Death penalty

[dudleysharp]

triumphguy:

Your post 183 avoids what I recommened, which is actually reading the study to see what it actually said.

You are simply repeating what Radelet said, as opposed to what the review actually tells us.

That is why I fact checked the study and reported what it actually means.

Please review the material I provided. You will find it accurate.

 

[dudleysharp]

The Death Penalty could be used as a deterrent but if you look at the offenses of which people are usually executed for, notoriously, they seem basically, crimes of a depraved mind and/or often, for multiple murders. .

Even depraved people are deterred. Most don’t commit their crimes in police stations, but instead make efforts not to get caught.

.

Robert Gleason, was serving punishment for murder, strangled two inmates behind bars. So, he committed at least 3 murders. This case is interesting, he chose “Electrocution” when he could have chosen “Lethal Injection” in Virginia…

Gleason picked electrocution because he was fooled with the nonsense about the painful lethal injection process, which is as painful as surgery with general anesthesia.

I wonder what the stats are, you have gang shootings fairly often but I doubt if this kind of justice is routinely meted out.

As a rule such murders are not death penalty eligible.

Death penalty eligible murders are directed by a legal rule known as guided discretion, which seperates them from all murders, usually being a murder combined with a secondary aggravating factory, such as rape, robbery, kidnapping which, when combined with murder, becaomes a death penalty elgible crime.

Gang members murdering gang members does not usually qualify, unless its kidnapping or robbery related.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP

There are many many examples of parents whose children have been murdered who do not wish their child’s killers to be executed, but instead seek Christian reconciliation.

Are yous saying they don’t understand the full horror of the crime?

There seems to be some misunderstanding here.

Just sanctions do not negate “Christian reconciliation”, in any way. In fact, The Catholic position has always, until very recently, been that just and appropriate sanction provide learning and expiation for the criminal and thusly, provide more Christian relief for the criminal.

There is no Catholic teaching, that I am aware of, that requires or even suggests that “Christian reconciliation” requires that a just sanction for the crime NOT be sought.

The ultimate in Christian reconciliation is salvation and the evidence is that a just sanction may offer greater benefits in that direction.

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

This might sound crazy but I think the death penalty can be a merciful act sometimes. Not always, but I wonder how many of those executed confessed their sins before they died and went to heaven. Like the two criminals crucified with Jesus, we know for sure, one went to heaven.

 

[BroomWagon]

Thanks DudleySharp for all the info. Earlier this morning, I should have grammar checked one of my posts, so sorry to all.

To a current case and again being concise, is this of the South African Olympian, Pistorius, it’s amazing to see he was put on trial in days of his alleged crime, that of murdering his girlfriend. Here, with all of the appeals and just going to trial the initial time, it takes so long.

It sounds like South Africa does not have the death penalty: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_South_Africa

Just my personal observation, if Pistorius is guilty and it looks that way, what a horrific crime.

 

[dudleysharp]

This might sound crazy but I think the death penalty can be a merciful act sometimes. Not always, but I wonder how many of those executed confessed their sins before they died and went to heaven. Like the two criminals crucified with Jesus, we know for sure, one went to heaven.

Somehow, this is, often overlooked.

I think it because, too often, within the eternal considerations, humanism takes over in the discussions regarding earthly sanctions, leaving out the eternal issues. That is improper.

The example of St. Dismas, the good thief, is such an obvious example, it is suprising it is not always referenced.

Please review this recent article by Father Rutler, within which the traditonal/medicinal aspects of capital punishment are reviewed and I, as others, gave many more Christian medicinal/merciful examples in the context of the death penalty, within the comments.

crisismagazine.com/2013/hanging-concentrates-the-mind

 

[triumphguy]

triumphguy:

No, that is not what it means.

I provided several links which explained this to you but apparently you didn’t read them.

The jurisdictons which show the most murders of police officers would very likely be the same with or without the death penalty.

