Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi TR,

The difficulty is that the term “imminent” in the context of self-defense seems to contain two concepts within it: a) “more or less about to occur” and b) “morally certain to occur”. In other words in order to use proportional force to stop an unjust attacker one has to be confident that they are an unjust attacker – that the attacker is about to actually attack, or is in the process of attacking.

As soon as imminent danger ceases you aren’t using self-defense.

But, leaving aside imminent harm for a moment, it is clear that capital punishment is not a case where one applies the principle of double effect in the first place. The state intends to kill the criminal – and one cannot intend to kill under the principle of double effect. If you want to say that the state does *not *intend to kill, then the state would have to be happy if the process malfunctioned (e.g. the “rope broke”). Not only that, regardless of whether the state intends to kill, at the very least the state intends to obtain the good effect by killing, and you can’t obtain the good effect through the bad effect under the principle of double effect.

My point is that capital punishment wasn’t justified by the Church by appealing to the principle of double effect (for good reason!).

Thoughts?
VC

Thank you I agree with the concept double effect is not the standard however the imminent danger aspect is real. If the guilty party does not impose imminent danger (or impending if you would like) then capital punishment is not viable

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am for the death penalty because I’m always afraid that some bleeding heart judge will let the dangerous criminal out of jail and then he’ll kill again.
I actually knew a man who killed a little four year old, he abducted her from the pool in her yard and then did terrible things and then killed her.
She was in the custody of her father at the time and he never should have let her alone but then again, who would have known that such an animal was in the neighborhood?
The child was not his only victim, he also killed a young woman who had just graduated from an Ivy League college.
He was perfectly fine letting the parents suffer and wonder.
When he finally led police to the body he was not at all remorseful
I do NOT want my tax dollars giving him three hots and a cot.
His name is Haddon Clark and now someone is writing a book about him!
If we can’t execute him, I would like to put him in a room with the father, mother and brother of the girls he killed and then just leave all of them alone for awhile.

Will his death do something for you?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi TR,

Thank you I agree with the concept double effect is not the standard

Ok. I think it is important to keep that clear in the discussion.

however the imminent danger aspect is real. If the guilty party does not impose imminent danger (or impending if you would like) then capital punishment is not viable

Could you explain your position more? Since capital punishment doesn’t seem to be justified under the principle of double effect (or self-defense/defense of another which is an application of the principle), then under what principle is it justified? And how does imminence of harm factor into that principle?

Thanks for the discussion!
VC

 

[BamaRider]

On the way home today, I was discussing with my 14 year old son how I believed there are times when the Death Penalty is acceptable. I believe they were discussing this on Catholic Answers and it was said that the Catholic Church is not totally against it in some circumstances.

By some weird coincidence, a non profit group against the death penalty just called, but I didn’t really want to talk to them.

Is it wrong for me to believe there are times when the Death Penalty should be allowed? For instance, sadistic killers who prey upon innocent children and women. (I am a big fan of John Douglas by the way).

I do not believe in the Death Penalty where a person snaps and kills someone in a one time event and then is remorseful, ect…

Your thoughts please…

I’m known around here as a hard core conservative, and live in a state where the DP is approved by 75% of the population, but over the years I’ve come to soften my stance on the subject.

The reason being, I just don’t think the state needs to be in that business. The finality of it is inescapable, there is no going back after you kill someone, and there is no gurantee we only execute the guilty, and that in itself is a red light.

Perhaps in extreme cases where several witness and a confession (like the person who murdered the 2 little girls in Oklahoma, when they find him) I’d go along with it, but in most, I’d say no.

I think each state should keep a super max for the handful they have on death row. Lock them down in total isolation for 23 hours a day in a small cell, let them out in small yard for one 1 hour. No human interaction at all. No books, tv, nothing. A few months of this will make they beg for a execution date. Eric Rudolph is in Colorado’s Super Max and is firing off letters of cruel and unusual punishment.

