Capital Punishment- right or wrong?

[mosher]

Justice? Mo’ like revenge, plain and simple, like it was a way of life. When killers die, they go stright to hell, thus wasting a soul that would’ve had a chance to repent. We want heaven’s quota to increase, NOT hell’s!! There can NEVER be any sastifaction by wanting somone dead.

Vegence and justice are very different things as vengence is disordered by malice justice rather is a virtue and is excercised with the information of prudence.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

And i say death penalties stink. I am a member of an anti death penalty group. I pray that those that personally state murder killers will one day see the light, quit their jobs and repent, and join the right kind of church, if they ever want to get to heaven. Hell’s already too fuul of souls as of now.

 

[mosher]

And i say death penalties stink. I am a member of an anti death penalty group. I pray that those that personally state murder killers will one day see the light, quit their jobs and repent, and join the right kind of church, if they ever want to get to heaven. Hell’s already too fuul of souls as of now.

Your speach is full of arogance and without quality of discussion - you are officially on my ignore list as it seems that reason to you is unreasonable.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Your speach is full of arogance and without quality of discussion - you are officially on my ignore list as it seems that reason to you is unreasonable.

St. Paul wasn’t scared to talk out like that, even when his turn came.

 

[dch1983]

I do not know if you saw this link in post #8
firstthings.com/ftissues/…es/dulles.html? I think it has some good info. It is not exhaustive, but a good place to start.

I have read this document and find it informative and helpful, but as you said, not exhaustive or all-encompassing. Also, I appreciate your efforts to have an intelligent discussion about this, as I know this can be difficult with irrational contributions apparently seeking to argue rather than inform.

 

[Coop73]

The short form resume is:

I am a former and future seminarian with much formal education is philosophy and theology with a primary focus in ethics/bioethics, Thomism/Platonism/Personalism/Neo-Thomism/Existentialism/Realism in philosophy and Dogmatic and Moral Theology based primarily in St. Thomas but also with a little of von Balthasaar. I also teach and am a published author in a catholic publication.

I am writing from the point of view of the Church as She understand revelation on this point. It is a rejected idea that forgiveness negates essential satisfaction. It has to do with the gravity of the wrong and the public nature of the wrong.

You are obviously more informed than myself. I need to study more extensivly and appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I know that people are passionate about their feelings and I hope that discussions can continue on this and other forums without people getting angry with each other. I think the more people talk the more we can get an understanding of point of view. I also think the more we talk the more we can be informed. I understand what you are saying mosher and have learned from your words. I guess from my perspective, I just wish the death penalty was not even needed, you know.

 

[mosher]

You are obviously more informed than myself. I need to study more extensivly and appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I know that people are passionate about their feelings and I hope that discussions can continue on this and other forums without people getting angry with each other. I think the more people talk the more we can get an understanding of point of view. I also think the more we talk the more we can be informed. I understand what you are saying mosher and have learned from your words. I guess from my perspective, I just wish the death penalty was not even needed, you know.

Agreed, and at some level the Christian must be an idealist. However, we must also be realists in application. As long as sin exists in the world we will have people doing bad things to other people and so we must have a way to deal with it in an ethical way. I think that many times we can be frustrated with the fact that it is not used in an ethical way. I think that if it were used in an ethical way it would serve a better purpose than it does now and in fact we would see, as I said, only a small handful a year in the whole of the US. This would be a vast improvement over what we currently have which is an out of control desire for vengeance confused with justice. This is why it is so important to be civically involved so that we can help bring about that better society. That is our charge as Christians in the world instead of being lazy and indifferent and ill-informed.

 

[AndyF]

I have yet to hear of an execution in the United States that the Vatican supported. In fact, the Church often issues pleas to governers to commute the sentences of convicts to life without parole instead of execution. The Catechism, as a statement of absolute teachings of the Church, leaves the possibility of execution being acceptable but the Church does not seem to advocate the death penalty as we apply it in the United States. One thing that I have always appreciated about Catholics, in general, is that they are usually consistent in trying to create a “culture of life” by opposing the taking of all human life. Most who are against the death penalty believe that convicted criminals should do hard time without the possibility of parole but they can’t morally accept executions.

