Death Penalty and Justice

[John_Pascendi]

Consider,Your on a jury and because the admitted murderer,rapist,library book stealer looks soooo sad you vote to not NOT allow capital punishment but life imprisonment…and so this pathetic looking but kinder nice guy goes to prison and gets fed,clothe,laundry services,gym and library and in many cases,teevee…he thus lives better then 17% of the rest of the worlds population!..he gets bored at around age 70 and kills a guard,just one of those nameless faceless police guards that hollyweird always portray as worse then the inmates!..tell me,are not you responsible for the death of that guard…after all that sad con cant be punished anymore.kinda like a bartender who lets a customer get too loaded and lets him drive home and he kills several people…that bartender is liable for that crime…aiding and abetting I think its called. I say juice em and save the $100,000 it costs yearly to room and board and entertain these creatures of the devil…remember Jesus on the cross did NOT call down and plead for the lives of the two thieves on both side of Him…He allowed the execution to continue.after all He did NOT yell down “hey fellas,I forgave this one so let him go at least.and the other thief had a bad childhood,he never got a pet camel to play with…”…all the best…Pas

 

[BillP]

Consider,Your on a jury and because the admitted murderer,rapist,library book stealer looks soooo sad you vote to not NOT allow capital punishment but life imprisonment…and so this pathetic looking but kinder nice guy goes to prison and gets fed,clothe,laundry services,gym and library and in many cases,teevee…he thus lives better then 17% of the rest of the worlds population!..he gets bored at around age 70 and kills a guard,just one of those nameless faceless police guards that hollyweird always portray as worse then the inmates!..tell me,are not you responsible for the death of that guard…after all that sad con cant be punished anymore.kinda like a bartender who lets a customer get too loaded and lets him drive home and he kills several people…that bartender is liable for that crime…aiding and abetting I think its called. I say juice em and save the $100,000 it costs yearly to room and board and entertain these creatures of the devil…remember Jesus on the cross did NOT call down and plead for the lives of the two thieves on both side of Him…He allowed the execution to continue.after all He did NOT yell down “hey fellas,I forgave this one so let him go at least.and the other thief had a bad childhood,he never got a pet camel to play with…”…all the best…Pas

Welcome to the cafeteria brother!

 

[Ender]

Paul thought slavery was OK too, Pope Innocent thought cats were the devil incarnate interpretations of the church continue to develop, just as the interpretations of the OT have developed so as not to change.

When I suggested reading my comments more carefully it was not with the idea of coming back with statements like this that I had in mind. Let me be more specific: quote something I said that you think is wrong and explain why, preferably by citing something the Church has actually written.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Hey…cats ARE the devil incarnate !!!

 

[Ender]

Actually the church through the pope teaches us that the death penalty is not appropriate from a practical standpoint because other forms of punishment have made the requirements for death penalty essentially obsolete.

I agree with the first part of this statement but disagree with the second.

I think this is exactly what 2267 is: JPII saying that, from a practical standpoint, the death penalty does more harm than good, but this is his personal, practical judgment; it is not Church doctrine.

What I disagree with is that the practical concern that society is sufficiently protected by incarceration satisfies the primary objective which all punishment must meet; that is, justice. Even if imprisonment met all the needs for security (which actually seems quite doubtful) it doesn’t matter as that has no bearing on whether the punishment is just.

Imagine this: suppose science developed a serum which, upon injection, caused a person to think and behave in a completely moral way, that is, it is totally successful in rehabilitating him. Would it be sufficient to inject a murderer with the serum and never send him to prison?

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Imagine this: suppose science developed a serum which, upon injection, caused a person to think and behave in a completely moral way, that is, it is totally successful in rehabilitating him. Would it be sufficient to inject a murderer with the serum and never send him to prison?

Ender,
Babylon 5 sort of dealt with this issue.

They did a total personality wipe and inserted a new personality.

It was a very interesting episode and left me wondering if justice was really done.

 

[Ender]

Babylon 5 sort of dealt with this issue.