I can’t imagine being stuck in a cell for 23 horus a day. Nothing to read, no one to talk to, you pass the time starring at the ceiling, every day the same as the one before. Makes me go nuts even thinking about it.

 

[pnewton]

No, the protector of society offers to place the value of the protector (himself) second to both the protected (us) and the destroyer in an altruistic way. He is not conscripted. He volunterrs. And for that he is respected above and beyond normal citizens. Greater love has no one….

My brother worked in a prison for 3 years.
.

He volunteers, but he does not place the value of the criminals above his own safety. In fact, the priority of the job is: protect others first, yourself second, the offender third. Yes, care of the inmates is a priority, but it never takes precedence over the duty to protect society, hence why prisoners may be shot if necessary to prevent escape, or over oneself, which is why entry to intervene in a riot is not made as soon as inmate’s are being harmed, but only after the riot may be broken up with reasonable officer safety.

Yet, there must be a balance. As you pointed out, there is no such thing as absolute safety. This is why we can not execute everyone that poses some risk, but only where the risk of future harm is great. The best measure of this would be past history of violence, specifically toward those in authority. Another indicator of risk is involvement in gang violence, especially that which extends through a hierarchial structure to those outside prisons. Many a homicide has been ordered from behind prison bars.

You asked if I had any statistics to back my “strawman.” Of course no such statistics are ever calculated on such minutia. All I can offer is anecdotal evidence, which explains but does not back my opinion. The last time I heard this sentiment was 2 weeks ago from an ADA. He had dropped an assault case against an officer based on the fact that the event was just “part of the job.” It is not that I believe this do be a common sentiment. I don’t. But I do not consider it a strawman, but rather relative to the restriction on the death penatly placed by the CCC. “Safely incarcerated” should extend to those guard inmates as part of society.

 

[ERNIE_GALLANT]

Hello Simon X, I believe in the death penalty in cases where there is no question that the accused is guilty and had thought through committing the murder…This allows God and the victim their opportunity to have a hearing on the murder…Also, Christ was never opposed to the death penalty in that Christ never put up a kick to stop those two guys being nailed to the cross when Christ was being put to death…But told one of them that this day he would be in Heaven with Him…ErnieG

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

He volunteers, but he does not place the value of the criminals above his own safety.

I mentioned my brother worked in a prison (true) because from your earlier posts I suspected you werew a prison officer. Your profile almost confirmed this and this final post certainly does.

This means I am now “on your ground” so to speak. In this cae I will avoid from contradicting you in the particulars.

In fact, the priority of the job is: protect others first, yourself second, the offender third. Yes, care of the inmates is a priority, but it never takes precedence over the duty to protect society, hence why prisoners may be shot if necessary to prevent escape, or over oneself, which is why entry to intervene in a riot is not made as soon as inmate’s are being harmed, but only after the riot may be broken up with reasonable officer safety.

True, but shooting a prisoner in a hostile situation, or even a suspect in one, as your previous experience as a law officer will remind you, is not an execution, either in the eyes of the law, nor morally speaking. A soldier does not “execute” an enmy soldier. This is self-defense. Let us not muddy the waters. An execution, by definition, is only possible when the subject is sudued; i.e.helpless.

One does not equate the shooting of a bank robber in pursuit or in an exchange of fire with his electrocution in an electric chair.

Moreover, on a case by case basis, an officer is required to protect his own life (as self defense)but he still, when he assumes the duty, recognises that he puts himself in harms way and will, furthermore, conform to procedures that may protect a suspect even at risk to his own life. For example, shouting a warning before opening fire.

Yet, there must be a balance. As you pointed out, there is no such thing as absolute safety. This is why we can not execute everyone that poses some risk, but only where the risk of future harm is great.

And this is where bivalent logic breaks down. The line between “great” danger and any other degree of danger cannot be determined objectively because it falls foul of the Sorites paradox.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

The best measure of this would be past history of violence, specifically toward those in authority.

