Ccc §2267

[Ender]

Executing every human alive would result in a 100% reduction of these crimes, indisputably. Should we do it then? Of course not.

The question is not whether everyone who commits a crime should be executed but whether if capital punishment were more liberally applied it would both reduce the number of recidivist murders and serve as a more effective deterrent with the overall result of reducing the number of innocent deaths.

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.

The percentage of murderers paroled from prison who go on to murder again is also around 1%. To put a number to that, about 120-140 people are murdered each year by people once imprisoned for murder and subsequently released on parole. I’m guessing that there aren’t nearly that many people wrongfully imprisoned each year for murder.

This debate is largely academic; it can and should be addressed by social scientists. It is (to me) only mildly interesting. My interest is in whether the use of capital punishment is moral, not whether it is prudential.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

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

Considering that the USA has around 15,000 murders per year, are you proposing that they all be executed to stop recidivism… because as far as I know, no one is released from death row to be causing these recidivist murders?

 

[Ender]

Considering that the USA has around 15,000 murders per year, are you proposing that they all be executed to stop recidivism… because as far as I know, no one is released from death row to be causing these recidivist murders?

Only a very small percentage of murderers end up on death row, although even there murders have been committed. In fact only a fraction of one percent of murderers are actually executed, but the effect is in the sentencing - and subsequent parole - of others.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Only a very small percentage of murderers end up on death row, although even there murders have been committed. In fact only a fraction of one percent of murderers are actually executed, but the effect is in the sentencing - and subsequent parole - of others.

Ender

What I’m asking is how is the death penalty going to solve this murder recidivism? Are you proposing mandatory death for murderers one and all?

 

[Ender]

What I’m asking is how is the death penalty going to solve this murder recidivism? Are you proposing mandatory death for murderers one and all?

No.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

No.

Ender

And to the rest of my question “… how is the death penalty going to solve this murder recidivism?” ?

 

[revert_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.

If you read the part of my post that said,

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.

… I’m not sure why you ask this question. In case I wasn’t as clear as I thought (always a possibility), I’m talking about someone when we haven’t figured out how to stop him from being violent without engaging in punishments (like permanent isolation) that aren’t allowed.

Also, if you’ve spent years in prison, you may know enough to be better at being a violent criminal, and recidivism statistics would obviously not include people who were not convicted. Just a guess, not in any way a statement of fact.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

LOL
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

Sorry, is it that you want me to defend the position of the Catechism? I’m not really qualified, but if I had to say something, I’d say that the penalty for the combination of [already committed murder] + [circumstances that indicate that the criminal has continued committing murder or life-threatening assaults] rates a higher punishment than [already committed murder] alone.

I’m not entirely sure that I agree with this position in my own head alone, but I am obedient to what the Church says. Just because I think something doesn’t mean I’m right.

–Jen

 

[Forkfoot]

My interest is in whether the use of capital punishment is moral, not whether it is prudential.

Ender

Your argument for why it’s moral depends on it being prudential. It’s not moral to kill people in order to prevent recidivism if it doesn’t actually prevent recidivism.

 

[Ender]

And to the rest of my question “… how is the death penalty going to solve this murder recidivism?” ?

As Forkfoot observed: “It’s true that executed people never murder anyone.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sorry, is it that you want me to defend the position of the Catechism?

I want you to think about the implications of what 2267 says. I’m pretty sure that section is prudential, so disagreeing with it is not being disobedient to the church, otherwise Cardinal Ratzinger could not have said “*There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”. *

I’m not really qualified…

You are as qualified to consider the meaning of the words as anyone.

… if I had to say something, I’d say that the penalty for the combination of [already committed murder] + [circumstances that indicate that the criminal has continued committing murder or life-threatening assaults] rates a higher punishment than [already committed murder] alone.

Sure, that’s a reasonable interpretation, but what does it imply? Aquinas tells us that *“Nothing but sin deserves punishment”, *so we cannot punish a person for being a perceived threat. If capital punishment is a just punishment for the person who has murdered once and is a threat to murder again it can only be because it is a just punishment for the sin he has already committed. The perceived necessity of preventing future crimes cannot justify the act of killing him. The punishment is just only if it is the appropriate penalty for the crime he has committed. Any threat he may pose is no part of that calculation.

So, if it is just to execute the killer who threatens to kill again it can only be because it is just to execute killers. Now, if execution is the just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder what is the argument that the people who commit that crime should not be given … the just punishment?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Your argument for why it’s moral depends on it being prudential. It’s not moral to kill people in order to prevent recidivism if it doesn’t actually prevent recidivism.

No, no, that’s not my argument at all. I was addressing only the particular assertion that we shouldn’t execute criminals because we are likely to execute an innocent person. I was pointing out that there is no free lunch here: innocent people will die regardless of whether we decide to execute or not execute murderers. That argument has nothing to do with whether capital punishment is moral, only with whether it will increase or decrease the likelihood of innocent people dying.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

No, no, that’s not my argument at all. I was addressing only the particular assertion that we shouldn’t execute criminals because we are likely to execute an innocent person. I was pointing out that there is no free lunch here: innocent people will die regardless of whether we decide to execute or not execute murderers. That argument has nothing to do with whether capital punishment is moral, only with whether it will increase or decrease the likelihood of innocent people dying.

