Death penalty - abortion comparison

[dudleysharp]

Pro-life people do not, by default, support the death penalty. .

Untrue.

The death penalty as pro life
Dudley Sharp

First, the “pro life” term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.

Secondly, in the context of the facts, yes, of course you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradicition.

All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.

Whether is be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can’t.

In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit.

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

We have great care for innocents

In at least three ways, innocents are more protected with the death penalty, than with lesser sanctions. Another pro life consideration.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when it is wrongly taken away, the highest form of sanction is provided.

As in:

Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, “Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics” By John Murray, 1991 (first published 1957) by Wm. B. Eerdmans tiny.cc/4SFBY

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

“Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

Other issues:

“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution–very-distinct-moral-differences–new-mexico.aspx

“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

“Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

 

[dudleysharp]

Punishing people because they might do something wrong in the future is ridiculous.

Presicely the reason that both EV and CCC got it all wrong. There limitations on the death penalty are based upon preventing the murderer from committing future crimes, with the emphasis on prison security, not upon the just sanction to be imposed because of the crime committed.

 

[ddarko]

Presicely the reason that both EV and CCC got it all wrong. There limitations on the death penalty are based upon preventing the murderer from committing future crimes, with the emphasis on prison security, not upon the just sanction to be imposed because of the crime committed.

Actually no.

What you are confusing here is that there was ever a declaration that the SOLE punishment that captures JUSTICE for a certain crime is Capital Punishment.

This was however never taught by the Church at any stage. It merely affirmed that Capital Punishment fulfills the justice component as well.

The EV and CCC passage which it is based off of, merely acknowledges that in today’s world, there are other means of accomplishing satisfaction of Justice through different punishments. It further emphasizes that we have obligation to try and use these alternate means because it puts the dignity of the criminal as a person first.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Are you not aware that the Roman Catholic view of salvation is through the shedding of Christ’s blood?

Of course. I am also aware that this has nothing whatever to do with the topic. “Blood” is not sacred. Christ’s blood is but ours is not. More to the point, the comment in 2260 even explained that the term “blood” as it was used in Gen 9:6 meant life. Life is sacred; blood is not.

So I am sure are thinking, how does all this connect to this topic?

It doesn’t; there is no connection.

Actually where does it say, the blood shed terminates with killing of whom that shed blood?

It is talking about murder, not simply shedding blood … otherwise the comment would apply to boxers and dental hygienists.

The problem with your interpretation of this passage, as a right given by God to man to shed the blood of the criminal, is that you fail to recognize that the passage makes no distinction between the criminal and the man who might shed the blood of the criminal.

It is saying the punishment for murder is death. It is not about blood and is not even about killing - it is about the due punishment for murder.

The passage makes a blanket statement about those who shed the blood of fellow men. It is almost similar to the scenario of Jesus and the prostitute who is about to be stoned.

Except for the fact that with one exception (that I am aware of) no one in the Church has ever made such a comparison. There is no connection between that incident and what is said in Genesis.

So you have implicitly read something in to the passage that does not exist i.e. a restriction as applying only to the criminal.

I’ll say it again: this is not my interpretation; it is the Church’s.

Therefore I agree with you that in either context of blood, the passage shows the graveness of the act of murder. But I do not think it gives the right for man to shed the blood of another because then he will also condemned to the same fate ad infinitum.

The right is given to apply capital punishment; there is no right to commit murder. Since the magistrate does not commit murder he cannot be punished.

Your claim is that for some crimes (maybe we can define this as murder in a certain context) the sole JUST punishment is death.

Yep, that’s pretty much it.

The position the church maintains is that it is however not the SOLE way of satisfying the punishment. Thus other means exist in today’s world to satisfy this punishment while rehabilitating the criminal.

I have seen nothing that specifically addresses this point. She has surely never made such a claim - not even in 2267.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What you are confusing here is that there was ever a declaration that the SOLE punishment that captures JUSTICE for a certain crime is Capital Punishment.

That, however, is exactly what Gen 9:6 implies when it mandates (not simply allows) that the murderer be executed.

The EV and CCC passage which it is based off of, merely acknowledges that in today’s world, there are other means of accomplishing satisfaction of Justice through different punishments.

This is flatly incorrect. Neither 2267 nor EV #56 even address the issue of justice, let alone suggest other means for satisfying its obligation; they ignored it entirely. Their sole focus was on protection; they ignored all of the other objectives of punishment, including justice, which is the primary objective.

It further emphasizes that we have obligation to try and use these alternate means because it puts the dignity of the criminal as a person first.

