Catholics view on Death Penalty

[Ray_Scheel]

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

The term was used correctly. From Dictionary.com, American Heritage: “out-li-er 2. A value far from most others in a set of data” As I mentioned previously, 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.

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

Yes, I work for an entity on the rehabilitation side within the Texas state prison system, know several of the staff members of the research and training division of one of the premier criminal justice programs in the nation, and have regular communication with counterparts in various other states, facts of which you are reminded in almost every thread when you feign surprise that I am involved with the criminal justice system. I’m not quite sure where you were going with the second question you had rolled up in there, perhaps you could restate now that the premises you were trying to suggest have once again been corrected.

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.

Also from Dictionary.com’s own dictionary: “li-cense: 1.formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.”
and their American Heritage:“1. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.”

Incidentally, over at permission you’ll find authorize as a synonym - to say a State has “Authority” but not “license” to try to build your case is a bit of hair-splitting not supported by the meanings of the words, but I’ll entertain the notion for the sake of arguing further:

Since Natural Moral Law is a subset of Natural Law, and the Church acknowledges that under Natural Law the State has the full authority (which clearly involves a grant of license) to make the determination of when use of the death penalty is required to protect society, how can the subset possibly take away the license that had already been granted fully and irrevocably *without *resorting to the using the sort of selective interpretations and linguistic mangling on Church teaching that you’ve also been directing at your opponents in this thread?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The term was used correctly. From Dictionary.com, American Heritage: “out-li-er 2. A value far from most others in a set of data”…

There is no reason to believe the value listed is outside the data set, none, none what-so-ever. The word is used improperly

…[skip a bunch of pronouns]…

Also from Dictionary.com’s own dictionary: “li-cense: 1.formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.”
and their American Heritage:“1. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.”

let me help you

1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.
2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver’s license.
3. permission to do or not to do something.
4. intentional deviation from rule, convention, or fact, as for the sake of literary or artistic effect: poetic license.
5. exceptional freedom allowed in a special situation.
6. excessive or undue freedom or liberty.
7. licentiousness.
   ------- insert from licentious
   -------1. sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
   ------**2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral. **
   -------3. **going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules. **
8. the legal right to use a patent owned by another.
   –verb (used with object) 9. to grant authoritative permission or license to.

It is unfortunate the entire text was not reviewed

Incidentally, over at permission you’ll find authorize as a synonym - to say a State has “Authority” but not “license” to try to build your case is a bit of hair-splitting not supported by the meanings of the words, but I’ll entertain the notion for the sake of arguing further:

Since Natural Moral Law is a subset of Natural Law, and the Church acknowledges that under Natural Law the State has the full authority (which clearly involves a grant of license) to make the determination of when use of the death penalty is required to protect society, how can the subset possibly take away the license that had already been granted fully and irrevocably *without *resorting to the using the sort of selective interpretations and linguistic mangling on Church teaching that you’ve also been directing at your opponents in this thread?

well, your getting better now if we can just get the “protection of society” aknowledged as the standard it is we may be in good shape. If Texas kills for punishment there is a problem, if they kill to protect society we’re okay

 

[Ray_Scheel]

There is no reason to believe the value listed is outside the data set, none, none what-so-ever. The word is used improperly

As is obvious from the meaning I quoted, in statistics an outlier is “in a set of data”, not outside of it. It does not help ones case at all to persist in being difficult simply for the sake of being difficult.

let me help you

Thank you for illustrating that you are once again relying on restrictive uses of definitions. Keep in mind that “license” is your term to begin with; Ender and I have consistently stuck with “authority”, and it appears that there are several meaning of license consistent with the meaning of authority. Further, #4 and #6 of license are a real stretch to apply, as it is convention for the State to utilize the Death Penalty as part of its options.

If what you meant was licentious (the bottom part of what you pasted in, and what you actually seem to be meaning) instead of license, then use the right word in the first place instead of forcing use of a near-synonym to a synonym to try to set up a conflict of meaning of your own creation.

Of course, your earlier bit about not grandstanding suggests why you chose to use “license” instead of “licentious” ; saying that the grant of authority to the state didn’t cover licentious behavior is obvious, so you used a related word and played the conflicting meanings.

It is unfortunate the entire text was not reviewed

I reviewed it all and gave a link to credit the source for a full review in context. I would suggest you review the forum rules about the wholesale pasting in of copyrighted material before continuing to suggest following them was “unfortunate”.

