Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

[LokisMom]

Please fact check the studies:

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

You’ll find different “evidence” supporting different claims. My friend who is a lawyer said he used to be for the DP until he realized how much more money is spent that way. I strongly hold the opinion that overall, the DP is still more expensive, but we could argue back and forth, looking up different stuff on google so it’s pointless.

Then again, this shouldn’t be a Catholic reason for or against the DP either way, and that’s what the thread calls for.

Also, you never answered my last question.

 

[LokisMom]

As Loki(name removed by moderator) says, as a ‘cost saving’ measure, the death penalty couldn’t be justified as that could be said of many groups of people whose lives are such that they can’t contribute much to society but require a high degree of support to continue to live.

The other thing that discredits that line of argument is that all the countries who have abolished the death penalty have fairly seemlessly transitioned without the financial burden.

And thirdly, the purpose of moving to towards an unconditional prolife mentality with regards punishment… is to combat the pervading culture of death that tolerates and promotes measures such as abortion, euthanasia, suicide and contraception in society. The taxdollar burden in supporting those antilife practices isn’t acceptable. Especially to Catholics.

Yes.

 

[dudleysharp]

Dudley Sharp was a military man: Dudley Crawford Sharp (March 16, 1905 – May 17, 1987) was Secretary of the Air Force from December 11, 1959 until January 20, 1961, under president Dwight D. Eisenhower.

He has no theological credentials that I can find. There is no “overwhelming” NT support for the DEATH penalty on this site, it is just a blog. Opinions. Christ is love, Christ talked a great deal about love. How can you equate lethal injections, firing squads, gas chambers, electric chairs, hangings, and beheadings, especially when there is a mistake, with love?

That Dudley Sharp died in 1987.

Evidently, you didn’t read the hundreds of quotes from Catholic Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and prior CCC detailing death penalty support for over 2000 years, as opposed to the newest teaching, which had to be amended, repeatedly, into the CCC, within the past 17 years.

Evidently, you didn’t read any of the material, or you would have been able to answer your own questions, which were, fully, answered within the provided link.

Willful ignorance is no help within any discussion.

Just a few of what was presented.

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

Jesus and the Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesus-and-death-penalty.html

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

 

[dudleysharp]

You’ll find different “evidence” supporting different claims. My friend who is a lawyer said he used to be for the DP until he realized how much more money is spent that way. I strongly hold the opinion that overall, the DP is still more expensive, but we could argue back and forth, looking up different stuff on google so it’s pointless.

Then again, this shouldn’t be a Catholic reason for or against the DP either way, and that’s what the thread calls for.

Also, you never answered my last question.

Lokis:

My obvious point was that you should fact check to see if any of those studies have any credibility. I have fact checked most of them and they don’t.

There is no back and forth. Facts are facts. My guess is that neither you nor your friend have fact checked and that neither of you will.

Debating public policy issues, without knowing the facts is non productive. I fact check.

I missed you question. What was it?

 

[dudleysharp]

As Loki(name removed by moderator) says, as a ‘cost saving’ measure, the death penalty couldn’t be justified as that could be said of many groups of people whose lives are such that they can’t contribute much to society but require a high degree of support to continue to live.

The other thing that discredits that line of argument is that all the countries who have abolished the death penalty have fairly seemlessly transitioned without the financial burden.

And thirdly, the purpose of moving to towards an unconditional prolife mentality with regards punishment… is to combat the pervading culture of death that tolerates and promotes measures such as abortion, euthanasia, suicide and contraception in society. The taxdollar burden in supporting those antilife practices isn’t acceptable. Especially to Catholics.

Sadly, you did not address the most important point, that fact checking is required.

You both conclude: " the death penalty couldn’t be justified as that could be said of many groups of people whose lives are such that they can’t contribute much to society but require a high degree of support to continue to live."

I agree, apparently, with you both, that murderers “require a high degree of support to continue to live.” and that in most cases, it would be cheaper to execute them, particularly in the US situation, where responsible judges provide more rational trial and appeals.

