Capital Punishment...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whitaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your opinion, it seems to me, lacks charity and promotes a rash judgment regarding the interior disposition of inmates and denies the Holy Spirit’s ability to convert the most hardened criminal. Both the lack of charity toward and rash judgment about others are not Catholic dispositions (see your Catechism). I challenge you to pray for the grace to volunteer as a Catholic Chaplain Volunteer and make a difference in effecting a higher rate of rehabilitation for more good is done by becoming an instrument of the Holy Spirit in praying and dialoguing with these men than having them chipping rocks on their own.
I have no problem w/ inmates being rehabilitated. However, it is a fact that in order for rehabilitation to work - the inmates must work for it as opposed to just having someone preach at them. That’s my point in this statement “Rehabilitation is not a one-sided proposition - the inmate must work w/ counsellors, psychologists, etc in order for it to be acheived.” IMO rehabilitation is like attending Mass & getting ‘something’ out of it… You get out of it what you put into it. If you attend just b/c you have to, you’re not going to get much out of it. However, if you attend b/c you want to and you try to contemplate the Mysteries presented w/ your whole heart & soul, you’ll get a lot out of it. However, a priest cannot make someone who doesn’t put any effort into Mass ‘get something’ out of it. No matter how charismatic, charming, intelligent, holy, etc the priest is - he cannot change an unwilling person’s heart & soul without their help and acceptance.

A friend of mine was a case worker in our State Penitentiary. He worked w/ the inmates to try to help rehabilitate them. He’s where I get my opinion that some people aren’t into being rehabilitated. Its not a rash judgement on my part - its acceptance of the facts as they’ve been presented to me. I never indicated that no inmates could/would be rehabilitated. However, I do not think all inmates can/will be rehabilitated. From a psychological standpoint, only those who are willing to put in the effort will be rehabilitated. If they do not think they did anything wrong while they admit guilt for their crime, they are not going to be rehabilitated. My friend told me stories of inmates that fit all these parameters - those that accepted help and truly desired rehabilitation were rehabilitated. However, those that rejected help were not.

We all know people who reject help no matter how it is presented. We all know people who are in denial of their sinfulness and refuse to reconcile with the truth. We all know people who manipulate the system/people to get what they want without regard for good. Hopefully, its not a majority of people who are this way, but there are some. This is the reality of which I’m speaking.

There’s nothing that says inmates working on chain gangs could not benefit from the Holy Spirit and/or counselling as well… I’m offering chain gangs as an alternative to the death penalty - not as an alternative to rehabilitation. I think you misunderstood my intention behind the chain gang statement. There is nothing about chain gangs that is inherently in opposition to rehabilitation, counselling, reparation, etc. Instead the chain gangs are a type of corporal punishment that was used in the past (and still in some places now) that worked.

If you think my opinion lacks charity & promotes rash judgement, I charge you w/ the same vices… You lack charity and came to a rash judgement of my statements w/o full understanding. You gain more by asking questions than by casting aspersions. I’m grateful for the chance to clarify though.
 
As you can see, the Church is against the death penalty in pretty much every case.
I see & agree that the death penalty is not necessary very often. However, the Church does not completely eliminate the possibility of the death penalty being used morally. Nor does the Church take this authority away from the state. The Church asks the state to use its authority properly and in the best interest of society as well as the accused/convicted. If society’s need for safety cannot be met w/ other means, the state has the authority and right to implement the death penalty. There is also no concrete definition of rare as far as numeric definition. Practically non-existant is in the eye of the beholder as well…
2267 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.
A note of some importance in this matter IMO is also that most death penalty sentences are not actually carried out to execution. For instance, in 2007 there were 42 executions, but there were 3220 inmates w/ a sentence of death penalty - Execution Source Death Penalty Population Source. The number of executions never equals the number of convictions/inmates under sentence of death. Without the execution, a death penalty sentence is in reality a life sentence. In other words, the state reserves the right to put the inmate to death should the need arise, but the process is so long and the oversights are such, that most inmates aren’t put to death. Especially now w/ the Innocence Project working for the convicted to prove their innocence or possibly their guilt.

The state is actually working very hard to be fair and just when dealing w/ the convicted. As technology progresses it is hopeful that actual executions will cease, although I think the death penalty should always be an option for the state in those rare, almost non-existant cases. This thought is actually in line w/ the CCC. It may not be the popular thought in some circles, but it fits.
 
I am not certain I would feel comfortable claiming the CCC to be wrong and at the same time claiming to be Catholic.
Two points: first, what I actually said was that the Catechism makes conflicting statements which must mean that both of them cannot be correct. I am not at odds with the Catechism, the Catechism is at odds with itself. Second, I am far from being alone in making this observation. Here is the first paragraph from an article on punishment from canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan:
Code:
 *Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the **Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the **Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the **Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching.
Ender
 
I am presenting the Church’s current view, not what you would like it to be.
What you are representing as the Church’s teaching is strictly limited to CCC 2267 as if this was all one needed to consider. You are in fact ignoring everything that has been said on the subject since Genesis. 2267 does not represent what the Church has traditionally taught; it represents the prudential opinion of JPII.

