Death Penalty-magisterium-vs-left-and-right

[d97c]

I just think that the Pope was clear when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated that abortion and euthansia are issues about which Catholics cannot morally disagree, while the use of the death penalty and whether a war is just or not are issues where Catholic laity may disagree. …and after being a prosecutor and then defense attorney for 30 years, and someone who has studied the issue, I would have had NO problem with executing Osama bin Laden or Hitler or the bomber of the Oklahoma City Fed Bldg…OR…the thug who murdered the father of two twins (7 years old) that I prosecuted after he blew the very fine dad’s guts against the cigarette rack in the Quick Stop Gas Station —for 30 $!!!.. NO problem after conviction.
The Pope said
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. 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.”
Heres the link
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

That is no surprise, even if the Pope is not a fan of the death penalty. I’m just as convinced that allowing A Hitler to live if he had been caught to be interviewed, studied, allow him to write books, and breath at all—would have been the most disrespect of human life…the lives of the 6 million Jews he had killed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

the lives of the 6 million Jews he had killed

And, don’t forget to count in the far more millions of Russians and Poles and other Europeans killed by the Germans.

 

[Ender]

If the Church says that punishment must be the prime object, I have no problem with that.

What she teaches (2266) is that the primary objective of punishment is retribution; it is the demand of justice.

I, however, would not extend the method of inflicting punishment to killing the offender. Half a century behind bars gives the convicted a lot of time to contemplate his crime and what the rest of his life would be because of his crime. I see such a sentence as adequate retribution for the ordinary murderer, and if there were reasons enough to justify executing him or her, then I could accept that as well. (what comes to mind is a lifer who kills while in prison.** A life sentence would not be meaningful as adequate punishment.** - I believe that such a case occurred in California within the last several years, and the man was executed - appropriately.)

I think this shows the logical dilemmas that 2267 forces on us. You believe that a life sentence for a person who commits a murder while already serving a life sentence would not be an adequate punishment - and I certainly agree - but 2267 no more allows for that person to be executed for his second murder than it allowed it for his first. 2267 only permits a person to be executed to prevent his next murder, not to punish him for those he has already committed. You instinctively recognize the unfairness of not punishing someone for committing a murder but it must be understood that 2267 is not concerned with retribution but solely with protection, and if one can be reasonably confident that the person can be prevented from killing a third time then* 2267 prevents him from being punished at all*.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

if one can be reasonably confident that the person can be prevented from killing a third time then* 2267 prevents him from being punished at all*.

Not at all. He can be executed. A Criminal Court doesn’t care about 2267 or the other Catechism paragraphs, and I, even as a Catholic, certainly wouldn’t if I were the prosecutor. The Catechism and all is nice for Catholics to discuss, but it means zilch in the real world when it comes to incarceration or execution.

 

[Ender]

Not at all. He can be executed. A Criminal Court doesn’t care about 2267 or the other Catechism paragraphs, and I, even as a Catholic, certainly wouldn’t if I were the prosecutor. The Catechism and all is nice for Catholics to discuss, but it means zilch in the real world when it comes to incarceration or execution.

We are discussing Church teaching about capital punishment. I don’t think anyone is unaware that criminal courts are not bound by the opinions expressed in 2267. My point was that 2267 would prohibit his execution.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

We are discussing Church teaching about capital punishment. I don’t think anyone is unaware that criminal courts are not bound by the opinions expressed in 2267. My point was that 2267 would prohibit his execution.

You may well be right. So, Church teaching is not part of the real world in this area of justice. We’re doing no more than calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nice for theologians to consider, but generally not guidance for the legal system.

As Catholics, along with others, become more revulsed by the notion of the death penalty except in narrow circumstances, all this debate here will become nothing more than mental exercises. All to the good, I say.

 

[Ender]

So, Church teaching is not part of the real world in this area of justice. We’re doing no more than calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nice for theologians to consider, but generally not guidance for the legal system.

Church teaching is meant to guide Catholics, including Catholic politicians who write the laws directing the legal system. This is hardly of theoretical interest only.

As Catholics, along with others, become more revulsed by the notion of the death penalty except in narrow circumstances, all this debate here will become nothing more than mental exercises. All to the good, I say.

The larger point is that, if Catholics better understood Church teaching, they wouldn’t be so revulsed.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The larger point is that, if Catholics better understood Church teaching, they wouldn’t be so revulsed.

Catholic teaching is not intended to keep you from being disgusted by the way people are put to death. The very notion that Catholic teaching would make Catholics cheerleaders at an execution is IMO repulsive.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Church teaching is meant to guide Catholics, including Catholic politicians who write the laws directing the legal system. This is hardly of theoretical interest only.

Our laws regarding the death penalty and incarceration are relatively consistent, and there’s no mark on them that indicates what the denominatonal affiliation of the politicians who wrote them are.

 

[shaky]

Church teaching is meant to guide Catholics, including Catholic politicians who write the laws directing the legal system. This is hardly of theoretical interest only.

The larger point is that, if Catholics better understood Church teaching, they wouldn’t be so revulsed.

Ender

It seems to me when reading 2266 and 2267 That the church will not condemn DP but at the same time not actually supporting it.

The reason why i think the DP is wrong is because of the Innocent people that can get caught up in it!! I think people who try to murder or murder in prison should get the DP
Also Prison sentence does not seem actually punishment or Justice when the very old are convicted of murder!!
The main purpose of Prison is to contain and prevent future crime from that person.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I am curious. What is this “technology” that keeps offenders from harming again?