The correctional institute and capital punishment may seem to be the final destiny of some men, and some would prefer hell was that place. God indicates that a mission for an individual is over when he is called for judgement. So it is clear that while he is here there is still something he must perform and that he has options to turn the state of his soul around.

The Church says that a person who is incarcerated and holds no threat to society still has value and a mission. It says that the death sentence in today’s societies should be the rare exception. Being confined doesn’t restrict his usefullness. Some cloistered societies are also in a self imposed similar situation and they dedicate their lives to prayer. God promises that prayer has immense value, and I’m certain that one coming from a suffering penitent would be of value.

In my view, the idea of the worthlessness of individuals is just one more manifestation of the ideology of the Culture of Death.

AndyF

 

[Al_Masetti]

I read this whole thread.

;^(

Here are a few proposals:

People totally opposed to the death penalty in all cases should be morally required to take jobs as prison guards specifically guarding prisoners in for life. The job pays well. And they could offer some sort of ministry to the prisoners.

People opposed to the death penalty should be required to argue before the courts for solitary confinement for prisoners found guilty of commiting capital crimes while in prison or assaulting guards while in prison.

People opposed to the death penalty should be required morally to explain the “exception” clause … meaning that the Catholic Church allows an exception.

People opposed to the death penalty should explain how they would protect the lives of innocent people from injury or death caused by prisoners.

 

[dch1983]

I read this whole thread.

;^(

Here are a few proposals:

People totally opposed to the death penalty in all cases should be morally required to take jobs as prison guards specifically guarding prisoners in for life. The job pays well. And they could offer some sort of ministry to the prisoners.

People opposed to the death penalty should be required to argue before the courts for solitary confinement for prisoners found guilty of commiting capital crimes while in prison or assaulting guards while in prison.

People opposed to the death penalty should be required morally to explain the “exception” clause … meaning that the Catholic Church allows an exception.

People opposed to the death penalty should explain how they would protect the lives of innocent people from injury or death caused by prisoners.

I don’t think the solution to the way the US applies the dealth penalty is to make those who oppose it work in prisons or appear in court. Is it our duty to formulate the specific solution to the problem? Isn’t that part of the responsibility of the government? It seems the overall problem is that we, as a country (and some states more than others), HARDLY use capital punishment as a last resort of protecting innocent people from injury or death. If we did use capital punishment only as a last resort and in very specific circumstances (which, to my understanding, would be much closer to what the CCC says), many of the death penalty opponents would likely change their tune. I quite possibly would.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I don’t think the solution to the way the US applies the dealth penalty is to make those who oppose it work in prisons or appear in court. Is it our duty to formulate the specific solution to the problem? Isn’t that part of the responsibility of the government? It seems the overall problem is that we, as a country (and some states more than others), HARDLY use capital punishment as a last resort of protecting innocent people from injury or death. If we did use capital punishment only as a last resort and in very specific circumstances (which, to my understanding, would be much closer to what the CCC says), many of the death penalty opponents would likely change their tune. I quite possibly would.

Numerous posters here and on previous threads that discuss capital punishment have repeatedly recommended solitary confinement for repeat murderers in prison. In otherwise, convicted murderers who repeatedly kill in prison, should receive solitary confinement. REAL solitary: locked up 24/7.

But the courts have repeatedly refused to allow what those opposed to capital punishment have advocated.

So… now what???

Those opposed to capital punishment have decided on a remedy that is forbidden.

So … the burden is now on those opposed to capital punishment.

Those opposed to capital punishment have created a situation (by the legal maneuvers) such that innocent people are being hurt and killed by the convicted murderers.

In a sense, those opposed to capital punishment are guilty of the injuries and deaths caused by repeat murderers because they have taken active measures to prevent the effective punishment of murderers, i.e., REAL solitary confinement.

So, perhaps some hands-on experience with being attacked, having feces from AIDS-infected criminals thrown at them, etc, perhaps that actual real-life experience might provide some inspiration on what might be a legal way of protecting the lives of innocent people.