They did a total personality wipe and inserted a new personality.

It was a very interesting episode and left me wondering if justice was really done.

Based on what 2267 teaches (and this was my point in suggesting this) this treatment would be sufficient. After all it perfectly protects society, which is the only point that 2267 addresses. It would not, however, be just because justice requires punishment, not merely protection and rehabilitation. It should be kept in mind that, even as we are forgiven our sins, we are not excused from our punishment: punishment remains to be endured even after forgiveness is offered.

The point about justice that people won’t come to terms with is that sin incurs a debt that only punishment can pay. Rehabilitation and security cannot pay that debt, which is why the issue of capital punishment and justice remains to be answered even after the issue of protection has been resolved. That episode of Babylon 5 should have left you wondering whether justice was done - because in fact it was not.

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Based on what 2267 teaches (and this was my point in suggesting this) this treatment would be sufficient. After all it perfectly protects society, which is the only point that 2267 addresses. It would not, however, be just because justice requires punishment, not merely protection and rehabilitation. It should be kept in mind that, even as we are forgiven our sins, we are not excused from our punishment: punishment remains to be endured even after forgiveness is offered.

In the episode it did not meet the requirement of 2267 that you point out here. A group of the relatives of the victims of a serial killer were able to find out where the personality wiped killer was placed and were able to break the wipe.

The individual that was instrumental in breaking it and killing him was himself wiped.

The point about justice that people won’t come to terms with is that sin incurs a debt that only punishment can pay. Rehabilitation and security cannot pay that debt, which is why the issue of capital punishment and justice remains to be answered even after the issue of protection has been resolved. That episode of Babylon 5 should have left you wondering whether justice was done - because in fact it was not.

Those who are wiped are placed in positions that provide service to the public. In this case the serial killer was place within a monastic group. His killer was also placed within the same group at the request of the abbot. It did not seem like justice as I said and the captian of the station seemed to agree.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

I think this is exactly what 2267 is: JPII saying that, from a practical standpoint, the death penalty does more harm than good, but this is his personal, practical judgment; it is not Church doctrine.

…

2267 is no more a personal judgement than any other catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

2267 is no more a personal judgement than any other catholic teaching.

There are a number of serious Catholics who disagree with this.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

• Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the **Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L - canon lawyer - 2003)

*To me it [Dunnigan’s article] demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

2267 is no more a personal judgement than any other catholic teaching.

First, you must read all of 2267, no selective reading, which seems to be going on a lot on this thread.

Second to see how binding a particular paragraph in the Catechism is one must look to the references. 2267 has the following references.

**Evangelium vitae **
**56. **This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

I and other may successfully argue that locking a person in prison does not necessarily “protect public order and the safety of persons” when those in prison continue to prey on other prisoners and staff and also murder them.

I personally agree with Cardinal Dulles on this though, the application of capital punishment in the USA is not right and we should not be applying it except for very limited Federal cases.

Capital Punishment is just one of those cases where we as Catholics can disagree.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There are a number of serious Catholics who disagree with this.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

• Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the **Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L - canon lawyer - 2003)

*To me it [Dunnigan’s article] demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

None of these people have openly claimed the catechism can be dismissed as personal opinion. Whether JPII felt one way or another is also irrelavant the catchism is in print as a catholic church document.

The difference you and I have is now and may forever be that I do not see any proof nor wisdom in the belief that killing=justice or killing=redressing disorder. Why you believe that is your issue, I do not agree with it and find no church teaching of such.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Second to see how binding a particular paragraph in the Catechism is one must look to the references… .

Please just cite the church document to back up this statement - thanks

 

[portarica]

When I suggested reading my comments more carefully it was not with the idea of coming back with statements like this that I had in mind. Let me be more specific: quote something I said that you think is wrong and explain why, preferably by citing something the Church has actually written.

Ender

I was referring to this quote of yours:

Are we just now, 2000 years after Christ said that, to apply those words? The Church never understood that passage to mean capital punishment was wrong. Are you suggesting she misinterpreted it all those years?

