Ccc §2267

[Ender]

If one objectively had good intentions and the results were more disasterly relatively speaking things would need to change.

I don’t dispute this. As I have said, there may be valid practical reasons to oppose the use of capital punishment. If its use was harmful, or it was rationally believed that it would be harmful, it would be our duty to oppose its use. That’s all very reasonable, but don’t for a moment believe that this is anything other than a practical decision. It is not a moral choice any more than a doctor makes a moral choice in selecting between two different methods of treating a sick patient. If he has done his best and made the choice he thinks is optimal then he has committed no sin even if his patient dies as a result of him choosing wrongly.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Eventually the death penalty within the penal system will be rejected by every Christian.

Even if the death penalty was rejected by all Christians it can never be rejected by the Church inasmuch as it is part of the deposit of the faith. The church will not, as she can not, reverse a doctrine held to be true for 2000 years.

We are not worthy as a society to have general recourse to it.

If the church did not deem the governments of Nero and Vespasian unworthy of employing capital punishment it is not likely she will apply that restriction to us. The validity of the use of the death penalty is not determined by the “worthiness” of the government imposing it but only by the justness of its imposition in each instance. If Christ recognized that even Pilate had the authority to impose death what are the chances he would deny its use to us?

Ender

 

[Ignatius]

I just read in the CCC something I never believed in. Capital punishment. The system just doesn’t work well enough to be taking someone’s life into the hands of the just. At least not here in the US. I was disappointed that the church doesn’t believe it immoral.

The Church distinguishes Capital Punishment from those Intrinsic Evils that are always and everywhere wrong. There are some circumstances in which Capital Punishment may be appropriate.

 

[OneSmallFlower]

This is a false statement. As stated in the catechism, the traditional teaching of the Church throughout her history has been that the legitimate authority has a right and a duty to maintain the social order with recourse to capital punishment. To this day, it is still the official teaching of the Church. Pope John Paul II is the one who, in his effort against the culture of death, has offered the end of capital punishment as a pastoral teaching but it does not have the authority to be binding upon Catholics in good conscience who believe that capital punishment is both moral and, at times, necessary for not only keeping a murderer from killing again but to address the harm he did by seeking Justice for his crime.

This is from the first edition of the catechism; it is still a valid summary of the Church’s traditional teaching on the subject since the early days of her existence:

*“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty” *

Interesting, I hadn’t heard that before… thanks for pointing me to the right sources. I still think the death penalty should be rare and used with extreme caution, however, if only to give the criminal as many chances to repent as possible.

 

[Timothysis]

Interesting, I hadn’t heard that before… thanks for pointing me to the right sources. I still think the death penalty should be rare and used with extreme caution, however, if only to give the criminal as many chances to repent as possible.

While I can appreciate your desire for mercy, we must remember that there is a punitive aspect to Justice. In order to redress the harm caused by the criminal, appropriate punishment is demanded and, in the crime of murder, sometimes the only punishment commensurate with the crime is death. I don’t think anyone takes pleasure in putting someone to death (at least I hope they don’t), it sometimes is a necessary “evil” that we are driven to.

 

[Forkfoot]

Leaving aside all the other possible moral discussion, I think the fact that we have executed innocent people in America means it should be taken off the table. The benefits (if there are any) can’t possibly outweigh the risk of executing an innocent person.

 

[cena]

Leaving aside all the other possible moral discussion, I think the fact that we have executed innocent people in America means it should be taken off the table. The benefits (if there are any) can’t possibly outweigh the risk of executing an innocent person.

A murderer can go and kill more people, even in jail

 

[Ender]

A murderer can go and kill more people, even in jail

It would assuredly be a tragedy if an innocent man was executed, but there is no option that guarantees no innocent person will die. Against the concern that we might execute an innocent person is the very real fact that a significant number of innocent people are murdered each year by recidivist killers, so the real question is not whether we are willing to risk executing an innocent person, but how many innocent people are we willing to see murdered to avoid accepting that risk?

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

It would assuredly be a tragedy if an innocent man was executed,

Not “would be”; HAS. We have surely executed innocent people in America.

I but there is no option that guarantees no innocent person will die. Against the concern that we might execute an innocent person is the very real fact that a significant number of innocent people are murdered each year by recidivist killers, so the real question is not whether we are willing to risk executing an innocent person, but how many innocent people are we willing to see murdered to avoid accepting that risk?

Ender

A murderer can go and kill more people, even in jail

Since when is it ethical to execute a man for potential FUTURE crimes?? There is no way to predict whether someone who has murdered will murder again, and there’s no way to know that someone who has never murdered will not someday murder.

 

[Ender]

Not “would be”; HAS. We have surely executed innocent people in America.

This is often asserted but it has not been proven to have occurred even once (since capital punishment was re-authorized by the Supreme Court in 1976).

Since when is it ethical to execute a man for potential FUTURE crimes?? There is no way to predict whether someone who has murdered will murder again, and there’s no way to know that someone who has never murdered will not someday murder.