Er…why those in authority, specifically?
Surely crimes against the meek and helpless are more despicable.
Blessed are the whom, exactly?

You asked if I had any statistics to back my “strawman.” Of course no such statistics are ever calculated on such minutia. All I can offer is anecdotal evidence, which explains but does not back my opinion. The last time I heard this sentiment was 2 weeks ago from an ADA. He had dropped an assault case against an officer based on the fact that the event was just “part of the job.” It is not that I believe this do be a common sentiment. I don’t. But I do not consider it a strawman, but rather relative to the restriction on the death penatly placed by the CCC. “Safely incarcerated” should extend to those guard inmates as part of society

It is a strawman because it is a point of view I did not express, support, or even introduce and yet you felt the need to refute it.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Yup.

 

[bbentrup]

I am deontoligical. That is I believe in the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

Then your position here is mistaken. The only correct position has nothing to do with killing. It has only to do with defending life. Basically the field of moral expertise on the subject ends here, although expert moral apologists, such as JPII, can give outlines as to how this moral law might be applied in practice. JPII said that the need to uphold the defense of life has not necessitated the killing of the condemned murderer in modern times. You and I agree there. But the Pope left open the doors of the possibility - I would love for you to expound what you think this possibility would look like given today’s correctional facilities. Anyhow, now that we know the moral directive it is ultimately under the state’s authority to determine whether a given case falls into the exception that JPII left open when trying to defend life. I don’t have all the facts. I suspect you don’t either. You and I both have probably disagreed with the state’s judgment on executing criminals in every single case to this point in history (with the exception that I still leave the door open to Saddam’s case that it might have been morally licit). You can teach the state what the moral teaching is, but ultimately you can’t definitively condemn the state because you don’t have all the facts. Pray for our leaders because the untimely blood of potential converts to the faith is on their hands.

As for the Vatican condemning the Hussein execution - this is correct to a point, and I should have pointed that out when I first posited this position. My position is certainly not infallible and I don’t want to lead anyone into error. That said, their condemnation was not done infallibly, it isn’t completely clear what their condemnation exactly refers to (maybe they were objecting to lack of appeals), it was not condemned personally by the pope, and it is a position under which I am allowed to dissent.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi TR,

Ok. I think it is important to keep that clear in the discussion.

Could you explain your position more? Since capital punishment doesn’t seem to be justified under the principle of double effect (or self-defense/defense of another which is an application of the principle), then under what principle is it justified? And how does imminence of harm factor into that principle?

Thanks for the discussion!
VC

The principle if it exists is probably self preservation, the root concept is not completely separate from the double effect argument though not a direct match and not separate from self defense. The Church is very clear the intent must be to preserve innocent human life. Only if a known guilty party is a direct threat to innocent human life can we consider the option of the capital punishment. The tough issue is none can know the future so no one knows the extent of the future danger. Given a need to meet the preservation standard (preserve innocent human life) while unable to know the future only citing “imminent danger” seems to meet the standard? If the guilty party is a direct threat to innocent life then the standard is met. So if a prisoner is separated from innocent life then the imminent danger is what? Since escape and parole are possible but not likely the danger exists but is not imminent. Only when the person can not be separated from the innocient or endangers the innocient from remote can these imminent dangers be addressed. So examples might be a rebel leader whose rebels will kill innocient people to attempt to free him, or if the leader is expected to order killings from prison. Another example is if prison options are not available to separate the guilty party.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Then your position here is mistaken.

Interesting. I look forward to you demonstrating this.

The only correct position has nothing to do with killing. It has only to do with defending life

Capital punishment has nothing to do with killing?

Basically the field of moral expertise on the subject ends here,

Is this a moral argument or a traffic signal.

although expert moral apologists, such as JPII, can give outlines as to how this moral law might be applied in practice. JPII said that the need to uphold the defense of life has not necessitated the killing of the condemned murderer in modern times. You and I agree there.