 

[Ender]

If Texas kills for punishment there is a problem

Explain why you believe this. What is the purpose of punishment in general? How do you justify applying any punishment and how do you decide what constitutes adequate punishment for a particular crime?

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As is obvious from the meaning I quoted, in statistics an outlier is “in a set of data”, not outside of it. It does not help ones case at all to persist in being difficult simply for the sake of being difficult.

actually an outlier is a piece of data generated outside the set which is placed inside the set through error. That is why it is an outlier, it does not belong. This is a common stumbling block for people new to statistics. Given the bible speaks against killing, the catechism (which applies to 1 billion people), many countries to not use a death penalty it is foolish to assert all these people are pro-death penalty, except for an outlier.

Thank you for illustrating that you are once again relying on restrictive uses of definitions. Keep in mind that “license” is your term to begin with; Ender and I have consistently stuck with “authority”, and it appears that there are several meaning of license consistent with the meaning of authority. Further, #4 and #6 of license are a real stretch to apply, as it is convention for the State to utilize the Death Penalty as part of its options.

not at all, the law reference is Natural Moral Law not State Constitution, definitions 4, 6, & 7 are valid

If what you meant was licentious (the bottom part of what you pasted in, and what you actually seem to be meaning) instead of license, then use the right word in the first place instead of forcing use of a near-synonym to a synonym to try to set up a conflict of meaning of your own creation.

Of course, your earlier bit about not grandstanding suggests why you chose to use “license” instead of “licentious” ; saying that the grant of authority to the state didn’t cover licentious behavior is obvious, so you used a related word and played the conflicting meanings.

Not at all Licentious behavior is denied unless the party can show license for the actions.

I reviewed it all and gave a link to credit the source for a full review in context. I would suggest you review the forum rules about the wholesale pasting in of copyrighted material before continuing to suggest following them was “unfortunate”.

'um so it seems you say you chose not to include the definitions which were relevant?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Explain why you believe this. What is the purpose of punishment in general? How do you justify applying any punishment and how do you decide what constitutes adequate punishment for a particular crime?

Ender

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. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”- Catholic Catechism

 

[pnewton]

• the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”- Catholic Catechism

his statement has always bothered me because it is outside the area of faith and morals and into the area of criminal justice science. I wonder how many experts were consulted in the field, if any, or if this is just based on common misconceptionn.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Explain why you believe this. What is the purpose of punishment in general? How do you justify applying any punishment and how do you decide what constitutes adequate punishment for a particular crime?

2267 …

2267 speaks only of protecting society and if this is the sole criteria for assigning punishment then why shouldn’t we just warehouse criminals and never let them back on the streets? Surely that would more efficiently protect us than releasing them. 2267 ignores the primary objective of punishment; it would not prohibit us from reinstating Devil’s Island. So long as the public is protected and the prisoner is not executed 2267 puts no limit on what can be done to him.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

2267 speaks only of protecting society and if this is the sole criteria for assigning punishment then why shouldn’t we just warehouse criminals and never let them back on the streets? Surely that would more efficiently protect us than releasing them. 2267 ignores the primary objective of punishment; it would not prohibit us from reinstating Devil’s Island. So long as the public is protected and the prisoner is not executed 2267 puts no limit on what can be done to him.

Ender

Some make a big issue of “human lives” & “people’s safety” terms in 2267. I would assume these conditions do protect other prisoners as well as society. So solitary confinement maybe an acceptable answers. The door is open to scenarios in which continued killing after incarceration, COMBINED with inadequate solitary confinement options could conceivably allow an execution to occur. However long term the solitary confinement could be remedied. Note it is not the type of conviction but the imminent danger to life which is the key element.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

actually an outlier is a piece of data generated outside the set which is placed inside the set through error. That is why it is an outlier, it does not belong. This is a common stumbling block for people new to statistics.

To tie to another definition: “For this reason, all outliers must be examined carefully before embarking on any formal analysis. Outliers should not routinely be removed without further justification.”