You write:

" all the countries who have abolished the death penalty have fairly seemlessly transitioned without the financial burden."

My guess is that you have zero evidence that the death penalty was an additional financial burden on any of the countries that no longer have it. If you do, produce it.

I suspect just stated facts not in evidence, just making it up. Again, facts and fact checking are important.

It is very clear that respect for life is the foundation for the death penalty, as with:

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2003)

All sanctions are based upon taking away that which is valued, life with execution, freedom with incarceration, money with fines, time and labor with community service.

 

[dudleysharp]

Yes.

Very strange, your “Yes” was in support of LS, rebutted with:

======

Sadly, you did not address the most important point, that fact checking is required.

You both conclude: " the death penalty couldn’t be justified as that could be said of many groups of people whose lives are such that they can’t contribute much to society but require a high degree of support to continue to live."

I agree, apparently, with you both, that murderers “require a high degree of support to continue to live.” and that in most cases, it would be cheaper to execute them, particularly in the US situation, where responsible judges provide more rational trial and appeals schedules.

You write:

" all the countries who have abolished the death penalty have fairly seemlessly transitioned without the financial burden."

My guess is that you have zero evidence that the death penalty was an additional financial burden on any of the countries that no longer have it. If you do, produce it.

I suspect just stated facts not in evidence, just making it up. Again, facts and fact checking are important.

It is very clear that respect for life is the foundation for the death penalty, as with:

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2003)

All sanctions are based upon taking away that which is valued, life with execution, freedom with incarceration, money with fines, time and labor with community service.

 

[dudleysharp]

With all due respect, the legal appeals process that are automatic in DP make executions vastly more expense then life incarceration. This fact is all over the internet, and is present in every DP argument ever made. Just check, I am completely shocked you are not already aware of this.

In some cash strapped states and counties, the DP is not even considered due to the expensive nature of the legal process. Much much cheaper to keep them alive than to execute, at least in the United States, and yet even with all these protections, too many innocent people have been executed. One is too many.

esieffe:

Please, fact cehck.

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

 

[dudleysharp]

This is very true. I didn’t realize how many innocent people get convicted of murder (including people on death row) until I started watching crime documentaries. At least as long as they are alive, there is the chance that they will be found innocent and be released at some point.

Lokis:

Please fact check.

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

 

[dudleysharp]

I’ll side with the Church’s prudence on this. I don’t trust myself that much.

That is prudent.

However, Pope Benedict stated that the newest death penalty teaching is a prudential judgement and that any Catholic can disagree with the Church and remain a Catholic in good standing.

This with the understanding that there are factual, philosophical, biblical, theological, philosophical and rational reasons for disagreement.

EV factual reasons , based upon “defense of society”, are utilitarian in nature, were, factully in error, as unrebutted, and there is no theological or rational justification for a utilitarian position to subvert eternal teachings based upon justice/redress/just retribution, which the Church, in the latest CCC, calls primary.

 

[dudleysharp]

And the truth comes our that you reject the church’s doctrine…

Jon:

You misunderstand.

According to the Church, this is not a doctrinal issue, but a a prudential judgement, which, as Pope Benedict established any Catholic can disagree with the Church’s prudential judgement and remain a Catholic in good standing, a position which can only occur if the Church recognizes that there are credible differences with regard to biblical, theological, traditional, philosophical, rational and/or factual issues, which She does.

This is somewhat of a disaster for a CCC, wherein a prudential judgement should never occur, as CCC are to clarify teachings, not confuse them, with allowable differences of opinion, which has never occurred before.

As a canon lawyer observes, after 6 years of review, after the initial 1997 amendements to the death penalty teachings:

“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.” “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by Canon Lawyer R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, Sept 14, 2003

And what was the Catholic scholarship response to this first paragraph (CCC 2267), of this revised teaching, after 10 years of consideration?

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (1)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(1)

What we have is an error, inexplicably, transferred from Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae into the Catechism, with no effort at fact checking within either document, the only rational explanation for the error.