Odd isn’t it? This, however, is the meaning of the phrase allowing capital punishment* “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

*That is, the catechism explicitly allows capital punishment in those cases where it is perceived necessary to prevent future crimes. The fact that it supports a punishment to prevent a crime that it doesn’t support for the commission of that crime is just one bit of the strangeness inherent in this section.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

This is often asserted but it has not been proven to have occurred even once (since capital punishment was re-authorized by the Supreme Court in 1976).

This is an absurd position which insults my intelligence and yours. You know innocent people have been executed here. Everyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand knows this.

Also, read this. That man’s case should never have even gone to trial, let alone a conviction, let alone an execution. Put your fingers in your ears and pretend you don’t hear it if you like; we both know it’s there.

Ender:
That is, the catechism explicitly allows capital punishment in those cases where it is perceived necessary to prevent future crimes. The fact that it supports a punishment to prevent a crime that it doesn’t support for the commission of that crime is just one bit of the strangeness inherent in this section.

Ender

It’s disappointing when conversations get cut short by someone going “yeah well the Catechism says so, so case closed.”

 

[Ender]

This is an absurd position which insults my intelligence and yours. You know innocent people have been executed here. Everyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand knows this.

Also, read this. That man’s case should never have even gone to trial, let alone a conviction, let alone an execution. Put your fingers in your ears and pretend you don’t hear it if you like; we both know it’s there.

This article makes my point. Did you not read the headline for the very article you cited? *Fresh **doubts **over a Texas execution
New evidence revives **concerns *that a man was wrongly put to death in 2004
Even this article only speaks of “doubts” and “concerns”. As I said, there are no cases at least since 1976 where an innocent person is **known **to have been executed.

Let me for the moment grant you this case, and a dozen others if you like. The point I was making earlier was that while there may be a number of suspected cases where innocents have been executed, there are in fact thousands of cases where innocents are known to have been murdered by recidivist killers. If your concern is for the innocent it appears that your approach, in spite of your intentions, will actually lead to more of them being unjustly killed.

It’s disappointing when conversations get cut short by someone going “yeah well the Catechism says so, so case closed.”

If you wish to make an argument against capital punishment based on something else, go for it. I assumed you were arguing from the Catholic position so I used an argument that is relevant to Catholics.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

[/INDENT]Even this article only speaks of “doubts” and “concerns”. As I said, there are no cases at least since 1976 where an innocent person is **known **to have been executed.

Yes, and then it goes on to lay out the facts which show that this man’s case never should have even gone to trial, let alone resulted in a conviction, let alone an execution. It shows quite clearly that we have a system wherein people who should never have even have had to go to trial for their accusations can get executed for them. But I see you’re conceding my point for the purpose of this discussion, so there’s no reason to expound upon this further.

The point I was making earlier was that while there may be a number of suspected cases where innocents have been executed, there are in fact thousands of cases where innocents are known to have been murdered by recidivist killers. If your concern is for the innocent it appears that your approach, in spite of your intentions, will actually lead to more of them being unjustly killed.

So based on your position it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a much higher rate of recidivist murders in nations without the death penalty. Correct? Shall we go digging up statistics and research to find out if this is the case?

If you wish to make an argument against capital punishment based on something else, go for it. I assumed you were arguing from the Catholic position so I used an argument that is relevant to Catholics.

That’s my bad; I didn’t realize you were making that entirely reasonable assumption on a Catholic website. I’m not Catholic anymore. I think the Church’s position on the death penalty needs some work, and I’d like to keep this debate as secularized as you’re comfortable with.

 

[cena]

Yes, and then it goes on to lay out the facts which show that this man’s case never should have even gone to trial, let alone resulted in a conviction, let alone an execution. It shows quite clearly that we have a system wherein people who should never have even have had to go to trial for their accusations can get executed for them. But I see you concede my point, so there’s no reason to expound upon this further.

So based on your position it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a much higher rate of recidivist murders in nations without the death penalty. Correct? Shall we go digging up statistics and research to find out if this is the case?

That’s my bad; I didn’t realize you were making that entirely reasonable assumption on a Catholic website. I’m not Catholic anymore. I think the Church’s position on the death penalty needs some work, and I’d like to keep this debate as secularized as you’re comfortable with.

Different countries have different crime rates. For example Switzerland and America are very different countries. Having the death penalty isn’t the only factor.

 

[Forkfoot]

Different countries have different crime rates. For example Switzerland and America are very different countries. Having the death penalty isn’t the only factor.

Other countries have murder; I’m here addressing those specific murder cases. Ender appears to be positing a direct correlation between recidivist murders and the absence of the death penalty. Something smells very fishy if you want to try and say that that correlation only exists in the country which happens to already do the things your argument agrees with.

 

[revert_jen]

So based on your position it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a much higher rate of recidivist murders in nations without the death penalty. Correct? Shall we go digging up statistics and research to find out if this is the case?

[Condemned prisioner talking to hangman]
‘Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr Trooper?’ he said.
‘Well, in the generality of things I’d say it’s hard to tell, given that it’s hard to find evidence of crimes not committed,’ said the hangman, giving the trapdoor a final rattle. ‘But in the specificality, sir, I’d say it’s very efficacious.’
‘Meaning what?’ said Moist.
‘Meaning I’ve never seen anyone up here more’n once, sir.’

