Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[Texas_Roofer]

…
If the death penalty is allowed, than it is allowing the state to directly (as a means) kill a person who is not imminently threatening harm…

“…if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” -catechism

It would seem difficult to achieve defending human live when there is no imminent danger? I understand some wish to say how imminent 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 weeks, 5 years? The church does not require an answer. Would you feel better if the word impending is used?

 

[Ohwesty]

Others have quoted the Catechism, and we know what modern-day Popes have to say about the death penalty. I will agree that it was necessary in the past, but not so much now. I believe in life without the possibility of parole. If murder occurs within prison, I believe in maximum security, or isolation, or even death as a last resort. Each case should be handled individually, but, no, as a general rule I don’t believe in the death penalty.

We can see in the beginning how God dealt with Cain’s murder of Abel. We see how God views the death penalty imposed by others. “And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him.” (Genesis 4: 15)

God gave Moses permission to instate the death penalty in his time. But the laws in Deuteronomy are not applicable today. If they were we would be stoning homosexuals and adulterers and, clearly, we who live in civilized societies do not execute such people today.

If God wants to strike someone dead with a lightning bolt, that is God’s prerogative. But when man methodically strikes, as he does with the electric chair, then he is playing God, and robbing the criminal of the grace of conversion that might be his within God’s timetable…

Further, so many people in prison today are mentally ill, or they have had their morals blurred by a lifetime of abuse or addiction to alcohol and drugs. Some can be rehabilitated, some can’t. But all can be meted a punishment befitting the crime without forfeiting their lives (I call it the “Mark of Cain”). In short, we should be merciful to them, even though they were not merciful to their victims.

• Westy

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Okay, I see your reasoning here and I also seem to see that you are against the death penalty. Am I correct? It seems that you are utilizing my acknowledgements as to when a life may be taken but making sure that those reasons do not apply to the death penalty. Am I understanding your viewpoint correctly??

Your first paragraph confuses me as to your stance on the death penalty since you state reasons for its use and then your last paragraph (the P.S.) states that these reasons do not justify its use…God Bless you and thank you for the clarifications…teachccd

Hi teachccd,

Almost! The fault is mine for not communicating clearer.

I do agree with you that life can be taken in self-defense/defense of an other. This type of action is justified by using the principle of double effect, which is sound moral reasoning.

What I am trying to point out is that putting a criminal to death cannot be justified by appealing to the principle of double effect, and The Church, has not, to my knowledge, ever made an appeal to the principle of double effect (because it just doesn’t work!).

So, since the death penalty has been allowed by the Church and since the Church theoretically still does not exclude recourse to the death penalty (see the CCC), it follows that there is some other justification for it.

As to whether or not I agree with the death penalty, I’m not sure that is material in the sense that I take that question: I take it to mean whether or not I support its application. But I do hold that it is not intrinsically immoral since the Church allowed and hypothetically still allows its use.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

“…if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” -catechism

It would seem difficult to achieve defending human live when there is no imminent danger? I understand some wish to say how imminent 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 weeks, 5 years? The church does not require an answer. Would you feel better if the word impending is used?

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

 

[SoCalRC]

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

Look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or go back to the writings of St. Augustine. The argument was, in fact, a form of double effect. The killing was just because it fullfilled to true purpose of the law, to protect and foster human life.

The state did not have the realistic capacity to incarcerate with reasonable certainty, or to provide sustanence to a able bodied, non producing, member of society.

The Church’s position is unchanged, if society cannot be reasonably protected in any other fashion, death is still potentially licit. But the Church, in its legitimate position of authority on all matters pertaining to faith and morals, has deemed that the argument is no longer licit in modern industrial societies. So it works towards the reduction and abolition of the penalty’s use in places like the US.

As would be expected, the Church has been proven right. There is not demonstrable advantage in public safety between modern countries that do not use the death penalty (ie, most of them) and the US. And, modern advances in DNA evidence, etc. have helped establish that the death penalty, even under the more stringent requirements since its reinstatement claims innocent lives. The death of an innocent and defenseless human being, of course, is a very grave matter in Catholic Doctrine.

In any evolution of Christian understanding, there are holdouts, often for many generations. It took the Church over a millenia to stamp out wide spread infanticide among converted gentiles, 800 years more before we could stand openly against slavery. So it is not surprising that the desire to stand in judgement and act as the vengeful instrument of God still runs strong among some faithful. Though it is a bit disheartening to see large groups of secularists reach understanding of the Church’s position while a vocal segment of the body of the faithful still lags behind.