Ender
 
2267 does not represent what the Church has traditionally taught; it represents the prudential opinion of JPII.
I beg to differ here.
2267 represents Dogma, not the opinions of a Pope.

You may or may not wish to argue the opinions that Pope JPII had on this topic, but whatever you may conclude we are still left with 2267 as a part of Catholic Dogma, and we are obliged to it.
 
Two points: first, what I actually said was that the Catechism makes conflicting statements which must mean that both of them cannot be correct. I am not at odds with the Catechism, the Catechism is at odds with itself.
I am not certain you realize what you are saying here.
Or perhaps I am just not reading you correctly.

It sounds to me like you will not claim that the CCC is wrong, but that two statements in it are mutually exclusive, so one or the other must be wrong.
 
It sounds to me like you will not claim that the CCC is wrong, but that two statements in it are mutually exclusive, so one or the other must be wrong.
If I say that the Catechism is wrong the discussion will end with the flat assertion that it is I who am wrong. If I point out, however, that the Catechism says things which appear to be mutually exclusive then - hopefully - those points can be discussed. Don’t try to end the debate before it can begin. If you are comfortable that your understanding of what the Church teaches is correct then you should be willing to test your understanding in discussion, as I am.

Ender
 
I have no problem w/ inmates being rehabilitated. However, it is a fact that in order for rehabilitation to work - the inmates must work for it as opposed to just having someone preach at them.
No, you are quite wrong. Faith is a gratuitous gift from God which man can never “work for” or merit. We, who have received the gift of faith, are to be instruments of the Holy Spirit in speaking the good news that others might hear. See Romans 10:17. While God does all the heavy lifting, we have a role in His salvation plan for humanity.
A friend of mine was a case worker in our State Penitentiary. He worked w/ the inmates to try to help rehabilitate them. He’s where I get my opinion that some people aren’t into being rehabilitated. Its not a rash judgement on my part - its acceptance of the facts as they’ve been presented to me. .
Really? You think that publishing your negative judgment about others whom you’ve never met based on hearsay evidence is a sufficient foundation to avoid being labeled “rash”?
CCC #2477 “Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; …”
I never indicated that no inmates could/would be rehabilitated. .
You said “many.”
I, personally, am not entirely sure that rehabilitation is entirely possible for all offenders. Many seem to think ….
What does “many” mean – more than a few? On what basis do you make such a claim? You’ve already admitted you have no personal experience.
… My friend told me stories of inmates ….
There you go again. Take me up on my challenge. Become a prison minister and find out first hand rather than second hand the real disposition of inmates.
If you think my opinion lacks charity & promotes rash judgement, I charge you w/ the same vices… You lack charity and came to a rash judgement of my statements w/o full understanding. You gain more by asking questions than by casting aspersions. I’m grateful for the chance to clarify though.
I can only take you at your word and put the best spin on it possible. Here are your words.
My personal opinion is that offenders/inmates should still be working on chain gangs. It works as a deterrent (who wants to dig holes, just to fill them up again day after day after day, etc). It also gives them something to do besides contemplate how to escape and/or commit the perfect crime later. It makes them more tired so there isn’t as much energy left-over for them to beat up on others.
Once challenged, I am glad you have modified your position in your reply; I think you ought to go further still – go to prison and visit the inmates.

Peace,
O’Malley
 
"BiologyBrain:
some people aren’t into being rehabilitated.
Really? You think that publishing your negative judgment about others whom you’ve never met based on hearsay evidence is a sufficient foundation
to avoid being labeled “rash”?
Given we are taught that hell is real and is populated by the unrepentant it seems certain that some people in fact aren’t into rehabilitation. It would seem unlikely that a society of criminals is the exception to this rule.

Ender
 
I realize that this is a very divisive issue. But there are several major problems with capital punishment as we currently have it in this country.

**The notion that the death penalty is to be used in instances of especially vile or heinous crimes. **•
This places us on a very slippery slope. For one thing, it implies that there are some murders which are neither vile or heinous. For example, someone I know told me they believed the death penalty should be used in instances where someone murdered a child because the child is defenseless. I understand her point, but what about an instance where a quite elderly person is murdered? And if you allow for execution of the person who kills the elderly, what is the cutoff point in terms of age where the death penalty should be applied? How about a psychotic person whose thinking is so distorted by mental illness that they may not be able to take appropriate defensive measures? Then what if the victim is depressed? Or has PMS? What if the victim is paralyzed, i.e. a quadriplegic? Surely this victim was defenseless! So how about if they’ve had a stroke & are weak on one side of their body? Or if the victim is simply uncoordinated like me? What if the victim has some other form of handicap that renders them unable to defend himself? Say if they’re blind? Or what if they simply wear glasses? Or have to squint to read fine print? In other words, there comes a point when it must be recognized that it is difficult to decide when capital punishment should be applied without being somewhat arbitrary and capricious.

