Catholics are free to vote/support on pro-death penalty issues, right?

[CWBetts]

An equally valid question is:

Am I willing to put the lives of additional innocent people at risk by my opposition to the death penalty?

There is no evidence to support that more lives are saved by the death penalty vs. life imprisonment without parole

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

There is no evidence to support that more lives are saved by the death penalty vs. life imprisonment without parole

Yes there is.

Three factors are in play:

1. Murderers often commit additional murders in jail. The death penalty would eliminate this possibility.
2. Life without parole is often not enforced. Judges can overturn sentences on appeal.
3. The death penalty deters potential murderers in some cases

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Another valid question : Am I willing to decide who dies and who doesn’t ? Am I willing to play with God’s will ? The security of other innocents is a good reason, but is this your personal responsibility ? Wouldn’t it be wiser to raise the security level… this is not impossible, but it’s very hard.
God takes care of each and every one of us, amen

If a person who might have received the death penalty goes on to commit murder, are you not deciding who dies and who doesn’t?

In addition, the death penalty is a deterrent. To what extent is debatable.

Here’s a hypothetical:

Imagine that a gang member is convicted of a capital crime and executed.

Do you doubt that this might impact other members of the gang?

 

[Bluegoat]

If a person who might have received the death penalty goes on to commit murder, are you not deciding who dies and who doesn’t?

In addition, the death penalty is a deterrent. To what extent is debatable.

Here’s a hypothetical:

Imagine that a gang member is convicted of a capital crime and executed.

Do you doubt that this might impact other members of the gang?

Can you show some non-anecdotal evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent?

Can you show some non-anecdotal evidence that death penalty convicts commit a substantial number of murders in prison?

Can you show what portions of the prison population would have to receive the death penalty to make a substantial difference to the number of murders that happen in prisons?

All of these kinds of things would need some real numbers and thought before we could take them as givens. If reducing prison murder would mean executing thousands every year, i suspect many would balk at the thought, for example.

Additionally - it is a principle of law that you cannot arrest or imprison someone for what you think he might do later. There actually has to be intent by that person to commit a crime (and practically speaking some way to know that intent.) This is a legal understanding, but has clear connections even to how we understand sin and guilt as Christians.

All of which is to say - you can’t punish or restrict someone, by killing him or some other way, to stop the person from doing something bad in the future when the person has no such intent now. The kinds of cases where that would be acceptable involve actual knowledge or overwhelming evidence that the person intends to commit a crime, or in very rare cases it can be shown that the person is what we call here a “dangerous offender.” But the burden of proof for these situations is quite high.

Your interpretation that a convicted person can be subject to the death penalty to stop unknown and unintended events in the future does not fall into the legal or religious understanding of the situation. The need to stop further crime is understood much more directly - person X is known to have made a vow to kill all members of family Y and has tried to do it before, and there is no reason to think anything has changed, and maybe we found evidence that he is plotting in that direction, would be a good case for needing to protect this person.

If we took your principle which you are applying to criminals, it would also apply to non-criminals. There are any number of people whom we can guess are likely to commit violent crime at a later date. We can’t arrest them until there is some actual evidence that they really intend to do so.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If we took your principle which you are applying to criminals, it would also apply to non-criminals. There are any number of people whom we can guess are likely to commit violent crime at a later date. We can’t arrest them until there is some actual evidence that they really intend to do so.

The death penalty is a punishment for a specific act.

The prevention of future murders is a moral argument in support of the death penalty. It is not the reason for the execution.

FYI:

“The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums.”

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that “our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities – arrest, sentencing or execution – tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders – with a margin of error of plus or minus 10.” (1) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.

(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found “a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders.” Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997. (2)

(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: “The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost.” (3)

(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. “Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments.” “The deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states.” (4)

(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions. (5)

(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: “Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal.” The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (6)

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that “The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data’s aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions.” (7)

dpinfo.com/death_penalty_as_a_deterrent.htm

 

[CWBetts]

If a person who might have received the death penalty goes on to commit murder, are you not deciding who dies and who doesn’t?

In addition, the death penalty is a deterrent. To what extent is debatable.

Here’s a hypothetical:

Imagine that a gang member is convicted of a capital crime and executed.

Do you doubt that this might impact other members of the gang?

Not in a positive way. It might inspire them to more violence, to lash out at the system that killed their compatriot.