Additional voluminous problems, as detailed:
The Catechism and the Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-catechism-death-penalty.html

1. “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)

 

[dudleysharp]

Using the gammit of crime figures is not relevant to whether the death penalty has an effect unless you are suggesting that all criminals should be executed upon conviction. If the State is capable of securing the type of ‘irredeemable’ offender that exists on death row for long years… they are capable of successfully replacing that with a ‘never to be released’ lockup. Realistically, how many of those *on death row *have escaped and perpetrated crime again? That is what is being addressed by EV. The capability of permanently securing these particularly depraved examples is achievable.

One of the ‘lifers’ from the State I live in died in prison not long back aged 82. He had been incarcerated for 54 years. It is achievable.

Again, you premise is wrong and, therefore, your conclusions are wrong.

You write:

“Using the gammit of crime figures is not relevant to whether the death penalty has an effect unless you are suggesting that criminals should be executed upon conviction.”

I have, repeatedly presented that innocents are better protected with the death penalty and therefore, more innocents are put at risk without it (1) and there has been no rebuttal based upon the facts.

Obviously it is a truism that living murderers are, infinitely, more likely to harm and murder again, than are executed ones and, as addittonally, detailed, countless murderers do harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape, after improper release, after intended release and after we fail to confine them, at all.

Also, the evidence that the death penalty deters some (1) overwhelms any proof that the death penalty deters none (1) and the evidence that death is feared more than life and life is preferred over death, is also overwhelming and we know that which is preferred more deters less and that which is feared more deters more (1).

We can all agree what is achievable, but when dealing with sacrificing or saving additional innocent lives, one would think it most responsible to deal in reality, with the full understanding of the many errors within human affairs, to do otherwise is foolish, particularly, as the Church well knows, that She allowed, for decades, for priest pedophiles to harm again and again, just as the criminal justice system does and has done, since the beginning of history, allowing unjust aggressors to harm, over and over, again, as I detailed.

Knowing that, it is astounding that both St PJPII and CCC could think, much less, assert, that such circumstances are “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”, when the obvious facts are to the contrary.

1. The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

 

[LokisMom]

Lokis:

My obvious point was that you should fact check to see if any of those studies have any credibility. I have fact checked most of them and they don’t.

There is no back and forth. Facts are facts. My guess is that neither you nor your friend have fact checked and that neither of you will.

Debating public policy issues, without knowing the facts is non productive. I fact check.

I missed you question. What was it?

…And my point was that you’ll say you have the right facts, and I’ll say I do.

As for my friend, I don’t think it was a matter of “fact checking” any sort of source he read from. He came up with that conclusion because he is in that field and that is what he’s seen first hand.

As for my question, look at posts #90 and #92.

 

[dudleysharp]

…And my point was that you’ll say you have the right facts, and I’ll say I do.

As for my friend, I don’t think it was a matter of “fact checking” any sort of source he read from. He came up with that conclusion because he is in that field and that is what he’s seen first hand.

As for my question, look at posts #90 and #92.

LM:

Public policy claims should be challenged. Most everyone agrees with that.

I fact checked, using confirmible claims. Can you or did you counter them? No.

That’s how it works. My guess it that you didn’t even read them.

Exactly, your friend has no confirmible facts. How many death penalty cases has your friend evaluated the costs of and how many life cases did they evaluate the costs of?

LIkely none, or you would present them.

My guess is you have no clue, either way. Do you?

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation. (unconfirmed) Herbert Spencer (1820-1903).

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP To clarify, are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis are all going against church teaching by believing that the death penalty is no longer necessary to keep society safe and thus being against it?

I hope this is helpful. I didn’t see the question within #90.

My early evaluation of EV (2). I would add much more, today.

According to the Church, this recent change is a prudential judgement, which, as Pope Benedict established any Catholic can disagree with the Church’s prudential judgement and remain a Catholic in good standing, a position which can only occur if the Church recognizes that there are credible differences with regard to biblical, theological, traditional, philosophical, rational and/or factual issues, which She does.