**The notion that capital punishment brings about justice. **
Let’s take Timothy McVeigh as an example here. If indeed he deliberately planned to blow up the Federal Building, killing as many people as possible in the process, how does lethal injection bring about justice? McVeigh spent a relatively brief period of time in prison before he stated that he wanted to be executed as soon as possible. So granting his wish brings justice? I think not. Perhaps a slow torturous death would bring about justice, but I think it would merely cheapen us. Keeping him in prison for the rest of his natural life and giving him ample opportunity to have his freedom curtailed, to reflect on his actions, and perhaps to develop a sense of horror at what he has done… that seems much more like “justice” to me.

The Company We Keep.
Compare these two lists, and ask yourself which nations are most similar to ours in outlook, form of government, religious affiliation.
The following is a partial list of countries are completely abolitionist… i.e. there is no crime for which the death penalty may be applied:
AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA
DENMARK FRANCE
GERMANY ICELAND
IRELAND ITALY
NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND
NORWAY SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND UNITED KINGDOM
VATICAN CITY STATE
The following is a partial list of countries which are retentionist…
AFGHANISTAN BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH BOTSWANA
BURUNDI CAMEROON
CHAD CHINA
CONGO CUBA
EGYPT EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ETHIOPIA GABON
GHANA IRAN
IRAQ JORDAN
KAZAKSTAN KENYA
KOREA (North & South) KUWAIT
KYRGYZSTAN LEBANON
LIBERIA LIBYA
NIGERIA PAKISTAN
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY RWANDA
SAUDI ARABIA SWAZILAND
SYRIA UGANDA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UZBEKISTAN
VIET NAM
 
**Unequal application of the death penalty. **
• It has been clearly shown that the death penalty is most often sought and applied to minorities and to people who have the least resources - people who are poor, mentally ill, or retarded and thus may be able to seek qualified legal counsel. Other studies have shown that a person convicted of murder is far, far more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim is white.
Deterrence.
• Harries and Cheatwood studied differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. Counties were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development, demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death row population, and with and without executions. The authors did find higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))
• The abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homicide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penalty. For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population and the rate in Canada was only 1.8. Canada currently sentences those convicted of murder to life sentences with parole eligibility. (Issues Direct.com, 8/4/02)
• Since the death penalty was reinstated, over 80% of all executions have occurred in the South, the region with the highest murder rate. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, has accounted for less than 1% of the executions.
• A survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)
• The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6. A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.
Life Without Parole.
• Most jurisdictions offer the option of life without parole… thus the argument that the person convicted could be released to kill again won’t hold water. LWOP is offered in the following jurisdictions: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Federal Statute Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Military Statute, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington DC, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Only Alaska, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas do NOT have LWOP.

**Suggesting that an execution will bring about healing or peace for those who loved the victim. **
• For example: “When the prosecutors in Houston, TX., promised to give the murderer the death penalty I was extremely gratified – at first. In fact, I went to the trial every day because I thought that hearing the judge pronounce the sentence of death would bring me some relief. Instead of healing, I found myself focusing on my anger and hatred, which only seemed to increase the pain I felt over the loss of my mother. Eventually I came to realize that capital punishment was not the answer because wishing for another human being to die wasn’t helping me heal.” – Celeste Dixon [whose mother was murdered in 1986].
**Human fallibility. **• Since 1971, 131 people have been released from death row in the United States after being shown to be innocent. Several of these people had come within days of execution at one point. 36 of these people had spent 10 or more years on death row… but at least they were alive when our error was realized.

Someone suggested in an earlier post that a significant number of people have been released after being shown to be innocent is proof that our system works. I respectfully disagree. I think it is highly possible that innocent people have been executed. To quote:

“Has an innocent man ever been executed? Probably. The judicial system is designed to promote fairness, but anyone who expects perfection is asking for an impossibility. Any revamping might make the system better, but because human nature is involved, it won’t make it perfect. By far the question people ask me most is how I feel about the death penalty. I can only tell you this: Apparently, our society believes that some people need to be removed permanently and completely. As the warden, and a servant of the taxpayer, I tried to do the best job that I could. As a human being, I see it as a sad affair. But it is as a Christian that I struggle most. I have watched men being put to death for hideous crimes and wondered at that moment if we were doing the right thing.” – Jim Willet, Texas prison warden.
 
I beg to differ here.
2267 represents Dogma, not the opinions of a Pope.