Most likely there is a net saving of police officers lives within death penalty jurisdictions, meaning more officers would have been murdered had the death penalty not been present.

You, irrationally, presume that more crimes means zero deterrence. It doesn’t work that way.

All jurisdicitions have a deterrent effect with all of their criminal sanctions no matter if their crime/murder rates are high or low, rising or falling or staying the same.

To accept your poor reasoning would be to accept that because LA has a higher rate of giving speeding tickets than does Houston, that speeding tickets deters some in Houston but none in LA.

No. Some are deterrrd in both. We all know that to be true. There are simply different factors.

Again, as above, but read this time, please:

– “DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…clarified.html

– DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…der-rates.html

– “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/0…der-rates.html

Dudley - I read them, but it’s just that I don’t buy what you are selling.

The bottom line for me is this:

• that killing people to prove that killing people is wrong does not compute.
• the state asking people to kill on behalf of the state in situations where the person can be kept safely is wrong.
• a poorly funded and designed and organized justice/prison system in the richest country in the world is no excuse for capital punishment. - of course the USA can keep prisoners in such a way that they are no danger to others - the fact that it does not cannot be a rationale for the death penalty
• you will never find a rich white man on death row - I don’t even have to explain why this is proof that the whole capital punishment industry is morally wrong

And I have a ton more arguments against NOT LEAST that the papacy has come out against it. - but the bell has rung and I have to go teach.

 

[dudleysharp]

Dudley - I read them, but it’s just that I don’t buy what you are selling. .

It’s not what I am selling. You simply do not understand deterrence and what it means, in the context of crime rates or murder rates. That is clear. I am just trying to get you to the starting block. You won’t get there.

.

The bottom line for me is this:

• that killing people to prove that killing people is wrong does not compute.
• the state asking people to kill on behalf of the state in situations where the person can be kept safely is wrong.
• a poorly funded and designed and organized justice/prison system in the richest country in the world is no excuse for capital punishment. - of course the USA can keep prisoners in such a way that they are no danger to others - the fact that it does not cannot be a rationale for the death penalty
• you will never find a rich white man on death row - I don’t even have to explain why this is proof that the whole capital punishment industry is morally wrong

And I have a ton more arguments against NOT LEAST that the papacy has come out against it. - but the bell has rung and I have to go teach.

You show a rational misunderstanding of those issues.

1. We don’t kill people to show that killing is wrong.

Folks know that murder is wrong, even with no sanction. The morality tells us that the crime is wrong, not the sanction. The sanction tells us the measured degree with which we judge the harm and our sanctioned response to it.

1. The sanction is based upon justice, not safety.

It would be immoral to sanction based upon safety if the criminal did not deserve the sanction based upon both their guilty and the harm caused. Enhanced safety is both a secondary and expected outcome of sanction, not the reason for it.

If you must, immorally, base sanction in safety, then you would have chosen execution over a life sentence.

Execution/the death penalty offers 3 forms of enhanced safetyy for innocents over that which is provided by a life sentence, as detailed, here:

The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

1. The US is #7 on the most wealthy per capita list, based upon GDP. However, that leaves out the fact that the US is $16 trillion dollars in debt, with, I believe, $80 trillion in unfunded mandates. My guess is with those considerations, the US may be way down the list in per capital wealth, when properly balancing per capita GDP and per capita debt.

I suspect all who do balance sheets would agree.

The idea that national wealth and not justice should be the determining factor seems irrational when dealing with just sanctions.

1. In the modern era, yes, there have been and will continue to be wealthy folks on death row.

Thomas Capano from delaware, from one of the richest and most powerful families in Delaware was sent to death row in that state, but had his case turned to life, via appeals, just as 37% of all death row inmates have their cases overturned.

Garza, a wealthy drug dealer was executed under the federal death penalty statutes.

I haven’t ever counted the wealthy on death row or executed, but I do know a number of other cases where executions did occur.

I am told that 90% of those who are on death row had public defenders, leaving 10% who were privately defended, indicating that some definition of wealthy may apply to that 10% on death row.

