said:

"The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder."

Trent bases its entire explanation of the use of the death penalty on Genesis 9:6; the basis that man is made in the image of God.

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with any moral question; it is an entirely prudential opinion as to the capabilities of modern penal systems and there can be no question that there is no obligation to agree with this opinion.

Ender

Well, how do you decide which parts of the catechism are prudential opinions?

 

[Celtic_FC]

I’d really like to know how many innocent people lost their life because a dirt bag wasn’t properly put in the ground. I’d like to know how much money is wasted on keeping them in prison. A complete waste.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

I’d really like to know how many innocent people lost their life because a dirt bag wasn’t properly put in the ground. I’d like to know how much money is wasted on keeping them in prison. A complete waste.

Actually, putting someone to death costs more than keeping them in prison. (see deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty).

 

[tafan]

I’d really like to know how many innocent people lost their life because a dirt bag wasn’t properly put in the ground. I’d like to know how much money is wasted on keeping them in prison. A complete waste.

Money should not be the issue, but it is not cheaper to put someone to death. And why would someone innocent have to loose their life because a guilty man was not executed? Do you really believe deterrance works that well? Do you not trust the security of modern prisons?

 

[pnewton]

I can’t think of anyone who couldn’t be incapacitated via a whole life tariff and a suitable high security prison.

I can. Pelican Bay is the highest security prison in the US and some of the murders there ordered hits on rival gang members in Santa Rosa from there. Texas had seven inmates escape from Huntsville and kill a Dallas officer. The idea of impenatrable security is a myth. It might be possible if we could disregard the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and** all** correctional officers were honest.

I post a lot on many topics here. This is one area in which I have decades of experience, as some here are aware. On this topic, I know what I speak of.

 

[tafan]

I can. Pelican Bay is the highest security prison in the US and some of the murders there ordered hits on rival gang members in Santa Rosa from there. Texas had seven inmates escape from Huntsville and kill a Dallas officer. The idea of impenatrable security is a myth. It might be possible if we could disregard the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and** all** correctional officers were honest.

I post a lot on many topics here. This is one area in which I have decades of experience, as some here are aware. On this topic, I know what I speak of.

When was the last time someone escaped from a death row?

 

[Ender]

2267 is straightforward, it does not merely seem that way. It is impossible to conceive how it could be clearer.

What I said was that the Church’s teaching on the death penalty was muddled. 2267 is incompatible with everything that was written before it - however straightforward you may find it.

The fact that the Church’s approach to this area historically was different does not affect the clear language.

Given that morality does not change with time what are we to make of the fact that the Church supported the death penalty in the past as a matter of justice and now opposes it as a matter of protection?

You’re correct about how the Church has typically supported the death penalty. But the statement in 2267 is merely that, in the current world, execution is virtually never necessary to protect the convict from causing more harm. If the Church had a different opinion in 800 AD, its because that was not true in 800 AD. Heck, it probably wasn’t true in 1850 AD. But it is true today.

Before the modern catechism, which is now less than 15 years old, the last comprehensive catechism was the Catechism of Trent, which was the Church’s statement of belief for over 400 years. There is not one word in Trent to support the position set out in 2267, nor does 2267 itself point to anything in the entire history of the Church to support its contention. This is not because of a difference in the capacities of penal systems; the catechisms make fundamentally different statements that are not compatible with one another.

That is a much easier and more believable explanation for the apparent shift in approach then to say that the Church is simply incoherent–or worse, self-contradictory–in this teaching, which is what you’re asserting.

That what is in the current Catechism is not consistent with the previous 2000 years of Church teaching is not an opinion; it is a fact. 2267 not only is inconsistent with previous teachings on capital punishment it is inconsistent with its own catechism.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The purpose of punishment are as expounded before - retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, denunciation.

Legal questions are not particularly relevant here. The Church recognizes that punishment has four objectives: retribution, deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation and the primary one is retribution. I don’t think anyone would argue that we should impose an unjust sentence to achieve any of the other three objectives and just as clearly I can’t see anyone opposing the imposition of a just sentence despite the fact that it didn’t accomplish any of the other three objectives.

What I mean to say is that punishment doesn’t serve the ends of Justice in all cases, where the LAW is not in line with the natural law eg breaking the law to help Jews in Nazi Germany.

This is not all that helpful. The fact that punishment may be abused doesn’t change the relationship between punishment and justice. The issue here is a moral question about the nature of capital punishment, not a legal question about the abuse of power.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Well, how do you decide which parts of the catechism are prudential opinions?

