Death Penalty

[otjm]

Like Pope JPII, I do not support the death penalty in our modern society (I think even a killer deserves the chance to repent and by ending his life pre-maturely he may not get that opportunity). .

I believe it was Samuel Johnson who is attributed to saying: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

 

[otjm]

If anyone has an example of where the death penalty would be "the only possible way of effectively defending human life against the unjust aggressor"… please chime in.

This is a defacto condemnation of the death penalty. A situation where there is no alternative does not exist in our society.

See my note above - when prisoners and guards are not safe, then the alternative is death.

Crimes of passion type murders (anger against a spouse; or against a spouse’s lover, or against a rapist by the parent of a victim) are for the extreme part not likely to commit further murders.

Cold blooded murderers - those for hire; those committed during another crime such as robbery where the victim was not threatening, and those by sociopaths - are far more likely to commit murder again. They are the most dangerous subset, along with those who are criminally insane, for a murder against another prisoner or a guard.

Those who think that there is no justifiable situation are at best naive and have a pollyannaesque view of the world and the people in it.

That does not make them bad people; but their opinions are based on something other than reality.

 

[otjm]

Perspectives of the death penalty that only consider its deterrent or defensive effects overlook the responsibility of the law to create the appearance of justice. Without the impression that the law answers heinous crimes with its ultimate sanction, a cynicism toward the authority of the law is invited. In the end, if the law is viewed as malleable to contemporary sentiment and lacking comparable sanction, cynicism toward the law and the wanton disregard of it are bred. Justice requires that its sanction be both swift and sure - swift, so the sanction is related in everyone’s consciousness to the crime, and sure, so the sanction is seen as not subject to political climate.

To my understanding this is the Augustinian view that has been consistent with Church teaching over the millenia - that justice in the broken city of man does not occur of its own, must be created to as closely mirror as possible the city of God, and that the threat of anarchy where only the strong will out is the enemy actually to be combated. In this event, the lesser of evils must be tolerated.

While I think I understand Pope John Paul’s II’s instruction in this matter, I am simply observing that the issue is far from simple in the mind’s of many of us, and there has always been legitimate authority within the Church to support the view that the death penalty is not inherently evil, but occasionally necessary in the interests of justice.

Let me propose another loom, at justice.

We now have established in Oregon a new form of suicide - it is Suicide by Death Penalty. We have had to convicted murderers stop their appeal process and reques, and receive, the death penalty. The essence of both requests was that neither man felt that a) they were doing anything by their appeals than prolonging the inevitable, and b) both indicated that they could not deal with the possibility of yeears in prioson, and particularly could not face the thought of life in prison if their appeals were successful.

We now have a third prisoner of the same mindset; the governor has said he will not sign a death warrant while he is in office, has refused to sign this one, and that is now on appeal (the inmate, that is, is requesting the court to force the carrying out of the sentance).

I support the removal of the death penalty for several reasons.

1. I have tied both criminal and non criminal cases and have sat on juries, and while I will accept the fact that this may be the best justice system in the world, that is not saying a lot. There is no question whatsoever but that innocent (as in, they literally did not do the crime - someone else did - wrongful conviction) people have been put to death.
2. it is far, far less expensive to warehouse someone until they die than it is to go through 8, 10, 15 or more years of appeals, and in some circumstances, second and third trials (and appeals) before executing a guilty person.
3. putting a man in an 8 by 12 cell for the rest of his natural life is far, far more punishment than killing him. See above.

Having siad that, it is naive in the extreme to think that we can keep society safe from some killers.

Want an example? Remember the mullah convicted and sent to federal prison for the first Towers bombing? He was sneaking notes and information out trying to commit more mayhem. And that was from a federal prison, which is generally far superior to state prisons. If the feds can’t keep them from attempting more murders, why think the state prisons can? And what of murdered inmates and guards? They, too, are a part of society.

In short, I am in favor of doing away with the death penalty; but as far as the safety issue in the Catechism quote? Whoever wrote that doesn’t know what they are talking about.