By example, insisting the definition of a word as found in multiple dictionaries and other references is incorrect would indicate the person doing so was themselves an outlier as far as the consensus on what the word meant (in the manner of genuine but extreme). The analysis of the situation from that point would suggest that further claims about word meanings coming from that source should be treated with equal skepticism.

not at all, the law reference is Natural Moral Law not State Constitution, definitions 4, 6, & 7 are valid

First, in the definition of license, #7 is simply the word “licentiousness”. The definitions you posted under #7 were the definitions of not of license but of that synonym, and #6 was itself more in keeping with the connotations of “licentious” that you seem to be arguing for limiting “license” to meaning.

On #4, regarding the usage of “artistic license”, the context of that definition makes your attempted application a stretch.

However, as I’d already indicated regarding #6 & #7, of course the grant of authority to the state does not extend to licentiousness, to excesses that violate the interests of the common good. But that’s because when I talk about authority under Natural Law, I mean authority, not the connotations of a synonym of a synonym.

 

[StevenFrancis]

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[pnewton]

However long term the solitary confinement could be remedied.

Not without removing the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause from the Constitution. Nothing has worked so far due to expansion of this clause to mandate as rights things that were never intended to be a right. Even then, money talks and people are weak. Cheapy cellphones in prisons are going for $400 - $1000 a pop. We had a riot in a local prison this last year in which the media was notified by inmates behind bars using their smuggled phones.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

To tie to another definition: “For this reason, all outliers must be examined carefully before embarking on any formal analysis. Outliers should not routinely be removed without further justification.”

By example, insisting the definition of a word as found in multiple dictionaries and other references is incorrect would indicate the person doing so was themselves an outlier as far as the consensus on what the word meant (in the manner of genuine but extreme). The analysis of the situation from that point would suggest that further claims about word meanings coming from that source should be treated with equal skepticism.

amazing; simply amazing, why I try is beyond me, however let me again list the complete reference;

*Outlier
An outlier is an observation in a data set which is far removed in value from the others in the data set. It is an unusually large or an unusually small value compared to the others.

An outlier might be the result of an error in measurement, in which case it will distort the interpretation of the data, having undue influence on many summary statistics, for example, the mean.

If an outlier is a genuine result, it is important because it might indicate an extreme of behaviour of the process under study. For this reason, all outliers must be examined carefully before embarking on any formal analysis. Outliers should not routinely be removed without further justification.*stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/presenting_data.html#out

Outlier.
An outlier is an observation that is many SD’s from the mean. It is sometimes tempting to discard outliers, but this is imprudent unless the cause of the outlier can be identified, and the outlier is determined to be spurious
spurious spu·ri·ous (spyr-s)adj. 1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. 2. Of illegitimate birth. 3. Botany Similar in appearance but unlike in structure or function. Used of plant parts thefreedictionary.com/spurious.]Otherwise, discarding outliers can cause one to underestimate the true variability of the measurement process. stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/gloss.htm#o

Ray
This is tough until one spends years in statistics, however there are two conditions 1) error in data capture, 2) error in data set definition. Both your references request you determine which case happened to produce the outlier. In industry we simply do not care, we toss it, because we refuse the bills associated with determination. The irony is ( and reality) an outlier proves error, so to have an outlier in your data you must contain error! None of this is relevant as no reason ever existed to define the original data aas containing outliers

First, in the definition of license, #7 is simply the word “licentiousness”. The definitions you posted under #7 were the definitions of not of license but of that synonym,

it is a synonym as it is based in the root of “license”

and #6 was itself more in keeping with the connotations of “licentious” that you seem to be arguing for limiting “license” to meaning.

On #4, regarding the usage of “artistic license”, the context of that definition makes your attempted application a stretch…

Not at all let me display it for you again “*4. intentional deviation from rule, convention, or fact, **as for **the sake of literary or artistic effect: poetic license.” * “as for” does not exclude. Definitions 4, 5, 6, & 7 all contain implied authority transfers from Moral Natural Law which do not exist, and thus ‘license’ is not appropriate.

 

[Mayo]

I was talking about here in the United States where it should not take place… Since it does not do any good as far as I know…

I really dont know about those other countrys I can see your point when it comes to saving lives and they have no other means.

Mayo

 

[marci]

My understanding is that at this time the teaching on the DP is not dogma and therefore we are free to develop our own opinion. As far as the writings of popes on the matter we are to give them the appropriate reflection and disernment, but we are free to disagree. Am I wrong on this?

Also, Pope John Paul II’s declaration on this matter seems, to me at least, to be a different take than past popes such as Leo and Pius VIII.