However, one must also consider:

A very small perentage of poor murderers are sent to death row and executed. I doubt a lower percentage of the wealthy are, dependent upon how you define “wealthy”. A very very small percentage of the wealthy will be committing either robbery/murder or rape/murders, the two most common death row crimes, just as a very small perentage of poor folks commit those crimes.

1. Well, yes, the last two popes were against the death penalty. I don’t believe any other popes have spoken against it. So, if numbers matter . . . . the papacy has, as an institution, been, overwhelmingly, in support of the death penalty.

In addition, there is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.

Timeless teachings did not begin in 1995.

 

[Ender]

You can understand the full horror of the crime without resorting to killing in return.

Perhaps, but this doesn’t explain why such a large number of people who are opposed to capital punishment in general still accept it if the murder was particularly gruesome or involved several people.

There are many many examples of parents whose children have been murdered who do not wish their child’s killers to be executed, but instead seek Christian reconciliation.

There are also many examples of family members who would like the killers fried without a second thought. Neither group teaches us anything about what should be done. Nor should it be forgotten that forgiveness is an obligation of the individual while punishment is an obligation of the state.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

…

Timeless teachings did not begin in 1995.

But the sitting Pope is the one we listen to (I know there’s no Pope right now - but the last two were quite clear, and more than the last two Popes have appealed for clemency in Capital cases in the USA).

And I do understand your points - I just do not buy them.

Eg., that the USA is now a third world country.

It’s the richest country on earth by a mile.

What we don’t agree on is the concept of justice.

I do not believe that it is possible for a rich, modern western, free state to have true justice while it uses the death penalty. Especially when it relies on the “deterrence” or “justice” argument

 

[dudleysharp]

But the sitting Pope is the one we listen to (I know there’s no Pope right now - but the last two were quite clear, and more than the last two Popes have appealed for clemency in Capital cases in the USA).

Yes, I know. But their personal opinons do not weigh very heavily, when looking at all the other Popes, traditIon, the Majesterium, the Doctors of the Church, biblical instruction and on and on, for nearly 2000 years of overwhelming death penalty support.

And I do understand your points - I just do not buy them.

They are not opinons, but factual refutations of your claims, which you, in turn, chose not to rebut.

Eg., that the USA is now a third world country.

You wrongly stateds the US was the wealthiest nation on earth. I gave another factual rebuttal, which you could not rebut. I have no idea why you were confused, as it was quite clear.

It’s the richest country on earth by a mile.

7th richest by per capita GDP and way lower based upon actual net worth when considering debt. Reality matters.

What we don’t agree on is the concept of justice.

I do not believe that it is possible for a rich, modern western, free state to have true justice while it uses the death penalty. Especially when it relies on the “deterrence” or “justice” argument

Free, rich, deterrence and modern have absolutely nothing to do with justice. You, apparently have no understanding of justice, any more than you have any understanding of deterrence, which is nil.

 

[starshiptrooper]

"triumphguy:

That’s rhetoric - you are better than that - not executing someone does not mean letting them get away with their crimes.

He was a cop killer, he deserved to die. Giving him 3 hots and a cot for the rest of his life is far more than he deserved.

I bet he wasn’t used as a wager in card games of pedophiles when he was 6 like one inmate I counselled who became a child abuser was. I’m not talking about a few beatings here and there but horrific acts of abuse and perversion.

Nice, trivializing my boss’s suffering. His dad quite literally made him a slave even when he was an adult.

Again - you will find if you become a LEO that most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment and deterrence is not even a factor.

In 1971, the LAPD interviewed 99 individuals who had committed crimes while pretending they had a weapon. The majority said they chose not to carry a real weapon because they did not want to kill someone and get the death penalty.

Or not. Maybe it’s systemic racism. These are the things that as a police officer you will need to discern.

The civil rights days are over my friend. We just re-elected a Halfrican-American as president of the US.