Ender
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just suggested that sometimes the church changes its interpretations and if it thought slavery was not good now as opposed to Paul’s writings then maybe it might think that Jesus saying the one without sin may throw the first stone may be found to apply to more than to the restricted set of just adulterers, since it was the only capital punishment issue addressed by Jesus. And BTW Jesus’ teachings on stoning adulterers is completely contrary to what is set down in Lev.

Would you like some shrimp with my explanation?

Peace

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Please just cite the church document to back up this statement - thanks

Sorry, its just common sense to look at the references used to support any given paragraph.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was referring to this quote of yours:

Are we just now, 2000 years after Christ said that, to apply those words? The Church never understood that passage to mean capital punishment was wrong. Are you suggesting she misinterpreted it all those years?

Ender
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just suggested that sometimes the church changes its interpretations and if it thought slavery was not good now as opposed to Paul’s writings then maybe it might think that Jesus saying the one without sin may throw the first stone may be found to apply to more than to the restricted set of just adulterers, since it was the only capital punishment issue addressed by Jesus. And BTW Jesus’ teachings on stoning adulterers is completely contrary to what is set down in Lev.

Would you like some shrimp with my explanation?

Peace

If you wish to take a portion of a paragraph in the Catechism, ignoring the rest so you are taking it out of context, and then ignore the references sited in that paragraph and also ignore what the Church has said through the Holy Father and others, that is your choice but it in no way reflects what the Church actually Teaches. In essence you are throwing it all out except for the part you agree with. This is a protestant mindset. I am sorry but that had to be said.

I can see there is no discussing this with you any longer. I will leave it to the others.

 

[Ender]

Second to see how binding a particular paragraph in the Catechism is one must look to the references. 2267 has the following references.

Since you brought up the issue of references it is relevant to point out that, even as 2267 points to EV 56, EV 56 itself points back to 2267. That is, there is nothing either of them references in the entire history of Church teaching to support what 2267 states.

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Since you brought up the issue of references it is relevant to point out that, even as 2267 points to EV 56, EV 56 itself points back to 2267. That is, there is nothing either of them references in the entire history of Church teaching to support what 2267 states.

Ender

But I think EV 56 is a little but more concise in its wording that 2267 is and therefore harder to pull out of context as is being done in this thread.

 

[Ender]

None of these people have openly claimed the catechism can be dismissed as personal opinion.

Nor have I. What I have said is that section 2267 - and that section alone - is a prudential judgment and as such is not binding on our conscience.

The difference you and I have is now and may forever be that I do not see any proof nor wisdom in the belief that killing=justice or killing=redressing disorder. Why you believe that is your issue, I do not agree with it and find no church teaching of such.

• Justice demands that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266).
• The Church has always taught - and does so today - that the State can in certain circumstances apply the death penalty (2267).
• If the Church recognizes that executions can be the just penalty - that is, it meets the requirement of commensurate severity - how can we say that a lesser penalty is just?
• The primary objective of all punishment is redressing the disorder (2266).
  -* For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (*Pius XII)
• God has proclaimed that the penalty for murder is death; a teaching that is unchangeable (2260).

Ender

 

[Ender]

I just suggested that sometimes the church changes its interpretations and if it thought slavery was not good now as opposed to Paul’s writings then maybe it might think that Jesus saying the one without sin may throw the first stone may be found to apply to more than to the restricted set of just adulterers, since it was the only capital punishment issue addressed by Jesus. And BTW Jesus’ teachings on stoning adulterers is completely contrary to what is set down in Lev.

If you could show me any statement the Church has ever made that supports your interpretation then I might accept it, but simply stating that she might have changed her understanding of that passage is unconvincing. I have never seen anything that supports your position.

Would you like some shrimp with my explanation?

No - what I prefer are references to Church documents. I will point out that for every position I have taken I can quote the source on which my comment is based. You are not arguing so much with me as with the Church.

Ender