Have you seen the crime statistics inside of prisons?
Or does a criminal who is in prison who harms another criminal or a guard or a member of the prison staff not count as really harming others?

No what are they?

 

[Ender]

It seems to me when reading 2266 and 2267 That the church will not condemn DP but at the same time not actually supporting it.

She doesn’t “support” war either, but, as with her teaching on just war, she recognizes the necessity of both.

The reason why i think the DP is wrong is because of the Innocent people that can get caught up in it!!

This is perhaps a reasonable objection but it is a prudential one that goes to the question of guilt or innocence; I’m only making the moral case which is about the justification for the use of capital punishment.

I think people who try to murder or murder in prison should get the DP

Then I think we agree in principle about capital punishment and we are now just haggling over its application.

The main purpose of Prison is to contain and prevent future crime from that person.

The main purpose of punishment is justice. This concept has been completely lost.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The main purpose of punishment is justice. This concept has been completely lost.

A murderer sitting in a cell, perhaps even an isolated one, for the rest of his life with no chance of ever being released, even if he “finds religion,” has been justly punished by the court in which he committed his crime.

 

[Ender]

A murderer sitting in a cell, perhaps even an isolated one, for the rest of his life with no chance of ever being released, even if he “finds religion,” has been justly punished by the court in which he committed his crime.

How do you know this? What teaching can you point to to support this assertion? We know that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266) but what teaching tells us what “commensurate” means in murder cases?

Ender

 

[Contarini]

Although the topic is important and controversial, the author’s (Mark Shea) coverage wasn’t that informative. His position was pretty much: good guys support the new position in the Catechism, bad guys oppose it.

Ender

He made a lot of specific arguments. How about you address them?

For instance, what of the argument that if the OT proves that the death penalty should be imposed, you can’t consistently disregard its teachings about how and when the death penalty should be imposed?

I’m not claiming this is the only or most important point he made–it’s just one that struck my eye.

For what it’s worth, I agree with Shea–indeed, I generally find that I agree with him on ethical issues.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What she teaches (2266) is that the primary objective of punishment is retribution; it is the demand of justice.
I think this shows the logical dilemmas that 2267 forces on us. You believe that a life sentence for a person who commits a murder while already serving a life sentence would not be an adequate punishment - and I certainly agree - but 2267 no more allows for that person to be executed for his second murder than it allowed it for his first. 2267 only permits a person to be executed to prevent his next murder, not to punish him for those he has already committed. You instinctively recognize the unfairness of not punishing someone for committing a murder but it must be understood that 2267 is not concerned with retribution but solely with protection, and if one can be reasonably confident that the person can be prevented from killing a third time then* 2267 prevents him from being punished at all*.

No, because deterrence is part of prevention.

If you have a policy of allowing murder to go unpunished, then you send the message that people can murder with impunity. And while their victims will only be guards and other prisoners–both groups of people are also made in God’s image and need to be protected!

As I understand it, retributive punishment is a necessary but not a sufficient cause.

Edwin

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How do you know this? What teaching can you point to to support this assertion? We know that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266) but what teaching tells us what “commensurate” means in murder cases?

Commensurate is what a court says is commensurate with a capital crime. In most jurisdictions, commensurate is the most severe non-lethal punishment available, but, if a jurisdiction approves of the death penalty, then the death penalty is what is commensurate in a capital murder case.

 

[Ender]

He made a lot of specific arguments. How about you address them?

You cite them and I’ll address them.

For instance, what of the argument that if the OT proves that the death penalty should be imposed, you can’t consistently disregard its teachings about how and when the death penalty should be imposed?

First of all, I’m not giving you “my” arguments for the death penalty, I am citing the Church’s arguments. Second, this particular objection is rather silly and Shea should know better. We are not bound by the Law of Moses and a lot of what was done in the OT has no relevance to us today - hasn’t the Church made this clear? The Church does, however, cite Gen 9:6 even today and that passage has always been at the heart of her teaching on capital punishment. I’m not picking and choosing biblical passages at random and giving them personal interpretations that I think support my position; I am citing the Church citing those passages and relating how she interprets them. Shea’s argument in this case is with the Church, not with me.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No, because deterrence is part of prevention.

This doesn’t address my comment that in the case of a lifer who commits a murder in prison, 2267 would prohibit any punishment if it could be reasonably assumed that he could be prevented from killing a third time. This is so because there is no additional punishment to be levied against him since he’s already serving life and 2267 will not allow the death penalty.

If you have a policy of allowing murder to go unpunished, then you send the message that people can murder with impunity. And while their victims will only be guards and other prisoners–both groups of people are also made in God’s image and need to be protected!

True, but again it misses the point. How, with the restrictions of 2267, do you punish a prisoner who is already serving a life sentence if he commits another crime in prison?

As I understand it, retributive punishment is a necessary but not a sufficient cause.

Retribution is the primary objective of punishment (2266) and the State has a positive obligation to apply it. It is the only objective that can justify punishment - although other objectives (safety, deterrence, rehabilitation) are also important and every attempt should be made to secure those objectives as well. The point is: none of these other objectives alone can justify a particular punishment. Only retribution - justice - can do that.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Retribution is the primary objective of punishment (2266) and the State has a positive obligation to apply it. It is the only objective that can justify punishment - although other objectives (safety, deterrence, rehabilitation) are also important and every attempt should be made to secure those objectives as well. The point is: none of these other objectives alone can justify a particular punishment. Only retribution - justice - can do that.

Retribution is something done to somebody as punishment or vengeance for some crime he or she has committed. The death penalty is only one form of retribution available as punishment for murder.