Phew. For a minute there I thought yu were going to contradict the great JPII

But the Pope left open the doors of the possibility - I would love for you to expound what you think this possibility would look like given today’s correctional facilities.

Another expert on correctional facilities. Surely a coincidence!

Anyhow, now that we know the moral directive it is ultimately under the state’s authority to determine whether a given case falls into the exception that JPII left open when trying to defend life.

And as an elected state authority, it is down to us to monitor, evaluate and ultimately judge thier performance in an election. But I posted that ealier, didn’t I?

I don’t have all the facts. I suspect you don’t either.

We are probably also both wearing shoes. And?

Only HE has ALL the facts.

You and I both have probably disagreed with the state’s judgment on executing criminals in every single case to this point in history (with the exception that I still leave the door open to Saddam’s case that it might have been morally licit).

About which you and the Vatican seem to be at odds.

You can teach the state what the moral teaching is, but ultimately you can’t definitively condemn the state because you don’t have all the facts.

Would you also say the same to the Vatican?

Pray for our leaders because the untimely blood of potential converts to the faith is on their hands.

The men who executed Saddam are not my leaders. I am not American.

As for the Vatican condemning the Hussein execution - this is correct to a point, and I should have pointed that out when I first posited this position.

To which point? To what extent?

My position is certainly not infallible and I don’t want to lead anyone into error.

Modest indeed.

That said, their condemnation was not done infallibly, it isn’t completely clear what their condemnation exactly refers to (maybe they were objecting to lack of appeals), it was not condemned personally by the pope, and it is a position under which I am allowed to dissent

Er… Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice condemned it. I suspect that it was on his authority. But as you say we do not have all the facts, so you have your loophole and you’re stickking to it. Good luck with that.

Please try to refute my arguments on a point by point basis, with support for your arguments in the future.

 

[pnewton]

It is a strawman because it is a point of view I did not express, support, or even introduce and yet you felt the need to refute it.

Aha. Then we are both correct. It was a strawman from your point of view. Realize, though, that even when I post in response to you I frequently broaden the scope to where others have gone in past threads on this issue.

On another note, the reason I said that violence against authority is of particular note when dealing with a murderer is that it is a better indicator of how safely one can be incarcerated. True, rape and murder of women and children are a far more heinous act. Yet the criteria established by the CCC for the death penalty is not which act requires greater punishment, but which offender can be safely incarcerated and thereby provide protection for society. I am not a believer in special legal protection for public servants against crime, BTW. On this I agree with you.

You are correct as to my background. Twenty-two years law enforcement and corrections so far.

 

[bbentrup]

Cuddy, apparently you start the debate with the idea of capital punishment - that is your mistake. If instead you started with the intent to defend life at all times, then you would see how capital punishment might be used as a tool to defend life. If you look at just capital punishment, you miss the bigger picture and open yourself to sins of ommission - namely failure in your duty to defend life. When experts evaluate this question (does our call to defend life necessitate that we execute this criminal?), it is their moral duty to err on the side of protecting the life of the murderer if at all possible. Still it is their ultimate judgment - they are the ones in charge of defending life with respect to that criminal. It is not my decision or yours or the Vatican’s. The Holy See, you and I all agree that needing to execute the modern criminal in order to defend life has probably not occurred to date, whereas I posit that Saddam Hussein may indeed have been the first exception for reasons already outlined.

 

[pnewton]

The Holy See, you and I all agree that needing to execute the modern criminal in order to defend life has probably not occurred to date…

I know that was the position of John Paul II, but I did not know that Pope Benedict was of the same opinion.

 

[bbentrup]

I know that was the position of John Paul II, but I did not know that Pope Benedict was of the same opinion.

What I’m about to say is worth nothing, but I would be willling to bet money that is where Benedict’s private opinion on the matter stands. But he has not said it himself, so I should have been clearer. Thanks for the correction!

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I found this, but it carries no weight as it was prior to his papacy:

For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[mangy_dog]

This is not what the Church teaches…

You know this thread brings to mind a few things, like,…one of the moral grey areas resulting from the separation of church and state.

