Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[manualman]

I think it’s pure imagination to suppose that most Americans support the death penalty do so on reasoned consideration of the Old Testament theology. There may be a few, but precious few Americans have studied the OT at all, so it’s not reasonable to assert that’s where their influence comes from.

I’d assert that most Americans support for the death penalty comes from uncritical viewing of Hollywood movies. We all like to hate bad guys. We all like to imagine that murderers are like they are on TV: cold blooded killers devoid of humanity and capacity to love. We cheer when the movie kidnapper/rapist/killer gets pumped full of lead by the muscled hero. After all, he’s not a person, but evil incarnate.

Real life convicts aren’t so simple. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t want them set free to live next door to me. But I’m pretty sure we’re called to give them more than a toxic injection. Not because of what they’ve done, but in spite of it. Because of who God originally created them to be. Easy to say at the keyboard, hard to live out. God bless those who do prison ministry. You’re better men than I.

 

[LongingSoul]

If death was a just punishment for the crime of murder in the past it is equally just today. If it is unjust today then it must have been unjust in the past.

The Church says different. It has called for it to be abolished because it doesn’t serve to promote the dignity of man. Noah was a godly man and answered directly to God. The State answers to the common good and we answer to God through Christ and His ‘institution’ of the common good. The state is not intrinsically godly and cannot equate itself to Noah. It serves the dignity of man by answering to the common good.

I think it’s pure imagination to suppose that most Americans support the death penalty do so on reasoned consideration of the Old Testament theology. There may be a few, but precious few Americans have studied the OT at all, so it’s not reasonable to assert that’s where their influence comes from.

I’d assert that most Americans support for the death penalty comes from uncritical viewing of Hollywood movies. We all like to hate bad guys. We all like to imagine that murderers are like they are on TV: cold blooded killers devoid of humanity and capacity to love. We cheer when the movie kidnapper/rapist/killer gets pumped full of lead by the muscled hero. After all, he’s not a person, but evil incarnate.

Real life convicts aren’t so simple. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t want them set free to live next door to me. But I’m pretty sure we’re called to give them more than a toxic injection. Not because of what they’ve done, but in spite of it. Because of who God originally created them to be. Easy to say at the keyboard, hard to live out. God bless those who do prison ministry. You’re better men than I.

I was watching an episode of CSI NY recently with that sense of how insane modern supposedly just capital punishment is. Lindsay Messer goes back to her home in Montana to watch the execution of a guy she testified against for killing her three friends when they were young.

The ‘theatre’ consisted of comfy graduated seating rows for the ‘audience’. The death room seemed like a purpose built air conditioned set with a big glass screen for maximum viewing experience. An hydrolic death bed shaped a bit like a crucifix with straps and effective down lighting. The main character had obviously been practicing his part for 10 or more years in the wings since the crime had actually occurred when Lindsay was a teen. It is mind blowing to think that it has come to this.

We have to ask ourselves do we really have the right to such an investment in someone elses death that way to conform to justice?

The last death sentence in Australia was in 1968 with no publicity or fanfare whatever. The fellow was Ronald Ryan and he’d broken out of jail so many times, the final time killing a jail guard. He was convicted and sentenced to hang 27 days later. That was stayed for a time to allow his appeals, but was finally carried out 53 days after the sentencing.

I can imagine there was even less time and ‘production’ value in the days when the sentence was carried out straight from the courthouse. So much less psychological torture of waiting on ‘death row’ not only for the prisoner but for his innocent loved ones who endure the torture of such a wait themselves.

It’s inconceivable to think that Noah would have come up with such a concept of Gods justice.

 

[manualman]

Perhaps it is absurd. Know what’s even MORE absurd? The number of people I’ve met who think it’s obscene to execute a known murderer, but consider Jack Kevorkian a hero for his “compassion” for the terminally ill (he built a device that allows them to give themselves a series of lethal injections). We have people arguing that the state with all that crazy getup you mentioned isn’t enough to avoid “cruel and unusual” and that modern lethal injections are still causing unacceptable suffering to convicts, while seeing nothing wrong with the device Jack built in the back of his old van.

Humans are weird. I’m against the death penalty, but not because it is inherently wrong. I’m against it because we’ve developed the ability to do better. We can protect the innocent without having to kill the guilty. That really is progress in my book.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The problem with the analogy is that justice does not change with time or place. Modern advancements in science - or penal capabilities - do not alter the nature of punishment or what punishments are just.