 

[RosaMystica]

There is no such thing as innocent life. Even the unborn have the stain of original sin. All there are, are degrees of guilt. The death penalty robs the convict of any future chances of repentance. Shouldn’t we desire that all come to repentance. I find the death penalty repugnant, as it confers onto the state the authority of God.

In cases of self defense, we should take pains to try not to kill the attacker. There are ways to disable without resorting to killing. As for defending my country, that depends. My loyalty to my God is more important than some lines on a map.

The Catechism disagrees with you: (from the section on abortion under the fifth commandment)

“2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation”

 

[CWBetts]

The Catechism disagrees with you: (from the section on abortion under the fifth commandment)

“2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation”

What I said is correct, from a certain point of view. We are all guilty of something.

 

[Ender]

I don’t believe, read in its entirety, deterance is an acceptable reason for the death penalty.

Deterrence, like the protection of society, is one of the four objectives of punishment the Church recognizes as valid. It is also like the protection of society in that they are both secondary objectives, but clearly if executions are acceptable in cases where they are necessary to adequately protect society, then if executions were sufficiently effective deterrents they would certainly be an acceptable reason to use them.

Our justice should be attempting to “render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm”, not detering others from commiting the same crime.

The primary objective of punishment is in fact justice; that is, the sentence given to a criminal must be based on what he has already done, not on what he may do in the future and the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. Simply preventing someone from committing another crime does nothing whatever to address the need for just punishment for the past crime.

The last statement in the Catechism says it well, “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

The cases where a person may need to be executed to provide security may be rare but this completely ignores whether or not a person should receive the death penalty because justice requires it. Given that it is justice, not protection,that must be satisfied in every instance this is no small oversight.

Ender

 

[Ender]

All of which is to say - you can’t punish or restrict someone, by killing him or some other way, to stop the person from doing something bad in the future when the person has no such intent now.

Then explain how it is that the Catechism maintains that the death penalty is permitted only in instances where it is deemed necessary to prevent future crimes? 2267 says that executions may be used “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That is, someone may be executed if that’s what is necessary for protection, but you can only be protected from something that has not yet happened, protection means deterring something that may happen in the future.

I don’t disagree with your statement; I only point out that it disagrees with what the Catechism says.

Ender

 

[Bluegoat]

Then explain how it is that the Catechism maintains that the death penalty is permitted only in instances where it is deemed necessary to prevent future crimes? 2267 says that executions may be used “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That is, someone may be executed if that’s what is necessary for protection, but you can only be protected from something that has not yet happened, protection means deterring something that may happen in the future.

I don’t disagree with your statement; I only point out that it disagrees with what the Catechism says.

Ender

I think the answer relates to the immediacy of the threat. In the same way that I can claim self-defense if someone jumps out and attacks me and I kill him, but not if I find out he plans to kill me tomorrow and so I lie in wait and bash him on the head today. And it is much easier to frame the kind of situation that is being considered in a place where there is really no way to contain someone permanently.

(But it is something I would be interested in hearing a view on from an appropriately trained canon lawyer, or one who was familiar with interpreting Church documents, because legal stuff I find can be very tricky to figure out how to apply. There often seem to be a lot more considerations than what a document like the CCC can really express. A lawyer would know what the legal philosophy was with that kind of question.)

In some Native Communities, for example, a common form of punishment was to send the person into exile for a period of time. They weren’t set up to keep people as prisoners for the long term, and it gave the individual, and the community time to heal, and satisfied the requirements of justice. Of course the person might commit another crime, which would then have to be dealt with appropriatly.

But, what if it was clear that the person would not serve their punishment, but immediately go right back to the crime? And it was a violent crime? Perhaps the person said that was his plan, or had done it that way before, or was a serial killer, or there was some other evidence that he would be an immediate danger to the people? In a society with no real way to indefinitely contain the person, that would be the sort of situation that might call for the death penalty to protect others.

I would say the kinds of people it would apply to are what we call “dangerous offenders”. I don’t know if there is something similar in the US. The prosecution has to make special application and has to prove that the likelihood of reference (in a serious/dangerous crime) is virtually certain. A lot often rests on psychological assessments. Anyway, once a person gets this designation, they are imprisoned for life, with no chance to release. It doesn’t happen often - it’s a news item when it does. Since in many ways it is a suspension of the accused/convicted individual’s rights in the justice system, it’s taken very seriously.

But, we don’t execute them. They aren’t often kept with the rest of the prison population I don’t think - although more for their own safety than protecting others against them.