I’m sure JP II had something in mind that he really wanted to say but did not comment. His mind must’ve gone to the 55,000 babies aborted in a years time or the “comfort medication” of patients that are in terminal/incurable condition.

Those serial killers are state sanctioned and protected by the law to kill. No death penalty there!

I remember Jesus telling the Jews about the divorce issue and that Moses told them to write a divorce decree to the wife,and how he allowed this out of the hardness of their heart.

Going back to the original question - “are you wrong?”…

Well, out of the hardness of our hearts, this is something that is “ok”… we just don’t have to be so enthusiastic about it.

 

[goofyjim]

This is one of those issues where neither side is wrong. You are free to support the death penalty or oppose it. Neither belief goes against Church teaching since there is no official direction on what we must do.

 

[bbentrup]

This is one of those issues where neither side is wrong. You are free to support the death penalty or oppose it. Neither belief goes against Church teaching since there is no official direction on what we must do.

Logic does not necessarily support that conclusion. Truth is not dependent upon our beliefs on what is true. God’s Truth dictates that for any given set of circumstances there is a morally correct stance. Therefore for each case, one side is definitely wrong - but the church has taught that we can’t discern unerringly which side is the correct side. Therefore you can’t call someone who has taken the opposite stance “wrong”.

However, in the vast majority of cases (perhaps all) I would be very surprised that letting God’s mercy and/or justice take effect on God’s time is the correct stance.

 

[goofyjim]

Logic does not necessarily support that conclusion. Truth is not dependent upon our beliefs on what is true. God’s Truth dictates that for any given set of circumstances there is a morally correct stance. Therefore for each case, one side is definitely wrong - but the church has taught that we can’t discern unerringly which side is the correct side. Therefore you can’t call someone who has taken the opposite stance “wrong”.

However, in the vast majority of cases (perhaps all) I would be very surprised that letting God’s mercy and/or justice take effect on God’s time is the correct stance.

You’ll have quite a difficult time forcing me to accept the death penalty. I am opposed to it and if that makes me a non Catholic I am willing to be such. Yet I know it won’t. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either support of or opposition to the death penalty.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Cuddy, apparently you start the debate with the idea of capital punishment - that is your mistake.

Yeah. It was the first two words in the title (ie. Death Penalty) that led me to such an error of judgement. Silly me.

If instead you started with the intent to defend life at all times,

Then may I suggest the thread title “International Rescue” next time.

then you would see how capital punishment might be used as a tool to defend life.

In the same way I could see how gasoline is good for extinguishing fires, perhaps.

If you look at just capital punishment, you miss the bigger picture

The bigger picture that you **fail **to describe.

and open yourself to sins of ommission

The ommision most relevant here is the omission of a structured argument. An omission, to my knowledge, spanning over 4 pages.

• namely failure in your duty to defend life.

Actually that is EXACTLY what I am doing; defending LIFE.

When experts evaluate this question

Here we are again with your “experts” and “authority”. I know only ONE authority and I know No experts when it comes to taking human lives. I’m funny like that.

it is their moral duty to err on the side of protecting the life of the murderer if at all possible.

And if they are in custody, it always is possible.

Still it is their ultimate judgment - they are the ones in charge of defending life with respect to that criminal.

Oh the glorious “they who are in charge”. Just like Pilate, Ciaphas and Herod. Sorry, I answer to another, and he told me another story.

It is not my decision or yours or the Vatican’s.

But I may offer my opinion with both my faith and my reason as my guide. The Vatican may offer her guidance and we are blessed to hear it.

whereas I posit that Saddam Hussein may indeed have been the first exception for reasons already outlined

And the point you posited or *hypothesized * was refuted both by my post and the the statement released by the Vatican and while you assert, rightly, that you are free to disagree, you have not made any rebuttal in order to justify your position. You have merely reiterated it and your claim to the right to differ.