I am strongly influenced by the comments of those charged with understanding what the Church teaches and as far as I know this is the only section of the Catechism that contains prudential opinion.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

• The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions.People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue (USCCB, 2005) Can you imagine bishops saying something like this about anything that was actually Church doctrine to which we have a moral obligation to assent?

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

 

[pnewton]

When was the last time someone escaped from a death row?

1998

 

[Ender]

When was the last time someone escaped from a death row?

Here are some interesting numbers. I just now found this by searching on <murder +recidivism +us> The statistics are for the state of Pennsylvania for the year 1991.

• 800 arrests for murder (1st, 2cd, 3rd degree)
• 704 prosecuted
• 584 incarcerated
• The median time served for first time offenses of murder in Pennsylvania is 82 months.

Here is the key statistic:

• Within three years of release, 1.2% of those previously incarcerated for homicide were arrested for homicide*

What this means is that within three years, (at least) seven people were murdered by people who had already served prison time for murdering someone before - just in Pennsylvania. Nationally, in 1995 there were about 20,000 murders. If Pennsylvania is representative of the US then over that same three year period, nationally there would have been about 140 people murdered by repeat murderers - about 45 per year.

If we are truly concerned with protecting the public then we ought to be executing more murderers, not fewer, on the obvious grounds that it is necessary to effectively protect society.

associatedcontent.com/article/633463/pennsylvanias_murder_statistics_pg2.html?cat=17

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

I can. Pelican Bay is the highest security prison in the US and some of the murders there ordered hits on rival gang members in Santa Rosa from there. Texas had seven inmates escape from Huntsville and kill a Dallas officer. The idea of impenatrable security is a myth. It might be possible if we could disregard the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and** all** correctional officers were honest.

I post a lot on many topics here. This is one area in which I have decades of experience, as some here are aware. On this topic, I know what I speak of.

Sure, and if you look above to Cat’s reply in a similar vein, I conceded the point
That’s because I do acknowledge that facts make a difference to the morality of something and I’m willing to change my mind

 

[Doc_Keele]

Legal questions are not particularly relevant here

Really? On a legal matter?

The Church recognizes that punishment has four objectives: retribution, deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation and the primary one is retribution

and as discussed before, denunciation

I don’t think anyone would argue that we should impose an unjust sentence to achieve any of the other three objectives

well effectively they do when they advocate harsh sentences for deterrenece

and just as clearly I can’t see anyone opposing the imposition of a just sentence despite the fact that it didn’t accomplish any of the other three objectives

again, people complain about “lenient sentences” that lack the deterrent value they feel the sentence should have

 

[camerong]

Here’s the real problem with the death penalty, as I see it, in this country. The death penalty typically is employed based upon the heinousness of the crime, not the certainty of guilt. Our system is far too unreliable to put people to death. Too many people have been released from death row, and too many have been exonerated after death. Too many prosecutors and police officers have been found to falsify evidence that is damning or destroy evidence that is exculpatory. And too many juries have sentenced people to death based on anger, prejudice, or fear rather than evidence.

In the current system in the US, it is immoral to have a death sentence because inevitably, innocent people will be put to death.

Just as we should trust pnewton’s experienced opinion as to the chances of an inmates escape, trust my opinion on this. Frankly, until you have a law degree, and have studied evidence, criminal law and criminal procedure, you will never understand the extent of the problems with our criminal justice system. It is generally good and accurate, but it is not nearly reliable enough to put people to death.

 

[camerong]

Here is a thread I created some months ago with the same message, and a link to a federal appeals judge who made the same argument.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Which COA judge, out of curiosity?

 

[camerong]

Which COA judge, out of curiosity?

William A. Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Granted, he’s from a liberal circuit. But, he said he was not against the death penalty in theory. Further, he’s arguments are quite persuasive. Here is a story about a dissent he wrote where the circuit upheld an obviously flawed result.

I think its rather silly to argue about the death penalty in theory. In theory, we can imagine a psychotic escape artist, or someone with immense ties to massive organized crime networks, who could not be certainly kept in prison and who would probably kill again. If such a person was caught on video tape killing someone in cold blood, this may well be a good case for the death penalty.

But, more often, we have one or two eyewitnesses who see a man leaving the scene who seems to match the description. And the accused happens to be a poor, uneducated person. And we have a very heinous crime. Those eyewitnesses, combined with the story of a robbery or rape gone bad, I will tell you, is enough to convict in any court in this country. And having narrowly decided the person to be guilty, the jury then turns to the heinousness of the act ONLY–not their certainty as to guilt–and decides the sentence. This, being the routine situation where death penalty is used in this country, is what we should discuss.