Catholics view on Death Penalty

[MH84]

But the death penalty is not self-defence. Your comparisons are not much better.

 

[otjm]

Our prisons aren’t places of punishment anymore. We need to get rid of all the activities and comforts in the prison and keep the death penalty.

Obviously you have not been in prison.
I just love people like you who complain that we are too “soft” on prisoners; they are the same group that oversimplifies issues of recidivism.

Anyone who gives simple answers to complex questions only shows the lack of understanding of the questions.

“Let’s get rid of all the activities and comforts” (they never seem to be too good at describing just what those comforts are) they say; in essence they say “Let’s treat them like the animals they are, and cage them up”; and then they cannot understand why someone treated as a caged animal acts like an animal when they are released.

The greatest source of crime currently is due to drug use; and failure to address drug use and get someone through a program that can get them off drug use is a sure guarantee that the individual will repeat their crimes.

And at the heart of the issue, I suggest, is a failure to see Christ in the criminal.

Molly coddle them? No, I do not agree to that at all. But to treat them with the respect we owe bacause that is what Christ taught, is a different issue. Respect does not equal molly coddling anyone; if nothing else, that is a sign of disrespect. People need to be made accountable for their choices, but accountability is not based on treating someone like an animal.

 

[otjm]

These days, that isn’t likely. When there is reasonable doubt, and I mean reasonable, then of course the death penalty shouldn’t be used. Then we have to decide what is “necessary.”

Do you believe soldiers sin when they kill in war? Police officers? What if a woman is about to be raped, does she have the right to kill her attacker? Capital punishment and abortion are very different, it’s really a bad comparison.

You are more naive than one should be. You need to investigate the number of people who have been condemned to death, and were subsequently shown in post conviction relief to have not committed the crime. Some were exonerated within weeks or days of their date of execution, which means, literally, years after they were convicted. And none of this addresses those who have been executed for a crime they did not convict.

Do soldiers sin when killing in war? Can you say My Lai?

Do poplice? Can you say “excessive force”?

Does a woman have a right to kill her attacker? Does she have other alternatives? Some do, some don’t. does a woman who has suffered excessive physical or emotional abuse have the right to kill her husband? Some juries have said yes; others have said no. And neither set of juries passed on the moral issues, but only the legal ones.

 

[joseph_virgen]

Rest your mind, if not your conscious, the Nazarene was rather blunt in this matter. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to me what is mine.” In truth, the Nazarene is telling us to obey the law of the land.
Upon this time, we have only to ask if the law of the land is a true representation of a righteous government.

 

[suupah]

Fifth Commandment. Thou Shalt not kill.
No matter how heines the crime by the law of the fifth commandment we can not put that person to death. God will deal with the Perpetrator when HE/She dies. Revenge is mine says The Lord. We understand that is what is meant by that saying.

A catholic and or christian Governer that is obeying the Fifth Commandment will not sign a Death Warrent no matter what because when they die they will have to answer to God just the same as the Perprtrator.if they sign a Death Warrent because the persons life is in their hands.

Mayo

How many times after this commandment did God order the death penalty for XYZ offenses?

I understand that the actual translation is “thou shalt not murder” big difference

 

[pnewton]

Obviously you have not been in prison.

Can I make the statement that we are too soft? I have seen it plenty. Specifically, we have so redefined the intitial concept of “cruel and unusual” to mean anything the current federal dircuit courts want to mean. In the current condition of prisons and all the “rights” granted prisoners to keep prisons from being too cruel for the little darlings, we have made it impossible to safely incarcerate the worst offenders without allowing them to continue their murderous ways.

 

[otjm]

Can I make the statement that we are too soft? I have seen it plenty. Specifically, we have so redefined the intitial concept of “cruel and unusual” to mean anything the current federal dircuit courts want to mean. In the current condition of prisons and all the “rights” granted prisoners to keep prisons from being too cruel for the little darlings, we have made it impossible to safely incarcerate the worst offenders without allowing them to continue their murderous ways.

If you are saying that we cannot lock up a murderer 24/7, well, yes, the feds to mandate that even murderes are allowed some exercise. Do murderers in prison kill others in prison? Yes, they do. whether that is a matter of not being able to lock them up sufficiently tightly, or a matter of the guards not doing their jobs is another matter.

I am not suggesting that multiple murderers are not to be incarcerated for the rest of their life. It is, however, much cheaper to lock them up for life than it is to executre them; and anyone who thinks that life without parole is a dream knows little of prisons.