 

[dch1983]

Numerous posters here and on previous threads that discuss capital punishment have repeatedly recommended solitary confinement for repeat murderers in prison. In otherwise, convicted murderers who repeatedly kill in prison, should receive solitary confinement. REAL solitary: locked up 24/7.

But the courts have repeatedly refused to allow what those opposed to capital punishment have advocated.

So… now what???

Those opposed to capital punishment have decided on a remedy that is forbidden.

So … the burden is now on those opposed to capital punishment.

Those opposed to capital punishment have created a situation (by the legal maneuvers) such that innocent people are being hurt and killed by the convicted murderers.

In a sense, those opposed to capital punishment are guilty of the injuries and deaths caused by repeat murderers because they have taken active measures to prevent the effective punishment of murderers, i.e., REAL solitary confinement.

So, perhaps some hands-on experience with being attacked, having feces from AIDS-infected criminals thrown at them, etc, perhaps that actual real-life experience might provide some inspiration on what might be a legal way of protecting the lives of innocent people.

For the most part, I don’t dispute what you say here. But your comments seem to emphasize my point: that the greater problem lies in our justice system and court system. Solitary confinement or life WITHOUT PAROLE (when “without parole” means “no chance of parole”) sould be the applicable sentences for crimes of murder. The fact that repeat murderers are parolled and that “courts refuse to allow solitary confinement” as a punishment (as you said above) is a problem stemming from a justice system that presents ‘no alternative’ to the dealth penalty. The solution is certainly not to kill them because we don’t have a justice system in place that protects the innocent from murderers. Shouldn’t we fix the system rather than do away with those who it affects most directly?

One last thing: whether you support the right of the state to execute criminals or not, I think it is clear that the way the US employs the death penalty is certainly not in accordance with the CCC.

 

[Al_Masetti]

For the most part, I don’t dispute what you say here. But your comments seem to emphasize my point: that the greater problem lies in our justice system and court system. Solitary confinement or life WITHOUT PAROLE (when “without parole” means “no chance of parole”) sould be the applicable sentences for crimes of murder. The fact that repeat murderers are parolled and that “courts refuse to allow solitary confinement” as a punishment (as you said above) is a problem stemming from a justice system that presents ‘no alternative’ to the dealth penalty. The solution is certainly not to kill them because we don’t have a justice system in place that protects the innocent from murderers. Shouldn’t we fix the system rather than do away with those who it affects most directly?

One last thing: whether you support the right of the state to execute criminals or not, I think it is clear that the way the US employs the death penalty is certainly not in accordance with the CCC.

The US allows virtually unlimited appeals to prison and/or death penalties. The appeals go on for decades.

Justice delayed is justice denied, as the saying goes.

How does one reform the courts?

The U.S. Constitution, for example, puts the jurisdiction and composition of the courts as the responsibility of the Congress.

And yet, the courts have consistently taken upon themselves whatever authority they want whenever they want it. They overrule the legislative branch and they overrule the voters.

So, what do you suggest to reform the courts?

In a very recent case, the judge not only overruled the jury, he also overruled the legislative mandatory sentencing.

So, what’s the remedy? In real life, I mean.

The use of the word “should” is not acceptable, because it just means “theoretically”.

 

[Al_Masetti]

This article by Cardinal Dulles is excellent on this subject:

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

Cardinal Dulles is fabulous. Superb writer and speaker on this and other topics.

It is said that the reason he was made a Cardinal … at at such an advanced age … is the quality of his writing and his service to the Holy Father in writing explanations and expositions.

Someone set up a Web page for Cardinal Dulles’ work and here is the link.

ratzingerfanclub.com/Dulles/index.html

The reason I posted the link is that Cardinal Dulles gave one of his twice-a-year McGinley lectures at Fordham on the topic of Capital Punishment. It was so superb in its clarity and succintness that it just blew me away. I’m hoping that the there is or will be a video archive of that talk posted to the Web site.