 

[SoCalRC]

FYI - Thomas Aquinas, as well as the Mosaic law, holds that executions are not murder.

So, are you asserting that you are a better interpreter of proper application of Church doctrine than the Pope? How is it then, that our infallible Church failed to name you the Vicar of Christ?

As I mentioned, the problem with playing at Theology is that Catholic Theologians have specific guidelines to that vocation. By ignoring them, one potentially becomes a Protestant Evangelist in Catholic clothing…

 

[bbentrup]

Ok, I’m just stepping in to hopefully prevent a semantic argument over the word ‘murder’.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry under ‘murder’:
“Homicide signifies, in general, the killing of a human being. In practice, however, the word has come to mean the unjust taking away of human life, perpetrated by one distinct from the victim and acting in a private capacity. For the purposes of this article, therefore, account is not taken of suicide, nor of the carrying out of the penalty of death by due process of law.”

Unless you want to be a semantic extremist, pnewton is correct in this respect - capital punishment is not murder. Ok, carry on the debate

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or go back to the writings of St. Augustine. The argument was, in fact, a form of double effect.

Hi SoCalRc,

I’ve reviewed the pertinent sections of the Roman Catechism, and I confess that I am at a loss to see how they appeal to the principle of double effect in regard to the death penalty. Can you explain?

As for Augustine – I’d be interested in his appeal to the principle of double effect in this regard as well, can you you point it out to me?

Aquinas, at least, doesn’t seem to appeal to double effect to justify the death penalty.

For my part, I just can’t see how the the principle of double effect can be applied to the death penalty. See my above posts for how, specifically, the death penalty violates various portions of the principle (for instance: intention; obtaining the good effect by the evil effect, etc.)

Can you help me out?
VC

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

No, I don’t I only hypothesize that it could be such. .

Overestimate (ie. To estimate too highly.)
comes from the word estimate meaning

To form an opinion about; evaluate

Hypothesize on the other hand is in the dictionary as…

to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds

In other words, semantics.

I think that the possibility for danger of incarceration can be framed better for him than anyone else since modern standards of incarceration. Would you like to name a captured criminal that you think has been more risky to incarcerate?

How about many of those in Guantanamo? Are you proposing similar punishments? If so, you may be advocating the realisation of many of the prison’s opponents’ worst fears: a concentration camp.

The actual question, as I said, once the moral issues have been studied, should be left to legitimate competent authority as to whether or not they think they can safely incarcerate him.

But a citizen of the country of that authority has a duty to discuss the actions of that authority since, in a democracy, that authority was brought into power by the citizenship.

I can imagine if I were the warden of a prison, I would rather that Saddam Hussein not be in one of my cells for fear of terrorist attacks.

But as a warden, I imagine that you would have accepted such danger, as any officer accepts the risk of his duty.

If the people in charge prayed about it

That would be good.

and came to the conclusion that he would always draw significant terrorist attention due to ideology or politics,

Why would praying necessarily lead them to this conclusion? Sorry, that is a non-sequitur.

then I think his execution can be defended on moral grounds

You would have to prove it.

If you were to argue on utilitarian grounds, you might have a case.

If you were to take the Kant line, you would not.

If you were to ask the Church, you would get this

VATICAN CITY — **The Vatican on Saturday denounced Saddam Hussein’s execution **as “tragic” and said it risked fueling revenge and new violence in Iraq.

"An execution is always tragic news, reason for sadness, even in the case of a person who is guilty of grave crimes," the Holy See’s spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said in a statement released by the Vatican press offic

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240158,00.html

 

[YADA]

FIRST - LET ME STATE THAT I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE DEATH PENALTY … and from the Cetechism [and other writings from JPII and Benedict XVI we have this …

**From the Catechism: 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."

We also have Benedict XVI writing that Abortion and Capital Punishment ARE NOT equal. ABORTION is an absolute mral evil, he [Benedict XVI] specifically mentions Capital Punishment as a matter upon which diversity may legitimately exist …

Why would that be … perhaps the reality of the times is not as ideal as CCC2267 as illustrated by …
boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/08/the_fallacy_of_life_in_prison/

In a 1995 study, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in one 17-month period, criminals released on probation or parole inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders.