As to your comment that the feds make cruel and unusual to mean anything they want it to mean, I would suggest that you review the case law on the matter; the prison systems don’t seem incapable of following the law, so it is not as Byzantine as you would imply.

Finding the balance between treating a prisoner with some semblance of acknowledgment of his essential humanity and keeping both him and others - prisoners and guards - safe is a tough act. Little darlings? I hardly think so.

 

[pnewton]

As to your comment that the feds make cruel and unusual to mean anything they want it to mean, I would suggest that you review the case law on the matter; the prison systems don’t seem incapable of following the law, so it is not as Byzantine as you would imply.

Rest assured I am very familiar with case law and how it has evolved over the last couple of years. And yes, prison systems do follow the law for the most part. And yes, I do consider the environment too free and too soft.

 

[otjm]

Rest assured I am very familiar with case law and how it has evolved over the last couple of years. And yes, prison systems do follow the law for the most part. And yes, I do consider the environment too free and too soft.

Do you do any defense work?

 

[pnewton]

Do you do any defense work?

No. I am on the offense.

Seriously, I have over two decades inside a facility in almost every capacity. I am what is called here a Master’s level and constantly keep updated on case law.

 

[latinmasslover]

Obviously you have not been in prison.

Some were exonerated within weeks or days of their date of execution, which means, literally, years after they were convicted. And none of this addresses those who have been executed for a crime they did not convict.

Do soldiers sin when killing in war? Can you say My Lai?

Do poplice? Can you say “excessive force”?

Does a woman have a right to kill her attacker? Does she have other alternatives? Some do, some don’t. does a woman who has suffered excessive physical or emotional abuse have the right to kill her husband? Some juries have said yes; others have said no. And neither set of juries passed on the moral issues, but only the legal ones.

So, you’ve been in prison have you? Your statement is rather presumptuous; you do not know my experiences, who I my close friends are along with there experiences. Prison is not as bad as some would like to think. There was a special a couple years ago on 20/20, 48 Hours…something like that, which investigated prisons and how much they’re improving to make life better for the prisoners. Prison is supposed to be a punishment, not a “time-out” in the playroom. Not all prisons are great, but they’re not punishments anymore.

I said “these days.” “These days” it is near impossible to execute the innocent; the right’s of the guilty are protected beyond belief. A good system to protect the innocent, but it’s abused way too much these days.

I’m not referring to abuses. Do police sin? Do soldiers sin? Some do. Judges take bribes both ways, that doesn’t make the death penalty wrong. The Church approves capital punishment, but for some reason doesn’t encourage it anymore these days. This still doesn’t make capital punishment wrong.

Juries are made of imperfect people with imperfect judgment based on constantly changing (often for the worse) laws. “Legal” means nothing when discussing morality. Some people are just better off dead.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

That is not quite 100% correct. In America and the western world this may be true because we have the means to contain people for their entire lives.

Those interested in this really ought to review some of the recent (and ongoing) threads over in the Social Justice forum (and the article by Karl Keating on this subject).

Suffice it to say that the people who work in the criminal justice field vehemently disagree with the notion that certain types of criminals (serial killers with fan clubs and crime syndicate leaders) can be made “safe” by simply locking them up, particularly if those prisoners are allowed the freedoms / rights the Church itself says all prisoners should have (there is a real catch 22 there).

Also, just a quick tally of the total number of executions in a year versus the total number of felony convictions makes it very clear that even in the popular scapegoat of Texas, the Death Penalty is already used very rarely overall.

Further, the Church has consistently taught that the authority to determine when the DP is necessary rests fully with the States. The Church can offer some guidance on how to make that determination, but cannot make a formally binding declaration that it is no longer necessary.

 

[pnewton]

Suffice it to say that the people who work in the criminal justice field vehemently disagree with the notion that certain types of criminals (serial killers with fan clubs and crime syndicate leaders) can be made “safe” by simply locking them up, particularly if those prisoners are allowed the freedoms / rights the Church itself says all prisoners should have (there is a real catch 22 there).

Amen! It can’t be done. I would also add hardcore prison gang members and whacked sociopaths.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Those interested in this really ought to review some of the recent (and ongoing) threads over in the Social Justice forum (and the article by Karl Keating on this subject).

Suffice it to say that the people who work in the criminal justice field vehemently disagree with the notion that certain types of criminals (serial killers with fan clubs and crime syndicate leaders) can be made “safe” by simply locking them up, particularly if those prisoners are allowed the freedoms / rights the Church itself says all prisoners should have (there is a real catch 22 there).