 

[eamonnroma]

In Europe the death penalty has been abolished - both in time of peace and war. To join the European Union there are many requirements and one of these is the abolition of the death penalty. Turkey has for a long time without success been trying to join the Union and had to abolish the death penalty before their application could even be considered.

Here is the official EU stance:

eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/adp/index_en.htm

It would be illegal for a European country to extradite a criminal to the US if he were at risk of being executed.

 

[Biggie]

Let me propose another loom, at justice.

I support the removal of the death penalty for several reasons.

1. I have tied both criminal and non criminal cases and have sat on juries, and while I will accept the fact that this may be the best justice system in the world, that is not saying a lot. There is no question whatsoever but that innocent (as in, they literally did not do the crime - someone else did - wrongful conviction) people have been put to death.
2. it is far, far less expensive to warehouse someone until they die than it is to go through 8, 10, 15 or more years of appeals, and in some circumstances, second and third trials (and appeals) before executing a guilty person.
3. putting a man in an 8 by 12 cell for the rest of his natural life is far, far more punishment than killing him. See above.

Having siad that, it is naive in the extreme to think that we can keep society safe from some killers.

We are not obliged to arrive at certainty in convictions. No juror must attest he is certain the defendant is guilty to be morally correct in sentencing. Nor does an incidental error in convicting erode justice in the way the universal denial of sentencing to match the crime does as long as the criminal justice system adheres to standards universally applied.

But in death penalty cases, we act as if we must be certain, a standard that cannot be achieved. As a result we institute endless appeals, etc., that create intolerable expense and delay. Then some would say, as you have, instituting the death penalty is too difficult. The delay and expense are not inherent to capital punishment. We create that condition.

Neither does the fact that life in a cell is more intolerable than death persuade. The goal is not to torture or create discomfort - the chief objection to capital punishment you are suggesting here should be the goal and that capital punishment is not harsh enough. But the goal is to have a punishment that by appearance equates to the crime. We should not execute for gratification, but with regret justice demands it.

And human intelligence understands that the only logical and just punishment for many heinous crimes is death.

 

[devoutchristian]

We are not obliged to arrive at certainty in convictions. No juror must attest he is certain the defendant is guilty to be morally correct in sentencing. Nor does an incidental error in convicting erode justice in the way the universal denial of sentencing to match the crime does as long as the criminal justice system adheres to standards universally applied.

But in death penalty cases, we act as if we must be certain, a standard that cannot be achieved. As a result we institute endless appeals, etc., that create intolerable expense and delay. Then some would say, as you have, instituting the death penalty is too difficult. The delay and expense are not inherent to capital punishment. We create that condition.

Neither does the fact that life in a cell is more intolerable than death persuade. The goal is not to torture or create discomfort - the chief objection to capital punishment you are suggesting here should be the goal and that capital punishment is not harsh enough. But the goal is to have a punishment that by appearance equates to the crime. We should not execute for gratification, but with regret justice demands it.

And human intelligence understands that the only logical and just punishment for many heinous crimes is death.

The Church explicitly teaches that certainty is required to execute someone.

 

[otjm]

We are not obliged to arrive at certainty in convictions. No juror must attest he is certain the defendant is guilty to be morally correct in sentencing. Nor does an incidental error in convicting erode justice in the way the universal denial of sentencing to match the crime does as long as the criminal justice system adheres to standards universally applied.

I don’t recall the term “certainty” ever being applied in a criminal case; the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

That would be an excellent standard, were everybody “reasonable”; several trips through a jury process will put that to rest quickly. Judges sentence, juries don’t, althoiugh it is common to hear people say that the jury sentenced someone.

It would also be excellent if all prosecuting attorneys sought truth and justice; in the real world too many of them seek a conviction. Those are not always the same.

But in death penalty cases, we act as if we must be certain, a standard that cannot be achieved. As a result we institute endless appeals, etc., that create intolerable expense and delay. Then some would say, as you have, instituting the death penalty is too difficult. The delay and expense are not inherent to capital punishment. We create that condition.