At least 8 percent of prisoners currently on death row had already been convicted of homicide before committing the murder for which they were sentenced to death. There have been 7,250 death sentences since 1976, suggesting that at least 600 additional victims died because their killers were not executed the first time they murdered.

and this from capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2272

**At least 98 killers now on Death Row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 37 others were prison escapees. **Locking up murderers guarantees nothing. Some will always escape and murder again. Some will kill behind bars.

And statistics on executions … are they rare?

In 2007, 42 persons in 10 States were executed – 26 in Texas; 3 each in Alabama and Oklahoma; 2 each in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee; and 1 each in South Dakota, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona.

ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

**Year Rate per 100,000 ****Est. # homicides **
**2003 **5.7 16,582
**2004 **5.5 16,137
**2005 **5.6 16,692

[ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm)

Then here is this

About 1 percent of the released prisoners who had served time for murder were arrested for another homicide within three years…
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rpr94pr.htm

What do you tell the families of the1% … that they are statistically unimportant in “protecting society”?

It gives me pause … not enough to change my position [against capitol punishment] but enough for me to grant those who hold a different opinion respect … we both desire justice and protection of our communities …

 

[Ender]

pnewton:

FYI - Thomas Aquinas, as well as the Mosaic law, holds that executions are not murder.

SoCalRC:

So, are you asserting that you are a better interpreter of proper application of Church doctrine than the Pope?

By all means, let’s see what popes have to say about this.

“It is lawful to kill when … carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime” (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, 1905)

"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566)

Would you care to reconsider your comments since it appears that if pnewton got any thing wrong it was the extent to which his statement is supported by Church documents, which goes well beyond Aquinas and Mosaic Law?

Ender

 

[bbentrup]

To overestimate is to evaluate a position in a certain manner. To hypothesize is to posit a situation for people to consider. They are very different - I don’t know what else to tell you on the manner.

Cuddy, let me see if I have your position correct. Let’s suppose there are one or more prisoners in a modern detention facility (by the way, a hypothetical situation with no overestimations so far). Let us further suppose that the prisoners are in for crimes relating for murder and terrorism and that terrorists would covet their escape for political reasons (scoring off the legitimate authority) and would go to extraordinary lengths to ensure their escape. Still supposing, the warden and his government know of a plausible threat which they consider grave and imminent - the lives of the warden and his officers, each prisoner, and the civilians of the surrounding area are in danger - and they have no recourse to stabilizing the situation. Given all of this, are you suggesting that the execution of these polarizing criminals is immoral? I suggest that it is indeed moral, that in fact it would be immoral not to execute the criminals because one has to look to defend the life of the innocent. It is a risk either way - unnecessarily taking life vs. carelessly allowing life to be destroyed because the only available proper precautions were not taken. As long as the legitimate competent authorities are aware of this moral dimension, it would be their decision to make.

What John Paul II taught is that this hypothetical situation has likely not occurred in modern times of developed civilizations. I merely submitted [read: hypothesize] that a man of Saddam’s prominence might, for the first time, have fulfilled the conditions of the hypothesis. I never presumed to evaluate [read: overestimate] whether or not this is true. That is far beyond my competence and is for others to decide. Some of the Guantanamo detainees might also fit into this hypothetical category, but I doubt it (location of prison, insufficient polarization, etc.). But if it were the case, capital punishment would be the only morally correct option. Legitimate competent authority has to determine this, although we expect our leaders to always err on the side of leaving the life in God’s hands.

 

[Salonika]

I think that the death penalty is wrong because I consider that having, and using the death penalty, actually condones murder. Also think that if it is acceptable for the state to take life to preserve itself then what message is it giving its citizens.

Also capital punishment is final - what when the State (jury) gets it wrong? When some groups, usually the underpriviledged, receive the death penalty disproportionately.

However, I also wonder if in some ways for some prisoners (eg those on death row for many, many years) whether long-term imprisonmnent is worse than a quick death.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

To overestimate is to evaluate a position in a certain manner. To hypothesize is to posit a situation for people to consider. They are very different - I don’t know what else to tell you on the manner.

Well the matter is that you took a position rather than posit a question. However, I wish drop this tangent as a believ it distracts from the main issue.