Sorry, no reason to suppose this reflects Sir Terry’s actual views on the death penalty, since this is from a work of comedy, nor am I endorsing his other public views, but there is a point here.

Nobody who is executed subsequently murders any innocent people. If we feel that we cannot control a criminal using other legal means, we may need to look into this option. For example, we can’t take a violent criminal and just put him in isolation forever, since that would be inhumane punishment and Amnesty International would be all over us for it.

Statistics on recidivist murders would only be useful if the only factor that affected it was the death penalty, which I don’t think anyone is claiming.

Personally, I feel about the death penalty what some pro-abortion people say they feel about abortion: I feel it should be safe, legal, and rare. So I guess by extension, that makes me pro-death-penalty, although I don’t really think about it that way.

I think that, very rarely and to prevent the deaths of more innocent (in this sense, as the people being saved may be more inmates) people, some criminals may be executed in the most humane way possible. I don’t think any governments are putting this on the table. It seems the only options governments want are either a complete ban or a painful execution. I’ve never understood why this is.

–Jen

 

[Forkfoot]

Sorry, no reason to suppose this reflects Sir Terry’s actual views on the death penalty, since this is from a work of comedy, nor am I endorsing his other public views, but there is a point here.

Nobody who is executed subsequently murders any innocent people. If we feel that we cannot control a criminal using other legal means, we may need to look into this option. For example, we can’t take a violent criminal and just put him in isolation forever, since that would be inhumane punishment and Amnesty International would be all over us for it.

Statistics on recidivist murders would only be useful if the only factor that affected it was the death penalty, which I don’t think anyone is claiming.

Personally, I feel about the death penalty what some pro-abortion people say they feel about abortion: I feel it should be safe, legal, and rare. So I guess by extension, that makes me pro-death-penalty, although I don’t really think about it that way.

I think that, very rarely and to prevent the deaths of more innocent (in this sense, as the people being saved may be more inmates) people, some criminals may be executed in the most humane way possible. I don’t think any governments are putting this on the table. It seems the only options governments want are either a complete ban or a painful execution. I’ve never understood why this is.

–Jen

Thanks for the feedback. It’s true that executed people never murder anyone. They also never commit tax fraud, identity theft, adultery, music piracy, or use cheat codes when they play video games. Executing every human alive would result in a 100% reduction of these crimes, indisputably. Should we do it then? Of course not. Research hasn’t even shown that a significant enough sample of murderers go on to murder again in America itself! The percentage of recidivist murderers in prison (1%) is equal to the percentage of people who went on to murder after having their sentences overturned. So right here in America we’d have to execute 100 convicted murderers to prevent one recidivist murder, which wouldn’t actually reduce the number of innocent people being murdered anyway.

Research addressing this issue has focused on calculating precise risks of prison homicides and recidivist murder. This work has found that the odds of repeat mur- der are low, and that people convicted of homicide tend to make better adjustments to prison (and, if released, exhibit lower rates of recidivism) than do other convicted felons (Bedau 1982a, 1997b, Stanton 1969, Wolfson 1982). The best research on this issue has been done by James Marquart and Jonathan Sorensen, sociologists at Sam Houston State University, who tracked down 558 of the 630 people on death row when all death sentences in the United States were invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1972. Contrary to the predictions of those who advocate the death penalty on the grounds of incapacitation, Marquart and Sorensen found that among those whose death sentences were commuted in 1972, only about one percent went on to kill again. This figure is almost identical with the number of death row prisoners later found to be innocent (Marquart & Sorensen 1989). Interpreted another way, these figures suggest that 100 prisoners would have to be executed to incapacitate the one person who statistically might be expected to repeat. Arguably, today’s more sophisticated prisons and the virtual elimination of parole have reduced the risks of repeat homicide even further.

 

[Ender]

So based on your position it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a much higher rate of recidivist murders in nations without the death penalty. Correct?

Not exactly. There are a lot of factors that affect murder rates, although it would be interesting to know what recidivist murder rates are in other countries. My argument here is simply that neither decision about whether to use or not use capital punishment comes risk free, but it seems likely that more innocents will die as a result of not using it than from liberally applying it.

I’d like to keep this debate as secularized as you’re comfortable with.

Make whatever argument you like and I will respond to it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sorry, no reason to suppose this reflects Sir Terry’s actual views on the death penalty, since this is from a work of comedy…

LOL

If we feel that we cannot control a criminal using other legal means, we may need to look into this option.

This is the position taken by the catechism. To Forkfoot the catechism is irrelevant so my comment to him about it carried no weight. You, however, ought to address it. The catechism accepts capital punishment "**when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor." How do we justify committing an act to prevent a crime that is considered unjustifiable as punishment if that crime is actually committed? Why does the prevention of the crime rate a harsher punishment than the crime itself?

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

but it seems likely that more innocents will die as a result of not using it than from liberally applying it.

I posted some data to the other commenter here which calls this assertion into question. Have you taken a look at it?