And as far as multiple capital offenses? After the first capital offense, they stay in prison for LIFE.
And if they commit their multiple capital offenses while in prison, what will you recommend, extending their life sentence?
In addition, a prison guard stated (paraphrase) : “there is no doubt, the Mexican Mafia can reach out and touch anyone.” Meaning, the Mexican Mafia can put a hit out on anyone, while in prison, and that free world person will be murdered.
This goes to a fundamental problem with the prudential judgements in 2267.
2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).
The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice/balance/redress/retribution/expiation. This cannot and should not be the standard.
This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.
Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.
All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)
Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)
Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)
It has always been so.
The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. Do the authors of the Catechism have no grasp of reality? (4)
The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution. “Unable to inflict harm” (2265) has the same meaning as “impossible to do harm”.
In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265).
Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?
Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.
Absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.
It is as if the Church is unaware that executed murderers cannot harm, again, but that livings murderers can and do.
Why has the Church chosen to depend upon widely varying and error prone incarceration systems, when the reality is that so many innocents are caused further suffering by known unjust aggressors, because of the failings in those systems?
It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such suferring. (3&4)
And why has the Church done this when it commands “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” (2265)?
Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to saintliness;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.
The only way to, humanly, make a criminal “unable to inflict harm” (2265) is to execute them. Rationally, factually, there is no other way.
What the Church has done is to reverse its longstanding emphasis on protecting innocents. This Catechism, to the contrary, has decided to give much more deference to guilty murderers than it has for protecting the innocent.
There are at least four Church recognized foundations for criminal sanction; 1) defense of society against the criminal; 2) rehabilitation of the criminal; 3) retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression and 4) deterrence.
There is a 5th, collectively - biblical instruction, theology, tradition and reason - which must guide the 4 others. They aren’t mentioned, because they are a constant.
All of those foundations are better met with the death penalty than by lesser sanctions.