Ender

To me executing an innocent person is immensely immoral.

 

[Ender]

To me executing an innocent person is immensely immoral.

It is only immoral if it was done deliberately or with undue care, otherwise it is simply a tragedy. It is not a sin to make an honest mistake regardless of the consequences.“When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” (Augustine)
Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

It is only immoral if it was done deliberately or with undue care,

That man who was executed whose case never should’ve gone to trial was not shown due care. The system which executed him does not show due care. Is it possible to have a system for execution which is moral by your standards? Maybe. Do we have one now? Absolutely not.

 

[Ender]

That man who was executed whose case never should’ve gone to trial was not shown due care. The system which executed him does not show due care. Is it possible to have a system for execution which is moral by your standards? Maybe. Do we have one now? Absolutely not.

Even if everything in the article was true it would not support your conclusion. Regarding the idea that “the system” is filled with inefficiencies and dishonesty, you should note this assertion from your article:Opponents of the death penalty have long focused on questionable evidence used against Willingham, believing that his case could be the first to show conclusively that an innocent man was put to death in the modern era of capital punishment.
I said earlier that not even one innocent person had been shown to be wrongfully executed, a statement you ridiculed, yet here is your own source confirming exactly what I said. If not even one innocent person is known to have been executed it also rebuts your assertion that our “system” fails to exhibit due care in processing criminals. In case you missed it, the Innocence Project (an anti-death penalty advocacy group) has been investigating this case for over a decade and the most they have been able to assert is that he “could be” innocent.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

Even if everything in the article was true it would not support your conclusion. Regarding the idea that “the system” is filled with inefficiencies and dishonesty, you should note this assertion from your article:Opponents of the death penalty have long focused on questionable evidence used against Willingham, believing that his case could be the first to show conclusively that an innocent man was put to death in the modern era of capital punishment.
I said earlier that not even one innocent person had been shown to be wrongfully executed, a statement you ridiculed, yet here is your own source confirming exactly what I said. If not even one innocent person is known to have been executed it also rebuts your assertion that our “system” fails to exhibit due care in processing criminals. In case you missed it, the Innocence Project (an anti-death penalty advocacy group) has been investigating this case for over a decade and the most they have been able to assert is that he “could be” innocent.

Ender

Untrue. The most they’ve been able to show is that there was no reason for him to have ever gone to trial, let alone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s huge. I’d like you to stop dancing around this and address it directly please.

 

[Ender]

Untrue. The most they’ve been able to show is that there was no reason for him to have ever gone to trial, let alone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s huge. I’d like you to stop dancing around this and address it directly please.

I dispute the whole thing. Assume for a minute that everything in the article is true; that the prosecutor lied, the witness lied, and the fire marshal either lied or was incompetent. The advocacy group pushing this story filed an official grievance in Texas and called for a full investigation of this case. If everything is as obviously wrong as you claim, where is the evidence? Why, despite investigating this for over a decade, has insufficient evidence been uncovered to actually indict anyone?

You have accepted everything in the article as fact, despite the article itself speaking only in terms of “raising questions”, yet the facts are that despite all the huffing and puffing, the groups pushing this story have not been able to prove anything at all. You have accepted their innuendo, but that’s all it amounts to.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

I dispute the whole thing. Assume for a minute that everything in the article is true; that the prosecutor lied, the witness lied, and the fire marshal either lied or was incompetent. The advocacy group pushing this story filed an official grievance in Texas and called for a full investigation of this case. If everything is as obviously wrong as you claim, where is the evidence? Why, despite investigating this for over a decade, has insufficient evidence been uncovered to actually indict anyone?

You have accepted everything in the article as fact, despite the article itself speaking only in terms of “raising questions”, yet the facts are that despite all the huffing and puffing, the groups pushing this story have not been able to prove anything at all. You have accepted their innuendo, but that’s all it amounts to.

Ender

You are still tapdancing. If you fail to address my point one more time this conversation is over. The point I want you to address is the fact that there was never sufficient evidence to bring this case to trial. Not that it hasn’t been “conclusively proven” that he was innocent. I want you to address the fact that this case should never have gone to trial in the first place, due to lack of reliable evidence.

 

[Forkfoot]

I dispute the whole thing. Assume for a minute that everything in the article is true; that the prosecutor lied, the witness lied, and the fire marshal either lied or was incompetent. The advocacy group pushing this story filed an official grievance in Texas and called for a full investigation of this case. If everything is as obviously wrong as you claim, where is the evidence? Why, despite investigating this for over a decade, has insufficient evidence been uncovered to actually indict anyone?

You have accepted everything in the article as fact, despite the article itself speaking only in terms of “raising questions”, yet the facts are that despite all the huffing and puffing, the groups pushing this story have not been able to prove anything at all. You have accepted their innuendo, but that’s all it amounts to.

Ender

You are still tapdancing. If you fail to address my point one more time this conversation is over. The point I want you to address is the fact that there was never sufficient evidence to bring this case to trial. Not that it hasn’t been “conclusively proven” that he was innocent. I want you to address the fact that this case should never have gone to trial in the first place, due to lack of reliable evidence.