This is somewhat of a disaster for a CCC, wherein a prudential judgement should never occur, as CCC are to clarify teachings, not confuse them, with allowable differences of opinion, which has never occurred before.

As a canon lawyer observes, after 6 years of review, after the initial 1997 amendements to the death penalty teachings:

“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.” “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by Canon Lawyer R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, Sept 14, 2003

And what was the Catholic scholarship response to this first paragraph (CCC 2267), of this revised teaching, after 10 years of consideration?

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (1)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(1)

What we have is an error, inexplicably, transferred from Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae into the Catechism, with no effort at fact checking within either document, the only rational explanation for the error.

Both EV and CCC further an error which, if, previously, found, would have prevented that error from entering the CCC and the language would have remained, as in the original, 1992-1993 I believe. See Flannery (1).

Additional problems, here, as detailed:
The Catechism and the Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/0…h-penalty.html

1. “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)
2. EV
   homicidesurvivors.candothathosting.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors/

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon:

You misunderstand.

According to the Church, this is not a doctrinal issue, but a a prudential judgement, which, as Pope Benedict established any Catholic can disagree with the Church’s prudential judgement and remain a Catholic in good standing, a position which can only occur if the Church recognizes that there are credible differences with regard to biblical, theological, traditional, philosophical, rational and/or factual issues, which She does.

You misunderstand Sir, and you REFUSE to answer THE most important question.

This is NOT a doctrinal issue. You are free to disagree and not be labeled a heretic.

But you are also REQUIRED to RESPECT the prudential Judgemenr of the Church.

Now stop posting blog links no one cares about and answer THE question.

How is it respectful of our Popes and Bishops to advocate a position they have explicitly taught against?

If you respect the prudential judgement of the church you would;

1. keep your opinion to yourself or
2. advocate and support their call to action.

You would definitely not try to outside Catholics that they are wrong.

Please respond.

 

[Ender]

But do you respect the church’s prudential judgement in this area?

To respect it seems you would do one of two things;

1. advocate for it and champion it
2. remain silent because you personally disagree

It certainly would not be respecting it to go to other Catholics and try to convince them the prudential judgement is in error.

*Any Catholic is entitled to question the hierarchy’s prudential judgments about anything, as long as it is done in good faith and good taste. *(Msgr. George A. Kelly)
Ender

 

[Ender]

There really is no quandry or need for discussion. We all know what the Catholic position on the death penalty is.

In all this long string of quotes from you and Jon S it is instructive to note that there is nothing earlier than from the last half of the 20th century. It is as if the church had never said anything on the issue prior to JPII, or that nothing said by the previous 263 popes, the saints, the Fathers and Doctors of the church is meaningful. You cannot claim to know what the “Catholic position on the death penalty is” unless you know what she has actually taught.

Ender

 

[Padster]

For:

The case of Dr Myles Bradbury, who admitted sexually assaulting cancer patients in his care as young as eight.

In lieu of the death penalty here in the UK, Let us hope this sub-human oxygen thief does the world a favour by stringing himself up in jail.

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[dudleysharp]

*Any Catholic is entitled to question the hierarchy’s prudential judgments about anything, as long as it is done in good faith and good taste. *(Msgr. George A. Kelly)
Ender

As Pope Benedict, when Ratzinger

Pope Benedict established any Catholic can disagree with the Church’s prudential judgement and remain a Catholic in good standing, a position which can only occur if the Church recognizes that there are credible differences with regard to biblical, theological, traditional, philosophical, rational and/or factual issues, which She does.

 

[Ender]

WE were both fact checking at the same time…Finger Wags At Ender…

I’ve come to expect this sort of thing from LongingSoul but it is disappointed to get it from you as well. Do you not read these comments? I corrected this misunderstanding before you did. If there was an error on my part it was in stating that Romano Amerio was a peritus at V-II without explaining what a peritus was.

Peritus (Latin for “expert”) is the title given to Roman Catholic theologians who are present to give advice at an ecumenical council.

Ender