Also, just a quick tally of the total number of executions in a year versus the total number of felony convictions makes it very clear that even in the popular scapegoat of Texas, the Death Penalty is already used very rarely overall.

Further, the Church has consistently taught that the authority to determine when the DP is necessary rests fully with the States. The Church can offer some guidance on how to make that determination, but cannot make a formally binding declaration that it is no longer necessary.

Amen! It can’t be done. I would also add hardcore prison gang members and whacked sociopaths.

For that to be true not a single person working in criminal justice any where in the world (to include countries without a death penalty) could oppose your statement. I’ll bet against that being accurate. Second the Church as never recognized a license for the state to suspend or violate Natural Moral Law

 

[pnewton]

For that to be true not a single person working in criminal justice any where in the world (to include countries without a death penalty) could oppose your statement. I’ll bet against that being accurate. Second the Church as never recognized a license for the state to suspend or violate Natural Moral Law

First, no, at least in the English language. All that it would take for the statement to be true is “people” to vehemently disagree, not “all people”. The vast majority I know agree that life imprisonment is impractical and unable to keep violent offenders from harming others.

Second, no one suggested natural law be suspended. If we were to shift our discussion to natural law, then we would have to be even more pro-death penalty than current Catholic teaching, because Natural Law includes the posssibility of an eye for an eye.

 

[goofyjim]

As far as I am aware there is no one Catholic view on the death penalty. It is the individual’s decision whether to support it or oppose it. I oppose it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

For that to be true not a single person working in criminal justice any where in the world (to include countries without a death penalty) could oppose your statement. I’ll bet against that being accurate. Second the Church as never recognized a license for the state to suspend or violate Natural Moral Law

The statement is “Suffice it to say that the people who work in the criminal justice field vehemently disagree” I need not be an expert to understand SOME people who work in the criminal justice field will not disagree NOR vehemently disagree.

The author could have said the “Catholic Church recognized the State’s right to perform capital punishment when certain criteria are present” Unfortunately that does not grand stand as well, and acknowledges the Church does not support arbitrary use of capital punishment (License)

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The statement is “Suffice it to say that the people who work in the criminal justice field vehemently disagree” I need not be an expert to understand SOME people who work in the criminal justice field will not disagree NOR vehemently disagree.

As pnewton said, the wording I chose (“people”) is not equivalent to a declaration of unanimity withing the group, but a consensus. Sure, there are outliers that work in the criminal justice field that believe that isolation is sufficient, for that matter I know a few personally, but they have a strange pattern of not liking to actually go to the security isolation areas. Added: “Out of sight, out of mind” is not a legitimate solution.

When doing so while brushing off a clarification, it suggests one is trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult when insisting on applying a very restrictive interpretation to try to raise an objection that is not present in the straightforward reading.

 

[Ender]

How can you be all anti-abortion (I read on another post) but now want the death penalty imposed to punish criminals? Not even as a “defense” mechanism for the community as some have argued, but to punish…remember we are all sinners.

I suspect that many people share this opinion of punishment but it is misplaced. The Church teaches that sin requires punishment. Even “Venial sin … merits temporal punishment” (1863) and furthermore that the punishment must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (2266)

Even after the sin has been forgiven the need for punishment remains (JPII - General Audience, 1999).

*"**Thus the personal dimension of punishment is affirmed. According to this dimension, **punishment **has a meaning not only because it **serves ******to repay the objective evil of the transgression **with another evil, but first and foremost because it creates the possibility of rebuilding goodness in the subject who suffers." * (JPII - Salvifici doloris)

The question to ask before sentencing any criminal is what level of punishment is sufficient to repay the objective evil of the crime. Sometimes the evil is so great that the only just payment for the sin is the life of the sinner.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As pnewton said, the wording I chose (“people”) is not equivalent to a declaration of unanimity withing the group, but a consensus. Sure, there are outliers that work in the criminal justice field that believe that isolation is sufficient, for that matter I know a few personally, but they have a strange pattern of not liking to actually go to the security isolation areas. Added: “Out of sight, out of mind” is not a legitimate solution.

When doing so while brushing off a clarification, it suggests one is trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult when insisting on applying a very restrictive interpretation to try to raise an objection that is not present in the straightforward reading.

“Outliers” is impromperly used term in the above statement.

So, now you know people “people who work in the criminal justice field” and what ‘agree’ or ‘vehemently agree’ which is correct?

This is the heart of the issue posted, the Church recognizes the state, it does not recognize the state with license. The Church recognizes the state’s authority within the context of proper interpretations of Moral Natural Law to act.