What makes a punishment just is whether it is commensurate with the severity of the crime, neither more nor less than what is deserved. Since the nature of the crime does not change over the centuries neither does the extent of the just punishment. If death was a just punishment for the crime of murder in the past it is equally just today. If it is unjust today then it must have been unjust in the past.

Ender

The nature of the crime doesn’t change, but the justness of the punishment does. Let’s say 2 people (one very rich, one very poor) commit the same crime. The crime in this case will be the destruction of public property. Both are given the same punishment ($1000 dollar fine). Is it just that the person who could pay the fine out of money he finds in his couch has the same punishment as the person who is happy to find enough money in his couch to buy a soda?

Justice isn’t “X crime always equals Y punishment.”

 

[Ender]

The nature of the crime doesn’t change, but the justness of the punishment does. Let’s say 2 people (one very rich, one very poor) commit the same crime.

Since what we’re discussing is capital punishment let’s say those same two people commit heinous murders. Surely no one could make a case for different punishments, nor that the justness of the punishment somehow depends on their different life situations. For murder, neither the nature of the crime nor the nature of the punishment changes with time, place, or personal circumstance.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church says different.

Once again you present an argument that has the church of today repudiating nearly 2000 years of church teaching.

Noah was a godly man and answered directly to God.

How can you simply ignore what the catechism said about God’s covenant with Noah still being in effect? Are you truly suggesting that the Noahic covenant was for Noah and his family alone?

It’s inconceivable to think that Noah would have come up with such a concept of Gods justice.

These are not Noah’s words to God, they are God’s words to Noah:Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
Do you not recognize that it was God himself who said this?

Ender

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Since what we’re discussing is capital punishment let’s say those same two people commit heinous murders. Surely no one could make a case for different punishments, nor that the justness of the punishment somehow depends on their different life situations. For murder, neither the nature of the crime nor the nature of the punishment changes with time, place, or personal circumstance.

Ender

Two people commit murder. Person A (well educated, never abused, never wanting for anything) beats a man to death for fun. Person B (no education, wanting for everything, long history of being abused, some mental defects) beats a man to death for the man’s coat. Person A shows no remorse, Person B is deeply troubled by his actions. Justice dictates that both should receive the same punishment? I guess Christ was wrong when he told the penitent thief “Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.” Apparently he should have told him “sorry man, you’re guilty of a capital crime just like the other thief, justice dictates you receive the same that he gets.”

 

[manualman]

I’m not so sure about the whole punishment fits the crime philosophy. I know it’s got a long history and distinguished pedigree of adherents, but it still paints God as somehow less than some of the better people I’ve known. That seems off to me.

As a father myself, I know that the purpose to my punishments is not to administer the appropriate penalty according to the crime, but to discipline, instruct and help my children become better people. I don’t see how the death penalty fits in with that from God’s perspective of justice. And I’m pretty darn sure I’m not a better father than God!

Do death penalty fans ascribe to the same sort of rigid code of justice in their own family lives? Or is justice there the servant of discipline?

 

[LongingSoul]

Perhaps it is absurd. Know what’s even MORE absurd? The number of people I’ve met who think it’s obscene to execute a known murderer, but consider Jack Kevorkian a hero for his “compassion” for the terminally ill (he built a device that allows them to give themselves a series of lethal injections). We have people arguing that the state with all that crazy getup you mentioned isn’t enough to avoid “cruel and unusual” and that modern lethal injections are still causing unacceptable suffering to convicts, while seeing nothing wrong with the device Jack built in the back of his old van.

Humans are weird. I’m against the death penalty, but not because it is inherently wrong. I’m against it because we’ve developed the ability to do better. We can protect the innocent without having to kill the guilty. That really is progress in my book.

Yes, I agree some peoples inconsistency betrays their securalist concept of life. That’s why we are called to be unconditionally pro-life as Catholics. We have to strive to find bloodless means in carrying out the will of God for humanity. That means always putting the defense of human life (that most perfect creation of Gods) at the forefront as the highest good in a creature that has a murderous nature.

For Ender - There’s no good in telling a creature with a murderous nature that it has a protected right to kill! Hearing the word of God with suitably humble regard (through the holy men of the Church) informs us that we have a solemn duty to defend life at all costs and by doing so, conform to godly justice. It doesn’t behove man to think of himself as having a ‘right to kill’ or a right to anything for that matter. We don’t have the perfect unblemished nature to handle that kind of power honourably as is completely obvious by our culture of death. The Church has it right. The death penalty should be abolished.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m not so sure about the whole punishment fits the crime philosophy. I know it’s got a long history and distinguished pedigree of adherents, but it still paints God as somehow less than some of the better people I’ve known. That seems off to me.