 

[Ender]

I think the answer relates to the immediacy of the threat… And it is much easier to frame the kind of situation that is being considered in a place where there is really no way to contain someone permanently.

There is nothing in the Catechism that implies that immediacy is a concern.

I would say the kinds of people it would apply to are what we call “dangerous offenders”. I don’t know if there is something similar in the US. The prosecution has to make special application and has to prove that the likelihood of reference (in a serious/dangerous crime) is virtually certain.

It seems like this is the type of individual the Catechism has in mind, that and the inability to effectively safeguard society against such individuals would (according to 2267) allow them to be executed. There is no way to understand this except to say that they are being executed not for what they have done but for what they may do.

Since in many ways it is a suspension of the accused/convicted individual’s rights in the justice system, it’s taken very seriously.

Speaking of rights, one of the arguments against the death penalty is that it violates the human rights of the criminals but this becomes a fatally weakened argument if one is forced to admit that there are times when their “inalienable” human rights may in fact be outweighed by other considerations - such as those the Catechism itself mentions.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

There is nothing in the Catechism that implies that immediacy is a concern.
It seems like this is the type of individual the Catechism has in mind, that and the inability to effectively safeguard society against such individuals would (according to 2267) allow them to be executed. There is no way to understand this except to say that they are being executed not for what they have done but for what they may do.
Speaking of rights, one of the arguments against the death penalty is that it violates the human rights of the criminals but this becomes a fatally weakened argument if one is forced to admit that there are times when their “inalienable” human rights may in fact be outweighed by other considerations - such as those the Catechism itself mentions.

Ender

The Catechism also says that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are rare, if not practically nonexistent’” (CCC 2267, quoting Evangelium Vitae)

 

[Bluegoat]

There is nothing in the Catechism that implies that immediacy is a concern.

Ender

Well, reading it, that is what it suggests to me, because if I read it the other way, it seems to lead to implications that are hard to condone. What does it mean if we can essentially look to take action against a crime before it happens, before the person has even formed intent? If I know, 100%, through a crystal ball, that a crime will occur in two days, before the criminal knows he is going to do it, what kind of action am I justified in taking to prevent the crime today? Could I execute the person, who at this moment has no intention of committing a crime? ( And of course we can never know with 100% accuracy.)

I suppose if we could know such things far in the future (that is know there is an intent to commit violent acts), it might be the same. But for the most part, we can only accurately guess about the intent to commit crime with some immediacy. Even if I found out someone was planning to do some terrible act in five years time, it is hard to know that the person would actually follow through with the plan in the end, which seems to put a limit on how much we can claim in the way of wrongdoing. As well, in cases when it is possible to make a reasonable assessment far into the future, say in the case of a serial killer, it is usually possible to prevent the crime through other means than execution, at least in a place like North America.

As well, although the passage is speaking about morality, given the nature of the subject it is talking about some kind of organized legal proceedings, and I think it would be hard to make it work with some of the other basic principles of justice read the way you are suggesting.

Something else I have been thinking about is this - what is the effect of such executions on the rest of the population? Even if the CC understands them as only appropriate in very limited circumstances, maybe, does the majority of the population understand them that way? I am thinking of cases where we have publicly seen the response of people who were touched by the crime, who seek vengeance, or even just “closure” from the execution. I have always been really disturbed by this kind of talk, in the sense that I worry about the person’s soul. Because it seems clear that they see this as a matter of justice, and an eye for an eye. They think the execution will somehow heal them. I wonder if it makes it harder for them to really understand where forgiveness and grace fit into the picture (for themselves as well as the offender), and I suppose I feel sad at what they must expect in judgement from God. I think it tends to have an similar effect on the population at large too, though not such an intimate one.

 

[fultonfish]

Father Groschel said on his television program that execution is not necessary as long as convicts under capital punishment are locked up 24/7.

The problem with that is that the courts have decreed that you can’t lock someone up that way and some murderers are so violent that they are a threat to guards, to people who were witnesses against them, and if they were gang members, to “enemies” of the gangs.

 

[Ender]

Well, reading it, that is what it suggests to me, because if I read it the other way, it seems to lead to implications that are hard to condone.

Ah, yes … well that’s part of the problem this section creates. You have to assume criteria that are unspecified in order to give 2267 some coherence; the point I am arguing is that it is inherently incoherent. We can’t really go from “It says X so we must do X” to “It doesn’t say anything about Y but we have to assume it because otherwise it doesn’t make sense.” This is one of the fundamental problems with 2267: it allows execution solely on the basis of prevention, not retribution yet it is specifically retribution that satisfies the requirement of justice.