Neither does the fact that life in a cell is more intolerable than death persuade. The goal is not to torture or create discomfort - the chief objection to capital punishment you are suggesting here should be the goal and that capital punishment is not harsh enough. But the goal is to have a punishment that by appearance equates to the crime. We should not execute for gratification, but with regret justice demands it.

Well, yes and no. People do get emotional about executions. Thoughtful people may disagree; often thoughtful people have too little information about a matter that for the largest part has no impact on them. For example, the comments taken from the CCC concerning safety is an area most people have simply no idea at all concerning whether their state prison system can actually keep other prisoners safe (as well as the guards). And from comments I have heard for years and years, all too many people see life in prison as some sort of soft, easy life bordering on what they consider to be a reward. Opinions are all over the map and far too many of them are based on little or no real information.

And human intelligence understands that the only logical and just punishment for many heinous crimes is death.

Well, I have met people with a fair amount of human intelligence who say differently. Again, opinions are all over the map. And there are well thought out people with more information than the average person on both sides of the issue.

As I have noted, I am against capital punishment. I will also state clearly that if a murderer is, while in the middle of the act, killed, I do not mourn. Perhaps that is un-Christian, but for the individual in Oregon who killed several and then shot himself when realizing that an armed individual had targeted him, and for the killer in the grade school, the issue is finished.

 

[Biggie]

I don’t recall the term “certainty” ever being applied in a criminal case; the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

That would be an excellent standard, were everybody “reasonable”; several trips through a jury process will put that to rest quickly. Judges sentence, juries don’t, althoiugh it is common to hear people say that the jury sentenced someone.

Well, my point was that in death penalty cases we act as if certainty were the required standard. And we take many inconsistent positions. i.e. the death penalty is too cruel therefore we should imprison interminably because that is really more cruel or the death penalty should require greater scrutiny against errors, but imprisoning a person in error for many irreplaceable years, well that somehow relieves us the responsibility to scrutinize to the same standard.

I am not taking a position here on the death penalty other than to offer there is nothing inherently immoral about it in the Church’s teaching, and many people react emotionally rather than thoughtfully to its potential application.

The standard for our judicial system is that it is preferable to allow a thousand guilty to go free than to convict an innocent person. Even taken to the thousandth however, there is still the inevitable error. A corollary might well be it is better to tolerate that thousandth error than to allow the judicial system to descend into cynicism.

Legalized abortion (the divorce of statutory and natural law) has taken us far down that road. Plea bargaining, and the inability to sanction swiftly and consistently in proportion to heinous crimes has too. I mean, do you really like what you see in our cities? Does what we do really work?

 

[Biggie]

The Church explicitly teaches that certainty is required to execute someone.

Certainty is not possible, outside of sheer hubris. Therefore I am doubting your interpretation of what you have offered here. Read Augustine some … as to the city of man, as to the toleration of the lesser of evils.

 

[godisgood77]

See my note above - when prisoners and guards are not safe, then the alternative is death.

Crimes of passion type murders (anger against a spouse; or against a spouse’s lover, or against a rapist by the parent of a victim) are for the extreme part not likely to commit further murders.

Cold blooded murderers - those for hire; those committed during another crime such as robbery where the victim was not threatening, and those by sociopaths - are far more likely to commit murder again. They are the most dangerous subset, along with those who are criminally insane, for a murder against another prisoner or a guard.

Those who think that there is no justifiable situation are at best naive and have a pollyannaesque view of the world and the people in it.

That does not make them bad people; but their opinions are based on something other than reality.

Relative to prisoners and guards… At a maximum security facility, there would be solitary confinement, shackles, sedation and any number of ways to manage an inmate like you describe. Additionally, the guards are armed and well trained to handle these types of inmates. The last stat I saw about prison deaths was about 3 in 1000 deaths were homicide in the US with the vast majority being spontaneous in nature. The most identifiable cause was system failure in the form of lack of supervision.