As a father myself, I know that the purpose to my punishments is not to administer the appropriate penalty according to the crime, but to discipline, instruct and help my children become better people. I don’t see how the death penalty fits in with that from God’s perspective of justice. And I’m pretty darn sure I’m not a better father than God!

Do death penalty fans ascribe to the same sort of rigid code of justice in their own family lives? Or is justice there the servant of discipline?

I’m not a “death penalty fan,” but I do believe that it’s usage can be just and moral. This belief isn’t based on me personally knowing why or how it can be just and moral; but on the knowledge that the Church has declared it can be and that when it comes to morality the Church knows more than me.

 

[LongingSoul]

Noah was a godly man and answered directly to God.

I’m not ignoring the Catechism. Why are you saying that? The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if this is the only possible way of defending lives. Capital punishment is not inherently wrong if it is necessary to defend human life, the most important of Gods creation. The Noahic covenant which allows man to use the death penalty if it is necessary in defense of human blood, is still honoured.

These are not Noah’s words to God, they are God’s words to Noah:Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
Do you not recognize that it was God himself who said this?

God said those words to Noah. Not to us. We hear those words for all time to come, through our baptism in Christ and through the Church He established and animated by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ender]

I’m not ignoring the Catechism. Why are you saying that?
…
God said those words to Noah. Not to us.

Since the covenant with Noah is still in effect, in effect God said those words to us as well. I’m pretty sure that’s what the catechism means when it says “*The covenant with Noah remains in force …”

*Ender

 

[Ender]

Two people commit murder. Person A (well educated, never abused, never wanting for anything) beats a man to death for fun. Person B (no education, wanting for everything, long history of being abused, some mental defects) beats a man to death for the man’s coat. Person A shows no remorse, Person B is deeply troubled by his actions. Justice dictates that both should receive the same punishment? I guess Christ was wrong when he told the penitent thief “Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.” Apparently he should have told him “sorry man, you’re guilty of a capital crime just like the other thief, justice dictates you receive the same that he gets.”

The “good thief” acknowledged that he was receiving the punishment he deserved and Christ did not refute that point. Regarding the two murderers, you have drastically changed the conditions. I have never said that every murderer without exception deserves death and your example simply avoids the point at issue.

I asked if two people who commit the same heinous murder should receive different punishment because of their different backgrounds. You didn’t answer that question you evaded it.

Ender

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The “good thief” acknowledged that he was receiving the punishment he deserved and Christ did not refute that point. Regarding the two murderers, you have drastically changed the conditions. I have never said that every murderer without exception deserves death and your example simply avoids the point at issue.

I asked if two people who commit the same heinous murder should receive different punishment because of their different backgrounds. You didn’t answer that question you evaded it.

Ender

Evaded your question like you evaded mine in regards to the rich man and the poor man getting the same punishment for the same crime? As for murder, you’ve been pretty clear that your view is that murder justifies the punishment of death. In fact, you’ve been pretty clear that the only factor that should matter in regards to the punishment is the crime.

And how exactly did I change the conditions of the crime? Both men beat the victim to death. Murder is murder is it not? Is murdering for fun somehow different than murdering for a coat? That runs counter to your very own argument.

 

[LongingSoul]

Since the covenant with Noah is still in effect, in effect God said those words to us as well. I’m pretty sure that’s what the catechism means when it says “*The covenant with Noah remains in force …”

*Ender

It is not possible to ‘take off’ our Christain baptism like a cloak and have such a relationship with God as Noah. Everything we do is in Christ after baptism. We can’t help that or change that. It isn’t possible that in saying that the covenant with Noah remains in force, the Church means that she has no business in ‘coming between’ us and the God of Noah or that the Covenant with Noah is a Holy Spirit free zone. We aren’t able to do what you are trying to do here. We see everything and hear everything with Christian eyes and ears. The Church is here to feed us with the bread of life that we can’t live without. When she teaches that there needs to be an end to the death penalty because it is not in keeping with the dignity and inviolability of man, she does not stand opposed to the covenant with Noah. She is honouring it.

 

[Ender]

Two people commit murder. Person A (well educated, never abused, never wanting for anything) beats a man to death for fun. Person B (no education, wanting for everything, long history of being abused, some mental defects) beats a man to death for the man’s coat. Person A shows no remorse, Person B is deeply troubled by his actions. Justice dictates that both should receive the same punishment? I guess Christ was wrong when he told the penitent thief “Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.” Apparently he should have told him “sorry man, you’re guilty of a capital crime just like the other thief, justice dictates you receive the same that he gets.”