Cuddy, let me see if I have your position correct. Let’s suppose there are one or more prisoners in a modern detention facility (by the way, a hypothetical situation with no overestimations so far). Let us further suppose that the prisoners are in for crimes relating for murder and terrorism and that terrorists would covet their escape for political reasons (scoring off the legitimate authority) and would go to extraordinary lengths to ensure their escape. Still supposing, the warden and his government know of a plausible threat which they consider grave and imminent - the lives of the warden and his officers, each prisoner, and the civilians of the surrounding area are in danger - and they have no recourse to stabilizing the situation. Given all of this, are you suggesting that the execution of these polarizing criminals is immoral?

On a utilitarian grounds, you could be justified in killing them to protect the innocent majority.

I am not utilitarian on this issue.

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.

Kant produced the Categorical imperative.

• Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
• Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

In my opinion, and I am not alone, he echoes The Golden Rule.

I suggest that it is indeed moral,

Suggest or *hypothesize *all you wish. You have to demonstrate this.

Moreover, when reponding to my posts, you should try to refute and rebut (i.e. show my arguments are invalid and challenge my refutation your arguments.)

As long as the legitimate competent authorities are aware of this moral dimension, it would be their decision to make.

Yes, but you are assuming they are both *legitimate *and competent. In the case of Guantanamo, this is actually debatable.

Merely passing the decision to the “authorities” is avoiding the moral dilemna.
As a member of a democracy, you have a duty to face these issues.

What John Paul II taught is that this hypothetical situation has likely not occurred in modern times of developed civilizations. I merely submitted [read: hypothesize] that a man of Saddam’s prominence might, for the first time, have fulfilled the conditions of the hypothesis.

The vatican condemned the execution. See above.

I never presumed to evaluate [read: overestimate] whether or not this is true.

You have taken a position. Saying “I think it is moral but I wouldn’t evaluate whether it is true” is mere sophistry.

Some of the Guantanamo detainees might also fit into this hypothetical category, but I doubt it (location of prison, insufficient polarization, etc.). But if it were the case, capital punishment would be the only morally correct option.

Whether you are “hypothesizing” “estimating” “overestimating” “evaluating” or any other synonyms you might right click and paste from, you are taking a position in favour of the death penalty.

I have challenged that on two grounds: moral philosophy and the vatican position.

I invite you to refute my points of this and the last post.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Well the matter is that you took a position rather than posit a question. However, I wish drop this tangent as a believe it distracts from the main issue.

On a utilitarian grounds, you could be justified in killing them to protect the innocent majority.

I am not utilitarian on this issue.

I am in favour of the deontoligical approach. 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.

Kant produced the Categorical imperative.

• Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
• Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

In my opinion, and I am not alone, he echoes The Golden Rule.

Suggest or *hypothesize *all you wish. You have to demonstrate this.

Moreover, when reponding to my posts, you should try to refute and rebut (i.e. show my arguments are invalid and challenge my refutation of your arguments.)

Yes, but you are assuming they are both *legitimate *and competent. In the case of Guantanamo, this is actually debatable.

Merely passing the decision to the “authorities” is avoiding the moral dilemna.
As a member of a democracy, you have a duty to face these issues.

The vatican condemned the execution. See above.

You have taken a position. Saying “I think it is moral but I wouldn’t evaluate whether it is true” is mere sophistry.

Whether you are “hypothesizing” “estimating” “overestimating” “evaluating” or any other synonyms you might right click and paste from, you are taking a position in favour of the death penalty.

I have challenged that on two grounds: moral philosophy and the vatican position.

I invite you to refute my points of this and the last post.

 

[pnewton]

So, are you asserting that you are a better interpreter of proper application of Church doctrine than the Pope? How is it then, that our infallible Church failed to name you the Vicar of Christ?

No. However, your interpretation of my post, or rather your wild assumptions, are baseless. I did not say anything like you accuse me of. And…

By ignoring them, one potentially becomes a Protestant Evangelist in Catholic clothing

… insults and name-calling do little but promote division. In the first sentence I stated something that Thomas Aquinas stated word for word, namely, that exectuing a criminal is not to be considered murder. Since Church doctrine does not subscribe to the rhetoric that executions are to be called “murder”, I did not contradict anyone.

As to the other thing I said, I find your phrase confusing. *"*Interpreter of proper application" has connects two things that are unconnected: interpretation and application. While I have separate issues with the Church’s interpretation of the role of the death penalty in the last twenty years, as have others, I have never defended what I view as my problems here. I refer specicifally with the role of justice, as opposed to the protection of society in the application of the death penalty. Either I will live with my doubts (and accept that I am probably wrong), come to understand clearer as the Church teaches, or the Church’s teaching will develop more clearly in line with the traditional doctrine on the subject. My faith is not shaken any way. As with any new developing doctrine, time will tell. If the Church ever pronounces anything as dogmaon the subject, I will submit with faith to the teaching.