So who should I agree with Pius VIII or John Paul II? Because the way I read things, both cannot be right.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

amazing; simply amazing, why I try is beyond me, however let me again list the complete reference;

The only thing amazing here is that you appear to seriously believe you have the prerogative to excise the definitions you don’t like from the dictionaries by personal fiat. Insisting that words can only be used according to your definitions seems to be nothing more than an extension of the “your way or no way” position you’ve displayed from the beginning.

This is tough until one spends years in statistics, however there are two conditions 1) error in data capture, 2) error in data set definition. Both your references request you determine which case happened to produce the outlier. In industry we simply do not care, we toss it, because we refuse the bills associated with determination.

The subject area (the general mindset of people working in the criminal justice field) is/was not industry, but social science, and in social science settings the outliers can’t be tossed willy-nilly, especially when they are a legitimate response, just inconsistent with the consensus. An unusual response in a social survey can potentially have a lot more meaning than an out of range result coming out of a faulty board that couldn’t possibly be producing that value if it was working properly.

On that note, data collection and analysis been my primary job function for more than a decade already In that time I’ve also assisted with data collection and validation for several published academic papers in the social science field myself (that happens to be how I got to know some of the staff of the CJ Center at SHSU that I mentioned up in post 41), so I am familiar with the formal use of statistical term. In other words, you can drop the condescending attitude regarding your experience with stat, as I’ve earned my stripes and know it, certainly well enough to say it is utterly ridiculous for you to be arguing that the wording of the definition of “outlier” in the dictionary and several statistical references is wrong just because that is not how you use the word in your work.

That the definitions don’t match the way you are used to using the word should serve as a clue to you that you need to re-evaluate what you think the word might mean. But you are stuck on calling everything “incorrect” that doesn’t fit your POV without pausing to consider that you might need to expand the number of reference points you are basing your conclusions on. Putting the blinders on to facts that don’t fit one’s preconceptions is a pitiable way to try to go through life (and will eventually hold a person back even in industry settings).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The only thing amazing here is that you appear to seriously believe you have the prerogative to excise the definitions you don’t like from the dictionaries by personal fiat. Insisting that words can only be used according to your definitions seems to be nothing more than an extension of the “your way or no way” position you’ve displayed from the beginning.

The subject area (the general mindset of people working in the criminal justice field) is/was not industry, but social science, and in social science settings the outliers can’t be tossed willy-nilly, especially when they are a legitimate response, just inconsistent with the consensus. An unusual response in a social survey can potentially have a lot more meaning than an out of range result coming out of a faulty board that couldn’t possibly be producing that value if it was working properly.

On that note, data collection and analysis been my primary job function for more than a decade already In that time I’ve also assisted with data collection and validation for several published academic papers in the social science field myself (that happens to be how I got to know some of the staff of the CJ Center at SHSU that I mentioned up in post 41), so I am familiar with the formal use of statistical term. In other words, you can drop the condescending attitude regarding your experience with stat, as I’ve earned my stripes and know it, certainly well enough to say it is utterly ridiculous for you to be arguing that the wording of the definition of “outlier” in the dictionary and several statistical references is wrong just because that is not how you use the word in your work.

That the definitions don’t match the way you are used to using the word should serve as a clue to you that you need to re-evaluate what you think the word might mean. But you are stuck on calling everything “incorrect” that doesn’t fit your POV without pausing to consider that you might need to expand the number of reference points you are basing your conclusions on. Putting the blinders on to facts that don’t fit one’s preconceptions is a pitiable way to try to go through life (and will eventually hold a person back even in industry settings).

Simply publish your data

 

[pnewton]

I think statistically speaking this whole conversation has gotten way over my head. I also believe it to be on average rather off topic.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I think statistically speaking this whole conversation has gotten way over my head. I also believe it to be on average rather off topic.

Yes, it had gotten rather off topic, but sometimes these thread meanderings are necessary to reveal just how far particular posters will go with disruption tactics to try to dismiss what is verifiable in order to suit maintaining their preferred world view. I don’t hold my breath waiting for someone to roll back and address the points to which their initial best response was to elect to start arguing with the definitions of the terms as a means to avoid the topic, especially when that person had already showed a consistent trend of placing the worst possible connotation on what others said.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As always we have diatribe and pronouns posted in place of substance (or in this case data). Simply post the data which shows “people who work in the criminal justice field vehemently disagree with the notion” it could be simple.