 

[dch1983]

Cardinal Dulles is fabulous. Superb writer and speaker on this and other topics. QUOTE]

Thank you for the link. I have read that article before, and I just read it again, at yoiur suggestion. A very good article, and like you say, clearly a very intelligent and eloquent writer and speaker (I will look for the video clip as well). Cardinal Dulles offers a very well-written commentary on capital punishment as a whole and, it seems clear, is not convinced of the US’s application of it… please consider the bottom half of the article:

The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt./

 

[Al_Masetti]

Al Masetti;1582451:

Cardinal Dulles is fabulous. Superb writer and speaker on this and other topics. QUOTE]

Thank you for the link. I have read that article before, and I just read it again, at yoiur suggestion. A very good article, and like you say, clearly a very intelligent and eloquent writer and speaker (I will look for the video clip as well). Cardinal Dulles offers a very well-written commentary on capital punishment as a whole and, it seems clear, is not convinced of the US’s application of it… please consider the bottom half of the article:

The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt./

QUOTE]

Also, he addresses in more detail the 4 main aspects of capital punishment above this paragraph.

At one point, he references the powerful results of a study conducted by Columbia Law School. The link to the study is below and definitely worth a look:
www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/

I must confess that I, myself, do not know what the solution is. I agree that appeals for convicted criminals result in a drawn out process. But does the fact that the process is a lengthy one mean they should have no right to appeal their conviction because it takes too long?!
And I hesitate to agree that my usage of the word “should” actually means “theoretically”. Instead, I use “should” to mean “ideally”. I prefer to consider myself to strive for the ideal on moral matters rather than theorize.

We, unhappily, do not live in an ideal world.

Believe it or not, I actually got into a formal debate once on this very subject of capital punishment. The “anti” side was talking about the “torture” that prisoners experienced as their appeals wended (right word?) their way through the courts. BUT the appeals, I argued, were generated BY THE PRISONERS. Not by the penal or judicial system.

The issue here is HOW TO WE PROTECT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.

I would suggest the gross failure that the prison system with the idea of general populations which allows roaming prisoners to prey on one another (same sex forcable anal rape, for example. Or murder. Or beatings, extortion, maiming, for other examples.)

So we need something better… clearly.

But the idea of absolute solitary confinement has been outlawed by the judiciary.

So… vote Republican so that liberal judges can be gradually removed from the system and conservative judges gradually introduced into the system. Right now a lot of judgeships are being blocked by liberal/Democrat Senators.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

There’s more than one way to protect the world–but death AIN’T one of them!!

 

[CRW]

What are the Church’s teachings on the use of Capital Punishment?

IMHO the gain of DP in the USA is for the lawyers defending, at our costs those awaiting. I read, but do not have the material, that over 100 persons have been cleared because of new DNA technology. I also read that the cost to put to death is greater then the cost to maintain in prison for 50 years. I do not have the material to validate this, I wish I did.

 

[dch1983]

IMHO the gain of DP in the USA is for the lawyers defending, at our costs those awaiting. I read, but do not have the material, that over 100 persons have been cleared because of new DNA technology. I also read that the cost to put to death is greater then the cost to maintain in prison for 50 years. I do not have the material to validate this, I wish I did.

I posted this link above. It’s not exactly what you were referencing but is certainly interesting and worth a look:
www2.law.columbia.edu/instruc…vices/liebman/

 

[browser1]

John Doran:
Further, murder and intentional killing are not the same when murder is used in the precise language of morality. For intentional killing to be murder it must include premeditation and malice. For this reason Scripture makes a distinction between murder and other forms of killing in Leviticus.

murder=intentionally killing, manslaughter=murder, the way I see it, whether its premeditated for years or for split second while defending your own life, its still murder and that makes it immoral.

It is perfectly licit for a soldier to kill intentionally as that is his job which he must do in a just war or else incur other moral evils on his person. What he cannot do is kill an enemy out of revenge or malice but only out of duty

In the context of our worldly laws, war and soldiers killing each other is morally licit, but at the end of the day war that intentionally takes the lives of the innocent for whatever reason(including self defence) is still immoral.