How do we know that the criminal has dignity as a person? We know it because we are told that all men are made in the image of God, which, unfortunately for those defending this position, is … Gen 9:6, the exact passage that lays out the required punishment for murder.

Secondly, we know that the criminal does not lose his human dignity through execution because, should he accept his punishment, his death serves as expiation for his sin, and if his life were insignificant then so would be the loss of that life - and it surely would not serve as expiation. Despite the wording in 2267, there is nothing about a just execution to implies it is incompatible with man’s dignity.

Ender

 

[Simonn]

There should be some legal requirements to pass through from abortion.
Because of abortion number of social evils arises thats are very dangerous to our health.

 

[Ender]

For me the question on the use of capital punishment turns entirely on whether it is or is not necessary to meet the obligation of justice. I recognize that there are times when, even if it was required for justice, other considerations would take precedence, but I am not interested in the exceptions to the rule, only of determining the rule itself.

We tend to think of justice (when we think of it at all in this context) as something owed to the victim, and this is certainly true, but the debt is much greater than that alone.

When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. (Aquinas, ST I-II, 21 - The Consequences of human action…)

Actions to effect a criminals rehabilitation or to protect society from future crimes are worthwhile but they do nothing whatever to satisfy the* “retribution owed to him.”* The current approach and concern (2267) - to the contrary - by ignoring this obligation essentially dismiss its importance.

*It is a divinely revealed truth that **sins *bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (Paul VI)

In all of these discussions, where has there been any consideration given to this point: sins must be expiated and only punishment can accomplish that. We are promised forgiveness for our sins; we are not told that this will exempt us from the punishment those sins have earned us.

It is therefore necessary for the full remission and—as it is called—reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against his wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God (Ibid)

We cannot achieve expiation on the cheap nor does repentance alone achieve it for us; it is achieved solely by the acceptance of a punishment that is commensurate with the severity of the crime, which presumedly dying of old age does not accomplish.

*Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not. *(Aquinas?)

Ender

 

[starshiptrooper]

This is an excellent post on punishment and why it is required to satisfy justice. Thank you for posting it!

 

[Ender]

This is an excellent post on punishment and why it is required to satisfy justice. Thank you for posting it!

One last comment before this thread drifts off into the sunset. The topic of the thread is about comparing capital punishment and abortion, but to even suggest these are comparable issues is to misunderstand what is essential to both, a confusion for which we can thank Archbishop Bernardin and his “seamless garment” argument.

The point is superficially obvious: how can one be pro-life and not oppose all activities that lead to death? But it shouldn’t be necessary to point out that the Church herself does not oppose all activities that lead to death. The seamless garment position starts from a flawed premise: all killing is bad and is to be opposed. That opinion is not supported by Church doctrine.

Regarding abortion not much needs to be said. It is intrinsically evil not because it involves killing but because it is the intentional killing of the innocent. It does not satisfy the conditions specified for actions with double effect, it is a violation of basic justice. It is murder and it is murder - not killing - that is evil.

Capital punishment falls into an entirely different category: where killing is acceptable (an entire category which the seamless garment would seem to reject). This is the failure of the seamless garment position: it opposes all killing - but the Church clearly does not, as the Baltimore Catechism makes plain.

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…

• 1. In a just war …*
     3. By the lawful execution of a criminal…

The seamless garment position is basically a bait-and-switch argument, or a slight of hand trick. It would answer Q.1276 with “never”, but it is not killing the Church unilaterally opposes, it is injustice.

Ender

 

[rsmyth75]

I’m against the death penalty not because it is wrong but because we are wrong. The bible says only a rightous nation has the right to exact the death penality. Fron the day we legalized the killing of the most innocent among us, we as a nation lost the moral right to execute even the most evil in our society. If we were though there are many problems with the varied and arbitarary way it is applied in this country. Life without parole is unacceptable as they pose the greatest danger to guards and other prisoners in jail. That would be truly cruel and unusual punishment to the other prisoners convicted of lesser crimes. There attitude is “what are u going to do. Give me another life sentence”. Possibilty of future crimes can work if it is your second murder. If we impose this as a strict standard, nationwide, I think it reasonable and morally acceptable. peace

 

[Ender]

I’m against the death penalty not because it is wrong but because we are wrong. The bible says only a righteous nation has the right to exact the death penalty. From the day we legalized the killing of the most innocent among us, we as a nation lost the moral right to execute even the most evil in our society.

No matter how many wrong things one does, a person or country never loses the moral privilege of doing the right thing. If capital punishment is justified for a righteous nation then it is also justified for all nations because the punishment is determined by the nature of the crime, not the nature of country in which it was committed.

Ender