You may or may not wish to argue the opinions that Pope JPII had on this topic, but whatever you may conclude we are still left with 2267 as a part of Catholic Dogma, and we are obliged to it.
It is doctrine, not dogma. There is a critical difference. In either the case, the application is not given, only the teaching. That is what the Church does. It teaches doctrine. The error in the OP is obvious in that the United States is never mentioned in the Catechism. “Rare” is of such ambiguity as to always allow for the possiblity. I disagree with the Late John Paul the Great on the state of the prison system in the United States. We have proven over and over again that there remain some we can not safely incarcerate. The Catholic Church is the authority on morality and theology, not the science of criminal justice.

Everytime this issue arises I the same question. Where has the Church ever referenced any Criminal Justice Science to back its claim that the need for the death penalty is practically none existent?

It seems this is almost taken as a given when it is not.
 
Everytime this issue arises I the same question. Where has the Church ever referenced any Criminal Justice Science to back its claim that the need for the death penalty is practically none existent?

It seems this is almost taken as a given when it is not.
Good morning,

I don’t think the Church references “criminal justice science” at all in making any of its doctrines/dogmas. Nor do I think it would be appropriate to do so.
 
Given we are taught that hell is real and is populated by the unrepentant it seems certain that some people in fact aren’t into rehabilitation. It would seem unlikely that a society of criminals is the exception to this rule.

Ender
Half correct. The Church teaches that hell is real but does not teach that it is populated by even one soul.

Peace,
O’Malley
 
If I say that the Catechism is wrong the discussion will end with the flat assertion that it is I who am wrong.
As well it should. Unless the debate is more of the ‘I’m leaving the church because…’ type.
If I point out, however, that the Catechism says things which appear to be mutually exclusive then - hopefully - those points can be discussed.
Appear to be” is an important point here.
We are discussing Dogma. And therefore have the obligation to it as we do the church and God.
If ‘appears to be’ is an issue for you, then I would urge you to study further.
I do not see any such problems.
Don’t try to end the debate before it can begin. If you are comfortable that your understanding of what the Church teaches is correct then you should be willing to test your understanding in discussion, as I am.
Ender
If you wish to discuss what you perceive to be self contradictions within the CCC, I urge you to open another thread on that exact topic. I’ll be there, I promise. I would suggest the ‘Apologetics’ forum instead of ‘Moral Theology’
However, bringing it up in a thread discussing capital punishment I do not believe to be the right place.
It would appear so as the discussion is upon that particular teaching is where the discussion centers, but it really is not.
In the discussion you wish to have, the CCC itself and the apparent contradiction is the main thrust of the discussion.
In the other, the application of what we know to be is the main thrust.

Same paragraphs, different directions.
 
We are discussing Dogma. And therefore have the obligation to it as we do the church and God.
This is flatly incorrect; this section of the Catechism is neither dogma nor doctrine. Your position is based on your belief that if it is in the Catechism it must be dogma/doctrine; mine is based on the numerous comments that have been made about this specific section by those who have a better understanding of this point. I’ve already place one citation in this thread and have several more, including comments by cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles.
If ‘appears to be’ is an issue for you, then I would urge you to study further. I do not see any such problems.
You don’t see any problems because you refuse to engage in the debate; you make no rebuttal to my comments other than to repeat “2267 … 2267 …”
If you wish to discuss what you perceive to be self contradictions within the CCC, I urge you to open another thread on that exact topic. I’ll be there, I promise. I would suggest the ‘Apologetics’ forum instead of ‘Moral Theology’
However, bringing it up in a thread discussing capital punishment I do not believe to be the right place.
The OP stated his understanding of Church teaching on capital punishment and asked if he expressed it correctly. My response was that he did not. This is the appropriate thread to have that conversation.

Ender
 
40.png
NCSue:
Part 1 … Part 2
This is a very well articulated position on the inadequacies of our application of the death penalty … but there is not much in it that addresses the moral aspect of its application which is the only issue which the Church can address. You have focused on the practical questions but the OP was asking about the moral one. The one moral topic you briefly mentioned was the issue of justice which is in fact a major part of the question. If you would like to go deeper into that point I think it would be quite useful to do so.

Ender
 
Half correct. The Church teaches that hell is real but does not teach that it is populated by even one soul.

Peace,
O’Malley
So all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that Jesus Himself would be there was what? A sould effects recording?
 
Good morning,

I don’t think the Church references “criminal justice science” at all in making any of its doctrines/dogmas. Nor do I think it would be appropriate to do so.
Then how can a statement be made that recourse to the death penalty in society do day is unnecessary for the protection of society? Wishful thinking? Common knowledge (a logic fallacy, BTW)? Too much exposure to the secular media?

The statement in the Catechism and made by John Paul II assumes a fact never supported by any evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top