For now, I only argue from the teaching of the Church that I do not agree with our late Pope one his view of the application of the death penalty. In this, the pontiff and the Church has not charism and is subject to the same limitations as anyone. The late Holy Father was a brilliant man and educated in many things, but he was not knowledgable in all areas. As I have stated before, I have yet to see one source for the claim that in today’s society that we can now safely incarcerate anyone. As far as any official document is concerned, the information this is opinion is based on could come from CNN. Like so many other statements, if it is passed around enough it seems to be acepted as an obvious fact with no evidence.

In areas of applying moral teaching, the state has the greater knowledge and skill than the moral teacher, due to expertise and authority. Just like the Holy Father can teach bioethics, yet can not operate as a surgeon, he can teach on the death penalty, but lack expertise in its application.

 

[pnewton]

VATICAN CITY — **The Vatican on Saturday denounced Saddam Hussein’s execution **as “tragic” and said it risked fueling revenge and new violence in Iraq.

Even the Vatican used an utilitarian argument here, but in the reverse. For all those pro-death penalty folks here, I hope we can agree that the below statement is still valid.

“An execution is always tragic news, reason for sadness, even in the case of a person who is guilty of grave crimes,” the Holy See’s spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said in a statement released by the Vatican press offic

If we fail to see the tragedy in any execution, then we succomb to the desire for revenge over mercy and even over justice.

By the way, the above statement is not exactly a condemnation. It expresses a legitimate utilitarian concern and sorrow over any wasted life.

 

[pnewton]

But as a warden, I imagine that you would have accepted such danger, as any officer accepts the risk of his duty.

I have to say that this sentiment is oft reflected in our world to day. Thank you for bringing it up.

The warden, the police, the guards, accept their duty. However, we must not jump from this statement to the conclusion that their life is of no consequence. It is the duty of society to protect all, including those that protect others. When considering whether a person may be safely incarcerated, we must also consider whether he may be incarcerated while maintaining the reasonable safety of those who guard him. If not, we elevate the the value of the life of the destroyer of society over the value of the life of the protector of society. How messed up would that be?

 

[Molly2000z]

Like the above post which quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I have to agree that in today’s prisons criminals would not have an easy possibility of escaping. The only reason that one might favor the death penalty is to keep a dangerous criminal from harming or killing others and for no other reason. So, if that criminal is confined and cannot do further harm then that result is fully accomplished.

One final note: on the death certificate of the person who was executed it states the cause of death as “homicide”. And we must remember that it is nothing less than that…teachccd

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.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Even the Vatican used an utilitarian argument here, but in the reverse. .

Well spotted, though I would venture that they used utilitarian arguments to rebut the argument of safety of the masses on itself. Elegant indeed. I thought about pointing this out, but then a concern arose in me that one might assume that the Vatican had rejected the execution on utilitarian grounds. That would be a disservice to them.

For all those pro-death penalty folks here, I hope we can agree that the below statement is still valid.

If we fail to see the tragedy in any execution, then we succomb to the desire for revenge over mercy and even over justice. .

Eloquently put.

By the way, the above statement is not exactly a condemnation. It expresses a legitimate utilitarian concern and sorrow over any wasted life.

Taken in isolation you have a point. As I wrote, the use of utilitarian argument was a very skilful refutal on its own grounds. But that is not the main thrust of the Vatican’s argument when looking at the entire public statement as a whole. I see my earlier concerns were valid.

I have to say that this sentiment is oft reflected in our world to day. Thank you for bringing it up.

The warden, the police, the guards, accept their duty. However, we must not jump from this statement to the conclusion that their life is of no consequence.

This is a straw man. I never suggested such. I do not feel that this conclusion is at all common. Rather the reverse. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a source.

It is the duty of society to protect all, including those that protect others. When considering whether a person may be safely incarcerated, we must also consider whether he may be incarcerated while maintaining the reasonable safety of those who guard him

It would be very difficult to prove the safety of anyone in an absolute sense. Therefore, if you follow this line, you could argue for the execution of anyone authorities considered dangerous in any way.

.

If not, we elevate the the value of the life of the destroyer of society over the value of the life of the protector of society.

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.

How messed up would that be?

Nice try, though.