That is absolutely ludicrous. Crime rates are almost always directly correlated to income rates.

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[dudleysharp]

In 1971, the LAPD interviewed 99 individuals who had committed crimes while pretending they had a weapon. The majority said they chose not to carry a real weapon because they did not want to kill someone and get the death penalty…

Please do you have a source for this?

 

[pnewton]

He was a cop killer, he deserved to die.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” J. R. R. Tolkien

There is a sense in which we all deserve death, and will one day pay that debt to God. The Catholic Church does not except vengence as a legitimate reason for the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

I do not believe that it is possible for a rich, modern western, free state to have true justice while it uses the death penalty. Especially when it relies on the “deterrence” or “justice” argument

Of all the effects 2267 has had the depreciation of the value of justice is one of the most unfortunate. One cannot help but see a problem when justice itself becomes something that is opposed.

pnewton:

The Catholic Church does not except vengeance as a legitimate reason for the death penalty.

This is the same opinion of justice expressed in different words. In fact justice - which you dismissively refer to as vengeance - is the only reason the death penalty is acceptable.

Vengeance is denied the individual but (properly understood) it is the obligation of the state.*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *(Aquinas)
That is the true meaning of vengeance: punishment for crimes. The reason the church has always recognized the legitimacy of capital punishment is that she has always seen it as a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. The appropriateness of the punishment is that it is commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is required for a punishment to be just.*Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, …But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. *(Aquinas)
It is precisely because capital punishment is “the due measure of vengeance” that the church teaches it is just.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

triumphguy

There are many many examples of parents whose children have been murdered who do not wish their child’s killers to be executed, but instead seek Christian reconciliation.

As I stated there is no conflict between Christian reconciliation and execution or any other sanction. Quite the opposite based upon Catholic teachings.

In addition:

Victims’ Families for Death Penalty Repeal: More Hurt For Victims:
95% of murder victim’s families support death penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/victims-families-for-death-penalty.html

 

[dudleysharp]

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” J. R. R. Tolkien

There is a sense in which we all deserve death, and will one day pay that debt to God. The Catholic Church does not except vengence as a legitimate reason for the death penalty.

For 2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that execution is the proper sanction for murder and that civil governments are justified in carying out that sanction.

It is based upon redressing the disorder, justice and/or just retribution and the like, as voluminously presented by the Church.

Gandolf killed hundreds if not thousands, by himself and contributed to the killing of hundreds of thousands more, based upon defeating evil and providing that the good should prevail.

 

[dudleysharp]

Vengeance is denied the individual but (properly understood) it is the obligation of the state.*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *(Aquinas)
That is the true meaning of vengeance: punishment for crimes. The reason the church has always recognized the legitimacy of capital punishment is that she has always seen it as a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. The appropriateness of the punishment is that it is commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is required for a punishment to be just.*Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, …But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. *(Aquinas)
It is precisely because capital punishment is “the due measure of vengeance” that the church teaches it is just Ender

I think folks are, simply, having a tough time with the term “vengeance”, as if it is some example of blind revenge.

This example helps.

In the context of “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”, vengeance is powerful and holy and the province of God.

However, in the context of the governments of men, the government is provided the power, by God, to inflict God’s vengeance. We know that through the traditonal teachings, which are quite clear.

In these cases, government is God’s surrogate in inflicting venegeance. In that context, we know that God’s vengeance is both a good and well as justice.

It would have been better, for understanding, had many of the scholars used “just retribution” instead of vengence. We know, however, that is what it means in that specific context.

I’ll leave it up to Ender to give some examples, as he seems to have them at quick reference.

 

[BroomWagon]

It seems with a loose definition, you could call Incarceration “vengeance” as well, that society say sentences me to 6 months in jail because of a drinking and driving verdict. One can also call Incarceration as a form of “torture” in the loose sense of the word as well. Even getting probation for some misdemeanor offense could be called “vengeance”.

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

I don’t think first offense DUI’s get 6 months, do they?