I patently reject the quite pedantic naive/pollyanna-esque classification… I would like to hear of one example in the past say 20 years where there wasn’t an alternative to the death penalty… just one.

 

[Fairwinds]

If anyone has an example of where the death penalty would be "the only possible way of effectively defending human life against the unjust aggressor"… please chime in.

This is a defacto condemnation of the death penalty. A situation where there is no alternative does not exist in our society.

not true at all. there are violent narcotics gangs (Mex. Mafia, MS 13, AB) being run from inside prison by lifers. they use the attorney-client communication privilege and some other means to get messages to the outside. attorney lynne stewart was jailed for passing on information from sheikh omar abdel-rahman that resulted in deaths in egypt, and the sheikh was under “special administrative procedures” in his prison to prevent this thing from happening.

you can’t hand wave away the need for the DP in a few circumstances.

 

[godisgood77]

And human intelligence understands that the only logical and just punishment for many heinous crimes is death.

This statement is in direct contradiction to Church teaching and the human intelligence of a large percentage of people (not to mention being utterly void of basis)

 

[godisgood77]

not true at all. there are violent narcotics gangs (Mex. Mafia, MS 13, AB) being run from inside prison by lifers. they use the attorney-client communication privilege and some other means to get messages to the outside. attorney lynne stewart was jailed for passing on information from sheikh omar abdel-rahman that resulted in deaths in egypt, and the sheikh was under “special administrative procedures” in his prison to prevent this thing from happening.

you can’t hand wave away the need for the DP in a few circumstances.

I didn’t say take the law off the books… my point it that there has not been an example put forward where the death penalty was justified meaning that there was no alternative. Do you have one?

 

[otjm]

Well, my point was that in death penalty cases we act as if certainty were the required standard. And we take many inconsistent positions. i.e. the death penalty is too cruel therefore we should imprison interminably because that is really more cruel or the death penalty should require greater scrutiny against errors, but imprisoning a person in error for many irreplaceable years, well that somehow relieves us the responsibility to scrutinize to the same standard.

There have been enough non-death penalty cases overturned that I am not sure I would agree that there is therefore a lower standard.

I am not taking a position here on the death penalty other than to offer there is nothing inherently immoral about it in the Church’s teaching, and many people react emotionally rather than thoughtfully to its potential application.

On that we agree.

The standard for our judicial system is that it is preferable to allow a thousand guilty to go free than to convict an innocent person. Even taken to the thousandth however, there is still the inevitable error. A corollary might well be it is better to tolerate that thousandth error than to allow the judicial system to descend into cynicism.

That is the standard; for the most part it is reasonably achieved. And I do not want to besmirch all prosecuting attorneys, but there is definitely a wide streak of seeking convictions rather than truth.

Legalized abortion (the divorce of statutory and natural law) has taken us far down that road. Plea bargaining, and the inability to sanction swiftly and consistently in proportion to heinous crimes has too. I mean, do you really like what you see in our cities? Does what we do really work?

some of the greatest threats to our cities comes from drugs; not only from the users, but also from the suppliers. The multitude of gangs and the phenomenal number of youth in them borders on a dynamite keg with a lit fuse. Most of the murders in our area are gang related.And some of those teenage kids are as hardened as some of the worst adult criminals, and more dangerous as they seem to have no compunction whatever of shooting a rival or someone they think may have insulted them.

 

[Fairwinds]

This statement is in direct contradiction to Church teaching and the human intelligence of a large percentage of people (not to mention being utterly void of basis)

I tried to explain, in post 31, that a narcotics crime lord who is in jail for murder is going to find a way to keep ordering murders from prison, as would a terrorist. so death might be justified under the CCC. specific examples in 31.

 

[Francoist]

I have sometimes been surprised by some of the comments I have heard from Catholics who seem to be in favour of the death penalty. Pope John Paul II in many utterances and in Evangelium Vitae clearly stated that the Catholic Church, except in the most extreme circumstances, is now against the death penalty. John Paul II saluted a rise in consciousness towards the death penalty as an assault on the dignity of human life.