What does it mean if we can essentially look to take action against a crime before it happens, before the person has even formed intent?

I agree. I simply point out that this is what 2267 authorizes.

Something else I have been thinking about is this - what is the effect of such executions on the rest of the population? Even if the CC understands them as only appropriate in very limited circumstances, maybe, does the majority of the population understand them that way?

This is another area where the Catechism is unhelpful. Punishment should be understood in the context of justice; this is in fact what the Church teaches. What 2267 essentially says is that justice for past crimes is not important; what is important is preventing the next one. How is the family of a murder victim supposed to deal with that? It is one thing to condemn those who seek revenge but it is altogether wrong to condemn those who rightly demand the justice which is owed not just to them but to society itself.

I think this may be where 2267 goes furthest astray. In dissociating justice from punishment it exacerbates the division between those who support capital punishment and those who oppose it. I think many of those who support it instinctively recognize that great crimes deserve great punishment but lack the specific understanding needed to clearly articulate that position. Those who oppose it are in general no better informed as they typically cannot distinguish between revenge and justice, which makes justice itself suspect. 2267 is wrong to ignore the requirements of justice, which is nothing less than the mother of all virtues.

Ender

 

[severus68]

Yes it does.

Since the death penalty has been reinstated in America, over 1000 people have been murdered by men previously convicted of murder.

These 1000 plus deaths would have been prevented had we applied a prompt death sentence.

You share blame for these innocent deaths due to your complicity with death penalty opponents.

Where did you get your statistics? Opponents of the death penalty are not suggesting that murderers be let free.

You are wrong to blame those who oppose the death penaalty for any deaths. There would not be so many deaths if there is less of a culture of violence.

You have also confused this issue with self defence. Anyone who is in immediate danger of being killed or of suffering bodily harm is entitled to defend himself or any other person who may be in such danger. The moment the assailant is subdued and unable to do harm, the “self defence” should stop.

 

[Bluegoat]

Where did you get your statistics? Opponents of the death penalty are not suggesting that murderers be let free.

You are wrong to blame those who oppose the death penaalty for any deaths. There would not be so many deaths if there is less of a culture of violence.

You have also confused this issue with self defence. Anyone who is in immediate danger of being killed or of suffering bodily harm is entitled to defend himself or any other person who may be in such danger. The moment the assailant is subdued and unable to do harm, the “self defence” should stop.

It seems to me that CHESTERTONRULES would like all murderers, or at least most, to be executed (since the majority of murders by murderers do not involve cases that had the death penalty involved at all.) By that logic, not executing anyone who seems likely to commit a murder, even if they have never been convicted, seems culpable too. Perhaps we could figure out a way to identify them at birth, and then there would be no worries.

It is true that many nations without the death penalty have fewer murders than the US, which suggests to me that other factors are more important in. A culture which sets little value on like seems to be one possibility, or perhaps too much on the individual. But I think there are many other reasons - little access to basic services by the poor and a huge divide between the wealthy and poor is likely one social stressor, and I think there are ways of approaching crime that may be more or less effective that have noting to do with the death penalty.

 

[severus68]

It seems to me that CHESTERTONRULES would like all murderers, or at least most, to be executed (since the majority of murders by murderers do not involve cases that had the death penalty involved at all.) By that logic, not executing anyone who seems likely to commit a murder, even if they have never been convicted, seems culpable too. Perhaps we could figure out a way to identify them at birth, and then there would be no worries.

It is true that many nations without the death penalty have fewer murders than the US, which suggests to me that other factors are more important in. A culture which sets little value on like seems to be one possibility, or perhaps too much on the individual. But I think there are many other reasons - little access to basic services by the poor and a huge divide between the wealthy and poor is likely one social stressor, and I think there are ways of approaching crime that may be more or less effective that have noting to do with the death penalty.

You are right. No country would have abolished the death penalty knowing the consequences would be dire. There should be more thought on how to make changes to reduce crime rather than the so called death penalty solution.

 

[Ender]

You are right. No country would have abolished the death penalty knowing the consequences would be dire. There should be more thought on how to make changes to reduce crime rather than the so called death penalty solution.

Don’t confuse a debate about crime statistics with the discussion of Church teaching on capital punishment. The topic is whether Catholics may support the death penalty. And the answer is that they may. And my opinion is that they should.

Ender