The “good thief” acknowledged that he was receiving the punishment he deserved and Christ did not refute that point. Regarding the two murderers, you rather drastically changed the conditions. I’ve never said that every murderer without exception deserves death; your response didn’t address the point I raised.

I asked if two people who commit the same heinous murder should receive different punishment because of their different backgrounds and it really doesn’t do to change the conditions to suggest that one of them isn’t culpable for his crime.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Evaded your question like you evaded mine in regards to the rich man and the poor man getting the same punishment for the same crime?

I accept that there can be mitigating circumstances in every situation and of course I don’t believe that a crime done for the thrill of it is equivalent to one done out of (perceived) necessity. That said, it is in general the nature of the crime that determines the proper punishment, not the financial situation of the criminal.

As for murder, you’ve been pretty clear that your view is that murder justifies the punishment of death.

Yes, that’s correct.

In fact, you’ve been pretty clear that the only factor that should matter in regards to the punishment is the crime.

This is not correct, in fact I partially addressed this in post #12.

And how exactly did I change the conditions of the crime? Both men beat the victim to death. Murder is murder is it not? Is murdering for fun somehow different than murdering for a coat?

Come, you included a long list of mitigating circumstances that could very well be relevant to the punishment: * (no education, wanting for everything, long history of being abused, some mental defects)*. Either include these conditions or don’t, but don’t switch back and forth.

That runs counter to your very own argument.

Not at all; I’ve already acknowledged that conditions external to the crime can determine the extent of the punishment. My argument is simply this: the standard punishment for first degree murder ought to be the death penalty. Can there be extenuating circumstances? Of course, but exceptions to the rule do not change the rule itself.

Ender

 

[Ender]

When she teaches that there needs to be an end to the death penalty because it is not in keeping with the dignity and inviolability of man, she does not stand opposed to the covenant with Noah. She is honouring it.

This is the part of the Noahic covenant at issue:Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *
What this means is fairly plain: the penalty for murder is death because the life of the victim was sacred*. Your position reverses this meaning and holds that the death penalty is wrong because the life of the murderer is sacred. You then assert that this reversal is not really opposed to the covenant but in fact honors it. I suppose there are reasonable arguments to be made, but this surely isn’t one of them.

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

After quite awhile of not checking in, I do so, and find pretty much the same folks arguing the same issue with the same points and counterpoints, well, points for persistency, oorah!..and best of wishes, I’ll check back in the summer.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I accept that there can be mitigating circumstances in every situation and of course I don’t believe that a crime done for the thrill of it is equivalent to one done out of (perceived) necessity. That said, it is in general the nature of the crime that determines the proper punishment, not the financial situation of the criminal.
Yes, that’s correct.
This is not correct, in fact I partially addressed this in post #12.
Come, you included a long list of mitigating circumstances that could very well be relevant to the punishment: * (no education, wanting for everything, long history of being abused, some mental defects*). Either include these conditions or don’t, but don’t switch back and forth.
Not at all; I’ve already acknowledged that conditions external to the crime can determine the extent of the punishment. My argument is simply this: the standard punishment for first degree murder ought to be the death penalty. Can there be extenuating circumstances? Of course, but exceptions to the rule do not change the rule itself.

Ender

-You’re still avoiding the issue. The same fine given to both men for the same theft is not just given that for one it is simply a “slap on the wrist” and for the other a major economic hardship. Your “one punishment always fits for one crime” argument is flawed. It only really works if the only factor that is important in regards to justice is punishment. That’s not the case for how the Church determines justice.
-Fine, remove the personal conditions of the murderer. We are still left with one who murdered for fun and one who murdered out of need (for clarity- said need doesn’t justify the act). You even contradict yourself in regards to this. Now it’s no longer just murder= death, but why the murder took place= different punishments. Apparently while a crime is always a crime, the punishment isn’t always the same for the crime. I’m pretty sure that runs counter to your position.
-“Exceptions to the rule do not change the rule itself”- Perhaps when we are talking about human justice and the human justice system, but not when we are talking about the Church’s teachings in regards to morality or Justice (big J). Exceptions to the rule (Justice) means that the rule maker (God) is either imperfect or capable of error. That, or the person who thinks that there are exceptions doesn’t fully understand the rule.