These are just a few of the many examples:

nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html

ocw.nd.edu/peace-studies/catholicism-and-politics/lectures/death-penalty

I cannot except a call to Tradition here. The Pope was quite explicit in his condemnation of the death penalty. The Church in the past committed many acts which we would not accept today. We love the Church despite its past failings - in the past the Church executed people for heresy. We would not accept that today, therefore because of the shift in Church teaching, we can no longer accept the death penalty.

I always ask myself ‘What would Our Lord have said if he were here now’?

First, do you really live in Bagnoregio? That is the birthplace of St. Bonaventure! I have seen it in pictures. You are very blessed.

As to your statements, I do not accept the idea that the Church labored under moral error for almost 2,000 years until the enlightened men of the 1960s re-founded the Church, this time a really good Church that isn’t stupid and evil like the old one. There was only ONE Pentecost and there is only one Church.

If the Church has accepted the death penalty in the past, then it accepts it now and will accept it forever. That is called the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

 

[Fairwinds]

I didn’t say take the law off the books… my point it that there has not been an example put forward where the death penalty was justified meaning that there was no alternative. Do you have one?

the prove a negative trick.

the government was unable to prevent rahman from ordering the murder of other innocent victims, in spite of being held under circumstances designed to prevent this from happening. if rahman had been executed, we wouldn’t be discussing the subsequent murders he is responsible for.

FBI reports how prison leadership orders street level crime.

fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#GangsandCorrections

Many incarcerated gang members continue to engage in gang activities following incarceration and use their connections inside prison to commit crime in the community. Prison gang members influence and control gang activity on the street, and exploit street gangs for money and other resources.
…
Family members of gangs operate as outside facilitators, serving as messengers, drug couriers, or in any capacity benefiting the gang. Outside facilitators are provided instructions by the incarcerated gang member, often during a social or legal visit, and in turn pass this information to gang members on the streets

the FBI report isn’t telling half the story on how this is done, for obvious reasons, but it is done.

you can deny it or pretend these examples don’t exist, but these are the facts. some kinds of monsters will continue ordering murders, rapes, narcotics distribution even from prison.

the CCC doesn’t prohibit the DP, you interpret it so, but you are wrong.

F/

 

[Biggie]

This statement is in direct contradiction to Church teaching and the human intelligence of a large percentage of people (not to mention being utterly void of basis)

Well no… human intelligence. Read. And I’ll see you a large number and raise you a large number. The basis is in the common sense of right and wrong, and so not utterly void. Were it not so, you would have prevailed long ago.

 

[godisgood77]

the prove a negative trick.

the government was unable to prevent rahman from ordering the murder of other innocent victims, in spite of being held under circumstances designed to prevent this from happening. if rahman had been executed, we wouldn’t be discussing the subsequent murders he is responsible for.

FBI reports how prison leadership orders street level crime.

fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#GangsandCorrections

the FBI report isn’t telling half the story on how this is done, for obvious reasons, but it is done.

you can deny it or pretend these examples don’t exist, but these are the facts. some kinds of monsters will continue ordering murders, rapes, narcotics distribution even from prison.

the CCC doesn’t prohibit the DP, you interpret it so, but you are wrong.

F/

No…I did not say the CCC prohibits the DP that is your incorrect reading of my posts. You have not put forward an example (including post #31)where an alternative does not exist…those, my friend, are the facts.

 

[Fairwinds]

No…I did not say the CCC prohibits the DP that is your incorrect reading of my posts. You have not put forward an example where an alternative does not exist…those, my friend, are the facts.

no, dancing around the issue isn’t going to work. I’ve given you one specific and one class of examples where there are no alternatives to execution. you’re against the DP, so, naturally, you do not accept the FBI report on what prison gangs do and do not believe how rahman ordered murders from prison.

all I can do is expose the holes in your assertions. edification for the thread only.